MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

RSS

17 August 2005

The Metachat Book. As some of you may recall I did a little survey a while ago to test if folks here were interested in contributing to and buying a Metachat book. Well there seems to be a lot of interest! I've prepared things at my end and I'm now ready for your submissions. For more info, read on [More:]

What format will the book take?

It'll be a complete mix of everything and anything that people want to submit - much like the site. There are no pre-arranged subjects, categories or headings - if there are going to be any divisions in the book, they'll be worked out after all the submissions are in. All articles will be credited to usernames. In the back of the book will be a section where every contributor gets to put their real name alongside their username (if they wish to reveal their secret identities) along side a two or three paragraphs about themselves and any thank yous or whatever else they like.

This is important:

I want to keep as much of the book as much of a secret as possible prior to it's printing. It'll be much more fun if it's a surprise! If you're contributing then please keep quiet about what you're submitting - no hints, no tasters, no angling for opinions.

What can I write?

The idea is that this book will be mix of all sorts of things so you can write pretty much anything you like. Stories, poetry, haikus, reviews, annecdotes, lists, receipes, etc are all acceptable. If you want to do drawings or graphics then read the specs below.

Do I have to write original material?

No, you don't. If you have something you've written for another purpose and would like to submit it then that's fine. Be sure that you're only contributing an article you have the copyright for.

Any restrictions?

We need to be cautious about copyright as the book may not be printed if it contains copyrighted material (the printers are apparently quite strict about this). This includes not just copyrighted articles but also copyrighted characters. If you have any doubts on this issue then please contact me.

Can I submit more than one article?

Yes.

I want to do lots of crazy font stuff. Is that OK?

Don't bother doing fancy font stuff and expect it to go in as it is. If you want to get clever with typfaces you'll have to do them as graphics. This is due to limitations with the printing process.

Length

The article can be as long or as short as you like but anything longer than a short story is too long. I know that's fairly arbitrary so if you're worried your article might be too long then just ask me and I'll let you know.

File formats

You can submit the file as a text file, rich text file or html. If you have your submission in the chosen format of your word processor then please save as RTF before submitting. If you have no idea what I'm talking about then just submit the file how it is and we'll try to work it out from there.

What about images?

All images should be black and white.

Maximum 300 dpi
Maximum width: 4.75 inches
Maximum height: 7 inches

That makes the maximum image size 1425 pixels wide by 2100 pixels high.

You should save images as RGB - CMYK and Greyscale don't print properly.

Try to make your images high contrast and avoid too much detail. We won't get much of an opportunity to fix any print problems so please try and play it safe.

What about proof reading?

I'm not much of a proof reader so if anyone out there is good at this sort of thing and can dedicate the time between now and the deadline then please contact me.

Where to send it?

Just email it to the address in my profile. It'll help if you put the word metachat in the subject line so as to avoid the spam filters.

When is the deadline?

The deadline is October 31st - Halloween! Please try and submit your article well before that if you can.



I'm sure I haven't covered everything so just ask any questions here.
This is SO NEAT!
Now to think of what I can submit that anyone else would find interesting...
posted by kellydamnit 17 August | 11:31
Total coolness.
posted by iconomy 17 August | 11:32
We need to be cautious about copyright as the book may not be printed if it contains copyrighted material

Does that mean we have to be dead for 75 years before we can contribute?

When is this book being printed, meaning, will Christmassy things find themselves being printed in February?
posted by Skrik 17 August | 11:49
Does that mean we have to be dead for 75 years before we can contribute?
Yes. So far we've had contributions from The Crypt Keeper from Tales of the Crypt, Casper the Friendly Ghost and the lord Jesus Christ who died for all our sins.
When is this book being printed, meaning, will Christmassy things find themselves being printed in February?
The book will be printed by Lulu.com (that is it'll be printed on demand). The latest it should be available by is the end of November. I hope it'll make a nice stocking filler.
posted by dodgygeezer 17 August | 12:01
Fantastic, I just sent you an e-mail.
posted by safetyfork 17 August | 12:13
Cool! While you're ordering your book from Lulu, don't forget to pick up the collected works of Mefi's own jhilton.

I wish I were creative enough to contribute, but most of my published writing involves equations.
posted by 김치 17 August | 12:31
If you don't have a professional proofreader step forward, I'd be willing to do what I can...
posted by Specklet 17 August | 12:43
iconomy has offered her super-duper proofreading skills so I'll be pestering her with all this stuff. thanks ico!

thanks everyone else for offering to help.
posted by dodgygeezer 17 August | 12:47
Nonfiction? It's what I do.
posted by warbaby 17 August | 12:48
Nonfiction?
Yep
posted by dodgygeezer 17 August | 12:51
I'm a professional proofreader, and I volunteered in the other thread to proofread this.

I'm also still planning on contributing something.
posted by interrobang 17 August | 12:53
I'm all for proofreading, but if anyone edits my stuff I'll flip my wig. I know I sound like a curmudgeon, but that's how it is.

If you've ever seen your meaning changed in print you know where I'm coming from.

That said, thanks, iconomy, interrobang, and specklet, for stepping forward. You're so cool.

[I'm some kind of madman, offering thanks and shaking my fist at the same time. "Thanks for taking a look, don't fuck with my shit." Sorry. I love you guys.]
posted by Hugh Janus 17 August | 13:06
If you don't want your stuff touched then just say so when you submit it and it'll go in as is.

Oh, just one other note for everyone (which I'll add to the top):

Don't bother doing fancy font stuff and expect it to go in as it is. If you want to get clever with typfaces you'll have to do them as graphics. This is due to limitations with the printing process.
posted by dodgygeezer 17 August | 13:14
Awesome, I'm going to get working on my thing right now instead of doing my paid work!
posted by gaspode 17 August | 13:20
Thanks, dodgygeezer, sorry about my strident (read: shithouse-rat-crazy) tone there. I mean well.
posted by Hugh Janus 17 August | 13:25
i'm in.

What about hi-res images or pdfs? Or is this a text-only book?
posted by amberglow 17 August | 13:25
PDFs are out. Images - I'm getting the specs together now and will post them here shortly.
posted by dodgygeezer 17 August | 13:27
I haven't written anything new or worthy in a while, and don't really have time to commit to something or promise anything new before October. But I would like to submit one of the following for consideration:

(edited out at loq's request)

Proofreading thankfully and gladly accepted. Editing considered - I'm honestly curious to see how someone would edit my often excessively purple prose.

Feel free to scrape the text from E2 or email me and I'll scrape 'em and submit them as RTF. Please help me choose one, or pick one at random, or none at all, or more than one.
posted by loquacious 17 August | 13:32
300dpi or higher, and CMYK, is usual.
posted by amberglow 17 August | 13:40
Who knew there were so many proofreaders here??

Hugh Janus, I don't think any of us would edit anything - yikes. I would only correct spelling mistakes. I wouldn't even correct grammatical errors - that's too much like editing.
posted by iconomy 17 August | 13:51
*not clicking on loquacious' links so as to be surprised when book is published*
posted by Specklet 17 August | 13:58
I know, iconomy, sorry, I'm such a grouchy bear. But by your "yikes" I take it you know how it is. Thanks for understanding. And for not thinking I'm a big asshole for my occasional heavy hand with the threats of wig-flippery.

They're coming to take me away,
Ha ha, hee hee...
posted by Hugh Janus 17 August | 13:59
Excellent! I actually have an idea that might work. I'm so glad you're going ahead with this.
posted by LeeJay 17 August | 13:59
D'oh! I totally failed to follow the instructions. Mods, please edit out my links.

Sorry, I'm not one that's usually bothered by spoilers - the whole concept of "spoiler" to me is foreign. If it's good, it bears up to rereading and repeating. (General statement about art/literature, not a brag about my own crap.) I've been known to read the end of books just so I can read the entire book from the beginning with a better appreciation for the plot mechanics employed by the author. There's a huge quagmire of a debate about this on mefi somewhere. Probably more than one.
posted by loquacious 17 August | 14:06
I'm in. Slowly shifting my braining from high gear cover letter writing/bullshitting mode back to the fun stuff, so nothing 'til Septmeber at the earliest. The noggin needs a little breather just now.

Comments, suggestions and critiques graciously accepted, sincerely examined and, like as not, blithely disregarded.

WooT! This will be fun!
posted by Frisbee Girl 17 August | 14:16
It's a cute idea. I don't think I'll be able to proof and I may not submit because I have the opposite of Hugh Janus's issues--I really detest anthologies without a consistent style and don't care for the don't screw with my genius routine. A good editor wouldn't change someone's meaning and it's too bad poor editors turn people off.

Not to pick on anyone, though. Just wanted to give voice to the opposite point of view.
posted by dame 17 August | 14:29
routine
Yup, you've got me pegged. Except for the "don't screw with my genius" part.

More like "don't put words in my mouth." Nobody likes that, even sub-geniuses.
posted by Hugh Janus 17 August | 14:52
I'd offer to proof it, but between my daily editing duties and work I would fall miserably behind.

But I'll contribute.
posted by me3dia 17 August | 15:05
Picture specs are as follows:

All images should be black and white.

Maximum 300 dpi
Maximum width: 4.75 inches
Maximum height: 7 inches

That makes the maximum image size 1425 pixels wide by 2100 pixels high.

You should save images as RGB - CMYK and Greyscale don't print properly.

Try to make your images high contrast and avoid too much detail. We won't get much of an opportunity to fix any print problems so please try and play it safe.
posted by dodgygeezer 17 August | 15:09
Thanks for the specs, dodgygeezer.
posted by safetyfork 17 August | 15:13
I'm not sure of your tone, Hugh. I hope I didn't needle you too much--I think we disagree on something large but I'm not trying to start a fight.

More like "don't put words in my mouth."


The only times I've known that to happen, it was a result of either (a) the author using poor words to begin with and the editor misunderstanding when trying to clear it up, or (b) an editor who doesn't know the difference between making a piece better and making a piece read the way s/he would have written it.

I'm always a little sensitive to the keep editors away thing because, well, because I am one, and also because if you could see the tripe people try to defend on artistic grounds, you'd be skeptical too. And everyone needs an editor. I've been well complimented by many of our authors for my edits, and I desperately need someone for my own stuff. It's just impossible to be objective about yourself.

Anyway enough babble. Good luck everyone.
posted by dame 17 August | 15:18
The feeling was mutual, dame. But I see better where you're coming from now, and I suspect we probably agree more than you think. No worries.

I guess what I really meant was, I'm leery of editing unless I can check it over when all is said and done, and go back to an earlier version without ruffling feathers. Though I don't do it professionally, I'm a better editor than I am a writer. No offense to you or any other editors, but I've seen editors turn perfectly good writing into indefensible tripe in pursuit of a consistent style. Not knowing the editors' rules or procedures in this case, I just wanted to be sure I wouldn't end up with something not my own under my signature.

With such an open-ended anthology, consistent style is elusive at best (by "style," I probably diverge from the usual definition; I mean something closer to "stance" than to "convention" or "mechanics"). I support correcting spelling, grammar, and punctuation, but I don't consider that stuff to be elements of style. I've had editors remove every instance of passive voice from my writing to terrible effect, because rules were more important than reading.

I think I might disappear into my own username if I'm not careful. This is a really interesting topic for babble. I also think that while mechanical corrections are fine, stylistic ones are treacherous and should be undertaken by someone with a close working relationship with the author (or by someone really, really good).

Sorry to appear prickly on this thread. I mostly meant to be like that guy in Stripes who is all, like, "Any of you dicks touch my stuff, I'll kill you." Because he's funny.

But I guess it didn't come across.

I second the good luck wishes, and I'm looking forward to having some fun with this. Thanks again, Metachat.
posted by Hugh Janus 17 August | 15:56
Yay! I needed a kick in the butt to start my writing again.

This is going to be fun. I am so in! : )
posted by sisterhavana 17 August | 16:18
It's easy to see both sides of the edited/non-edited side of the fence.

As far as production techniques go I'm of a mind that "any and all of the above" is correct as long as the results satisfy, tickle, delight, communicate, and/or touch. As well as lots of other adjectives.

I like Burroughs-esque cut-up weirdness, I like wedding-cake confections of subtle and obsessive accuracy and I like raw streams of unedited and unmediated thought and everything in between.

I can easily agree with HJ's "keep your mitts off my stuff" stance. And I can easily agree with dame's stance. I think it marks her as someone serious and discerning about why and how she writes (and reads).

I think (hope?) that no one here is really taking a project like this too seriously. It's just good clean fun from almost any angle, be it even partially serious or not.

For the purposes of this project/experiment I'd like to retract the statement "Editing considered" and reject it as too strong and discouraging.

I would like to change that statement to "All forms of editing encouraged, including complete re-writes, mashups, cut and splices, or anything else you can think of, but only at your own leisure."

I'm not going to be surprised if no one takes me up on that, but the offer stands if you get bored and want to muck around. I think it could be new and interesting. I know I like reworking other people's stuff of all media types, and can easily see the benefits of encouraging someone to do it to one's own endeavors. (Email me for the deleted links.)
posted by loquacious 17 August | 16:32
As far as...weirdness,...I like...HJ's...mitts.

I would like to change...anything...you can think of...to muck.

[I]t could be...encouraging.

Email...deleted.
You weirdo.

I love it!
posted by Hugh Janus 17 August | 16:48
Um, I'll be humble here, but my second book of collected goofyness is on LuLu as well. They were truly excellent to work with. This project looks incredible, and I'm so in.
posted by moonbird 17 August | 18:14
Ok, this got serious and a little weird in a way that I had hoped really wouldn't happen here, mostly because I was under the impression that this was supposed to be both an artistic exercise and fun experience. If I am mistaken, I sincerely apologize and will remove my name from the pool of contributors with no hard feelings/ill will whatsoever.

dame, God bless you for ever being the constantly colorful and unyeilding voice of stringency. Someone's got to do it and you do it so very well.

My earlier comment regarding editorial activity was based on the idea that this was largely a submission-based concept as opposed to one that was collaboratively focused in nature from start to finish. Both can be wonderful experiences and I'm not set on either, but if this is submission based, what I submit will already have been thoroughly examined, debated and reworked with a group of writers & editors that I've been working with for the better part of a year. After we've worked something over, I'm hard pressed to muck around with it more. And while, a good suggestion never loses it's power and those are always welcome, frankly, by this poin and after countless reworkings, I'm usually tired of the process..

If this is going to be more of a collaborative process, we'll all be that much richer, but we've got to get cracking as of last week to meet the deadline dodgy listed above.
posted by Frisbee Girl 18 August | 04:45
Just to clear up the process:
- You submit an article
- The article gets proofread by iconomy
- Any doubts, problems or issues with the article will be discussed with the author
- If any changes are made to the article - including spelling, punctuation, etc - then it'll be sent back to the author for approval prior to printing

There won't be editing in any traditional sense, there won't be a style guide, we're just making sure that everything reads the way the author intends and that everything looks right.

Beyond that I just recommend that everyone chill out - this aint the dead sea scrolls, it's just another outlet for all the creative people on this site.
posted by dodgygeezer 18 August | 05:21
I've never been edited before, so as long as I get to double check the editors edits I'm all up for someone to completely shuffle the fuck out of whatever I've written. It'll be fun.

Frisbee Girl: I wouldn't worry too much about it. People are so precious about the words they wrote that it's good to have this conversation up front.

Collabaration sounds like fun though. There's no reason why a few of us couldn't get together and create a piece together. Like an emcee for words.... I'm up for it if anyone else is.
posted by seanyboy 18 August | 05:25
dodgygeezer: nooooooo.
I want someone to smash up my work with the highlighting pen of editorial control.
... p. p. p. lease.
posted by seanyboy 18 August | 05:27
There's no reason why a few of us couldn't get together and create a piece together.
Absolutely.
I want someone to smash up my work with the highlighting pen of editorial control.
Go back to Russia you damn commie!
posted by dodgygeezer 18 August | 05:29
Ah, geez, I hope I didn't get serious and a little too weird. Sorry. I meant well -- I really did -- but maybe my meter was poorly calibrated yesterday.
posted by Hugh Janus 18 August | 08:59
I'm gonna write something.

Great idea, Mr. geezer.
posted by mcgraw 18 August | 12:11
Fuck, I really could have used an editor for the last couple sentences this morning. You can clearly see where the brain went on to bed while the body continued to type.

seany, I'd loved to do something collaborative.

Hugh, no worries, dodgy spelled it out nicely. My fundamental concern was that I already have the outlet for a fairly disciplined and regular editorial process and don't have time/energy to duplicate it, but also don't want to upset anyone else by not regarding this with the proper gravity. Permission to play has been granted. Word.
posted by Frisbee Girl 18 August | 12:24
Whew, what an exhausting thread. Um... guys? I only write scientifically. I am not a creative person. All my stuff is gonna be slipping into the passive voice, and be all over the place. Don't hate me too much. :)
posted by gaspode 18 August | 14:27
Yeah, I think I can probably find time to write a short story...well, short being a relative term, but still, I'll see what I can come up with. :)

Um...erotic horror ok?
posted by PsychoKitty 18 August | 20:56
Oh...a note, I'm totally in for a round robin. I love those, I did them with the guys from my writing workshops for years after the workshops. They're great fun.
posted by PsychoKitty 18 August | 20:58
dodgygeezer: I have sent some stuff off to you.
Also, did you know about this
posted by seanyboy 21 August | 06:18
Me emailed something, too.
posted by Skrik 21 August | 09:13
I've just visted lulu.co.uk, and been scared out of my wits. I'd forgotten about that woman. I wish I hadn't been reminded.
posted by Skrik 21 August | 09:18
Just popping in from vacation to say I'm in, but it'll take me a few weeks to gear up and get something submitted. Also, I've missed you guys :)
posted by muddgirl 21 August | 13:41
Welcome back, muddgirl!
posted by Frisbee Girl 21 August | 14:06
skrik - I emailed you yesterday to say I didn't get the attached file. Could you send again?
posted by dodgygeezer 22 August | 11:47
how's it going dodgygeezer?
are the submissions rolling in?
posted by seanyboy 23 August | 12:37
there's a gradual trickle. keep 'em coming folks.
posted by dodgygeezer 23 August | 12:46
You say no fancy font stuff.... what about writing that requires specific format, like screenplays? I wouldn't want fancy fonts (courier, actually) but would like format kept, though that's difficult with a word processor. PDF bad, really?
posted by dobbs 31 August | 22:40
Screenplays are difficult because they require a lot of horizontal space and the printable area is only about five inches wide. Send me whatever it is you've got and I'll see what I can do with the formatting.
posted by dodgygeezer 01 September | 04:21
The first set of emcee 4 is finished. || SciReport:

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN