Such an appropriation has been at the center one of the projects of the Institute for the Future of the Book, whose members have been at work on ways to enable conversation in and around digitally published texts; as Bob Stein suggested to a reporter from The Chronicle of Higher Education, the electronic text can powerfully overcome the codex’s isolation:

I realized that this questioning that goes on while you read, that that could happen sort of in real time and in a dynamic way.... And best of all would be if readers could talk to each other, and if readers could talk to the author, because the reason for a book is to afford conversation across space and time, and so why shouldn’t some of that conversation take place literally within the book itself? (Young)

Among the projects through which the Institute hopes to facilitate some of that conversation is an adaptation of WordPress’s blogging engine for use in electronic publishing. Their open-source theme, named CommentPress, has its deep origins in a collaboration with McKenzie Wark who, in preparing the manuscript for his 2007 book, Gamer Theory, was persuaded to collaborate with the Institute in putting a draft of the text online. The online version, titled GAM3R 7H30RY (so that Wark could distinguish Google hits mentioning the online text from those mentioning the print book), easily adapted itself to publication through a blogging engine, but Wark and the Institute early expressed an interest in subverting one of the basic structures of the blogging hierarchy: rather than keeping each chunk of his text up top, with comments relegated to a spot further down the screen, Wark and the Institute’s developers collaborated on a design that would place the text and the comments side-by-side, emphasizing the conversational principle that the publication hoped to foster.[10]

screenshot1

G4M3R 7H30RY lent itself to being published in this fashion in part because the text was already “chunked,” written in a hyper-structured, rigidly algorithmic structure, with 9 alphabetically sequential chapters, each containing 25 paragraphs, with a strict 250-word limit per paragraph; as the paragraphs themselves were often aphoristic, many of them stood alone well, and reader comments were thus able to be closely associated with each paragraph of the text. However, the translation of what was originally intended to be a traditional codex book into this nonlinear structure nonetheless created some complications: each paragraph looked a bit more free-standing than it really was; a reader couldn’t simply enter and exit the text at any random point; readers often left questions or comments on early chunks about issues that were addressed in later parts of the text. Moreover, publishing Wark’s text online was extraordinarily labor-intensive, requiring too much manual tweaking to be readily adaptable for more general publishing purposes.

Posted by KF on 22 July 2007
Tags: Uncategorized

Total comments on this page: 4

How to read/write comments

Comments on specific paragraphs:

Click the icon to the right of a paragraph

  • If there are no prior comments there, a comment entry form will appear automatically
  • If there are already comments, you will see them and the form will be at the bottom of the thread

Comments on the page as a whole:

Click the icon to the right of the page title (works the same as paragraphs)

Comments

No comments yet.

Ben Vershbow on whole page :

A nitpick. Ken actually didn’t use a ‘4′ in his title, but kept it as an ‘A.’ So not pure leet, but close.

24 July 2007 8.10 am
KF :

Good to know — I’ll correct that!

24 July 2007 8.12 am
bob stein on whole page :

hmmmmm….. the first six sections seem like the heart of a really important article. (it’s amazing and incredibly exciting to see how your thinking has evolved since the first manifesto to include and in fact focus on the issues related to community and conversation.) and then with the most minor of segues the article becomes a very good discussion of comment press. the problem i see here is that comment press is nowhere near important enough to serve as the conclusion to the important statement you are making in the first sixteen pages. perhaps the comment press article should have a much more concise intro. the first sixteen pages are too important to be saddled with commentpress as the sole example discussed.

is that inarticulate quote from me from the chronicle article or the public real-time chat the chronicle conducted. if the latter could i edit?

28 July 2007 8.40 pm
KF :

I think your comment is exactly right, but I’m not sure as yet how to respond. I felt the first part of the article really growing well beyond what I needed in order to set up the points I wanted to make about CommentPress, but was so intrigued and invested in what I was finding that I wasn’t sure how to truncate it. I’m wondering whether, on the one hand, I’ve got two articles (one situating this moment in the development of electronic textuality within this print/codex distinction and one on CommentPress), or whether I simply need to make the second part of the article, on CP, bear the weight of the first half.

As to the quote — it’s from the Chronicle article. Not great quote editing, but alas, there it is…

30 July 2007 5.41 am
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI