I've been sort of coy about the details (because I don't want to jinx anything and there aren't many details out there), but I've decided that the novel I'm working on will probably appear as a podcast sometime late in the year. Scott Farquhar will do the reading and it'll be over on Critical Futures (and other places?) I'm excited about this, as I think it means a higher profile for my work, I've wanted to do a podcast for a long time, and it gives me something to "work towards" for this project, which had heretofore been a "so I'm writing another novel for myself because that's what I do," and that purpose is really good for my process.
This post, however, is a writing-meets-technology post. I store all of my projects in git repositories. This is good, because it lets me track changes and revisions, back up and synchronize files between machines, and because I thought it might be fun to use git to collaborate with editors/provide history/source for the novel once it's more "done," or at least, as a fairly linear writer, I've gotten to a point where its clear that I have an intended shape for the story.
While I'm an avid git proponent, and fascinated by the prospects contained in the software on a conceptual level, I don't do a lot of "distributed workflow," stuff myself on a day to day basis. Yet. So stuff about publishing branches, and even having more than one developer working at the same time in the system is a bit foreign to me because I haven't had to use it ever.
So it's taken some getting used to, and I was tempted through the whole process to cave and get a git-hub account (with private collaborators) because I think the web-based interface for forking repositories is basically what I'm trying to do inside of one repository with (semi) public branches. Here's the setup:
I have a bare repository on the server that I use as a centralized dumping ground for a lot stuff. While strictly speaking this isn't required it's nice to have a backup, a single place to collect data, and I have git-web setup on the server so I can git a birds-eye view of the repository if I get confused. I do all of my work in the master branch. I tag important commits if there's something unique that I delete out of later commits. And basically that's about all I've done in the fiction projects.
Now, what I want to do is let Scott clone my repository and have a branch where he can edit, create files, leave notes, and so forth without affecting what I'm working on. Because I'm still writing pretty intensely, this also lets Scott (and potentially others,) get my changes as I push them onto the server, rather than having to exchange emails and all of that. Then when I'm ready to edit, I make my own editing branch based the latest from "master" merge/review Scott's edits, and then go through and edit myself once, and then when it's golden, I merge my editing branch back into master, and hopefully there's a book. There's also, something cool and performance about publishing not only the text of the book, but the development of that text.
I can understand not wanting to let "previous and unfinished drafts" out into the wild, but there's something about the way that distributed version control systems don't just produce "previous drafts," but all previous drafts, which can as a group convey a certain kind of story onto themselves. I mean, I'm not particularly likely to go read through a total revision history, but I think knowing its there is pretty interesting, and being able to see key moments, drafts, and the editing process at work, is something that has a lot of merit.
I'm not sure that I'll do this exactly the same way again in the future (paying for git hub seems like its worthwhile now that I know how to do it myself), but we'll see how it goes and I'll be sure to post a review of how the process goes, and at some point, you'll be able to see for yourself.
Onward and Upward!