Lets put this in the category of “tycho writing about software
development in an attempt to draw a conclusion beyond software
development.” Often I find this to be an annoying impulse as, software
can be meaningful in and of itself and it’s practices aren’t always
incredibly relevant. On the other hand, most of my work is (at least
theoretically) not software, so I find myself doing this kind of thing
more than I’d really like. So be it.
Agile Development refers to a set of practices that encourages
developers to review their progress regularly, to write code in testable
units, to consult with the client regularly to allow the client to lead
the design process to reflect the reality that requirements, contexts,
and possibilities change as a result of the ongoing development process.
Extreme Programing (XP), is probably the most famous subset of Agile
Development, and I think both are interesting (and popular) because they
promote a kind of flexibility and respond to (and draws from) the
creative impulse. XP takes the iterative/test driven Agile philosophy
and does “wacky” things like “pair programming” where two developers
take turns typing and monitoring the coding process. I’ve of course,
not really, worked in these situations, but I am fascinated by the
possibilities.
I often think about the implications of these kinds of methodologies on
the work I do (writing). I have yet to be convinced that this is an
entirely productive impulse, but that never stops me.
The key feature of Agile development--to my mind--is that it’s built
around multiple iterations. Rather than concentrating on getting all of
the details right, the goal is to get something working, and then
expand/refactor/revise and get review on all these iterations, so that
through successive iteration you have a solid, relevant, and sturdy
result. Once you have iterations, getting customer review is easier
(because there’s something to evaluate), testing is easier,
collaboration is easier.
Writers already have a sense of drafts, and as such this is the way we
always work. In another sense, we don’t seek feedback on most drafts,
and so while we might revise in a couple of “lumps” we editorial
collaboration is pretty minimal during the writing process. That’s not
a bad thing, just a commentary on the analogy. Writing collaboratively
is also damned hard, and so collaborations are more often based on
structural divisions (eg. “you write parts one, four, five, and seven;
and I’ll write two, three, six, and eight,") or in larger groups,
require dedicated editorial nodes/contributors to organize logistics.
True story: I wrote an academic paper with someones (we lived next door
to each other at the time) and as I remember, we tended to do something
very much like “pair programming,” I’d drive (type) and she’d
navigate (read over my shoulder,) or she’d type and I’d pace, though I
think I tended toward the typing roll for any number of reasons. It
worked, but we had (and have) such different approaches to writing,
thinking about that sort of boggles.
In another sense, posting rough drafts of works on the Internet
(critical futures; Cory Doctorow’s
Podcast; sam starbuck’s
projects; etc.) is another way to
get the kind of on going feedback that features so prominently in the
Agile/XP methodologies.
The truth is that I had expected to talk about how programming and
writing are fundamentally different, and how while Agile and XP are
really powerful ways to think about the creation of programs, the
creation of novels, stories, and essays can’t work that way.
While I was able to find some parallels, and examples to the contrary,
there are so many features of the way that I write, the way that I
create, that run quite counter to the “agile way:”
- I don’t do iterative drafting very well. I write something, I run
through it twice, someone else gives feedback, I run through it once
more, and it’s either good enough to do something with at that point,
or I abandon it.
- We mysticsize the creative process, particularly for “artistic”
creation. I don’t particularly think of myself as an artist, but I
think regardless, because we’re not very good at articulating our
creative process (and generally unwilling to change the way we work,
much), there isn’t a lot of willingness to change how we write.
- Collaboration is a challenge because of the aforementioned mysticism,
and because individuals are capable of (in most cases) writing the
long-forms by themselves (novels, screenplays) collaboration isn’t a
vital necessity. The counter-example would be what happens in the
writing rooms of television shows, I suppose, though I haven’t worked
in these situations. Not that I’d be opposed, if someone wanted to
hire me to do that ;).
- Writers make their money (at least as we’re taught to think) by
selling publication rights. Iterative work requires frequent
publication, which discourages working in this way. Obviously there
are some other business models, and other kinds of writing, but
generally speaking…
Writing this has inspired me to move more in the direction of posting to
Critical Futures again, and to work harder on collaboration projects.
I’ve been stuck in my own writing, as life and an iterative hump have
combined to really take me out of the game for a while. While I doubt
any change in methodology could really make me slightly less linear,
it is helpful to think about process in new and different ways. In point
of fact, everyone works eclectically anyway, but just thinking about how
we/I work has some worth. That much I’m sure.
Onward and Upward!