I was thinking about Emily's article and Eero's and how it would be cool to actually get the discussion of them started in the journal itself, beginning to make connections to games and concepts that aren't actually in the scope of the article (or, in some cases, just less familiar to the individual authors, like Emily pointed out). And, I was thinking about the Nobilis layout and the stuff in the margins and how we might be able to set up some margin notes that would basically allow all of us to kind of do a running commentary (like in those extended DVD releases) on the journal as it was going on.

This would allow individual articles to be more focused, but would still let us be interdisciplinary and connect each piece up with everything else in the issue. It would also let you guys who are just pulling editorial duties to actually feel like you have a voice in things, which would be cool too. I need to make sure it can work in layout and doesn't distract attention from the articles themselves, but I think it would be a really cool and (as far as I know) unheard of move.

That's a great idea. I'm generally really hot on non-linear content solutions like that, so I'm 100% for that. It brings the intertextual nature of writing very strongly to the fore, and allows the writer to bring in all the important connections and context. Context is important, and a measly bibliography doesn't generally communicate it nearly as well as informal commentary on the main text.

How does this mesh with the planned micro-articles?

Jonathan,

Quick clarification: Are we talking about commentary by:

-The Author(s)
-The Editor(s)
-Anyone involved in the project
-Some combination of the above

I like the idea, I just want to know exactly what it is...

Thomas

First, I've got a little sample done. I'm slowly trying to develop a LaTeX style for the journal, and I'm like 30-40% there right now. Lots more to go, but you can see here, at least how the marginnotes might work. They need to be formatted properly still:

http://1001.indie-rpgs.com/combine.pdf

Eero, I don't really see these interfering with the micro-articles. I was just thinking that we'd get the entire journal volume done and then we'd each take a copy and a pen and go through, writing down whatever comments that came to mind. And then I'd go through and tack stuff on, reserving editorial powers to decide which ones to put in (because I doubt we could fit all of them in, with a group this size). Whether we'd want running commentary on the micro-articles (where the commentary could end up longer than the article itself), that's another question.

Thomas, I was thinking that the commentary would be provided by everyone involved. The editorial/authorial/artistic distictions are pretty superficial here anyway. We're all just contributing in different ways. And you're all intelligent and insightful people who have nice things to say about each other's work.

I also think an intertextual approach like this gives the sense that this whole development of roleplaying theory, and the journal itself, and roleplaying... they're all really about negotiated space (hello, Lumpley Principle!), the convergance, meeting, and interactions of people within a mental landscape, which is what I was going to talk about in the introduction (and maybe in an article for the Indiana U folks).

Jonathan Walton wrote:
Eero, I don't really see these interfering with the micro-articles.

I also think an intertextual approach like this gives the sense that this whole development of roleplaying theory, and the journal itself, and roleplaying... they're all really about negotiated space (hello, Lumpley Principle!), the convergance, meeting, and interactions of people within a mental landscape, which is what I was going to talk about in the introduction (and maybe in an article for the Indiana U folks).

Or maybe, in references to Nobilis' flores: weeds.

EDIT: No! The best one yet: they're lumps!

This idea is either brilliant or disastrous.

But, knowing our collaborators, I am thinking brilliant.