But it is possible for the text to deviate so far from whats expected to constitute actual fraud which would require a legally mandated refund.
Buying that book would make you a fool, not the author. You have opportunities to fully examine the product before paying. I've never seen a book store that doesn't let customers open a book before buying.
I'm not sure I believe this, except for possibly reference materials. Outside of reference materials, can you show me a case where it's happened?
There should be a point where the text deviates far enough from whats expected that the reader can say justifiably say"... What the hell? You suck!". Voting with your dollar is one way of expressing your opinion, but so are reviews and parody videos.
Absolutely. I don't think I've ever said otherwise. But there's a HUGE difference between "Your book sucks, and you suck" and "Your book sucks, and now you owe me for that".
Part of the contract is the writer has a responsibility not only to the audience but to the story itself. There is a responsibility to deliver on what was promised. But what is good for the story takes precedence. (And in cases as big as GoT, the good of the story takes precedence even over the writer's personal happiness. Hey, if you don't want that kind of responsibility, don't make the baby.)
Well if you have an actual contract with a writer then that writer certainly does owe you something. Now since I know you're referring to the stupid "social contract" idea, it doesn't exist and the writer is in no way bound by it. The writer is responsible for delivering whatever he damn well pleases and his real contract with his publishing company compels him to. The writer owes you NOTHING!
While it's frustrating waiting 5 years between GRRM's books, I get that he's prioritizing the good of the story over my frustration. But he has a pacing problem. He could publish 400 pages every couple years instead, maintain the quality of work, and increase good will among his fans. But for some reason he chooses not to. And that's annoying, because we've walked down this road before, and I don't want to do it again. There's a point where it just gets to be Way Too Long and drawn out. People complained about this regarding Lost long before it ended, and Wheel of Time and Dark Tower. At some point, he just needs to stop rambling and get to the end. Preferably in his lifetime.
He can also choose to work at his own pace as he has been. At this point you've broken down to "I WANT IT! I WANT IT! I WANT IT!" My kids are better than that.
I started reading The Wheel of Time when the first book came out. I was always looking forward to the next, but I never felt that RJ OWED me anything. I looked forward to every new book, and read plenty of others in the meantime. Sure I was a little bummed when he died, but I was happy when I heard they brought someone in to finish it up. Even if it had never been finished, I would not have insisted that someone owes me something.
Now since I know you're referring to the stupid "social contract" idea, it doesn't exist and the writer is in no way bound by it.
You mean the "stupid" idea that makes up the entirety of the thin veneer we know of as civilization? Yep, pretty stupid.
He can also choose to work at his own pace as he has been. At this point you've broken down to "I WANT IT! I WANT IT! I WANT IT!" My kids are better than that.
You're missing the point because you're hung up on semantics and want to pretend I have an entitlement problem because I have an emotional investment in what I read and have reasonable expectations about publishing schedules and authors finishing stories. If you aren't emotionally invested in books, you must be reading some really lame books. If you don't expect capable (living, thinking) authors to finish what they started, then I simply don't know what to say to you.
The point is, it's not reasonable to expect an audience to pay attention to you for decades while you give them one or two years' worth of material every five years. Sooner or later they're gonna get impatient and either drop you or tell you to get busy and finish already.
If Rowling had dragged Harry Potter out for 20-30 years instead of a reasonable 10 years (GRRM at his current rate will clear 25 years), people would be pretty pissed off at her too. We'd still be waiting for Order of the Phoenix.
I started reading The Wheel of Time when the first book came out. I was always looking forward to the next, but I never felt that RJ OWED me anything. I looked forward to every new book, and read plenty of others in the meantime. Sure I was a little bummed when he died, but I was happy when I heard they brought someone in to finish it up. Even if it had never been finished, I would not have insisted that someone owes me something.
You like to move the goalposts, don't you?
RJ's books came out with reasonable frequency, about once a year or two years, despite being long. He also died before the series was completed. The publisher realized there was a such thing as a responsibility to the story, and found someone to finish it. Responsibility upheld. Social contract satisfied.
The reason you don't feel owed is because you aren't. RJ & Co fulfilled all their obligations and went above and beyond for their fans. GRRM isn't--he's pulling a Dark Tower.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Civilization is not based on creatives who produce works of entertainment being forced to continue to produce work they no longer wish to produce. Demanding they do so is analogous to the boss at a job you are wanting to leave claiming you owe the company since you did good work and forcing you to continue at a job at which you have no desire to continue.
In truth, he could beg you to stay and refuse to rehire you if you come back looking for work. You owe him nothing more than the labor you provided. When you leave, he owes you nothing further unless he feels the desires to give it. The same princie holds for authors and those who paid for the work the author produced.
Absolutely no one has said a damn thing about forcing authors to do any such thing.Civilization is not based on creatives who produce works of entertainment being forced to continue to produce work they no longer wish to produce. Demanding they do so is analogous to the boss at a job you are wanting to leave claiming you owe the company since you did good work and forcing you to continue at a job at which you have no desire to continue.
In truth, he could beg you to stay and refuse to rehire you if you come back looking for work. You owe him nothing more than the labor you provided. When you leave, he owes you nothing further unless he feels the desires to give it. The same princie holds for authors and those who paid for the work the author produced.
What the hell do you think the word "owe" means?
What the hell do you think the word "owe" means?
In this case? Not doing it would be a jerk thing to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Zut alors, I ain't writing shiznit for you, pinkskins!
Authors strike!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Throws rocks at scabs and Albert Camus]
Now since I know you're referring to the stupid "social contract" idea, it doesn't exist and the writer is in no way bound by it.You mean the "stupid" idea that makes up the entirety of the thin veneer we know of as civilization? Yep, pretty stupid.
Indeed, it is one of the stupidest ideas entitled people have ever come up with. Once again, here is the real idea behind the stupid idea.
He can also choose to work at his own pace as he has been. At this point you've broken down to "I WANT IT! I WANT IT! I WANT IT!" My kids are better than that.You're missing the point because you're hung up on semantics and want to pretend I have an entitlement problem because I have an emotional investment in what I read and have reasonable expectations about publishing schedules and authors finishing stories. If you aren't emotionally invested in books, you must be reading some really lame books. If you don't expect capable (living, thinking) authors to finish what they started, then I simply don't know what to say to you.
I'm not missing any point. You start throwing around the word "owe" I understand exactly what you mean. You have an emotional investment, great. You have what you believe are reasonable expectations, great. No author that exists OWES you anything. You have every right to quit buying products from someone whom you believe has let you down. It is not up to you if they keep producing. I don't EXPECT things from people because I don't think they OWE me anything. That doesn't mean I'm not excited when a writer I like puts out a new story that I like.
The point is, it's not reasonable to expect an audience to pay attention to you for decades while you give them one or two years' worth of material every five years. Sooner or later they're gonna get impatient and either drop you or tell you to get busy and finish already.
That's the way it's supposed to work. You know what markets are? Economics? That's the way they work. You don't produce, you lose customers. You want to keep your customers, you keep producing. You produce or someone else will. Authors don't owe anyone books, readers don't owe anyone their patronage. If that's not what you mean, stop using the word OWE! It's not "semantics" the word has a meaning FFS.
If Rowling had dragged Harry Potter out for 20-30 years instead of a reasonable 10 years (GRRM at his current rate will clear 25 years), people would be pretty pissed off at her too. We'd still be waiting for Order of the Phoenix.
Great. Get pissed. Stop buying. Give up on an author. They still don't OWE you anything.
You like to move the goalposts, don't you?
What? *headdesk*
RJ's books came out with reasonable frequency, about once a year or two years, despite being long. He also died before the series was completed. The publisher realized there was a such thing as a responsibility to the story, and found someone to finish it. Responsibility upheld. Social contract satisfied.
I suspect it's much more likely that he had a contract with a publishing company that became attached to his estate when he died. And by that I mean a real contract. And I'm sure there was a great deal of money involved for said estate. Maybe you can show me otherwise?
The reason you don't feel owed is because you aren't. RJ & Co fulfilled all their obligations and went above and beyond for their fans. GRRM isn't--he's pulling a Dark Tower.
The reason I don't feel like I'm owed anything is because I'm not an entitled jerk. Of course I'm happy the story was finished, but even if it hadn't I wouldn't be feeling like he personally let me down.
In this case? Not doing it would be a jerk thing to do.
What the hell do you think the word "owe" means?
That is most definitely not any proper definition of the word owe. Nor is it by the context it's being used here. Someone says "owe" and "responsibility" it's gone much farther than "that guy's a jerk".
That is most definitely not any proper definition of the word owe. Nor
owe
ō/verb
verb: owe; 3rd person present: owes; past tense: owed; past participle: owed; gerund or present participle: owing
have an obligation to pay or repay (something, especially money) in return for something received.
"they have denied they owe money to the company"
synonyms: be in debt to, be indebted to, be in arrears to, be under an obligation to
"I don't want to owe anyone"
owe something, especially money, to (someone).
"I owe you for the taxi"
be under a moral obligation to give someone (gratitude, respect, etc.).
"I owe it to him to explain what's happened"
What the hell do you think the word "owe" means?Absolutely no one has said a damn thing about forcing authors to do any such thing.Civilization is not based on creatives who produce works of entertainment being forced to continue to produce work they no longer wish to produce. Demanding they do so is analogous to the boss at a job you are wanting to leave claiming you owe the company since you did good work and forcing you to continue at a job at which you have no desire to continue.
In truth, he could beg you to stay and refuse to rehire you if you come back looking for work. You owe him nothing more than the labor you provided. When you leave, he owes you nothing further unless he feels the desires to give it. The same princie holds for authors and those who paid for the work the author produced.
The word is commonly used for obligations that are not legally enforceable.
When I helped my friend move and he said "I owe you one", neither of us thought for a moment that I could force him, legally or otherwise, to repay it. And yet we both understood the obligation to be real.I don't live in some weird rationalist libertarian world where the only obligations are those in signed legally binding contracts. And neither do you, even if you think you do.
Believe me, I'm quite aware I don't. Instead I live in a world designed by lunatics and just have to make due the best I can.
That is most definitely not any proper definition of the word owe. Nor
owe
ō/
verb
verb: owe; 3rd person present: owes; past tense: owed; past participle: owed; gerund or present participle: owinghave an obligation to pay or repay (something, especially money) in return for something received.
"they have denied they owe money to the company"
synonyms: be in debt to, be indebted to, be in arrears to, be under an obligation to
"I don't want to owe anyone"
owe something, especially money, to (someone).
"I owe you for the taxi"
be under a moral obligation to give someone (gratitude, respect, etc.).
"I owe it to him to explain what's happened"
Again, "that guy's a jerk for not writing more books" does not equal "that guy has an obligation to write more books because I like them".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Believe me, I'm quite aware I don't. Instead I live in a world designed by lunatics and just have to make do the best I can.
Yes, I'm sure, everyone else in the world is crazy, not you.
:rolleyes:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. Having read this entire thread I can actually say I am shocked at the lengths both sides of this argument are going to to defend their "turf". Both sides are like "cargo cult" members building elaborate landing strips for the fruit of their argument to land on... And oh the sadness when the plane never lands. There is only human (and even stranger : Corporate) nature at work here. And any analysis by rabid fan-base or long suffering authors is probably time better spent reading or writing books. There is a rather large world of books (finished and unfinished....) and life experience outside these petty arguments. Enjoy!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Believe me, I'm quite aware I don't. Instead I live in a world designed by lunatics and just have to make do the best I can.Yes, I'm sure, everyone else in the world is crazy, not you.
:rolleyes:
Thanks, mommy, for being so patient and understanding.
Again, "that guy's a jerk for not writing more books" does not equal "that guy has an obligation to write more books because I like them".
The argument is "That guy has an obligation to write more books because he's only halfway through a story". This of course makes no sense if you insist that owe only means a legal obligation, but its very arguable if you use the definition that I bolded. Insisting that people are arguing the first definition when they not only clearly mean the bolded one, but have repeatedly told you they mean the bolded one is pointless.
Instead I live in a world designed by lunatics and just have to make due the best I can.
You know what helps deal with that suffering? Art.
You know what helps art exist? When artists are expected to FINISH IT.
Wow. Having read this entire thread I can actually say I am shocked at the lengths both sides of this argument are going to to defend their "turf". Both sides are like "cargo cult" members building elaborate landing strips for the fruit of their argument to land on... And oh the sadness when the plane never lands. There is only human (and even stranger : Corporate) nature at work here. And any analysis by rabid fan-base or long suffering authors is probably time better spent reading or writing books. There is a rather large world of books (finished and unfinished....) and life experience outside these petty arguments. Enjoy!
Pick a side or hand in your bubblewrap jumpsuit!
Again, "that guy's a jerk for not writing more books" does not equal "that guy has an obligation to write more books because I like them".The argument is "That guy has an obligation to write more books because he's only halfway through a story". This of course makes no sense if you insist that owe only means a legal obligation, but its very arguable if you use the definition that I bolded. Insisting that people are arguing the first definition when they not only clearly mean the bolded one, but have repeatedly told you they mean the bolded one is pointless.
It doesn't matter how you phrase it, there is no obligation. If you insist that there is an obligation, you'll continue to be wrong. Any person starting any thing is under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to anyone to finish that thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't matter how you phrase it, there is no obligation. If you insist that there is an obligation, you'll continue to be wrong. Any person starting any thing is under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to anyone to finish that thing.
It can be rea
It doesn't matter how you phrase it, there is no obligation. If you insist that there is an obligation, you'll continue to be wrong. Any person starting any thing is under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to anyone to finish that thing.
Again, "that guy's a jerk for not writing more books" does not equal "that guy has an obligation to write more books because I like them".The argument is "That guy has an obligation to write more books because he's only halfway through a story". This of course makes no sense if you insist that owe only means a legal obligation, but its very arguable if you use the definition that I bolded. Insisting that people are arguing the first definition when they not only clearly mean the bolded one, but have repeatedly told you they mean the bolded one is pointless.
It doesn't matter how you phrase it, there is no obligation. If you insist that there is no obligation, you'll continue to be wrong. Any person starting any thing is under an obligation to finish it, moral or otherwise, to SOMEONE to finish that thing.
Hey look mom I can state my opinion as fact too.
Seriously though, this holds true for just about anything. You owe someone an obligation to finish what you started, even if that person is just yourself. Otherwise, you wouldn't have started the thing in the first place. There must have been a demand for it from someone, or it wouldn't have been made. By beginning that project you have implicitly promised someone that this thing will be created, and now have an obligation to finish it. The only real "exception" is a project you started for yourself, which nobody else in the world cares about, since in that case the only feelings you hurt are your own when you stop working on it.
This is the motor that keeps society running. If you say you're going to do something, do it. Nobody should have to get your word in writing for that. That's idiotic.
Sure, there can be circumstances where you had excuses, actual reasons you didn't deliver on your promise. Economic hardship, lack of ability, health problems, and so on.
"I don't feel like it" doesn't cut it with adults. Saying that would get you fired from any other job in the world, and for good reason. Writing is still a job. You're getting paid to do it. Sure, you can quit that job, just like any other, but people are rightfully going to be mad at you for dropping a project halfway through, just like they would be in any other job in existence. If you quit a job, you better have a good reason for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pick a side or hand in your bubblewrap jumpsuit!
Sometimes I think the only sane place to be is in the middle on the argument. It is the place where you can see both sides without the blinders each side puts on to support their side.
It really just boils down to the expectations of your fans and your treatment of those fans. I suppose the bigger a star you become the more forgiving your fans become of any mistreatment. BUT ultimately you as an author live and die by how well received by your fans you are. If they don't like you then it becomes harder and harder to sell anything. If they love you SO much that anything you make is pure gold then you can get away with anything... even dropping a series. Although if you do expect to hear the lamentations of those wounded souls deprived of that thing you made which they loved, even if it doesn't hurt your sales at that level.
Don't bother. Just let it drop
A world where any obligation other than signed legally binding contracts actually means anything is a world designed by lunatics. All the basic social give and take that actually makes communities work is crazy. Trust no one. Don't worry about paying debts unless there's legal compulsion to do so.I don't live in some weird rationalist libertarian world where the only obligations are those in signed legally binding contracts. And neither do you, even if you think you do.Believe me, I'm quite aware I don't. Instead I live in a world designed by lunatics and just have to make due the best I can.
I'm sure one day you'll get your perfect utopia where writers write because that's what they do. And painters will paint, singers will sing, builders will build, farmers will farm, doctors will doctor, and consumers will consume and everything will flow in peaceful harmony from each according to his ability to each according to his need.
"....He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a fantasy novelist, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, write fantasy novels after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or fantasy novelist."
--Darl Jubannich, The Galtan Ideology
Vive le Galt!
Sometimes I think the only sane place to be is in the middle on the argument. It is the place where you can see both sides without the blinders each side puts on to support their side.
This guy fervently disagrees:
Squatting in between those on the side of reason and evidence and those worshipping superstition and myth [for example] is not a better place. It just means you’re halfway to crazy town.
More trolling:
When I finally got around to reading Citizen Sutter's blog post and got to the part about handing over ten bucks, I laughed to myself and thought "Hee hee! I got A Game of Thrones for fifty cents at the Friends of the Merrimack Public Libray fundraiser." Then I thought to myself, "Hee hee! I don't think I paid full price for any of George R.R. Martin's books. I think I even got the last in hardcover for a dollar." Then I thought to myself, "Come to think of it, I got Death's Heretic for free at the PFS room at the Open Gaming Convention two years ago when I played in We Be Goblins, Too!. Man, that shiznit was racist..."
We Be Goblins, that is. I enjoyed Death's Heretic very much, Citizen Sutter.
Now go write me another book!
???? Not taking my own advice, but this is so far off the wall I can't help it.
I have no idea what your little description of a communist utopia has to do with anything I said. Neither communism or capitalism are particularly supportive of or hostile to the kinds of non-legally binding obligations we're talking about.
As an aside though, from the writers I know, they do write because that's what they do. Getting paid for it lets them do it full time (or more part time) and lets the rest of us read what they write. They'd still be writing if they couldn't sell it, they'd just do it less, since they'd have to spend more time in other paying work. In general, it's an incredibly lousy way to make money and you really don't do it unless it's something you're driven to do.
It's about as relevant as your characterization of a world where things only ever get done under force of a legally binding contact.
Sure writers write because it's what they want to do and getting paid is just icing on the cake. Hopefully though they don't get so popular that they then have no choice but to keep writing no matter what else they might want to do. Because they wrote a good story and now they owe their fans more.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Believe me, I'm quite aware I don't. Instead I live in a world designed by lunatics and just have to make do the best I can.Yes, I'm sure, everyone else in the world is crazy, not you.
:rolleyes:
Dude, watch the news or read any comment section anywhere. People are freaking INSANE. It's a wonder we've managed to not go extinct.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely no one has said a damn thing about forcing authors to do any such thing.Civilization is not based on creatives who produce works of entertainment being forced to continue to produce work they no longer wish to produce. Demanding they do so is analogous to the boss at a job you are wanting to leave claiming you owe the company since you did good work and forcing you to continue at a job at which you have no desire to continue.
In truth, he could beg you to stay and refuse to rehire you if you come back looking for work. You owe him nothing more than the labor you provided. When you leave, he owes you nothing further unless he feels the desires to give it. The same princie holds for authors and those who paid for the work the author produced.
Actually, by taking the stance of "if an author does not finish a series that she no longer wishes to work on, folks should no longer purchase her work", you are in essence forcing the author to continue a path she does not want to follow or lose her source of income. It is not holding a physical gun to the head, but it still is a means of force. So, explicitly no one has said anything about forcing an author to do any such thing, but implicitly, yes, yes it was said.
Granted, people should vote with their wallets. It is an effective means to bring about change. But if an author states she has no passion for the series any longer, that she is no longer happy when working on it, should one still continue to demand the creator give up her happiness / enjoyment in the work she wants to do in order to satisfy the Fans desire for closure to a story arc?
EDIT: And to be clear, as I have stated from the beginning, I personally believe there is no obligation on either party's side. The author owes the fan nothing other than the actual books the fan purchased. The fan owes the author nothing beyond the book(s) they have already purchased.
In that sense of "forcing", yes I agree. But I find that sense of forcing to be far more of a stretch than using "owes" for something other than a legally binding debt.
In some cases, especially if the author had explained why she didn't want to finish the first story, I might even buy more books from her. I would however, be much less likely to purchase until the entire story was out.
In this case, as throughout, I distinguish between a series of books that is loosely connected stories that share a protagonist or a setting, like Dresden or Discworld, and series that are a single story published in multiple volumes, like LotR or SoI&F. In the former case, I've already gotten a complete story. Even if I'd like to read more, I've gotten the story. In the latter case, I haven't gotten the whole thing.
You got exactly what you paid for. In that sense, yes you did get the whole thing. If you paid for an entire series but only ever received the first book, then yes you are owed the rest. If you paid for a single book, all you're owed is a single book. It's irrelevant if that one book is part of something larger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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!*)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(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.)
I could sort of see your point, but citing one of the worst hacks of the 20th century on "how to write" definitely does not instill any confidence in it.
I think the major contributer to the problem is the huge-sweeping-multi-book-single-story-epic just isn't a viable form.
As far as getting only one installment of a story at a time, check out Chuck Dickens sometime. Or that French dude, Alex Dumas. I guess they were pretty popular.
Wasn't Dumas the one who got into an argument with his publisher and ended one of his serial novels half way through by killing off the main character in the following installment?
Wasn't Dumas the one who got into an argument with his publisher and ended one of his serial novels half way through by killing off the main character in the following installment?
You mean, he got all GRR Martin-style?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, by taking the stance of "if an author does not finish a series that she no longer wishes to work on, folks should no longer purchase her work", you are in essence forcing the author to continue a path she does not want to follow or lose her source of income. It is not holding a physical gun to the head, but it still is a means of force. So, explicitly no one has said anything about forcing an author to do any such thing, but implicitly, yes, yes it was said.
And this is a very good thing. Nobody is entitled to money from the consumer market if consumers don't want to give it to them. Nobody.
And no, there is no "force". The author chose his/her vocation, and chose the consumer market. They will meet market needs, if they want money. No "force"... they can decide. But they're not entitled to money, or do 'what they want' and expect money.
(I have to say... your statement above sounds suspiciously like: "Oh no! I'm somewhat beholden to the people who give me money!" Uh huh... You don't say?)
Granted, people should vote with their wallets.
And there you go - you said it yourself. That's all that needs to be said.
Now, with all that said, I do think it is foolish for fans to 'demand' authors to finish what they started. It's closing the barn after the horses have fled. If authors not finishing stories becomes prevalent in the industry, fans should simply smarten up and quit purchasing series until they are complete... that'll smarten up the authors pretty fast once that happens even over a short term. Might properly shake up the industry a bit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(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.)I could sort of see your point, but citing one of the worst hacks of the 20th century on "how to write" definitely does not instill any confidence in it.
Your opinion on Brooks' writing doesn't mean he's wrong, or a bad writer. It just makes it your opinion. "Hacks" generally aren't extremely successful.
Martin on writing: "Three years from now when I'm sitting on 1,800 pages of manuscript with no end in sight, who the hell knows."
Does that sound like someone who knows where they're going? He may know who's on the throne at the end, but that's all he seems to know. He's like the student whose 5 page essays are 30 pages long and several months late. You want to fail them on principle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's like the student whose 5 page essays are 30 pages long and several months late. You want to fail them on principle.
H-hey! I put a lot of research and effort into those, thankyouverymu-
...
...
... right, you weren't talking to me.
Nevermind. Move along.
He's like the student whose 5 page essays are 30 pages long and several months late. You want to fail them on principle.H-hey! I put a lot of research and effort into those, thankyouverymu-
YOU!
It's a good thing I'm not a teacher. Everyone would just get C's.
He's like the student whose 5 page essays are 30 pages long and several months late. You want to fail them on principle.H-hey! I put a lot of research and effort into those, thankyouverymu-
...
...
... right, you weren't talking to me.
Nevermind. Move along.
I'd buy the bit about effort, but research... ;P
Well, reading comic books and watching anime is like doing historical research...