HOME | CATALOG | DOWNLOADS | LINKS | EDITORIALS | DISCUSSION | CONTACT

THE HOUSE OF 87 CABINETS

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Log Out | Edit Profile | Register
Night Shade Message Boards » VanderMeer, Jeff » THE HOUSE OF 87 CABINETS « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
HOUSE WITH 87 CABINETS Story Thread Part II free online texas h39 07-17-06  03:06 am
HOUSE WITH 87 CABINETS--Story Thread (Do not post to this thread un... free online texas h53 07-16-06  07:44 pm
THE CABINETS ARE CLOSEDJorge41 05-04-04  02:18 pm
HOUSE WITH 87 CABINETS -- The Final CountdownJay Caselberg45 11-04-03  08:48 am
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

JV
Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 08:21 am:   

Here resides the cabinet stories and some related commentary...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jay Caselberg
Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 01:18 pm:   

Work has just commenced...editing underway. Don't hold your breath though people. This will not be fast.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dflewis
Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 11:39 am:   

Is there any progress report on this?
des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jason Williams
Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 01:30 pm:   

Jay had wanted to do an anthology of it. I didn't have the time for it. I don't know if Jay still wants to do it. Des, if you wanted to do it instead--collating, seeing what needs to be added or deleted, that would be cool. I don't have time, though.

JeffV
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jamie Rosen
Posted on Monday, August 07, 2006 - 09:27 am:   

I'm willing to work on it as well. I've been itching to put out a book (although my recent troubles getting IQ#2 out have soured me a bit) and a fair bit of the work on this one is done already.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dflewis
Posted on Wednesday, August 09, 2006 - 12:54 am:   

My own opinion is that posting on the thread was (in the context) logically and unquestionably a permission to publish as part of that very context. Most writers have probably forgotten about them by now, in any event, judging by their input here - and there is no way one would be able to recontact all 87 writers for belt-and-braces permissions. I hope you, Jamie, and/or others, can find the time to address this situation with a constructive conclusion of a brilliant publication (brilliant, judging by my own reading of the whole set of cabinets from beginning to end).
des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dflewis
Posted on Wednesday, August 09, 2006 - 01:09 am:   

And whilst thinking about the 87 Cabinets, there is another multi-collaboration. One version of it is shown as just one possible re-draft of the original posts here:
http://www.nightshadebooks.com/discus/messages/15/303.html?1153114173

I've explored the other threads here but cannot find the *original* 'submissions' to this project by the many authors involved.

des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jamie Rosen
Posted on Wednesday, August 09, 2006 - 09:10 am:   

Well, I've copied the two pages to my hard drive and I'll look into copy editing and formatting it and see how it looks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris Butler
Posted on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 03:02 am:   

I haven't forgotten about the cabinets. I check back here once in a while, but it has been a long while since anything happened. It would be great to see a print version of this.

Most of the authors should be easily contactable, I would have thought. A lot of the entries had email addresses with them, and people know other people. It would be polite to try to contact everyone before actually publishing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jamie Rosen
Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 04:33 pm:   

Absolutely I would make every effort to contact the authors in question. I am just going to wait until I have a satisfactory layout before doing so, so as not to get hopes up prematurely.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jamie Rosen
Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 07:30 am:   

I am encountering a bit of an obstacle in compiling this, as some people's posting names are not necessarily the same as their writing names -- and unfortunately I can't seem to track down the Cabinet Cop's running list of who was writing which cabinet. For instance, I'm currently working on the assumption that "JT" was Jeffrey Thomas.

This will obviously have to be straightened out before anything sees the light of print. But as I'm only on cabinet four, that's still a ways off.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dflewis
Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 09:41 am:   

Well done, Dr Caligari. Keep up the good work.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Forrest Aguirre
Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 12:17 pm:   

Could JT be Jeff Topham? Jeffrey Thomas spelled his name out twice in different places, and I thought that we each did two stories (memory fading).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jamie Rosen
Posted on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 07:10 am:   

Thanks. I'll update my notes accordingly.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jamie Rosen
Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 11:41 am:   

Progress Report

41 of 87 cabinets have been formatted.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jamie Rosen
Posted on Saturday, September 16, 2006 - 09:52 am:   

Progrses Report

I have formatted the entirety of the house, and a question has arisen:

Some of the stories make specific reference to cabinet numbers -- and almost all of these use numbers other than those which they were assigned. (For instance, the twenty-third cabinet written might refer to its cabinet as the forty-fifth cabinet.) Right now I have the cabinets arranged and numbered in the order in which they were posted; should this order be kept, or should it be altered?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jason Williams
Posted on Saturday, September 16, 2006 - 08:51 pm:   

Er, altered.

Also, let's think a bit more about the circumstances of printing it. Jamie--what are your plans, exactly?

And I'd like to contribute an introduction to provide context.

Best,

jeff
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jamie Rosen
Posted on Sunday, September 17, 2006 - 08:39 am:   

An introduction would be great, Jeff.

I was going to ask for input on the publication side of things -- once it has been arranged satisfactorily I could certainly approach small presses about it, but I would also be willing to publish it myself. I've taken the liberty of acquiring an ISBN for the House from the Canadian ISBN agency in case this is what winds up happening, and am in the process of starting an account with Lightning Source, since I hope to begin publishing in the future anyway.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jason Williams
Posted on Sunday, September 17, 2006 - 10:19 am:   

I'd approach all of the usual suspects first--Tachyon, Prime, etc. It's probably not a NS project, but I could be wrong.

JV
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jamie Rosen
Posted on Sunday, September 17, 2006 - 02:27 pm:   

At the very least, NS deserves the chance to turn it down, since it originated here on their boards.

BTW, Jeff, is there a particular reason you're posting as Jason Williams? (I feel like an idiot for having to ask.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jason Williams
Posted on Sunday, September 17, 2006 - 02:36 pm:   

because i don't have my own login and password. and i'm lazy.

jeffv
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Klima
Posted on Sunday, September 17, 2006 - 04:34 pm:   

And quite possibly, I suspect that this project needs some editing?

JK
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jamie Rosen
Posted on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 07:18 am:   

Well, right now I'm limiting myself to editing for consistency -- making sure things are punctuated/spelled the same way throughout.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dflewis
Posted on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 07:37 am:   

My personal view is that this masterpiece doesn't need much editing.
des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dflewis
Posted on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 07:39 am:   

...also that, *if* Jamie wants to publish it, he should be allowed to publish it, at least for taking the initiative here. imho.
des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jason Williams
Posted on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 09:09 am:   

Look, straight-out and blunt: the project *does* need editing. And I'm very happy Jamie has taken up on the reins on this, but I do think seeking the most high-profile publisher makes the most sense.

If there is to be no editing, however, then I think seeking a higher-profile publisher is probably not a good idea.

And if it's going to be an edition of 87 copies or even twice that, who cares? More than 87 people have read it in the electronic edition already.

Not being bitchy--just laying it out there for ya.

Jamie--contact me at vanderworld @ hotmail.com and we can discuss.

BTW--I can take photos of the 87 cabinets, in the house that inspired the idea.

Of course, we can also put it to a vote of all contributors. But let's not just publish something to publish it.

JeffV
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dflewis
Posted on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 09:45 am:   

In which case I withdraw my two cabinets. No loss.
des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jamie Rosen
Posted on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 10:42 am:   

Well, now, I didnt mean to stir up any trouble.

I personally have no problem with pitching the house to an existing publisher -- just as I have no problem taking it upon myself to get into print if that doesn't pan out. My ego won't be bruised either way. :-)

As for editing, as I said, *right now* I'm editing for consistency. I think that most of the pieces work well with little editing because of the context (truth be told, my least favourite piece is my second one, which I think is a terrible note to end on and will likely be shuffled off towards the middle of the deck as this progresses.)

It's been a tricky subject for me to consider, because the people who posted cabinets likely approached their pieces differently from how they would a traditionally-submitted anthology piece. To have me suddenly don my editor's garb and start making (or requesting) changes may raise some hackles, as indeed Des has shown. At the same time, some people (such as you, Jeff) may want heavier editing than simply "the period goes inside the quotation marks" -- and given that the overall quality of the book will reflect on their pieces, they are just as justified as those who are opposed to it.

To put it out with little editing, it would serve well as a physical record of a more ephemeral project, but may (or may not) suffer as a standalone book. To put it out with substantial editing may (or may not) result in a better book, but would undercut the validity of the book as a record of its source.

My thought is that I might open the cabinets one last time to their original authors as I contact them about appearing in the House, to permit them to make editorial changes on their own. After all, we are now two or three years removed from who we were when we took part, and most of us have likely grown as writers.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dflewis
Posted on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 10:54 am:   

You have summed up everything very nicely, to my mind, Jamie.

I think this is a thing-of-its-time. Any editing (beyond typos etc) would alter it beyond recognition. I don't think my own two cabinets are particularly sacrosanct (or good) - nor would I have written them the same way today - but within the context of the whole exercise they are sacrosanct to me.

Hence my statement earlier today.

des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Steve Tem
Posted on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 10:57 am:   

My vote, as always, would be for the highest profile publisher possible for the material. I would be surprised, given the nature of the project, that a terribly high profile publisher would be interested, but I've been wrong before, more than a few times.

And, as always, I don't mind being edited, if it improves the final results, and the editing isn't terribly arbitrary.

-- Steve Tem
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ben peek
Posted on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 06:13 pm:   

my vote would be for the editing, rather than let it sit as an archive of its time. frankly, it will continue to exist here as an archive of its time, where people can track it down.

the problem, as far as i see it, if you make a book out of it, you should try and make it a book that isn't a self indulgent exercise. the cabinets were a fun idea to kick round, but as they stand, they were just a sort of gimmick done on the web by a bunch of authors. which is fine if it remains here, but does that necessarily make a good book, or an interesting book?

i recently wrote a book based off entries on my blog, and i found, really, that when i sat down to compare the blog form to the book form, there were different concerns. the net allows for you to play rough and quick and just on impulse, but a book--the printed, published, put out artifact of the book doesn't. it requires thought. it requires work. it requires time. especially if you want people to pay money for it.

anyhow, just my opinion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jason Williams
Posted on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 06:23 pm:   

Jamie:

I'm very appreciative of your efforts and I'm not trying to make this something that isn't fun for you. If anything below seems obstructive, you can certainly override it and I won't object. You're in charge now. As the legacy owner of the project, I'm entitled to huff and puff and grouse, though--to a point. :-)

Re this--"My thought is that I might open the cabinets one last time to their original authors as I contact them about appearing in the House, to permit them to make editorial changes on their own. After all, we are now two or three years removed from who we were when we took part, and most of us have likely grown as writers."

Sure--that gets my vote, too. It at least begins to suggest a more polished product. I don't think it's a perfect solution, but it's acceptable from a process point of view. You might also offer general suggestions as necessary since you have the advantage of greater familiarity with the material and the overall arc of the stories than anyone else right now. (I'd prefer something even more rigorous, to the point of replacing a few of them, but that doesn't seem to be an option at this point, so I'll stand aside...)

Des--don't go off in a snit. Just recognize this is a group project and everyone may not share your opinion. If you don't want to be edited, fine. But I think some of the rest of us would like an opportunity to re-examine, at the very least. I mean, I did my piece as an off-the-cuff rough draft thing. I most definitely DO NOT want it going out as-is.

Steve--yeah, you may be absolutely right re publishers. But if Jamie doesn't mind, it wouldn't hurt to send out a few email queries.


JeffV
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dflewis
Posted on Monday, September 18, 2006 - 11:24 pm:   

Not a snit, so much, as a vision that this project may not stay here forever. Night Shades are thinking about closing down the boards and how reliable will any archives on any board be in the future. I've found this to my cost when I believed archives to be permanent elsewhere.

This was an exciting project and is testament to your board, Jeff. And thanks to you and final decisions to you, of course, regarding the cabinets that you are able to use. And to anyone else who works on it.

Any significant editing of cabinets could have knock-on effects to other cabinets. Light editing by Jamie, by all means, may be in order.

I do not expect it will be easy firstly to contact the authors, secondly to get rewrites (bearing in mind knock-ons etc) and thirdly to gain a consensus. Maybe I'm wrong.

The easiest and (to my mind) most appropriate method would be to publish all cabinets as is (with typo editing) and not assign them individually to writers. Published by Jamie. And have an overall by-line relating to Night Shade or something.

This is what I wrote in eraly August (after a few attempts to get a progress report over the last two years or so):

My own opinion is that posting on the thread was (in the context) logically and unquestionably a permission to publish as part of that very context. Most writers have probably forgotten about them by now, in any event, judging by their input here - and there is no way one would be able to recontact all 87 writers for belt-and-braces permissions. I hope you, Jamie, and/or others, can find the time to address this situation with a constructive conclusion of a brilliant publication (brilliant, judging by my own reading of the whole set of cabinets from beginning to end).

I still feel that to be the case today looking at the reaction on this board. However, this may change when or if many of the original writers crowd in here with their various views, only one of which is mine, of course.
des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Steve Tem
Posted on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 06:37 am:   

"it wouldn't hurt to send out a few email queries."

Absolutely.

-- Steve
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jamie Rosen
Posted on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 10:21 am:   

Jeff, I definitely don't mind sending off queries. From a purely selfish perspective, I see it as a win-win situation -- either I work on something that gets picked up by a notable publisher, or I publish something that helps put my name on the map. :-) I'll be in touch with you, Jeff, to discuss how to properly pitch it -- but not until we've got our House in order, so to speak.

Just for the record, by my formatting (I've been doing it up in mock-up tpb format) it will run about 200 pages prior to any introduction, table of contents, or "about the author" addenda.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Eric Schaller
Posted on Sunday, November 26, 2006 - 10:42 am:   

I'm all for some edited to bring consistency to the anthology. For example, different cabinets were written in different tenses (some past tense, some present tense). I don't care which tense is used but from a readerly perspective prefer it to be one or the other.

I'm not even attached to the idea that it has to be maintained as a house of "87" cabinets. Most of us contributed two cabinets and, if it would make a stronger anthology or increase the publishability, I would say take only one from each person.


Also, I think that a good attempt should be made to contact all authors. I noticed that this thread had been updated almost by accident and it is unlikely that most of the authors are checking back on the thread after three years. Publishing an author's material without anything going back to the author, not even a contributor's copy, seems an invitation for trouble.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff VanderMeer
Posted on Monday, February 19, 2007 - 05:47 am:   

Hi.

As it turns out, I now have time to work on this project. I would like to do the following:

(1) Take the whole thing and read it over for continuity, etc., and make suggested edits. All edits would be subject to writer approval. If some writers want to look at their work first before I edit, that's fine. I'll just need you to email me at vanderworld at hotmail.com and let me know you're working on it.

(2) I need you to contact me anyway to let me know it's okay to go ahead with this project using your work.

(3) Some people who have two cabinets may wind up with only one. What this project needs is a strong editorial hand and contributors who are willing to let someone work on it.

(4) If you DON'T want any edits to your contribution, like Des, that's potentially fine, but I need to know up front.

I'll post to my blog about this thread so that hopefully all of the contributors will get in touch with me.

Thanks!

JeffV
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dflewis
Posted on Monday, February 19, 2007 - 01:57 pm:   

I don't mind having edits. Just thought it easier that nobody had edits and everyone becomes anonymous in the final product.

If it's all to be re-done with a major overhaul, I don't think it will ever be done.

But I'm only one voice.
des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff VanderMeer
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 10:19 am:   

Oh ye of little faith.

Jeffrog
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dflewis
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 12:27 am:   

I wish you luck with it, of course, Jeff.
I hope the amount of work and agreement sought with many authors and any knock-ons between cabinets re any changes in other cabinets are not counter-productive.

I feel my point further above would have conveyed the true spirit of the original:


This was an exciting project and is testament to your board, Jeff. And thanks to you and final decisions to you, of course, regarding the cabinets that you are able to use. And to anyone else who works on it.

Any significant editing of cabinets could have knock-on effects to other cabinets. Light editing by Jamie, by all means, may be in order.

I do not expect it will be easy firstly to contact the authors, secondly to get rewrites (bearing in mind knock-ons etc) and thirdly to gain a consensus. Maybe I'm wrong.

The easiest and (to my mind) most appropriate method would be to publish all cabinets as is (with typo editing) and not assign them individually to writers. Published by Jamie. And have an overall by-line relating to Night Shade or something.



My own opinion is that posting on the thread was (in the context) logically and unquestionably a permission to publish as part of that very context.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff VanderMeer
Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 02:28 pm:   

Des:

"Editing" has a different connotation for everyone. In some cases, it will mean correcting commas and semi-colons. In some cases, it will mean more than that, always with the writer's approval, of course. But, with all due respect, any project of this nature requires editing, even just on the high level of appropriate order and finding the right connectivity between the pieces.

Although many editors by their actions make editing seem like carpentry, it is actually an art.

More importantly, someone needs to be in charge of herding the cats, which is what writers are like, myself included.

So far everyone has been very positive about this development. The fact is, the project exists as you envision it on these boards. But the project between the covers of a book...that cannot just be the blind recitation of what's on the boards.

JeffV
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dflewis
Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 11:55 pm:   

Hi, Jeff, I'm positive about it, too. Nothing you said above conflicts with what ideally should be the case.
Some boards, however, which may remain intact could have existing references to boards which may not remain intact... a concertina of knock-ons?
40 or 50 authors do act like cats. But this truly unique feral quality here is to be neutralised by polishing? Hope not. If anyone can do ths job, you can, Jeff. And what happened to Cabinet Cop? And is Jamie still involved?
Ideally, your method would result in a more polished, overtly professional work, if such (and other) potential problems of permission etc. are resolved.
As I said before, good luck.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dflewis
Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 12:36 am:   

BTW, if this project is still in abeyance in, say, a year's time, I would be happy to consider publishing it under the Nemonymous imprint (in accordance with my view above dated 21/2/07) i.e once the Zencore (Nemo 7) anthology is out of the way.
des
PS: In my previous post, for 'boards' please read 'cabinets'.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dflewis
Junior Member
Username: Dflewis

Post Number: 397
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2010 - 07:36 am:   

Over 3 years since the last post on this thread - I had forgotten all about the 87 Cabinets!
Whilst commenting on this thread here:
http://nullimmortalis.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/what-is-weird-literature-and-who- represents-it/
I suddenly remembered it and linked back here so that others can benefit from what I recall to be wonderful pieces of prose by many weird luminaries. :-)

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Log Out | Edit Profile | Register

| Moderators | Administrators |