Grognardia Plus
Some Additional Thoughts about Anthologies
As you already know, I’m in the process of preparing Grognardia anthologies – yes, plural. Rather than trying to squeeze everything into one impossibly large volume, I’ve decided to create several themed compilations, each focusing on different aspects of the blog. I’ll share more details about the shape of these collections in next week’s post, but today I want to discuss a related question that’s been on my mind and invite your thoughts on it.
One of my guiding principles in this project is preservation. I want to ensure that the contents of Grognardia remain accessible and safe from the whims of changing technology and hosting platforms. Many of us remember the fate of Google Plus, after all. With that in mind, my instinct has been to present the posts in these anthologies exactly as they originally appeared – unedited, save for the occasional correction of a typo or dropped word.
That said, I’m also aware of the value that context and commentary can bring. While many posts can stand on their own, others were written in response to specific events or conversations during the heady early days of the Old School Renaissance. Back then, blogs and forums were alive with exchange, sometimes collegial, sometimes contentious, and Grognardia was very much a part of that larger conversation. Without that background, some posts might seem a bit opaque or disconnected from their original intent.
So here’s the dilemma: Should I let the posts speak for themselves, preserving their original form as closely as possible? Or should I add commentary, such as brief introductions, footnotes, or afterwords, that situate them in their historical context, offering additional insight into what was happening behind the scenes? I know some readers enjoy that kind of behind-the-curtain look, much like listening to a commentary track on a favorite movie. Others might prefer to simply read the posts without editorial intrusion.
There’s also the question of comments. In many cases, the discussion that followed a post is as thought-provoking and insightful as the post itself, sometimes more so. The early OSR era saw fertile conversations unfold not just on blogs but in their comment sections and on forums like ODD74. Would it be a mistake not to include some of those comments in the anthologies? If so, how many should I include, and how do I handle the issue of permission from the original commenters?
None of these questions are deal-breakers, but they do matter and I want to get them right. That’s why I’m once again turning to you, the readers. What would you most like to see in these anthologies? Would you welcome commentary and context or do you prefer the posts to stand on their own? Should I attempt to include comments from the original blog? Are there other elements you think would add value?
I’d love to hear your thoughts, either here or on the original post. Your feedback is not only welcome but essential to shaping this project into something that both honors the past and offers something meaningful for the present.
For the most part, I think the content should stand in its original form; too much commentary changes it from a preservation effort to an odd type of retro criticism. Occasional commentary is probably necessary, however; I can't imagine the Carcosa posts making sense without some introduction to the whole Carcosa kerfuffle, for instance.
I like the idea of some commentary from you, and the best comments that elaborate or extend the ideas of the post. I think that this is a great idea, and the idea of preservation is a noble one - archive.org has your back, but a collection like this would be even better.