I agree with the sibling comment. > just like a really good book was much harder for the author than it was for you, the reader. Now, I suppose this could wo

I agree with the sibling comment. > just like a really good book was much harder for the author than it was for you, the reader. Now, I suppose this could work for a nested narrative novel, where the reader is meant not to just read the book, but to rewrite and expand it as they're reading it. Adding new ideas, new sub stories on the way. Think 100 Years of Solitude blended with Italo Calvino's Invisible Cities. Seems like the [*]Bible is a good literary example of an async collaboration similar to code: notoriously hard to interpret, and full of dubious historical information and contradictions. I know that Christians call it the "good book", but most of them don't use the word "good" in the same way they'd use it to describe a Nabokov or Eco novel. [*] or most ancient religious texts, like Avesta