Yes, jerk move. Yes, facing consequences. These are statements that I, and others here, agree with.
Owe, responsibility, obligation are words that don't belong here. What if you decided that you didn't want to work at your job anymore, but when you try to quit your boss says "you can't quit, you owe me"?
"Owe, responsibility and obligation" are words that fit just fine. They're used every day in situations without legal consequences.
If you say you're going to do something, you have a responsibility to do so. If someone helps you out, you owe them.
That's the sense in which every is using the words here. You just persist in reading them as "legal contract".
It's clear that that's what you and others want those words to mean. That the definitions should be softened up so people don't sound like twits when they use them for silly reasons.
I will agree with Simon on the use of the word "owe" my jury is still out on the other two words. Owing implies a much stronger obligation than we are talking about here. If I owe you fifty bucks then that is an actual (if informal) debt. When you bought part 1 of a series you are only owed part 1. Now if you pre-paid for 3 books, then yes you would be owed those books.
"But it must be said that of the thinkers who refused a meaning to life none except Kirilov who belongs to literature, Peregrinos who is born of legend*, and Jules Lequier who belongs to hypothesis, admitted his logic to the point of refusing that life.
"*I have heard of an emulator of Peregrinos, a post-war writer who, after having finished his first book, committed suicide to attract attention to his work. Attention was in fact, attracted, but the book was judged no good."
Btw, Al stills owes me fifty bucks from that epic pub crawl we went on after Liberation. I think he went home with Simone that night...
[Curses in French]
I've seen references to this now in a number of places, but nobody seems to know what book it's from. I've only finished through the section on Don Juanism in The Myth and haven't seen any mention along these lines. Based on what I know of it, it seems more likely to be found in The Rebel.
I've seen references to this now in a number of places, but nobody seems to know what book it's from. I've only finished through the section on Don Juanism in The Myth and haven't seen any mention along these lines. Based on what I know of it, it seems more likely to be found in The Rebel."But it must be said that of the thinkers who refused a meaning to life none except Kirilov who belongs to literature, Peregrinos who is born of legend*, and Jules Lequier who belongs to hypothesis, admitted his logic to the point of refusing that life.
"*I have heard of an emulator of Peregrinos, a post-war writer who, after having finished his first book, committed suicide to attract attention to his work. Attention was in fact, attracted, but the book was judged no good."
Btw, Al stills owes me fifty bucks from that epic pub crawl we went on after Liberation. I think he went home with Simone that night...
[Curses in French]
Page seven in the Vintage edition, although no combination of "French writer suicide sell books" gets me any google results. Although, I suppose I am just assuming the suicidal writer was French. Also, I can't figure out who Peregrinos was.
Al was such a show-off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will agree with Simon on the use of the word "owe" my jury is still out on the other two words. Owing implies a much stronger obligation than we are talking about here. If I owe you fifty bucks then that is an actual (if informal) debt. When you bought part 1 of a series you are only owed part 1. Now if you pre-paid for 3 books, then yes you would be owed those books.Obviously I would still have to pay for the books, but I do think it still applies. Putting "part 1 of 3" on the cover means not only that I purchase the book with the understanding that I'm only getting part of the story, but also with the expectation that the rest of the story will be available. It's essentially a promise. Without that promise, few people would have bought that first book.
Obviously, as I also a said above, it's not an unbreakable obligation. (Much by the way, like any other debt, obligation or responsibility, even legally binding ones.) The author will not be chained to his desk and forced to produce the rest of the series. But he has committed to make the effort to do so.
But putting forward a good faith effort toward the completion is NOT the same as owing that effort. You are correct that it is like a promise, similar. But a promise made in a vacuum is hardly the same as owing that effort. You as the consumer don't owe it to the author to buy book 2 just because you purchased book 1 either. No one is going to think less of you if you read the book 2 reviews and decide to drop the series as a consumer after book 1. So really any talk of owing is more than a little over the top.
[Sashays through the thread giving all the ladies the eye]
I will agree with Simon on the use of the word "owe" my jury is still out on the other two words. Owing implies a much stronger obligation than we are talking about here. If I owe you fifty bucks then that is an actual (if informal) debt. When you bought part 1 of a series you are only owed part 1. Now if you pre-paid for 3 books, then yes you would be owed those books.
You're not distinguishing between the different meanings of owe here. You're admitting that the contractual obligation exists but not the social one.
You're not distinguishing between the different meanings of owe here. You're admitting that the contractual obligation exists but not the social one.I will agree with Simon on the use of the word "owe" my jury is still out on the other two words. Owing implies a much stronger obligation than we are talking about here. If I owe you fifty bucks then that is an actual (if informal) debt. When you bought part 1 of a series you are only owed part 1. Now if you pre-paid for 3 books, then yes you would be owed those books.
Owe:
: to need to pay or repay money to a person, bank, business, etc.
: to need to do or give something to someone who has done something for you or given something to you
—used to say that something should be done for or given to someone
I assume you mean that last line something "should be done for or given to" and while that last one alone doesn't imply something actually indebted it also doesn't rule out something actually indebted. Like "owing" someone an explanation after you have wronged them. But in this case it doesn't fit really well. Even that last meaning is heavily laced with implied informal debt. And it seems to be being used to suggest a meaning more in line with the first definition, an actual debt. If anything you should speak clearly, and using the word "owe" here only sends the message of an actual debt. If this isn't your intent why use such a word with strong ties to actual debt?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If anything you should speak clearly, and using the word "owe" here only sends the message of an actual debt. If this isn't your intent why use such a word with strong ties to actual debt.
The same reason you're using the word "speak" when I'm obviously typing.
Sorry.
A fair point but an evasive one. Yes I should have used "typed". If your use is similar to mine a simple mistake in usage that I think most people can look past, then why not apologize as I am and move on? Why defend it if it isn't your point?
Sorry.
A fair point but an evasive one. Yes I should have used "typed". If your use is similar to mine a simple mistake in usage that I think most people can look past, then why not apologize as I am and move on? Why defend it if it isn't your point?
Its not evasive at all. Its showing that language is fluid, non literal and has multiple meanings. I bolded the meaning it was being used in this case a page or so back.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is awesome in its nuance-battle. Jus' sayin'.
I'm curious: Does the announcement of, say, a trilogy imply to most readers that the author has already conceived the conclusion of the work and has but to dig the path necessary to arrive there, or is an engrossing debut that asks intriguing questions and starts down a scenic route sufficient justification for the investment of faith in its eventual arrival?
Yes. Yes it does imply that the author has some idea for the future books.
Because if he didn't, WHY did he announce a trilogy in the first place?
If you're announcing "I'm writing 3 books" then you damn well better have an idea of what the content of those 3 books is going to be before you start, or there was no point in announcing ahead of time you were writing 3 of them. You're shooting yourself in the foot, if nothing else, when/if you realize "Oh s&+% this idea I hadn't fully thought out doesn't have enough content to make 3 books! Better pad like a m@~~#+$&~$%*!"
The two things are a bit reliant on one another, I think.
How do you know you have enough material if you don't know what the material IS?
I'm not saying the author will always have every detail mapped out, or always have a conclusion in mind, but generally a good author has some inkling of one or the other before they determine and publicly announce how long the series they're going to make is.
An author can certainly just begin writing and "write by the seat of his pants" but those authors generally don't start out with the idea of a series; They haven't thought that far ahead yet. So hwo would they announce "I'm doing a trilogy"?
A person's side in this debate seems, in some measure, contingent on whether that particular reader would prefer a brilliant continuation/conclusion after a lengthy delay, or a passable one in more timely fashion.
I think thats based on the false assumption that more time spent on it equals a better product. In fact if anything the reverse seems to be true. Getting the product faster has at least an equal chance of making it better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I quote James Sutter from his opening post on his thread:
...While Paizo doesn't publish epic novel series, the parallels between something like that and Adventure Paths are numerous. :)...James Sutter sees parallels between publishing adventure paths and novel series. And I'm pretty sure that there have been instances when, if a Paizo Adventure path writer didn't look like delivering an installment in a timely fashion, that Paizo went ahead and and found another writer to finish or do the job.
The bit above was exactly my point when I posted earlier about Sutter speaking (yes, BNW, speaking) as a managing editor rather than an author, or whatever the hell I said. While ASoIaF and Paizo's APs are booth epic in scope and have a huge cast of characters, ASoIaF is a series of novels, and the APs are a periodical. The audience for periodicals have a reasonable expectation for timely delivery of the next installment, but I don't think the same can be said for a series of novels.
Like everyone else who's posted on this thread, I want to have the most enjoyable experience possible when I read a book; If timely delivery of the next installment is a part of that experience for you, I won't tell you you're wrong, but no one owes you that experience, no matter how many books they've written in the past.
And I'd say that calling it a false assumption is based on the false assumption you state in your above post.
You can't just call something a false assumption and dismiss it. You have to give a reason. You also can't call it an assumption when the reasons for the statement have been shown: the books have gotten worse the longer the amount of downtime has been.
Now there may be an optimal amount of time in which a sequel should be produced, but even that would vary with the author.
The longer the wait has been the worse they've gotten. While I'm sure that, a anything else, there's a bell curve to it, he certainly seems to be on the "you're just making it worse" side of taking too long.
Again, timely is relative
this is not the same as timely is non existant. When someone thats dead is writing twice as fast as you are there's a problem.
The bit above was exactly my point when I posted earlier about Sutter speaking (yes, BNW, speaking
Hey, I don't start pedant to pedant combat I only finish it! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people are impossible to please, this is just as true for some fans. A rude question does invite a rude answer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Allow me to pull a Kirth on you here and see if you still agree with the reasoning:
TL;DR: God exists whether you believe in it or not. The only way to get rid of it is to make sure NOBODY (or the majority anyway) don't believes in it. God is all about belief, a single person's opinion on its existence isn't particularly relevant. The fact that we're having a debate on it, and there are two sides to the argument is proof that God DOES exist. If it didn't, there would be no argument.
Either you have me confused with someone else, or you're a congenital liar. In no way and at no time have I ever put forth an argument of any kind along those lines. Indeed, I'm an atheist, despite the belief of the people around me -- I find it misguided.
TL;DR: If you want to quote me, then do so: use the quote function. Otherwise don't use my name.
Imagine someone says, "Let me be just like Simon Legrande, who said that it's morally good to tear out kids' tongues, so that they can't tell on you when you abuse them." But you didn't say that (as far as I know), you've never implied that, so it's inappropriate and dishonest to claim it. Yeah, I can't force someone to not say that, but doing so damages their credibility to everyone else when it's shown to be false.
Allow me to pull a Kirth on you here and see if you still agree with the reasoning:
TL;DR: God exists whether you believe in it or not. The only way to get rid of it is to make sure NOBODY (or the majority anyway) don't believes in it. God is all about belief, a single person's opinion on its existence isn't particularly relevant. The fact that we're having a debate on it, and there are two sides to the argument is proof that God DOES exist. If it didn't, there would be no argument.
Either you have me confused with someone else, or you're a congenital liar. In no way and at no time have I ever put forth an argument of any kind along those lines. Indeed, I'm an atheist, despite the belief of the people around me -- I find it misguided.
TL;DR: If you want to quote me, then do so: use the quote function. Otherwise don't use my name.
Imagine someone says, "Let me be just like Simon Legrande, who said that it's morally good to tear out kids' tongues, so that they can't tell on you when you abuse them." But you didn't say that (as far as I know), you've never implied that, so it's inappropriate and dishonest to claim it. Yeah, I can't force someone to not say that, but doing so damages their credibility to everyone else when it's shown to be false.
I was referring to your penchant for replacing two words in somebody else's post in an effort to make a point. If you look at my post, you'll see that I took Rynjin's post and kept it the same except for the replacement of "social contract" with "God". As you can plainly see, I didn't quote you. I also didn't say that I quoted you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is, unlike Kirth, you didn't understand the basic point underlying what I wrote, and therefore your "replacement" made no sense since it was not in the same context.
The problem is, unlike Kirth, you didn't understand the basic point underlying what I wrote, and therefore your "replacement" made no sense since it was not in the same context.
Uh huh.
Glad you agree.
Glad you agree.
Yep, sure do. Every other thing has been "I said typed X, but when I said typed X I really meant Y". I'm not sure why your post I quoted would be different. Whatevs.
Enough, guys? Please?
Stop arguing about the person (whoever it is), and continue the conversation about the actual idea at hand?
Thanks! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You might as well argue about each other. We authors are on strike. You ain't gettin' another word out of us, pinksins!
Uh huh.
Oh, so Simon is just straight-up trolling, then.
I get it now.
Uh huh.Oh, so Simon is just straight-up trolling, then.
I get it now.
Yep, you got me all figured out. Here's your cookie.
How long does it take to hack a landing strip through a coastal jungle anyway?
I think the major contributer to the problem is the huge-sweeping-multi-book-single-story-epic just isn't a viable form. And I think a major contributer to that problem is, the writers who are inclined to pursue that form don't know when to stop. (Terry Brooks would call this a failure to outline, meaning if you don't know where you're going when you start, you'll just go on and on.)
Is anyone else hoping Rothfuss's 3rd book is the last one?
I'm not sure if the writers engaged in sweeping epics are megalomaniacs, or if it's a problem perpetuated by publishers wanting to indenture writers, or if stand-alone books don't sell as well, or if writers don't want to do them as much. But I'm really starting to not want to see any more series. At all. It's to the point where I cringe whenever I see something new and see it's "book 1 of who the hell knows." There's a reason Netflix originals are released whole seasons at once. They understand that's how people want to consume entertainment. Serialized entertainment is becoming obsolete.
More stand-alones, please. There's something to be said for being able to tell a *whole* story in just one book. (That something is *thank you!*)
You hit the nail on the head here. Stand-alones are much tougher to sell for publishers, even for successful authors. Sequels and series sell much more, are more bankable and result in a more predictable income stream for author and publisher. In terms of books serialised entertainment is still very much the most profitable road to take. The better path to take is to write stand-alones which are set in a common setting or world, like Pratchett or Guy Gavriel Kay, which seems to work well.
You can see it with GRRM. He has (or seems to have) a lot less diehard fans than he did when I first heard about him. Contrary-wise, authors like, I dunno, Terry Pratchett just get more and more popular as time passes.
GRRM has a lot more diehard fans that he used to, but now the entry way into his books is a lot more varied (divided between TV and readers-first). He's still a hugely popular author with a lot of hardcore fans, but they're now more likely to have come from the TV show than the books first.
Which would be a perfectly valid argument if other authors weren't doing a job that was both good AND timely.
There are two problems with this statement. The first is that whilst there is a lot of "pretty good" stuff out there, the amount of epoch-making, game-changing stuff is incredibly rare. ASoIaF is, like or not, in that bracket. Something like Ben Aaronovitch's RIVERS OF LONDON series, although hugely enjoyable, is not.
The second is the common one that GRRM's output is insanely or unprecedently slow. It isn't. In terms of how quickly he churns out the word count, he's actually faster than JK Rowling and vastly faster than Pat Rothfuss. The problem is more that his books are gigantic and his exacting writing method is not best-suited to producing those books quickly. If you asked most authors if it was unreasonable to take five years to write half a million words, they'd look at you like you were crazy. Some take two or three years to write just 100,000, but because the books are much shorter you see them more often.
