Format in GAM3R 7H30RY

Going back to an issue Shock and Awe raised in an entry a few weeks ago about form vs. content, I'd like to ask that question again in relation to GAM3R 7H30RY.

I noticed that this week's topic on the syllabus is "the networked book" and GAM3R 7H30RY (which is a huge hassle to type because of the author's decision to alternate between numbers and letters) is our sole reading. I know that this in no way limits our discussion of GAM3R 7H30RY to just issues relating to the networked book because GAM3R 7H30RY itself has a lot of interesting ideas in it about gaming/theory that we could definitely talk about, but I realize that its strange and unique form is a huge topic of discussion in itself and may replace discussion of the content itself. I mean, look at me right now. I'm merely talking about the format rather than the actual content because the format is such an interesting issue.

So, since I'm thinking about format right now, a couple things on form--

Like black lace, I was also intrigued by the fact that there are exactly 25 paragraphs in each chapter. The format, with the commenting feature on the right side and with each paragraph on a separate index card, makes each paragraph a piece on its own. GAM3R 7H30RY has this weird feature of being simultaneously linear, yet also disjointed. Each index card could easily stand on its own since each has its own distinct idea, but then again, continuity is necessary and in order for one to understand the later cards, one has to read the previous cards. The format of the book on the site brings up interesting issues about the buildup of knowledge, and I wonder how McKenzie will be able to successfully mimic this format when he publishes the book. I really do feel like perhaps the web/index card format is the best medium for this particular "book", and I'm wondering if he feels the urge to publish this in book format because most writers do feel the need to be published in the traditional way in order to be "legit."

It also says in the "about this project" section that the author originally wanted the comments and the writing to be on "equal footing." McKenzie says that the formatting of the comments next to the body of text rather than below the text was a decision that was made so the comments would be an equal part of the discussion, rather than supplementary. I personally did not find this to be the case for myself. I still privileged the index cards and only occasionally chose to read the comments. I basically browsed over comments whenver I read a particularly interesting index card and wanted to see what others thought, but I certainly did not treat comments and index cards equally.

I'd really like to see what this book will look like when finally published. I would like to see if the author actually incorporates reader feedback. Will the author credit the ideas of all the people who wrote comments by footnoting everyone? He says he will definitely credit other people's ideas, but what if one of his newer ideas/chapters directly came out of something that was said in a random comment? How will he accurately credit the person in a situation like that? The possibilities for this type of writing are definitely very exciting, but I feel like it also brings up a lot of complications when it comes time to actually cite multiple authors and publish.