| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wrote an essay over at SF Signal about what series authors like George R. R. Martin owe their fans (partially to rebut Neil Gaiman's famous "George Martin is not your b~#&$" post), and I thought some of y'all might have opinions on the issue. While Paizo doesn't publish epic novel series, the parallels between something like that and Adventure Paths are numerous. :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Hey! Listen! Link is broken!" The fairy shouts obnoxiously before fluttering away.
EDIT: The fairy returns, "Thanks for fixing it so quickly. It appears the censor was causing it to glitch. Wow, this is most different lines of dialogue I've ever gotten to say alou--" The fairy is shot by Link with a cold-iron arrow.
Works fine for me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It didn't work for me, but this one should.
EDIT: I think the profanity filter on the forum broke the link url. The url uses the actual word b+&*$, so just replace the filtered word in the url
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do get your point.
The example used might be a little murky though. George Martin is now in an uncomfortable position of having an HBO series based on his book series, and the franchise is in a perilous state since the filming is rapidly coming to a point where it either makes up new material, or ends on a cliffhanger.
It's no longer about the fans. HBO has actors, cast, and crew that might walk if they are told they have to cool their heels until George Martin completes new books. Even if they do pause for two or more years, said people might not be available when a new season begins production.
If HBO decides to jump the rails and make filler material, that would stomp on George Martin's creative vision. The example is less of a problem with fans and more of a clash within a franchise.
|
|
On the one hand, yeah, I agree there is an expectation that you have bought into the story arc when you buy that first book in the series. However, that is not mutually exclusive with the concept that there is an overwhelming sense of entitlement from some fans of successful book series (and TV, RPG series, etc. as well).
People love what they love and will want more of it. However, if an author loses interest in the storyline, does the author still owe it to the fans to complete the story? I don't think so. If the author is under contract with a publisher to complete X number of installments of a series, that is one thing, and yes, the author could very well be forced to continue with a story arc or world of his creation that he would much rather just drop. But if there is no legal contract, the author should either wrap it all up in a final installment, which would most likely be unfulfilling to the readers as the author no longer has a passion for the material, or leave it unfinished. Ideally in the latter case, they would allow another author to take up the mantle, if there is another author wanting to do so, but I don't think an author, or any other creative individual for that matter, should be forced into a position of feeling guilt or receive any abuse because some vocal folks "WANT MOAR NOW!!1!!".
KestrelZ also raises a good point as far as the George R R Martin example. In some ways, by agreeing to have the books adapted for the small screen, he has put himself in the position where there could be pressure from an external force that is not from an overblown sense of entitlement, but rather from a business arrangement that he may not be able to deliver on, resulting in either a premature end to the HBO series or content being created from outside his intended story arc.
EDIT: All that said, if an author or other creative type decides to abandon a project that has a loyal following, they should not expect all future endeavors to have the same results. To do so would be a sense of entitlement from the creative's side ("They loved my other stuff, they should love this stuff too.").
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your article is quite correct.
Look, GRRM, either you are our b- or you are perfectly OK with no-one buying any of your books at all until the final book comes out. And of course then- the final book would NEVER come out as the Publisher would (correctly) say that the sales arent big enuf to justify printing any more in the series.
It's a unspoken contract but it's still a contract.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Game of thrones is a bit of a weird case. In that it's super-hyped, and the TV show constantly keeps fans reminded of it.
Prior to the show, I loved the books, but didn't notice or mind the wait. Because there are a million of other books to read, so I had plenty to keep my occupied. There also wasn't any looming pressure of the show catching up and all those related issues.
Personally, I think it's a good idea for authors to steadily publish their work at a regular pace
BUT...I don't think an author owes it to me to write a future volume to be published at x date. I think that is a bit of entitlement coming into things. The writing process is different for everyone, and I would rather an author take the extra time to make a good book than get an inferior product.
As well as agreeing with Dr Deth and zylphryx, I'd just like to add that your roommates sound like... well, nothing good. If anyone starts blabbing about social contracts then they better be prepared to cough up a document with some signatures on it.
Nobody owes anybody anything. Writers don't owe fans content, fans don't owe writers an audience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't owe you shiznit, pinkskins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Excellent post, James. The truth is, as you say, somewhere in the middle, but much closer to the "b@%&%" side of the equation. Of course, Martin is about the worst example around, given his smash success with his unfinished series. The blatant truth is, the man is set whether he writes another word, and any more from him is only going to be icing on the cake. For almost all other professional writers, you're right.
However, I think there is another part to the unspoken contract. Put simply: The readers have the right to expect that the next book in the series will conform to the expectations of genre, style, continuity, quality and author that the first one established. You really shouldn't write one book, then start its sequel by drastic shifts in genre or setting. You shouldn't start ignoring your craft (writing as well as you can) just because you got a contract for a series. You need to be the one writing it, it's not enough to have a ghost writer. And... both in your style and your continuity, you need to make a decent effort to cleave to what you set up in the first book. Of course, the tolerance of a certain reader to each of these things varies, and some depend on the brands involved, but a radical break at any of these points is something that will have people say "I liked the first one, but then in #2 it just wasn't any interesting and I couldn't read it." As you say, promises the writer made that give returns as an investment by the reader.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
Interestingly, Martin recently met privately with the two producers/head writers of the show and pretty much laid out for them his plans/outline for the conclusion of the series, including who finally becomes king/queen.
Those two are creative, excellent writers so even if Martin never finishes his books, the HBO series will continue without a hicup
As well as agreeing with Dr Deth and zylphryx, I'd just like to add that your roommates sound like... well, nothing good. If anyone starts blabbing about social contracts then they better be prepared to cough up a document with some signatures on it.
Nobody owes anybody anything. Writers don't owe fans content, fans don't owe writers an audience.
Umm, I'm not sure if you're joking or you don't know what a social contract is.
Simply by existing in proximity with other humans we have social contracts on what we owe each other is the basis of the philosophy of a social contract. Examples would be that you live in a societal grouping with other humans you agree to follow their laws, ie not stealing and such.
I know full well what a social contact is. It is a fictional construct that enables people to believe they can make demands on someone else's behavior.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
What a writer does with their time is none of my business. A writer doesn't owe me anything. If I buy a book and enjoy that book then that's that. If the book is part of a series, but doesn't tell a whole story on its own then I'll probably be annoyed and not continue reading the series.
In movie terms: I love Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. It's a great movie even if you never watch another Star Wars movie. George Lucas didn't owe us prequels to that story. And look what happened when he did. We were all very sad about it.
Writers should write what their passionate about, when they are passionate about it. I've seen plenty of good writers lose steam over the course of a series, and churn out terrible novels because of contractual obligations combined with a lack of inspiration. I've seen great writers power through about a novel a year, because that's how they work.
But it's like anything, a solid reliable body of work generates readers. An author doesn't owe the audience anything, but will create a more loyal following if they continue to give what they can to their art.
I hope I've explained my position well.
|
I think the article fails to make an important distinction between the principle and the nitty gritty reality.
So the first of the two arguments here is that an author who writes a series and then neglects it's later parts is no different than someone selling a book without it's last chapter - there is, according to this argument, an unspoken social contract that obligates the author to provide what the readers thought they were getting when they bought the book - a complete story.
I disagree strongly with this point. When a reader buys a book titled "The Wheel of Time part 1", what he or she should reasonably expect is exactly what the title says - the first part of a longer story. There is no false pretense here from the side of the author - no lie or misdirection. When the same reader buys "The Wheel of Time part 7", they should again expect what they get - the middle part of a huge story. It is only when they buy "The Last Wheel of Time" book that they should expect an ending.
Epic fantasies are different than most stories we know. Our culture is mostly based on mythological tales meant to teach a lesson or "have a point" - such as Grimm's fairy tales, biblical stories, Shakespeare's plays, etc. These stories are short, have a small set of simple characters, and are self contained. A play by Shakespeare without a clear and definitive ending to the story would indeed be a "cheat" on the audience, who came to expect a certain structure from it. However, multiple book series have a structure of their own. Each part of the series is exactly that - a section of a larger tale. It does not promise resolution of any kind to anything previous parts have set up, merely a continuation.
As people who read a few large series already know, these stories are more about the journey then the destination. If one can't understand that, than he/she is the one that is violating an unspoken contract. They are expecting from the book they are buying to be something that it is not supposed to be.
The second part of the argument is that authors can't afford to not complete their series, because they will lose the trust of their potential buyers. This, I think, is true. I am exactly one of those you mentioned in your article - due to being burned several times in the past (and present...) by authors who failed to output books in a timely fashion, I decided to only start reading new series when they are done.
But then, this isn't saying much, is it? only the most basic truth that from a business point of view the best idea is to give your customers what they want (that is, willing to pay for) as swiftly and conveniently as possible. In any given business you need to build, maintain and improve your reputation all the time. This is true for writing as well.
But, take the case of George Martin - to him this is barely even a consideration. His contract with HBO already made him rich beyond what most authors can dream, and his non ASOIAF projects are *still* selling well. This is not a consideration for him, at all.
So, while depending on readers for income *could* make an author their "b*$&@", Martin does not need really need people to buy his next series book in droves in order to live very comfortably.
To conclude, while I think the first point in the article is interesting and the second is true, I have to say that overall I disagree. While it makes economic sense for authors to deliver their series books in a timely fashion and end them gracefully when the time comes, the stretch from there to saying that they "owe" their fans something is a big one.
I know full well what a social contact is. It is a fictional construct that enables people to believe they can make demands on someone else's behavior.
I'd rather think of it as agreements both written and unwritten that allows us to build a society on terms other than "You do this, or you let me have this, or me and my warriors will chop your head off!" But I guess that's me.
Social contracts are what civilizations are built on. Even most so-called "Mountain Men" have some dependence on them.
Yes, social contracts are a necessary part of any society; however, I should not necessarily be forced to abide by certain stipulations if said contract that I may or may not agree with; I certainly would not force such upon another. I don't refer to such basic Golden Rule concepts of course.
As far as an author owing anything to anyone... No, they do not owe anyone a darn thing (except for the examples such as fulfilling a legal, binding contract). This is an example of how society has become filled with such a ridiculous sense of entitlement that it has become down right sickening. No one in this life is owed anything (save the right to a peaceful life) you get what you work to obtain or achieve.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know full well what a social contact is. It is a fictional construct that enables people to believe they can make demands on someone else's behavior.
I'd rather think of it as agreements both written and unwritten that allows us to build a society on terms other than "You do this, or you let me have this, or me and my warriors will chop your head off!" But I guess that's me.
Social contracts are what civilizations are built on. Even most so-called "Mountain Men" have some dependence on them.
Yes, social contracts are a necessary part of any society; however, I should not necessarily be forced to abide by certain stipulations if said contract that I may or may not agree with; I certainly would not force such upon another. I don't refer to such basic Golden Rule concepts of course.
As far as an author owing anything to anyone... No, they do not owe anyone a darn thing (except for the examples such as fulfilling a legal, binding contract). This is an example of how society has become filled with such a ridiculous sense of entitlement that it has become down right sickening. No one in this life is owed anything (save the right to a peaceful life) you get what you work to obtain or achieve.
Of course they have no legal obligation. Which is fine, since not even the most entitled fans are trying to sue authors for unfinished series.
On the other hand, the fans also have no legal obligation not to complain about not getting the books they want either, so we're all good. No one has any obligations and no one is violating anything.
As for your principle as a guiding rule, try living your life as if you have no obligations outside of binding legal contracts, even to friends and family: "Sure I said I'd pick you up after work, but you didn't get it in writing, so I didn't bother."
Reference my usage if the Golden Rule; treat others as you would like to be treated. By no means am I advocating a society of selfish hedonism. Quite the opposite in fact. I believe (because this where I live) American society could stand a healthy dose of politeness. What I am stating is that humans should never expect to be given something for nothing, which unfortunately, has become much of the norm in America. I understand fans purchase something with an expectation that it be completed, that part of the social contract I understand. But don't demand something simply because you made the decision to purchase something. Remember, no one forced you into that decision. You made it yourself.
Nor am I suggesting that fans cannot complain about their favorite book/series/whatever. Complain all you want, but to suggest that the author owes you another book at the rate you think they should be published... Wow. That is an issue of entitlement.
I love the Song of Fire and Ice series. Would I be upset if the books suddenly stopped being published, because Mr. Martin suddenly decided it was no longer worth his time? Yes, I very much would; however, I don't believe he owes me anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will say James that your article is well-written and thorough.
I disagree with your conclusion completely, but at least you presented it in a manner that was pleasant to read.
So it's just the term you object to?
Not just the term, but the implication that is attached to the word "owe". That word, when used in the context of these articles, carries a very negative connotation that implies an individual most comply with the demands of a certain group, which said individual likely does not even know.
I understand having an expectation of something in which one decided to invest. In this specific example of Mr. Martin's story, by investing my time and money in his series there is an expectation he put his time and effort into completing it. I don't believe he owes it to me to sacrifice his life to do so though. Which is what so many people are demanding... A point, hopefully, most realize is ludicrous.
I hope I was able to articulate my point well enough.
In regards to the article, while I don't necessarily agree with the main points, it is very well written and compelling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although I am watching and very much enjoying Games of Thrones on HBO, I haven't read any of Martin's books and don't know that I will. I'll have to consider other authors and what, if anything, they "owe" me.
I feel that if an author begins a multi-book story, he does owe his readers a conclusion. Based on the TV show and what Martin has apparently told its producers about future plot development, it sounds like it is meant to be one epic story rather than just a series novels that share a universe and some characters. I'd say Martin absolutely owes his readers a conclusion to that story, given the millions of dollars generated off their investment in it. [Sadly for fans] he isn't obliged to complete it by any particular date, but he needn't be an ass about it.
Jim Butcher may have a grand metaplot in mind for his Harry Dresden books, but that series doesn't depend on one. Despite excellent character development, it's largely episodic. He could stop at any time and not be in violation of any perceived contract with the reader.
I consider Laurell K. Hamilton to have been in contract violation with me for a number of years now, because of a major change in the focus of the Anita Blake series of books. The first several involved Blake as a supernatural investigator. She raised zombies for a living, killed vampires when necessary, and consulted with local cops on the supernatural. As the series "progressed" (if you can call this progress) it became less and less about Blake's zombie/vampire/consulting work, more and more about how many different sexual partners she could juggle per day. That's not the character I signed up for, nor the character originally presented. Hamilton turned "my" urban supernatural series into silly kink-porn. I don't appreciate the drawn out bait-and-switch.
I think you're overreading into the word, that's all
And "sacrifice his life" is a bit over the top as well.
I think the idea of an informal contract is pretty on point in this case. By publishing the first book in a series, the author is making an implicit promise to write the rest of the series, and to do so in a timely and satisfying fashion. It's not an enforceable contract of course, but there are penalties if it doesn't happen. The penalty is essentially the loss of trust on the part of the reader.
If the author announced that a book is the first in a series, then he made an explicit promise that there would be more. However, there is no promise, explicit or implicit, regarding the timeliness or satisfaction of the releases.
Second note, I think it's interesting that someone would shrug off as overreading the word "owe" which has a clear meaning, who gets upset over use of the word "discrimination" which has a clear non-negative meaning.
Third note, "owe" is not the only problem word here, "contract" is the other. See, a formal contract is a binding agreement, verbal or written, between some number of parties who all have equal say in the terms, conditions, and penalties included within. People talk about gaming groups having a "social contract" when in fact they have a formal verbal contract. Sure it's not legally binding, but it doesn't have to be. Mr Martin, I'm betting, has a formal contract with his publishing house. This contract obligates him to produce some number of written works which don't necessarily have to be Song of Ice and Fire works. The contract may or may not have a clause that obligates him to a certain time schedule.
A "social contract" on the other hand, is nothing more than a set of terms, conditions, and penalties made up by a subset of the parties involved. This subset is generally, but not always, known as "the majority". The majority takes power for themselves which they have no actual right to. They use this power to attempt to enforce the terms, conditions, and penalties upon parties that have either had no say in or do not agree with their "social contract". In fact, the word contract is deliberately used to lend an air of legitimacy to a group that has no right to claim it. The argument that the majority makes is that by simply living in a certain area you implicitly agree to all the terms, conditions, and punishments included in the "social contract" they have devised. This can lead to jingoistic "love it or leave it" displays that it's not uncommon to see on the news these days (at least in the US). Keep in mind, a "social contract" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actual established laws.
Mr Martin has no kind of contract with his fans. He does not owe his fans any published material in any timely fashion. Conversely, his fans owe him nothing no loyalty, no audience, etc.
On a final note, anyone who actually believes that an author owes them anything has probably gone past a level of obsession that could be considered healthy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fantastic read, James. And absolutely correct. I found this statement particularly cogent:
If we as authors want to take a no-strings approach, then we can hardly turn around and beg readers to support the early books in our series. And if we instead want to ask people to be our patrons-to have the faith to invest both emotionally and financially in a series before it’s complete-then we need to keep our side of the bargain and do our damnedest to see things through.
Exactly so.
Now, I'm not sure I like the word "owe"... I don't think the author necessarily "owes" the consumer anything.
But then - does the author want to take consumers' money and make a living? Oh, he/she does? Well, then. I don't have to spend a red cent on anything the author releases until the entire series is out.
And good luck making a living, dear author, if a certain number of consumers begins to think that way.
If the author announced that a book is the first in a series, then he made an explicit promise that there would be more. However, there is no promise, explicit or implicit, regarding the timeliness or satisfaction of the releasesI think you're overreading into the word, that's all
And "sacrifice his life" is a bit over the top as well.
I think the idea of an informal contract is pretty on point in this case. By publishing the first book in a series, the author is making an implicit promise to write the rest of the series, and to do so in a timely and satisfying fashion. It's not an enforceable contract of course, but there are penalties if it doesn't happen. The penalty is essentially the loss of trust on the part of the reader.
There is a point at which the explicit promise is violated. Both in terms of time and in quality.
But that's largely irrelevant, since the only penalty to breaking this informal contract is the loss of the also informal commitment on the part of the reader buy the other books in the series. Or in fact anything else .
That's why I'm emphasizing the disconnect here is about terminology. (I also specified informal contract and not enforceable.)Everyone seems to agree that authors should try to finish series in a timely manner and should try to keep their quality up. Every also seems to agree that not doing so will cause the author to lose readers and probably upset some of them and that the readers aren't doing anything wrong when they stop reading or get upset.
It's only the word "owes" that's causing any disagreement. And that, like "social contract" and other terms used here is just a way of describing what we all agree on.
** spoiler omitted **...
The problem is, the words used have meanings and those meanings are tied to thoughts. Using those particular words to get your meaning across gives some indication of the underlying thought process of the person using those words. Yes, words are just words, but until such time as we can exchange actual thoughts they are the best thing we have to convey our thoughts to others.
And good luck making a living, dear author, if a certain number of consumers begins to think that way.
I already have, and as James knows, I am both a dedicated reader and reviewer.
I have given up on "streched out" series, such as Emberverse and Wheel of Time. Last GRRM book in the series is making me re-think that, too.
And it's not necessary. James Butcher and James Sutter can both write a interconnected "series" of books , featuring the same characters- but are still able to make most books come to a reasonable climax. (Sure, one of the Dresden books does end on a cliffhanger. One. )
Butcher has a extremely dedicated fan base, and each book sells very well. He doesn't feel a need to lead his fans on & on with the promise of some sort of ending that's like the "light at the end of the tunnel" or "pie in the sky, by & by".
It is not a new phenomenon. Don't be a writer and write in your own name if you have a problem with being in a bit of spotlight. I would assume most aspiring writers know this today. There are perfectly feasible other jobs for people who can work with words. Of course, there really is no excuse for it, but there it is.
I feel like we've had this discussion on this board before.
In any case, I'll repeat what I likely said there, I do indeed believe an author "owes" me a conclusion to something they started. If not in novel form, at least in some informal wrap-up of the series if he simply cannot or will not write it any more.
Writing is a job. It may be a job with more freedom over your hours and exactly what you do, but it is still a profession. I see leaving a book series unfinished as the same as leaving any other job you do unfinished.
I would get mad if someone only built half my house, or washed half my car, or cooked half my food. And likewise, I don't like it when an author only finishes half a story.
Social contracts are just as valid as formal contracts. Moreso, in my opinion. The entirety of society is built on social contracts more than legal ones. Hell, many laws exist solely to provide proper consequences for breaking social contracts people held to before.
And in my opinion, saying you are writing a series is an implicit social contract that you will finish said series. I'll take a mediocre or even bad conclusion over no conclusion at all.
The former still gives me a sense of closure, and something concrete to direct my displeasure at.
The latter just leaves me with a gnawing sense of curiosity. It's torturous. Bearable when I know there will eventually be a conclusion, but not when I know there WON'T be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose not dying halfway through a series is a bit too much to ask.
Douglas Adams, and Frank Herbert I am looking at both of you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mervyn Peake!
[Shakes fist]
I don't know, it doesn't bother me if an author keeps writing about the same characters and/or setting until they die.
O'Brian died with an uncompleted Master and Commander novel; I've got the published rough drafts of Herge's last volume of Tintin; Not be morbid, but I assume the same thing will happen with C.J. Cherryh's Foreigner series, and I'm gonna keep enjoying that one until she keels over at her word processor.
I suppose there's an implicit promise to finish a series you publish the first volume of, but I feel like Sutter's judgement is colored by the fact that he works for a company that sells its products through subscriptions. If you write a book and never finish the sequel, your fans will be disappointed, but if someone buys a subscription and you only deliver one book, that's legally actionable. It's just a different set of obligations.
And good luck making a living, dear author, if a certain number of consumers begins to think that way.
I already have, and as James knows, I am both a dedicated reader and reviewer.
I have given up on "streched out" series, such as Emberverse and Wheel of Time. Last GRRM book in the series is making me re-think that, too.
And it's not necessary. James Butcher and James Sutter can both write a interconnected "series" of books , featuring the same characters- but are still able to make most books come to a reasonable climax. (Sure, one of the Dresden books does end on a cliffhanger. One. )
Butcher has a extremely dedicated fan base, and each book sells very well. He doesn't feel a need to lead his fans on & on with the promise of some sort of ending that's like the "light at the end of the tunnel" or "pie in the sky, by & by".
As already mentioned, there are elements of "stretched out series" that just are not really simulated well by stand alone books. Now I have seen more "stand-alone" esq book series with those elements, although even they often run into the occasional hiccups
I mean, I adore the Dresden books, but other than both being "broadly" fantasy, both of them try to accomplish very different things and have very different strengths. Specifically the cast of characters is very different in scope, as is the amount of world building and story immersion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
?
I find Dresden's world building to be pretty good, and I'm generally immersed in the story.
I think I may have missed your point on that.
In any case, I think what you're trying to say is a series of interconnected, but mostly standalone novels is different from a true novel series. Which I agree with, one is several stories that might lead into a finale of a big, vaguely present overarching story, and the other is several books making up a single story.
Just for ease, take Butcher's Codex Alera vs the Dresden series. One is very much a true series (past the first book, which is almost entirely self-contained) each book's plot relying on the last and leading into the next.
Dresden...does not do that.
I know full well what a social contact is. It is a fictional construct that enables people to believe they can make demands on someone else's behavior.
Its also the only thing that stops people from making those demands in the first place.
Except, as I read Sutter's actual argument, he's talking about the fans being disappointed and thus not buying more of the authors books, which is bad for the author in question.
And if done widely enough bad for series and the industry in general. Good luck writing series if readers stop trusting that they'll get a complete story and start waiting until the series is complete before buying it.There's also a big difference between a series of books that is one large story and a series of books that are each complete on their own, but feature the same characters or setting. While you might have loved to read another Master and Commander novel, it's not anything like as frustrating as leaving everything hanging where SoI&F is now.
If you're saying that GRRM would benefit from an editor who says, "George, at this point another series of POV chapters showing what a reeking hellhole the Riverlands are is just overkill," instead of, "George, given the performance of this series so far, you can just write whatever the hell you want to and rake in millions," I don't disagree. I couldn't help but laugh (pretty fricken ruefully) when I read the last chapters of book five and thought back to the afterword of book four, where GRRM said he had to split them into two volumes because saying To Be Continued halfway through would have been frustrating for his readers.
But, speaking as a failed amateur cartoonist with an unfinished minicomic epic sitting on the shelf next to my computer, I don't think authors owe their audience anything. The author gets to write whatever and however he wants to, and the audience gets to decide whether or not to keep reading his work, and that's the ballgame. I really don't think GRRM's slow creative process is the start of an industry-ruining slippery slope.
But, speaking as a failed amateur cartoonist with an unfinished minicomic epic sitting on the shelf next to my computer, I don't think authors owe their audience anything. The author gets to write whatever and however he wants to, and the audience gets to decide whether or not to keep reading his work, and that's the ballgame.
[Crosses the Book threads]
Poor Hermie.
He cranked out five best sellers (that hardly anyone reads anymore except, maybe, English grad students) in four years, wrote Moby Dick which failed, hard, wrote six or so more novels in the next five years which nobody bought, gave up writing, and spent the next thirty years as a Customs Inspector.
But at least one of his (kinda) descendents made good.
[No worries, Dicey, forty years after you're dead, somebody shall stumble upon your storyboards and then the Dice name will live forever! (Or at least until life on the planet is extinguished.)]
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole concept of anyone "owing" anyone anything outside of basic courtesy (or an actual debt) is foreign to me. An author owes us NOTHING. Nor do we owe then anything.
Just the thought of the idea that someone "owes" someone something just because they were lucky enough to create something people like reveals to me the level of entitlement in our society has reached idiotic levels.