Scott Lynch's THORN OF EMBERLAIN

[Calibandar]

24 minutes ago, 3CityApache said:

I get irritated sometimes when a book I wait for is postponed again and again, but there is no such thing as any given time to complete a book. Even if writing a previous volume in a series took author a year, it doesn't mean than the next volume should be published after another year. It can be longer, harder to write, whatever. So what does "long delayed book" actually mean? Comparing to what? Reader's expectations?

I would say long delayed can mean various things. But it comes down to expectation vs actual, obviously.

I think generally though, people understand what is meant by long delayed. A book gets a publication date on Amazon and is then delayed. A book is announced, like Thorn, but is then not released. Or a book takes years and years to be written, that's also considered long delayed. First two books in a series take a year each to be written and suddenly book 3 doesn't come out until 6 years later. etc etc. You could of course say, "well I expected that for instance Winds of Winter would take at least 6 years to be written so it is not technically delayed to me". That is a point of view to take in which a book cannot be considered to be delayed. Generally, if a book takes significantly longer to be completed, due to whatever reason, it is considered delayed. There's nothing wrong with saying a book is delayed though. There can be valid reasons. But there can also be less valid reasons. All in the eye of the beholder. Some people take " I will read it whenever it is done" view. But there are also many people who have a somewhat more urgent expectation than "I'll see it when I see it".

9 minutes ago, mormont said:

Let's not pretend that you know any of these authors well enough to be in a position to judge whether they are, in fact, making their best efforts.

Criticising people on the basis of half-truths, rumours, suppositions, assumptions and incomplete information may seem reasonable, but that's only because it allows one's frustration to be vented in a manner that feels justified, even though 99% of the time, it's not.

Let's also not pretend that you know any of these authors well enough to be in a position to say that work ethic and slacking off or prioritizing other things over writing the book have nothing to do with the long delays. You don't know this at all, but the very idea of criticizing an author is just a slap in the face to you. You feel an instant need to apologize for them, even though you don't know what is actually the cause either. You simply assume that it has nothing to do with the authors prioritizing writing , nothing to do with the extent to which the author applies himself to his work, nothing to do with work ethic. 

What we can say is that work ethic and prioritizing writing definitely matters when it comes to publication of a book, so when a book does not come out for years, and there are no updates from an author for years ( say for instance Rothfuss, or GRRM) it is natural to assume that those things that normally do factor into publication of any book, also could have to do the absence of publication. Those factors are very relevant when considering why certain authors *do* publish regularly, so it stands to reason that they can also explain lengthy delays.

To automatically assume that such things have nothing to do with the endless delays, is to simply brush aside inquiry. You will have your personal reasons for doing so.

[Calibandar]

BTW, there are of course easy fixes for an author to address such concerns among fans.

Give a fuck, and post an update once in a while. Explain what is going on, what the status is of the book, or if it is not going well, maybe indicate why. It can help a lot. 

Robin Hobb is exemplary in all of this IMO. She struggled with the writing of the 3rd book in her most recent series, posted a bit about that, and got a lot of support for it. She's been applying herself since to get it done, and we have a release date for next year, a year longer than normally, and there is no one who even utters a word of criticism. That's one way to do it.

The other way to do it is to publish nothing for years and years, and post no updates on the matter. That gives rise to speculation, some of which may be unfounded or it may be well founded. To not give any updates at all also suggests that you don't think fans need to know. As an author you should be happy to have so many fans waiting for your next book, fans whose payments allow you to live the full-time writing lifestyle that you have. Keeping those fans in the loop a bit is entry level customer service, which is ok really.

[mormont]

21 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

Let's also not pretend that you know any of these authors well enough to be in a position to say that work ethic and slacking off or prioritizing other things over writing the book have nothing to do with the long delays.

That's fine, since I haven't said that.

Instead, I would suggest we start from the common sense point of view that 99% of authors are extremely motivated to make progress, and have publishers, editors, friends, families, professional colleagues and others to monitor their progress. So, it's absolutely reasonable to operate a default assumption that if we start complaining about authors 'slacking off', 99% of the time we're just venting our own frustrations in a way that allows us to feel justified, when in fact we're not, as previously stated. Or to put it another way, we're shooting our mouths off in ignorance because it makes us feel better.

It's a natural human reaction, but that doesn't change the fact that objectively it's likely to be untrue.

[Calibandar]

Of course, not everyone gets questions asked about their work ethic when their work is delayed.

It may well be a certain 1 or 2% only who get questions asked. I certainly agree standard operating procedure is to not assume that someone is late because they don't give a toss. But sometimes, there are solid reasons to think why that might be part of the explanation for a delay.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

It's complicated. On one hand, yes, authors are not our employees. On the other, starting a series (as opposed to writing a stand-alone) carries with it the implicit expectation that the series will be finished: would you buy a book with half the pages missing?

No.  If GRRM, Scott Lynch, and Pat Rothfuss decide to start a band and travel the country in a VW bus playing honkeytonk at Truckstops for the rest of their lives, that's their call.  It would be disappointing but they owe us nothing.  Our disappointment is our issue.

[banjax451]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  If GRRM, Scott Lynch, and Pat Rothfuss decide to start a band and travel the country in a VW bus playing honkeytonk at Truckstops for the rest of their lives, that's their call.  It would be disappointing but they owe us nothing.  Our disappointment is our issue.

This is where I come down.

I do appreciate it when authors share their status with us (their readers) so that there's an idea of where things stand, but I don't necessarily think it's necessary. Indeed, I think it can create more problems than it solves. If Rothfuss could go back in time and change one thing, I have almost no doubt that he would go back and "unsay" that books 2 and 3 were "already written." That has lead to more problems than anything else.  Likewise, I think GRRM regrets making certain promises in the past about how soon books would come, though I do appreciate that he was very open about his struggles after having written himself into a corner.

I think people get frustrated (wrongly) when they see authors travelling around and getting involved in side-projects, but that is entirely their right. The only people who are "owed" working on a book are the publishing companies they are under contract to - and unless that contract mandates certain things, they then simply would owe back any advance at a certain point.

My frustration in this particular case is that the book was supposed to be out. Preorders have now been cancelled and there is no new date. It would be nice if Scott would update people with: "Yes...it's been bumped. We don't have a new publication date."  I understand not saying a new date if that's still being worked out...but it would be nice if Scott or Gollancz would come out and say that...contrary to earlier statements, the book is definitely NOT coming out in September.  If the release date had been in 2017 and had been bumped, I wouldn't care. But the book was scheduled to come out in 6 weeks. Somebody should say something. I don't care if it has been bumped, but it would be nice for them to admit it has been bumped.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Banjax,

That seems like Gollancz's mistake more than Lynch's.

[banjax451]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Banjax,

That seems like Gollancz's mistake more than Lynch's.

Probably, which is why I included them. But we have no way of knowing.

[Darth Richard II]

What mormont said.

Also I think a lot of people(not necessarily on here, but more casual readers) don't understand that a lot of writers have full 40 hour a week jobs, since unless you're GRRM or Stephen King, your writing isn't going to support you, or you know, that family thing people do.

I also think its OK to be disappointed, just release the author is probably just as disappointed as you are.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I just read that Rothfuss ia still teaching full time.  Is that the case?

[Darth Richard II]

Huh. I didn't know that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

If Rothfuss is teaching full time it would help explain why we are waiting for Doors of Stone.

[Werthead]

Quote

On the other, starting a series (as opposed to writing a stand-alone) carries with it the implicit expectation that the series will be finished:

Taking one look at the large number of series left unfinished by poor sales, the publishers going bust, Kearney's Luck or Author Existence Failure, I absolutely do not take it as read that the series will be finished until it is actually finished.

Quote

I just read that Rothfuss ia still teaching full time.  Is that the case?

That would be extraordinary. The Name of the Wind and The Wise Man's Fear has sold an estimated 12 million copies between them. It's the biggest-selling debut epic fantasy series this century. There's no economic reason at all for him to do that, unless he just wants to.

He is doing other things, like writing a few bits and a character for a video game (Torment: Tides of Numenera, which I would comfortably take ten times over in preference to The Doors of Stone, so that's fine) and doing some charity stuff, but they seem pretty minor.

[polishgenius]

12 hours ago, Werthead said:

 and doing some charity stuff, but they seem pretty minor.

 

 

Judging by his blog I don't think that the charity stuff is all that minor, tbh. At times Worldbuilders seems to take over his life.

 

Which, you know, can't really criticise, it's good work.

[BigFatCoward]

On 11/08/2016 at 10:44 AM, mormont said:

That's fine, since I haven't said that.

Instead, I would suggest we start from the common sense point of view that 99% of authors are extremely motivated to make progress, and have publishers, editors, friends, families, professional colleagues and others to monitor their progress. So, it's absolutely reasonable to operate a default assumption that if we start complaining about authors 'slacking off', 99% of the time we're just venting our own frustrations in a way that allows us to feel justified, when in fact we're not, as previously stated. Or to put it another way, we're shooting our mouths off in ignorance because it makes us feel better.

It's a natural human reaction, but that doesn't change the fact that objectively it's likely to be untrue.

in every industry i've ever worked there have been 20% of true grafters, 60% who do their job and 20% who fuck about and do as little as possible, i don't see why writers would be any different.  

 

 

 

[Darth Richard II]

Writing isn't an industry?

[BigFatCoward]

18 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Writing isn't an industry?

publishing is, and writers are a part of it?  people are people, its absurd not to expect a significant minority of people in any industry not to be piss takers. 

[sologdin]

as to slow authors, appropriate letter here, kids.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, sologdin said:

as to slow authors, appropriate letter here, kids.

Sologdin,

I so want someone to pay you hourly to take that case.

[mormont]

2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

in every industry i've ever worked there have been 20% of true grafters, 60% who do their job and 20% who fuck about and do as little as possible, i don't see why writers would be any different.  

I'm sure they're not. But... you know where those 20% of lazy writers mostly are? They're sitting at home or working other jobs because if you're a writer who can't be bothered to work at it, you almost certainly won't get published in the first place.

That's the difference. It's like being a pro athlete, or a musician, or an actor. It's just about possible that you can coast on natural talent but 99% of people don't have the talent to make it on that alone.

ETA - this has now wandered seriously off topic, for which I apologise. Let's get back to specifically news about the Thorn of Emberlain, if there is any.