|
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.
And the selective quotation award goes to ...
Seriously, nice picking and choosing there. ;)
Do you care to acknowledge this part of my quote?
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.
Seems to basically state what you have stated with:
Nobody is entitled to money from the consumer market if consumers don't want to give it to them. Nobody.
Yes, a selective quote ... of course I also included the full quote at the start. ;)
My point is the door swings both ways. There is no obligation beyond the transactions that have already occurred between both parties. Unless, of course, there is a written contract, in which case, yes, there is an obligation and one party will owe the other party something, depending on the phrasing of the contract.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're an author, or worse, like Erik Mona, running a company and you decide to stop a series in the middle for no better reason than "I don't want to write this story, it doesn't make me happy", you're going to be out of business or out of readers in a big hurry. Because they won't be happy with you.
There's a big difference between that and "This isn't selling. We can't afford to keep it going." One part of which is that obviously, if it isn't selling, you're not going to be disappointing that many people.
What theJeff said here is only an indication that finishing a series that you started is a wise economic choice for the author, not that the author is in any way obligated to do so, especially not to his or her fans.
If you have a high paying job in the high tech business and get an offer to work as a high school teacher, you don't owe it to anyone to stay in the hightech job just because it makes you more money - if being a teacher suited you better even though the pay is worse, do it. Similarly if you are author who grew tired of writing a certain series and are willing to take the plunge in sales that could happen to you if you give up on that series, you don't owe it to anyone to finish - you might lose money because of it, but that's your decision to make.
An author doesn't owe his fans anything. It might be a good decision to finish a series he/she started, but that's besides the point - Sutter, in his OP, asked an abstract question - is there an obligation on the author from his/her readership to finish a series they started? do they owe their readers anything? the answer to that is no. The answer to the practical question, "should they finish the series, from an economical perspective?" is "most probably yes", but that's a different question. People seem to have a hard time making that distinction.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I still say the answer is "yes". You owe your audience quite a bit. Presumably, you're not writing this story for yourself. If you were, you wouldn't be publishing it. If you publish it, that means you want people to enjoy it. An audience gives you that validation.
If you promise a series and fail to deliver, you've betrayed a trust between audience and author (this works for any other entertainment medium as well, I feel). That trust is "I will get these books, I will receive a conclusion to this series".
And it is in your interest, not just financially but as an artist to keep up your end of that obligation. Because that trust is a two way street. Your fans owe you, as well. If you hold up your end, they will too, by continuing to buy, and promote via word of mouth and beyond, this author they like so much.
There's no point to the whole thing if it's anything different. It's just a business transaction without that invisible bond between creator and fan.
It's impossible to really describe in logical terms (or it's beyond my ability to do so), but you can see the effects with anything that has a dedicated fanbase.
A strong fanbase will defend your honor to the end of the universe if they have to, so long as you keep up your end of the social contract. You get their money, and their support, and their attempts to bring in even more money and support for you, of their own volition.
Having a fanbase like that is like having hundreds, thousands, millions of unpaid PR people working for you for free. And all you have to do is write a good story, and finish it like you promised.
Most popular authors recognize that, it's why they're popular and why they'll stay popular. The ones who fail to keep up their end, however, start to see that love turn into resentment, and the good PR turns to bad.
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.
A good author recognizes that social contract, fulfills it, and EXPLOITS it for even greater success.
A less than good author (not necessarily writer, here) squanders that opportunity by taking his fanbase for granted.
People keep saying "Oh but GRRM could stop writing right now and be set forever"...and he could, monetarily.
But as Snow said, the two things are separate. I'd say he'd have a hell of a lot harder time getting any subsequent attempts at writing to become popular. Because he (in this scenario) believed that the social construct was not real or valid, and broke it. His disloyalty is returned with disloyalty. Maybe not complete failure, but certainly not at the same level of rabid fandom I saw surrounding ASoIaF several years ago.
TL;DR: A social contract 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 believe in it. Social constructs are 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 the construct DOES exist. If it didn't, there would be no argument.
I can attest to the comment Rynjin made about GRRM many fans not being as die-hard as they used to be. Anecdotal evidence of course, but I used to count myself as a major fan.
I started reading the books around my 13th birthday (so 2002), tearing through the first three, and while the wait for A Feast For Crows (in 2005) was difficult, it wasn't long enough to really be a problem for me. I just figured that one must have been a more difficult one to write, and he'd probably not have as long a gap between it and the next one... six years later A Dance With Dragons came out, and I found myself not even caring enough to grab it in trade or hardcover. Didn't end up reading it until last year, because every other series I'd been reading was either waiting on another book or had wrapped up. I read the whole series again, but the magic just wasn't there for me this time, and when I read the fifth book it was the same. It's still enjoyable, but I'm not dying to find out what happens anymore. If anything it's more like what happened with Lost, where I stopped watching, and just wanted to know what the ending was so I knew it was finished.
Most of my friends who have read the series over the same period of time as me have the same attitude towards it.
Contrast that with other series I've been reading. Okay, so they're not epic fantasy on the scale of A Song of Ice and Fire, but stuff like Kevin Hearne's Iron Druid Chronicles, Benedict Jacka's Alex Verus series and Ben Aaronovitch's Rivers of London series have been released on a regular schedule, with at least one book a year, when the author says they're going to be released. Obviously I don't expect all authors to do that, not everyone can write that quickly, and some genres seem to lend themselves to faster writing (urban fantasy novels in particular seem to have that shorter schedule). But the fact that I know there's more coming, and without too long a gap, that helps keep me interested. I mean the fact that I love the stories is the primary factor, but if they had a 5 year or longer gap between books, I'd probably either lose a lot of interest, or actually forget about the series entirely and never pick it up again. The principal is the same. I nearly didn't pick up the third Gentlemen Bastards book for just that reason, it took a few of my friends who'd read it recommending it to actually get me to even look over it.
Missed the window to scrub embarrassing "nobody don't believe it" typo. =(
Missed the window to scrub embarrassing "nobody don't believe it" typo. =(
Argh, I hate missing that window of opportunity. So frustrating.
"....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!
*Standing Ovation*
|
|
I would argue that a writer has an obligation to her/himself, to their art and to posterity.
All of these things are reasons to do a good job rather than a timely job.
If an author is finding it hard to do a top-notch job, why rush them into producing a poor piece of work. That's a terrible idea.
Quality, not quantity.
If GRRM died in three years time, would it be better that he was remembered as the guy who screwed up his epic work with two shoddy final works (this is called 'doing a Lucas') or as a great author who didn't finish his masterpiece?
Would we remember Peake so fondly if he had a completed epic with a terrible, terrible final act.
It's not entitlement: it's a failure to comprehend that the creative process is a product of something more than X amount of hours in front of a typewriter/keyboard/pen&paper.
Which would be a perfectly valid argument if other authors weren't doing a job that was both good AND timely.
Also TBH the quality of the ASoIaF books can be mapped pretty close to inversely proportional to how much time he's taken to write each one.
I mean, maybe I'm wrong and the books are actually much worse than they would be if he were releasing them in a timely fashion, but considering most of the problems with the books is "I GOTTA HAVE MORE PADDING" I doubt that.
You're making the mistake of conflating length of time taken to create with quality of product (much like people think "It's more expensive! It MUST be better!").
I'm a s#&@ty artist. It takes me twice as much time to make anything as my other classmates did. Doesn't make my art better. It's still garbage.
Seriously, nice picking and choosing there. ;)
Do you care to acknowledge this part of my quote?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...
Yes. I do acknowledge it. I generally agree with it, thus I had no comment on it.
It was indeed "nice picking and choosing" on my part, because I only felt the need to quote the one particular statement I thought needed a comment - in which I said it was a "very good thing" (and that the word "force" was a bit of a misnomer... especially since you yourself admitted a line or two later that people "should" vote with their wallets... so those together sounded a bit incongruous to me).
I didn't really disagree with anything else (so, it doesn't get quoted to avoid obfuscating the conversation - which is a pretty common occurrence on messageboards...). So... yeah. In general, I agreed with you, and felt only the first couple of sentences warranted a comment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which would be a perfectly valid argument if other authors weren't doing a job that was both good AND timely.
I don't think this necessarily holds water.
Just because person A is able to do a good job and do it quickly does not mean that person B should be expected to be held to the same standard. Heaven knows I'm slower than the average bear on most things, whether I do them well or not.
Doing something well is almost always the better option.
THAT SAID... sometimes it's not possible.
Sometimes you just can't do something well.
In those cases, doing that something is (usually) better than not.
Sometimes doing that something poorly is worse than doing nothing.
In art, a lot of times, it's that hard-to-accept position of doing nothing or doing it slowly can be the right thing (and often is) that's really hard to accept, as it runs contrary to most ways of living.
An artist (and I'm including authors, here) is compelled by... themselves.
Too much pressure to be what others want can ruin what they're making.
I mean, I want fresh-baked cookies, but it takes time, never-mind that I want them "now".
Some people just don't do things quickly.
And passion (including passion from fans) does fade with time. That's the downside of doing things slowly.
But I can't find it within myself to demand someone do it faster or better or different. Because, in the end, it's them that's doing the creating, and I appreciated what they created.
To be clear:
- I don't think an artist is always correct.
- I don't think an author should go slowly.
- I do think people have a "right" to be frustrated.
- I do think authors have a "right" to drop a series, if they can't finish it.
With a series of books, it's tricky - if I were paying a subscription and was denied my timely reception due, I'd be upset and want my money back; but as for reading books written by others as part of a series... well, I'm all too aware that life happens. People change.
I would suggest that the better thing for the author to do is something rather than nothing, much like it's better to be timely than late.
But if it's not possible: say so. Own up to it. Then either create or do something else.
A lot of people are very strong cards and terms on both sides of the argument.
I think it's a lot more simple than that.
When someone makes something good, the person that enjoys the crafted thing wants more. This encourages the creator to create more. Sometimes the creator can't, whether the demand outweighs the supply or speed is too slow, or whatsoever it is. This is justifiable cause for people who liked the thing to wish that things were different. This is not justifiable cause for people to tell the creator that they're not a good person.
Most authors want to make those who read their stuff happy.
They want to write the story they want to write.
They want people to like their story.
For this to happen, most need it to be done in a timely manner.
If it is not, they risk losing the people that they wanted to entertain.
This does not make them a bad person, one way or the other.
It does make them limited and likely to lose some or much of their fanbase, depending on how long it takes and how patient the fanbase is.
All of this is the normal cycle of how people interact.
To me, no one is in the wrong - the fanbase for leaving or the author for taking too long.
I could wish for the story to be made faster.
I could wish for the author to be quicker.
I won't demand that - because it won't do any good whatsoever.
|
|
Which would be a perfectly valid argument if other authors weren't doing a job that was both good AND timely.
Also TBH the quality of the ASoIaF books can be mapped pretty close to inversely proportional to how much time he's taken to write each one.
I mean, maybe I'm wrong and the books are actually much worse than they would be if he were releasing them in a timely fashion, but considering most of the problems with the books is "I GOTTA HAVE MORE PADDING" I doubt that.
You're making the mistake of conflating length of time taken to create with quality of product (much like people think "It's more expensive! It MUST be better!").
I'm a s$&%ty artist. It takes me twice as much time to make anything as my other classmates did. Doesn't make my art better. It's still garbage.
It still is a perfectly valid argument, regardless of what other authors do, because not all authors are the same. It's a human thing.
I've not read any GRRM, incidentally, I was just addressing the principle.
And you have either misread or misunderstood my post. At no point did I conflate length of time to produce a work and quality of work.
I said that a rush job is normally a bad job.
What I suggested is that work does not always take the same fixed amount of time to produce and that there may be times when you have to take longer to produce the same quality.
Why are you misrepresenting my suggestion? I don't get it.
And I still say the answer is "yes". You owe your audience quite a bit. Presumably, you're not writing this story for yourself. If you were, you wouldn't be publishing it. If you publish it, that means you want people to enjoy it. An audience gives you that validation.
If you promise a series and fail to deliver, you've betrayed a trust between audience and author (this works for any other entertainment medium as well, I feel). That trust is "I will get these books, I will receive a conclusion to this series".
What was the statement? I think it went something like "Look at me, I can present my opinion as fact."
And it is in your interest, not just financially but as an artist to keep up your end of that obligation. Because that trust is a two way street.
Absolutely, 100% true. I guess we can say something about blind squirrels and nuts here.
Your fans owe you, as well. If you hold up your end, they will too, by continuing to buy, and promote via word of mouth and beyond, this author they like so much.
Oh, you were this close. Change "owe" to "support", then we'll talk.
There's no point to the whole thing if it's anything different. It's just a business transaction without that invisible bond between creator and fan.
Heh, but it really is just a business transaction.
It's impossible to really describe in logical terms (or it's beyond my ability to do so), but you can see the effects with anything that has a dedicated fanbase.
There's a reason for that. It's usually impossible to describe imaginary things in logical terms.
A strong fanbase will defend your honor to the end of the universe if they have to, so long as you keep up your end of the social contract. You get their money, and their support, and their attempts to bring in even more money and support for you, of their own volition.
Having a fanbase like that is like having hundreds, thousands, millions of unpaid PR people working for you for free. And all you have to do is write a good story, and finish it like you promised.
Allow me to punch a hole in your hypothesis. A quick quote if you don't want to follow the link:
I gave up around somewhere between books 5 and 7, can't remember which title exactly because I stopped using proper titles and gave them nicknames. I believe the last one I read was "More Subplots Begin", the thrilling sequel to "New Characters Show Up".
Now, I suppose you can pull a "No True Scotsman" here if you like.
Most popular authors recognize that, it's why they're popular and why they'll stay popular. The ones who fail to keep up their end, however, start to see that love turn into resentment, and the good PR turns to bad.
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.
Obsessed fans are obsessed. Obsession is not always a good thing.
A good author recognizes that social contract, fulfills it, and EXPLOITS it for even greater success.
A less than good author (not necessarily writer, here) squanders that opportunity by taking his fanbase for granted.
Take a look at this if you care to.
People keep saying "Oh but GRRM could stop writing right now and be set forever"...and he could, monetarily.
But as Snow said, the two things are separate. I'd say he'd have a hell of a lot harder time getting any subsequent attempts at writing to become popular. Because he (in this scenario) believed that the social construct was not real or valid, and broke it. His disloyalty is returned with disloyalty. Maybe not complete failure, but certainly not at the same level of rabid fandom I saw surrounding ASoIaF several years ago.
Now you're basing this on the assumption that his current audience is the only audience that exists. Let's for a moment imagine that ole George did a bit of market research and found he could grab a bigger audience and make more money by switching to writing romance novels. He could ditch his current audience of 16 million nerds and pick up a new audience of 18 million bored housewives. Where is the downside? Why does he care if the nerds will never read another thing by him?
TL;DR: A social contract 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 believe in it. Social constructs are 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 the construct DOES exist. If it didn't, there would be no argument.
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.
What you've got here is a nice circular argument tied up in a bow. It's guaranteed to give warm, fuzzy feelings to people who already agree with your premises, but that's about all it's good for.
A strong fanbase will defend your honor to the end of the universe if they have to, so long as you keep up your end of the social contract. You get their money, and their support, and their attempts to bring in even more money and support for you, of their own volition.
Having a fanbase like that is like having hundreds, thousands, millions of unpaid PR people working for you for free. And all you have to do is write a good story, and finish it like you promised.
Allow me to punch a hole in your hypothesis. A quick quote if you don't want to follow the link:
I gave up around somewhere between books 5 and 7, can't remember which title exactly because I stopped using proper titles and gave them nicknames. I believe the last one I read was "More Subplots Begin", the thrilling sequel to "New Characters Show Up".Now, I suppose you can pull a "No True Scotsman" here if you like.
Except that I'm not a good example, because I don't think you could ever say I was a hardcore fan of Robert Jordan. Like I said, I love the world building... but for me the best book in the series is the lore book that does nothing but explain the world. I loved the first book. Thought the second was okay. By the time I got to the 4th book I was only still reading due to momentum, I'd return a book to the library and the librarian would already have the next one set aside for me (School library, and as my mother was a teacher, all the staff knew me well. The librarians generally kept an eye on what I was reading and would pull the next book in a series for me when they figured I'd be back in soon, they were good enough judges of my reading speed that they were normally accurate to within a day or two of when I'd finish a book). These days people ask if I'd recommend the Wheel of Time and I generally say hell no. I used to recommend GRRM as an alternative, but I don't do that anymore either.
The only reason I have any interest in re-reading the series is because I occasionally wonder about how it ended, but it's more because I hate leaving a story unfinished than my actually being a fan. Who knows, maybe one day I'll pick 'em up again and fall in love with the series, but right now I don't care enough to even try. See my comments earlier in this thread:
I can attest to the comment Rynjin made about GRRM many fans not being as die-hard as they used to be. Anecdotal evidence of course, but I used to count myself as a major fan.
I started reading the books around my 13th birthday (so 2002), tearing through the first three, and while the wait for A Feast For Crows (in 2005) was difficult, it wasn't long enough to really be a problem for me. I just figured that one must have been a more difficult one to write, and he'd probably not have as long a gap between it and the next one... six years later A Dance With Dragons came out, and I found myself not even caring enough to grab it in trade or hardcover. Didn't end up reading it until last year, because every other series I'd been reading was either waiting on another book or had wrapped up. I read the whole series again, but the magic just wasn't there for me this time, and when I read the fifth book it was the same. It's still enjoyable, but I'm not dying to find out what happens anymore. If anything it's more like what happened with Lost, where I stopped watching, and just wanted to know what the ending was so I knew it was finished.
Using me to try and counter Rynjin's comments probably isn't a great idea, since I'm pretty much in agreement with him on this one.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Rynjin - You listed a lot of very good reasons for any author to finish writing their series. I agree with every one of them.
However, to me there seems to be a strong distinction between "should" and "has to". An author doesn't have to finish his series. He doesn't owe anything to anyone. Above and beyond being an author he is a human, and if for whatever reason he decides to give up on a series, that sucks for the fans but is his descision to make. His freedom, his happiness, comes first.
An example that I think every one of us can understand and sympathise with. A GM opens a group and starts a campaign. The players are excited about it, the game is fun and for two years the gigantic epic that is the adventure of this Pathfinder group is played out over hundreds of hours.
Then the GM gets tired of the campaign. His enthusiasm for it is long gone, the ending is no-where in sight and he has been having less fun with every session, even though his friends are clearly still enjoying themselves.Does he "owe" it to them to see the campaign through?
Except that I'm not a good example, because I don't think you could ever say I was a hardcore fan of Robert Jordan. Like I said, I love the world building... but for me the best book in the series is the lore book that does nothing but explain the world. I loved the first book. Thought the second was okay. By the time I got to the 4th book I was only still reading due to momentum, I'd return a book to the library and the librarian would already have the next one set aside for me (School library, and as my mother was a teacher, all the staff knew me well. The librarians generally kept an eye on what I was reading and would pull the next book in a series for me when they figured I'd be back in soon, they were good enough judges of my reading speed that they were normally accurate to within a day or two of when I'd finish a book). These days people ask if I'd recommend the Wheel of Time and I generally say hell no. I used to recommend GRRM as an alternative, but I don't do that anymore either.
A strong fanbase will defend your honor to the end of the universe if they have to, so long as you keep up your end of the social contract. You get their money, and their support, and their attempts to bring in even more money and support for you, of their own volition.
Having a fanbase like that is like having hundreds, thousands, millions of unpaid PR people working for you for free. And all you have to do is write a good story, and finish it like you promised.
Allow me to punch a hole in your hypothesis. A quick quote if you don't want to follow the link:
I gave up around somewhere between books 5 and 7, can't remember which title exactly because I stopped using proper titles and gave them nicknames. I believe the last one I read was "More Subplots Begin", the thrilling sequel to "New Characters Show Up".Now, I suppose you can pull a "No True Scotsman" here if you like.
Um, that's why it's the perfect example. His argument is that once an author starts a series he is guaranteed a fan base until the series is over. Your statement proves that is pure bunk. You ran out of steam after book 4 of a 13 book set, according to him you OWE it to Robert Jordan to buy and read the rest. The core of the argument is that the author doesn't get to quit writing and the fans don't get to quit reading. Your desire to stop reading the series is as irrelevant as the author's desire to stop writing it. You're stuck with it sucker.
BUT, as I said anyone can certainly pull a "No True Scotsman" and just further underscore the absurdity of the position.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I said as long as rhe author provides a GOOD story. Implied: A story you enjoy.
You're not a fan of something if you don't like it.
I am a fan of WoT. I enjoyed, for the most part, the entire thing.
Tinkergoth was a fan of book 1, but not of the rest of the series.
None of the rest of your reply is really worth addressing, since it either flows from that same misreading of what I wrote, or from your inability to accept that social constructs are real, for whatever reason.
Um, that's why it's the perfect example. His argument is that once an author starts a series he is guaranteed a fan base until the series is over. Your statement proves that is pure bunk. You ran out of steam after book 4 of a 13 book set, according to him you OWE it to Robert Jordan to buy and read the rest. The core of the argument is that the author doesn't get to quit writing and the fans don't get to quit reading. Your desire to stop reading the series is as irrelevant as the author's desire to stop writing it. You're stuck with it sucker.
BUT, as I said anyone can certainly pull a "No True Scotsman" and just further underscore the absurdity of the position.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Rynjin due to my writing a bloody essay out of boredom and desperate need for distraction.
Note that he said a strong fan base. I specifically said that I wasn't a hardcore fan, meaning that I wouldn't class myself as part of a strong fanbase.
I also agree with him that if authors kept up their end of the social contract (and I realise you don't believe in such a thing, but personally I do), then yes, the fanbase WILL continue to support. Not because they really have to, but because they want to. Perhaps Rynjin could have worded it slightly better, but the point is there.
Rynjin isn't saying that as soon as an author starts a series, they're guaranteed a fanbase from start to finish. What he's saying is (and I apologise if I've misunderstood this Rynjin):
If the author starts a series, and it's of a) high quality and b) grabs the attention of people enough to develop a strong fanbase, then yes, that fanbase will bloody well support the author throughout the series, with a few caveats. If the quality of the story drops dramatically or goes in a direction that fans don't enjoy anymore, there goes some of your fanbase. If the author does something to really upset the fans, bam, there goes a bunch more (this is why I haven't read any Orson Scott Card in a very, very long time). In some cases, if the author takes a huge amount of time to get the next book out and there isn't much going on to make fans think that it's still on the way (see what happened with A Dance With Dragons), more are lost (some entirely, others may just not care as much, like me). It also doesn't just apply to series, the same can happen with someone who happens to write a number of novels in a similar style. If someone is a part of the fanbase for an author, then yes, they're probably going to buy everything. But here's the important part... Absolutely nothing dictates that you have to remain part of that fanbase.
This is why I have an issue with what you're saying. You seem to be taking what Rynjin says to a ridiculous conclusion... but as I understand it, what he's actually saying is "Keep the fans happy, and they'll be with you for life, and will support you through all. Upset them, and they'll stop buying your books and will no longer be fans." Which seems pretty logical to me. With GRRM, I dropped out of the core fanbase because of the sheer time delay combined with the fact that I didn't find A Feast For Crows and A Dance With Dragons that satisfying. The lack of news about it for so long didn't help either. I just don't care enough anymore to hang out for the next book and re-read all the rest of them. So I'm no longer part of the fanbase, and don't feel obligated to read them (conversely, as soon as I find out that there's a new Rivers of London novel available, or Alex Verus, or Urban Magic/Magicals Anonymous, or any other series I love, I actually do feel like I have to go out and buy it as soon as I possibly can).
For an example using another author, where it's not a series (or rather they're all set in the same continuity, and some books share characters, but they're all stand alone stories) and not due to time lapse between books... Christopher Brookmyre. Since I was given a copy of The Sacred Art of Stealing nearly 10 years ago now, I've loved his work. I went out and bought everything, and I've re-read them all multiple times. Now, there was one or two in there that I didn't like as much as the others (Not The End Of The World and All Fun And Games in particular) but overall, I was a massive fanboy. His sarcastic, cynical and oh so biting sense of humour, the social commentary, and the oh so Scottish nature of the writing had me totally in love with it, even though I normally don't like crime thrillers. Then we got to Pandaemonium. Huh. Okay. Supernatural/sci-fi stuff. Can't say I'm a big fan, but it's still pretty funny and mostly enjoyable. I didn't really keep up with what he was doing for a few years after that, as I was in the middle of a pretty tumultuous time in my life, with multiple job shifts, moving house several times and a lot of drama going on with friends and family. A few months back I popped into the bookstore and ordered the four books I'd missed out on. First one I started to read. Bedlam. Okay, he's gone sci-fi, but as long as the humour is... oh, it's mostly gone. Well. That's disappointing. Let's try the next book, oh it's a new series involving a private investigator. Well, that should give him plenty of scope for... oh. No humour. No cynicism. Nothing that makes this feel like the work of the same man who's earlier books delighted me so much.
And so the fanbase becomes broken. There's a surviving fanbase, those who quite possibly read his work initially because it was crime fiction and didn't mind the humour... but a lot of us (I'm basing that on reviews found on Good Reads and other sites) lost all interest in his work, because he wasn't supplying what we wanted anymore (the sharp wit and cynical humour, and for some people perhaps certain characters. I know I miss Jack Parlabane the investigative journalist...). Now it's not exactly the same situation as what I'm in with GRRM, but it's close enough to be used as an example. Where I used to just recommend that my friends read anything by Brookmyre, my recommendation now comes with a rider. "Read anything BEFORE he wrote Pandaemonium... if you really want to, read Pandaemonium, but then stop." If he had continued to write what I enjoyed, then yes, through thick and thin I'd have supported his work. As soon as something resulted in me not enjoying it anymore, I'm no longer part of the fanbase, and therefore I'm not going to buy his stuff anymore.
I said as long as rhe author provides a GOOD story. Implied: A story you enjoy.
You're not a fan of something if you don't like it.
I am a fan of WoT. I enjoyed, for the most part, the entire thing.
Tinkergoth was a fan of book 1, but not of the rest of the series.
None of the rest of your reply is really worth addressing, since it either flows from that same misreading of what I wrote, or from your inability to accept that social constructs are real, for whatever reason.
So you did decided to go with the Scotsman. OK, at least we know you don't have a real argument. And did you decide to change "social contract" to "social construct" somewhere along the way to try to make it not sound so bad? There are all kinds of social constructs around, the idea of a social contract is not one that belongs.
You position basically puts an author in a no-win situation:
If he starts a good story he has to keep writing it whether he wants to or not.
If he starts a good story that then goes bad he is a pariah and will never have an audience again.
If he starts a good story but runs out of steam and desire to keep it going then he has betrayed his fan base.
If he starts a good story that takes to long to complete he has betrayed all his loyal fans who can choose to abandon him at any time.
In any case, once a writer has started a story that people like he becomes a slave to his fans until he ends the story in a manner that is satisfactory to them regardless of his wishes.
No win situations means there's no way to win.
You write a good story, you take it to a satisfying conclusion, you win.
This is why I have an issue with what you're saying. You seem to be taking what Rynjin says to a ridiculous conclusion... but as I understand it, what he's actually saying is "Keep the fans happy, and they'll be with you for life, and will support you through all. Upset them, and they'll stop buying your books and will no longer be fans." Which seems pretty logical to me. With GRRM, I dropped out of the core fanbase because of the sheer time delay combined with the fact that I didn't find A Feast For Crows and A Dance With Dragons that satisfying. The lack of news about it for so long didn't help either. I just don't care enough anymore to hang out for the next book and re-read all the rest of them. So I'm no longer part of the fanbase, and don't feel obligated to read them (conversely, as soon as I find out that there's a new Rivers of London novel available, or Alex Verus, or Urban Magic/Magicals Anonymous, or any other series I love, I actually do feel like I have to go out and buy it as soon as I possibly can).Um, that's why it's the perfect example. His argument is that once an author starts a series he is guaranteed a fan base until the series is over. Your statement proves that is pure bunk. You ran out of steam after book 4 of a 13 book set, according to him you OWE it to Robert Jordan to buy and read the rest. The core of the argument is that the author doesn't get to quit writing and the fans don't get to quit reading. Your desire to stop reading the series is as irrelevant as the author's desire to stop writing it. You're stuck with it sucker.
BUT, as I said anyone can certainly pull a "No True Scotsman" and just further underscore the absurdity of the position.
I'll address the nugget and the reason it sounds ridiculous. The point that keeps coming up is that an author "owes" his fans a satisfactory story from beginning to end. He is "responsible" for keeping his fans happy because of an imaginary "social contract".
If the argument was that an author really should keep writing a good story if he wants to keep his fans and making money, nobody would be arguing. There's nothing wrong with getting upset and not buying anything from an author that stops writing your favorite story. But the author has every right to do so. He doesn't "owe" anything to anyone. He doesn't have a "responsibility" to keep writing a story he no longer cares about. There is no "social contract" that can force him to do anything he doesn't want to continue doing.
An author is always free to stop writing what he doesn't want to anymore. A fan is always free to stop reading what he doesn't want to anymore.
No win situations means there's no way to win.
You write a good story, you take it to a satisfying conclusion, you win.
And in that case, the author gets to take as long as he pleases to bring his story to a conclusion that is satisfying to him.
And in that case, the author gets to take as long as he pleases to bring his story to a conclusion that is satisfying to him.No win situations means there's no way to win.
You write a good story, you take it to a satisfying conclusion, you win.
For your no win situation you're assuming that bringing a good story to a satisfying conclusion can't be done in a reasonable time frame. Given how bad stories seem to get when authors spend too much time on the individual volumes i think this is far from the case.
For your no win situation you're assuming that bringing a good story to a satisfying conclusion can't be done in a reasonable time frame. Given how bad stories seem to get when authors spend too much time on the individual volumes i think this is far from the case.And in that case, the author gets to take as long as he pleases to bring his story to a conclusion that is satisfying to him.No win situations means there's no way to win.
You write a good story, you take it to a satisfying conclusion, you win.
I'm also assuming that readers won't become rabid stalkers or hate mongers if it takes longer than they want for the next book to come out. Who gets to decide what is a reasonable time frame? Who gets to decide if the conclusion is satisfying? What percentage of his fan base does he have to please in order to be let off the hook? What happens if a writer, in order to keeps his fans happy, puts out a book before he feels it's ready and the fans hate it? What happens if he gets halfway through the next book and just completely runs out of ideas? What if he planned for five books but then realized he only had enough material for four which don't really wrap up all the outstanding issues? What if he wants to give up writing forever and become a hermit?
I lied, there was one bit in here that so spectacularly missed the point of its own accord that I want to respond.
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.
No, but the belief in God exists whether you believe in it or not.
Social contracts are something that exist precisely BECAUSE people believe they exist. You not believing in it doesn't change a thing about it.
I don't believe in God, but the fact that I don't believe in God doesn't somehow mean that the belief in God doesn't exist.
So you did decided to go with the Scotsman.
Don't use terms you don't understand, it makes you look silly.
You position basically puts an author in a no-win situation:
This should be amusing.
If he starts a good story he has to keep writing it whether he wants to or not.
He is obligated to do so.
That does not mean he is FORCED to do so.
But there are consequences for breaking any obligation.
If he starts a good story that then goes bad he is a pariah and will never have an audience again.
If you say so.
All I said was that his previous audience would likely be soured against him. He can find a new audience, his old audience may even trickle back in, but he would not have the same trust he had before until he earned it back.
This is true of anything. You f&%& up, you might get a second chance, but don't expect people to put that same faith in you again for a while. That's how life works.
If he starts a good story but runs out of steam and desire to keep it going then he has betrayed his fan base.
He has reneged on an implicit promise, yes. You start something, you will be expected to finish it.
I had assumed most people were raised to have this understanding but maybe I was wrong. Or is it just you?
If he starts a good story that takes to long to complete he has betrayed all his loyal fans who can choose to abandon him at any time.
If he writes a story and it starts to take far too long for the next installment to come out, he should not be surprised if his fanbase trickles away.
There's only so long you can expect people to wait with bated breath fr the next installment.
The hype train may have no brakes, but it is certainly subject to inertia just like everything else.
In any case, once a writer has started a story that people like he becomes a slave to his fans until he ends the story in a manner that is satisfactory to them regardless of his wishes.
Slave? No. Slave implies he doesn't have free will. He does. He can choose to do whatever he wishes.
It's closer to an employer-employee relationship. The audience is paying him, and has entrusted him to finish this series to their satisfaction.
He can feel perfectly free to blow it off, do something different, or not properly complete it.
However, that will turn out about as well as it would for any job.
Simon, have you started Myth of Sisyphus yet? If so, I forget, who was the dude who wrote his book and then killed himself as a publicity stunt in order to assure sales? And then his book wasn't any good?
*Standing Ovation*
[Bows]
I'm also assuming that readers won't become rabid stalkers or hate mongers if it takes longer than they want for the next book to come out. Who gets to decide what is a reasonable time frame?
The court of public opinion.
What percentage of his fan base does he have to please in order to be let off the hook?
"off the hook" like "ticked off the fans" or "Geek lynch mob" , isn't a binary thing. Its entirely a compilation of an aggregate. The degree to which the book is frequent and good will be inversely proportional to the geek grarg. Neither is binary, and neither will hit zero or 100%.
What happens if a writer, in order to keeps his fans happy, puts out a book before he feels it's ready and the fans hate it?
The things that seem to make fans hate books doesn't seem to be dependant on how much time is put into them.
What happens if he gets halfway through the next book and just completely runs out of ideas?
Ask for help.
What if he planned for five books but then realized he only had enough material for four which don't really wrap up all the outstanding issues?
Write the fifth book wraping up said issues.
What if he wants to give up writing forever and become a hermit?
Sell it off to a ghost writer.
Not safe for work. But also funny
Huh, never realised they were Australians until I noticed part of that was filmed in a JB HiFi. Though I've never really paid attention to the videos before, usually I just hear the music at a friend's place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys... are you seriously still debating the definition of having an obligation to do something...?
Simon, have you started Myth of Sisyphus yet? If so, I forget, who was the dude who wrote his book and then killed himself as a publicity stunt in order to assure sales? And then his book wasn't any good?
Yes I have, but I haven't come across that yet. I skimmed ahead a bit but nothing jumped out at me.
I'm also assuming that readers won't become rabid stalkers or hate mongers if it takes longer than they want for the next book to come out. Who gets to decide what is a reasonable time frame?
The court of public opinion.
What percentage of his fan base does he have to please in order to be let off the hook?"off the hook" like "ticked off the fans" or "Geek lynch mob" , isn't a binary thing. Its entirely a compilation of an aggregate. The degree to which the book is frequent and good will be inversely proportional to the geek grarg. Neither is binary, and neither will hit zero or 100%.
What happens if a writer, in order to keeps his fans happy, puts out a book before he feels it's ready and the fans hate it?The things that seem to make fans hate books doesn't seem to be dependant on how much time is put into them.
What happens if he gets halfway through the next book and just completely runs out of ideas?Ask for help.
What if he planned for five books but then realized he only had enough material for four which don't really wrap up all the outstanding issues?Write the fifth book wraping up said issues.
What if he wants to give up writing forever and become a hermit?Sell it off to a ghost writer.
So if an author has no ability or desire to continue a story, the answer is "too bad b%÷&$, get back to work".
I am not sure why there is a huge fuss over the term "Social Contract", But I figure I should weigh in on it.
Social Contract: an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each
Any actual agreement for future books would be between the publisher and the author... not the fans. If you contracted with the publisher to do three books then that IS an actual contract.
On the other hand the fans DO buy into a series with the expectation (accurate or not) of a hypothetical social contract requiring the completion of the series. Obviously this has no weight of law behind it but the use of the terminology isn't inappropriate. That sense of being wronged the fans get when a favorite author drops a series they liked isn't coming out of nowhere; it is because their hypothetical social contract wasn't completed.
So if an author has no ability or desire to continue a story, the answer is "too bad b%÷&$, get back to work".
Not in reality.
The best thing the author can do is tell the fans they burned out on it. And then take a break till the creative juices are pumping again. The fans realize that no books will come for possibly a long time but that disappointment is tempered by the knowledge that when the story is returned to it will still be the expected high quality.
Will this please everyone? No... but it does preserve some fan base for later; Those who will wait.
So if an author has no ability or desire to continue a story, the answer is "too bad b%÷&$, get back to work".Not in reality.
The best thing the author can do is tell the fans they burned out on it. And then take a break till the creative juices are pumping again. The fans realize that no books will come for possibly a long time but that disappointment is tempered by the knowledge that when the story is returned to it will still be the expected high quality.
Will this please everyone? No... but it does preserve some fan base for later; Those who will wait.
That's generally enough for me. Even if it does result in me deciding to not continue reading the series, I'd rather just know if there's going to be a delay or not. I think the problem that people had with GRRM's delays was that they felt there wasn't enough communication about when the books would be out.
Either way, despite the fact that I agree with Rynjin about... I don't really like the words obligation or owe for it, but I'm coming up short on something that fits better... It's not really something I get worked up about for the most part. It might disappoint me for a little while, but eventually I'll just decide that either it's worth the wait, or I don't care enough and move on to other series. Nothing will ever please everyone, so I try not to worry about it.
That's generally enough for me. Even if it does result in me deciding to not continue reading the series, I'd rather just know if there's going to be a delay or not. I think the problem that people had with GRRM's delays was that they felt there wasn't enough communication about when the books would be out.
GRRM used to update quite regularly on his blog, up through Feast of Crows and the early parts of Dance of Dragons. He stopped largely because any single update would get him hundreds of emails/comments complaining about his progress. He has now switched to only providing updates for when a book is done. So basically as I see it, fanbase entitlement shut down the updates, not GRRM.
Keep in mind also the volume of attention he gets about this. A recent article on the author even mentioned fans showing up at his house to ask him when it would be done. That's...kind of ridiculous.
Of course its even worse now, with the success of Game of Thrones. If GRRM says anything remotely related to Winds of Winter, it gets picked up by every entertainment and Hollywood gossip website and even TV news. I think even if GRRM DID want to update viewers, he would probably be contractually obligated not to.
An example that I think every one of us can understand and sympathise with. A GM opens a group and starts a campaign. The players are excited about it, the game is fun and for two years the gigantic epic that is the adventure of this Pathfinder group is played out over hundreds of hours.
Then the GM gets tired of the campaign. His enthusiasm for it is long gone, the ending is no-where in sight and he has been having less fun with every session, even though his friends are clearly still enjoying themselves.Does he "owe" it to them to see the campaign through?
It depends on what the GM is willing to accept in terms of consequences. Is he prepared for potentially never GMing for this group again (once bitten, twice shy and all that)? The GM can decide from the consequences if he "owes" anything to the players or not.
So if an author has no ability or desire to continue a story, the answer is "too bad b%÷&$, get back to work".
As usual, your objection has no relation to anything that was actually said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best thing the author can do is tell the fans they burned out on it. And then take a break till the creative juices are pumping again. The fans realize that no books will come for possibly a long time but that disappointment is tempered by the knowledge that when the story is returned to it will still be the expected high quality.Will this please everyone? No... but it does preserve some fan base for later; Those who will wait.
It didn't help that the epilog for a feast for crows was basically "Hey! where are the good characters! Don't worry, this is only half the book. I have the other half almost ready to go...." followed by a 5 year wait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The progress of a perfectionist is always frustrating to follow. Still, there was a reason people liked his books, right?
The best thing the author can do is tell the fans they burned out on it. And then take a break till the creative juices are pumping again. The fans realize that no books will come for possibly a long time but that disappointment is tempered by the knowledge that when the story is returned to it will still be the expected high quality.Will this please everyone? No... but it does preserve some fan base for later; Those who will wait.
It didn't help that the epilog for a feast for crows was basically "Hey! where are the good characters! Don't worry, this is only half the book. I have the other half almost ready to go...." followed by a 5 year wait.
This was where I stopped caring. I heard that those two books were meant to be one, but it got too big and had to be separated at the end there.
Which meant that Dance was at least 50%-75% finished when Feast came out... (can't remember the quote anymore...) Adding 5 years to finish half a book?? Yeah, I lost interest at that point.
The books quite frankly are TOO detailed for THAT kind of wait. I can't remember who everyone's third cousin who had a paragraph detailed to him in book two is 5 years at a time... Everytime a book came out, I had to reread the series just to enjoy it without feeling lost.
When Feast and Dance were on the tables... I just shrugged and said 'nnahhhhh.,..' I got better things to do.
I ENJOYED the books... I thought they were good... but they weren't THAT good. There are a lot of writers out there that I like just as much, and they keep me in books without the timesynch that GRRM demands. If he wrote self contained stories... I'd probably read them, but SoIaF? I'm done with that till they're all out... if I even care then.... Juries still out.
I imagine when the tv series starts flooding the internet with spoilers 6 years before the final book comes out... I won't even bother :(
You position basically puts an author in a no-win situation:
If he starts a good story he has to keep writing it whether he wants to or not.
Obligations are poor words... But I would think very ill of his personal character if he quits.
If someone walks up and says Here's book 1 of 4... then after 2 shrugs and says 'screw it... I don't wanna' then I would consider that pretty dishonorable.
Writers CAN write things they lose interest in... if he expects to books to go to 5... but finishes it up in 4, then no problem... but if you leave people on cliffhanger forever? That's a jerk move.
If he starts a good story that then goes bad he is a pariah and will never have an audience again..
or he'll get a new audience. See George Lucas. Most people dislike the prequels... Lots of kids LOOOOOOVE it. he still makes money, just not from the fans who were there in the beginning.
There's nothing wrong with having a misstep and not EVERY book has to be better then the ones before. WoT had some books in there that were absolute rubbish... however they still kept the story going.
If he starts a good story but runs out of steam and desire to keep it going then he has betrayed his fan base..
Exactly. Same way any tv show does if they get canceled on a cliffhanger. Betrayal is betrayal. If you say you're going to do something... then you should do it. That's just basic principle.
Most people hate their jobs... we still do them.
If he starts a good story that takes to long to complete he has betrayed all his loyal fans who can choose to abandon him at any time..
Yep. Same way in any job. If people expecting a report want it on Friday... and say I didn't feel like it, they'll get it when I'm in the mood... There will be consequences.
If you are a writer who doesn't want to write... then you have no right to complain if people don't consider you worth the emotional connection anymore.
In any case, once a writer has started a story that people like he becomes a slave to his fans until he ends the story in a manner that is satisfactory to them regardless of his wishes.
Satisfaction is never a given. Honestly once you start watching or reading a series... there's no such thing as a 'good' ending. No matter HOW it ends, I'll still be bummed that particular part of my life is over... There's no more story, and time to move on to something else.
The alternative is to give the story an ending, and move and start writing what you enjoy again.
This is why so many writers bounce around different characters, genres, whatever... Even their 'connected' stories can be combined into simple trilogies. There's always a good 'ending' spot right around the corner.
One thing I really enjoy about that Write like the Wind song... is how it points out that there is ZERO connection between 'quality of the book' and 'time it takes to write the book'.
Tolkien, Lewis, Shakespeare, all did just as awesome of stuff... but in a timely manner.
Some of my favorite authors can still put a book out every or two, some are better then others, but then it's on to something else. 5-6 years?? No excuse for that.
You position basically puts an author in a no-win situation:
If he starts a good story he has to keep writing it whether he wants to or not.
Obligations are poor words... But I would think very ill of his personal character if he quits.
If someone walks up and says Here's book 1 of 4... then after 2 shrugs and says 'screw it... I don't wanna' then I would consider that pretty dishonorable.
Writers CAN write things they lose interest in... if he expects to books to go to 5... but finishes it up in 4, then no problem... but if you leave people on cliffhanger forever? That's a jerk move.
If he starts a good story that then goes bad he is a pariah and will never have an audience again..or he'll get a new audience. See George Lucas. Most people dislike the prequels... Lots of kids LOOOOOOVE it. he still makes money, just not from the fans who were there in the beginning.
There's nothing wrong with having a misstep and not EVERY book has to be better then the ones before. WoT had some books in there that were absolute rubbish... however they still kept the story going.
If he starts a good story but runs out of steam and desire to keep it going then he has betrayed his fan base..Exactly. Same way any tv show does if they get canceled on a cliffhanger. Betrayal is betrayal. If you say you're going to do something... then you should do it. That's just basic principle.
Most people hate their jobs... we still do them.
If he starts a good story that takes to long to complete he has betrayed all his loyal fans who can choose to abandon him at any time..Yep. Same way in any job. If people expecting a report want it on Friday... and say I didn't feel like it, they'll get it when I'm in the mood... There will be consequences.
If you are a writer who doesn't want to write... then you have no right to complain if people don't consider you worth the...
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"?
Tolkien, Lewis, Shakespeare, all did just as awesome of stuff... but in a timely manner.
Actually (from wiki), Tolkien took over a decade to write Lord of the Rings (1937-1949, although admittedly WW II would have interfered). It was then published from 1954 with the writing finished.(Gave him the luxury of being able to edit Fellowship and Two Towers as necessary when writing Return).
He was a university professor, not making a living as a professional writer, so I don't think comparison to anyone else is helpful
"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]