On January 22, 2005, a snowstorm hit the Washington DC-area, creating a ripe setting for group creativity projects. On this blizzardy day the following fictional story was written by one adult and two youth, each with their own cursor in the shared writing window of SubEthaEdit software. After the story was written, it seemed appropriate to describe how the story was written -- in case this might be of help to others.
SubEthaEdit is a very easy-to-use and powerful Macintosh software program for group writing and group programming projects. Created by several talented programmers in Germany, SubEthaEdit quickly developed a very enthusiastic following. It's possible to use SubEthaEdit on any kind of network -- be it wired, wireless or over the Internet.
Here is how we wrote the above story on three Mac OS X computers connected together with an Ethernet hub. First we started SubEthaEdit on all three computers. Using the Preferences for the program, we each configured SubEthaEdit to write in a 24-point Arial font, with a light-colored background -- either light yellow, light blue, light red, etc.
Then one of us kicked things off by writing any text in the SubEthaEdit window and saving that text to the hard drive. Now SubEthaEdit had a document that it could announce to the other users on the network. We brought up the Rendezvous menu in SubEthaEdit to makes sure we could all "see" each other's user names. Our SubEthaEdit user names were derived from the Mac OS X user name each of logged in with. (To create Mac OS X users, use the Accounts section of the System Preferences.)
Once the document was shared or "announced," the other two writers saw it listed in their Rendezvous menu. They double-clicked the document name to join the document, and the shared document window expanded to full size on their screen. They each resized their document window so that it fit well onto their screen.
Before SubEthaEdit had been a launched, a brief story scenario had been shared verbally. Participants in this writing project had used SubEthaEdit before, so there was comfort in the use of the software before the group writing commenced.
The writing process began by having a short opening paragraph that suggested that direction for the rest of the story. This two sentence paragraph also suggested the mood of the piece, which was lighthearted and playful.
The plot of this story at this point could go in any of a thousand different directions. The three authors discussed some of the directions this story could lead, discounting some of them as being interesting, but too serious. Given the scenario of the story, we explored some of the stories that this story could spawn -- essentially exploring our own fan fiction possibilities even before the story had been written.
As the story unfolded, we asked ourselves the question, "Okay, what happens next?"
More than 15 "dead end" sentences were typed and deleted at various times during the story writing process. The person deleting the sentence was not always the person who wrote it. The level of trust between us was high, meaning that anyone of us could choose to highlight and delete each others' sentences if they felt the sentence didn't take the story in the right direction -- or otherwise didn't fit.
Throughout the writing of this story the mood was playful and trusting. The writers sought input from each other, even mid-sentence. We literally finished each others' sentences. The originator of each sentence showed commendable restraint in stopping half way in the sentence to allow completion by a fellow writer.
We sometimes discussed the purpose of the piece to help us stay on track. The purpose of this particular piece was a lighthearted look at collaborative writing, written by a group of collaborative writers. Following the theme of the piece, we tried weaving self-referential jokes into the plot.
The entire writing process for this piece took about 90 minutes. We knew we were near the end of the story at the moment we wanted to "wrap it up" and achieve completion. That moment didn't happen until the last 10 minutes of our writing. We had no idea the end was upon us until we decided the end was upon us.
Each part of this story emerged as a puzzle to be solved. The process of writing is the process of solving a succession of puzzles. We used 3 minds instead of one to tackle these puzzles, and our puzzle solution appears to be the stronger for it.
The outcomes of this group writing project were many. The two youth participating in this project saw their own writing ability in a new light. While they previously might have been confident writers, this writing experience took them one level higher than the level of "confident writer." Most importantly, these youth took real joy in the writing process and may look upon future writing task as offering the same kinds of engaging challenges.
Next Steps
One thing we did not explore in this writing project was recording our keystrokes to a QuickTime file using Snapz Pro X 2 and recording the accompanying audio from our discussions -- to make the writing process as visible as possible. This could have been done using a 4th Macintosh with SubEthaEdit and Snapz Pro X 2 installed. A G4 (or faster) processor would work best for this QuickTime capture. (10 frames per second or less works well.)
Sometime in the future a group of writers will write a very engaging piece of fiction or nonfiction, recording the process to QuickTime. Interested persons could then experience the very moment when each sentence unfolded in the piece. Studying such QuickTimes could give new insights into how the writing process happens within our minds. If Apple Computer chose to, it could include some of the best of these QuickTimes (along with their accompanying texts) on the hard drive of every new Macintosh sold. This would expand the boundaries of our creative community to all who might have an interest in using SubEthaEdit. Persons having that interest may not be aware of this article or the unbounded potential of SubEthaEdit. Such "viewable writing process" QuickTimes could also be distributed via BitTorrent.
Another next step is to try a group writing project using both SubEthaEdit and iChat video conferencing. An iChat audio conference might work, too, although collaborative writers often use subtle visual cues to each other (facial expressions) to express the degree to which they agree with each proposed sentence in the writing. iChat 3, with its abilities to bring together several people into the same videoconference, will create new ways of writers in different physical locations to work together. QuickTime 7 will enhance the visual resolution of the videoconference such that it may feel as if the writers are truly in the same room -- even though they are physically located in different parts of the globe. Bandwidth improvements from DSL, cable modem and fiber optic Internet service providers will converge with these software developments. QuickTime 7 will deliver 3 to 4 times the number of pixels for a given bandwidth (as compared with QuickTime 6.)
With these new writing technologies emerging, new writing institutions need to be invented. The thought comes to mind that it would be beneficial to many if every town and city in the nation had one (or more) public libraries with collaborative writing facilities available for groups to use. Such collaborative writing facilities could be comprised of 2 or more Mac Mini's and some flat panel displays that could be locked away in a closet when not in use. SubEthaEdit is a program that does not place much demands on a processor, and it works very well on G3 Macs using Mac OS 10.3 (or higher.) Second hand blue-and-white G3 Macs can be purchased for less than $200 these days.<
Informal collaborative writing clubs might likely be forming, too, in coming years. Such clubs might have monthly meetings where persons attended with their iBook, PowerBook or Mac Mini. Each club would have some Mac hardware available for writers who doesn't own his/her own.
At the club meetings various concurrent writing projects would take place. At the end of the meeting, some of the finished writing projects would be shared at the meeting, projected onto a large screen (or wall) and read aloud by the authors. The authors of such writings might choose to release their writings under a Creative Commons license.
Writing Essay on the new SAT Exam
This article would be unfinished if it did not weigh in on the new writing requirement on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. It seems to this writer that the Educational Testing Service is going about this all wrong. There is little benefit to anyone from a 30-minute snapshot of a person's writing ability. This is a coarse and crude tool -- made even more coarse and crude by students' rushed handwriting.
A better way would be to have a secure web site where students could be challenged by writing topics multiple times throughout their high school years, writing in an unrushed setting. Students would be challenged to write in various genres -- essay, fiction, expository, poetry, satire, haiku, etc.
There are literally thousands of volunteers available to anonymously rate such writings. This would be a better, more meaningful way for colleges to ascertain the degree of writing talent of applicants. Anything less than this would be coarse and crude. It would be like handing Vincent van Gogh a single colored magic marker and asking him to draw some sunflowers in under 5 minutes.
Phil Shapiro pshapiro@his.com