I Wanna See Writing Gangs!

The prevailing image of the writer is the solo artist sitting at their computer feverishly typing away. When they aren’t pacing the floor sweating over writer’s block, they’re manifesting downloads from the Akashic Records, publishing their own unique takes on the world’s most nuanced issues. A writer’s ideas must be their own. They must be autonomous. But, why? Why can’t writing be a collaborative endeavor? Why aren’t there writing groups like there are music groups? What’s gained from writers having to always go it alone?

To be sure, there are many examples of collaborative writing. Article are regularly written by more than one person, especially those of the “investigative” variety. Scientific studies are more often than not attributed to a team of researchers. And, of course, there is my belief that no good writing is truly a solo effort. Writing published by a publishing house is almost always a collaboration between writer, editor, and proofreader. But, what I’m looking for is a band of writers. A group. I’d say “collective,” but God I’m tired of that word. But, yes, if you need it framed that way: a group of people writing as a collective.

My first experience with this kind of approach to writing came from the world of radical, leftist screeds where anonymity is often a necessity. Books by the The Invisible Committee and mimeographed zines by Black Mask and Up Against The Wall Motherfucker come to mind, and lend the approach a certain level of “insurrectionist mystique.” Not a bad thing. But, I’m also interested in how this approach could be used for less earnest pursuits. I’m envisioning writing groups publishing fiction, non-fiction, erotica, choose your own adventure, poetry (please, yes, poetry), frickin self-help…you name it, a band could write it.

How a writing group might work

To give a better idea of what this might look like, here’s a few thoughts:

• The group would take on a name: Coming up with a name is, for many people, the whole point of starting any sort of collective endeavor. Last names like Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young could work well, but so too could names with a more 60s-inspired pop group vibe like The Supremes. For a writing group with a clear motivating force at the helm something like Martha Reeves & the Vandellas or Bob Marley and the Wailers could be appropriate nom de plumes.
• Members would each be assigned a role: Not everyone needs to be the writer. Like I mentioned above, writing is already a collaborative effort. One person might be the outliner. Another might be the researcher. Still, others could be the writer or writers, the publisher, and the editor. Each would be credited in the “liner notes” accordingly, just like on a record.
• Each member would share in the effort and the proceeds: The awkward convo around payment and royalties would be left up to each group. But, splitting royalties and payouts four or more ways, sounds right. And, for situations with a strong motivating participant, a more proportioned payment plan could also work.

Pros of writing as a group

There are lots of positives to going this route. Here’s some off the top of my head:

1. Takes the pressure off having to “go it alone.”
2. Allows for fresh ideas to be baked into the writing process.
3. Provides an opportunity for ego softening.
4. Allows writing and the writing process to be viewed as less precious than is usually the case.
5. Brings designers and publishers into the process, rather than having them positioned outside as external decision makers with veto power.
6. Insulates authors from having to take all the heat if some armchair activist has got a problem.
7. Acknowledges the dirty little secret that writing is always already collaborative, which changes the dynamic between writer and audience.
8. De-emphasizes the “heroic writer” narrative, which I’m not against, but in the spirit of having access to the full range of life experiences, I think we can try some new vibes.

Cons to writing as a group

1. Ego death.
2. Too many cooks in the kitchen often makes for bad art.
3. A potential for groups to become ideologues, believing that collaboration is inherently better than the solo vanguard. It isn’t.

To me, it seems there’s far more good that can come from experimenting with writing groups than bad. So, who’s with me? I’ve got a book on whiteness and white supremacy I wanna put out. And, eff that if I’m gonna do it without a band of misfits by my side. God knows it ain’t gonna write itself. 🌴