Jump to content

Does starting a series create an implied agreement that the series will be completed?


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Darth Richard II said:

You know, I swear that's happened at least once but my mind won't bring up the name.

Anyway I can;t seem to find the ebook piracy thread and this relates to a novel in a series almost not getting published so I'll leave it here.

http://maggie-stiefvater.tumblr.com/post/166952028861/ive-decided-to-tell-you-guys-a-story-about

Very interesting read. I suspect the biggest factor was not having an early leak, but the fact that there's anecdotal evidence that her muddying the well by filling piracy sites with her incomplete copies led frustrated would-be pirates to actually pay for the book instead is certainly worth taking note of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thread has been interesting, but it's made me think of a similar question, and one I'm not sure I have an answer to. And it's this:

Do authors (specifically sff authors) have an obligation to others in their field not to ruin the marketplace for other authors? At some point, if enough readers get frustrated with big name authors not completing series, is it possible that the blowback is felt by other up-and-coming authors? The fantasy genre (and sci-fi to a lesser degree) relies heavily on series. If readers stop buying first and second books in a series because they're frustrated with authors who fail to deliver on their own undertakings, will that eventually adversely affect the others in the field?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MisterOJ said:

This whole thread has been interesting, but it's made me think of a similar question, and one I'm not sure I have an answer to. And it's this:

Do authors (specifically sff authors) have an obligation to others in their field not to ruin the marketplace for other authors? At some point, if enough readers get frustrated with big name authors not completing series, is it possible that the blowback is felt by other up-and-coming authors? The fantasy genre (and sci-fi to a lesser degree) relies heavily on series. If readers stop buying first and second books in a series because they're frustrated with authors who fail to deliver on their own undertakings, will that eventually adversely affect the others in the field?

In fact, this has actually happened to a lot of author friends of mine. I have talked to plenty of readers on lists I belong to and I tell them about series I like, only for them to respond, "I only read books which are completed now." Apparently, they have decided they want to be able to read the next book directly and are afraid of being left in the lurch.

But Neil Gaiman and the infamous "GRR Martin is not your bitch" message did mention, (paraphrased) "What you should do when you can't finish a series is just read another one. Have you tried Fever Dream?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MisterOJ said:

This whole thread has been interesting, but it's made me think of a similar question, and one I'm not sure I have an answer to. And it's this:

Do authors (specifically sff authors) have an obligation to others in their field not to ruin the marketplace for other authors? 

No? I mean, no one sets out to not complete a series, or take an extended time in doing so, and at the same time many authors can’t predict to a T whether they’ll end up taking very long. So... don’t think anyone can feel an obligation over something they can’t control. “Oh, yeah,  my father may die in the next 5 years, I guess I shouldn’t start writing that trilogy just i. case...”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

I'm waiting for some author to write a shorter series than they planned.  "Sorry I couldn't write the doorstopper I intended, here's the unbloated, lean and efficient conclusion to the series my fans, critics, and ego always secretly wanted.

Ian Esslemont's critical acclaim seems to go up when he writers shorter. The 700-page books were definitely less well received than either Night of Knives or Dancer's Lament.

As mentioned above, Paul Kearney planned Monarchies of God to be a fairly large series (five volumes, 300-400 or even longer page novels), but the page counts came down with each book (down to just over 200 pages for the last couple). He's had issues with publishers who wanted him to write much bigger series packed with filler but he's said no. Solaris got around that (kind of) by upping the font size to get his books to around 400 pages each.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The great thing about legal agreements is they're objective and concrete, with explicit terms the parties have agreed to and, potentially, some mechanism of enforcement. You're either in breach of the terms or you're not.

The problem with implied agreements and moral obligations is they're totally subjective and the various parties to the non-existent agreement will have different ideas about what the terms are, if they exist at all.

Just as a for instance, there are people who feel the ending to the first law trilogy isn't acceptable. 'Breaching a contract with the reader' is a phrase I've occasionally seen used. People sometimes consider it unfinished, in other words, even though I consider it finished and any obligation discharged. So who's right there? And what difference does it make?

There are loads of good reasons for a writer to finish their series in a timely manner.  And there are loads of good reasons for a writer to be as open and informative to readers as possible. I don't think there are really any writers who set out to pull the wool over peoples' eyes, to deliver books massively late or piss off their readers but, you know, shit does happen.  Things go wrong.  Writing isn't an exact science.  You can't really force it.  You could work hard for months and produce a mass of stuff you're not really happy with and need to junk.  Then you could produce an amazing scene in half an hour.  In the end I think both writers and readers would far rather have good books late than disappointing ones on time.  A lot of the frustration derives from the simple fact that if you really like an author's books, no one else can produce them.  You just have to wait for that author to be ready.  It's great if they're communicative on the way, and if their behaviour falls short for you, you're free to be pissed off or to never buy anything of theirs if you like, but moral obligations and implied agreements?  I just don't see why it's necessary to think about it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, MisterOJ said:

This whole thread has been interesting, but it's made me think of a similar question, and one I'm not sure I have an answer to. And it's this:

Do authors (specifically sff authors) have an obligation to others in their field not to ruin the marketplace for other authors? At some point, if enough readers get frustrated with big name authors not completing series, is it possible that the blowback is felt by other up-and-coming authors? The fantasy genre (and sci-fi to a lesser degree) relies heavily on series. If readers stop buying first and second books in a series because they're frustrated with authors who fail to deliver on their own undertakings, will that eventually adversely affect the others in the field?

No. I think this is completely different from the actual implict agreement and moral obligation to continue the series they have the with the reader who bought book 1 from them. That is not the case here. It would be nice for other authors if some people wouldn't ruin the marketplace , but that's as far as it goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Joe Abercrombie said:

 

Just as a for instance, there are people who feel the ending to the first law trilogy isn't acceptable. 'Breaching a contract with the reader' is a phrase I've occasionally seen used. People sometimes consider it unfinished, in other words, even though I consider it finished and any obligation discharged. So who's right there? And what difference does it make?

 

Well, you've seen what I've been arguing for and in this case I would say you finished the trilogy, plain and simple.

No breach of trust whatsoever. It was finished. Certainly there are storylines that could be carried through but it was advocated and  eventually published as the First Law Trilogy.

I think most buyers of The Blade Itself would have been dismayed if you had decided not to write books 2 and 3 though, and that what is being referred to by the moral obligation or an "implicit agreement" when they bought book 1 from you. It was a fair expectation that you would continue. Does that mean an author can never fail at achieving the series conclusion? Of course not, but that is different territory, they at least have the moral obligation to attempt it when it is advertised as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Joe Abercrombie said:

The great thing about legal agreements is they're objective and concrete, with explicit terms the parties have agreed to and, potentially, some mechanism of enforcement. You're either in breach of the terms or you're not.

The problem with implied agreements and moral obligations is they're totally subjective and the various parties to the non-existent agreement will have different ideas about what the terms are, if they exist at all.

Just as a for instance, there are people who feel the ending to the first law trilogy isn't acceptable. 'Breaching a contract with the reader' is a phrase I've occasionally seen used. People sometimes consider it unfinished, in other words, even though I consider it finished and any obligation discharged. So who's right there? And what difference does it make?

There are loads of good reasons for a writer to finish their series in a timely manner.  And there are loads of good reasons for a writer to be as open and informative to readers as possible. I don't think there are really any writers who set out to pull the wool over peoples' eyes, to deliver books massively late or piss off their readers but, you know, shit does happen.  Things go wrong.  Writing isn't an exact science.  You can't really force it.  You could work hard for months and produce a mass of stuff you're not really happy with and need to junk.  Then you could produce an amazing scene in half an hour.  In the end I think both writers and readers would far rather have good books late than disappointing ones on time.  A lot of the frustration derives from the simple fact that if you really like an author's books, no one else can produce them.  You just have to wait for that author to be ready.  It's great if they're communicative on the way, and if their behaviour falls short for you, you're free to be pissed off or to never buy anything of theirs if you like, but moral obligations and implied agreements?  I just don't see why it's necessary to think about it that way.

I dunno, I'm inclined to think there's a bit of a difference between failure to complete a project versus artistic standards. Just for the sake of argument, the First Law Trilogy (without spoiling) ends in a way that is bound to piss some readers off which is part of why its memorable. It deconstructs a lot of fantasy "sacred cows" and really just shows how some of them would end up if they had "realistic" consequences.

I can totally see how readers who are invested in a happy ending (and some people got one!) would be extremely upset about it. However, that's still an ending and you get what you pay for when you go to see an artist's work in the movie theater or read a book.

However, I think there's an alternative to be said if you are promising something and turn out to just decide against it. We're also not just talking traditional publishing anymore too. With Kickstarter and Crowdfunding, we've got a lot of stuff where it's possible to pre-order and never actually get the project. Where is the dividing line, for example, between "I paid for the initial book and it was supposed to be a trilogy" versus "I paid for the entire trilogy but it never got made." I suppose we can say Let the Buyer Beware but that seems a stopping point.

Not to say artists should be FORCED to complete work they can't do but should they TRY to meet the obligations even if they no longer want to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ran said:

Caveat emptor is, in fact, probably the ultimate truth in all of this. Unless you have paid for a book, you have no guarantees about it.

And even then you don't; you may not like it or it may really not be at all what you were expecting.

That said, the notion that the consequences of those choices are somehow unfair are, IMO, unreasonable. If you say that you're going to produce a trilogy and you don't, there are likely going to be consequences. What those are is unclear (as it is subjective and not legally binding), but I think we can all agree that SOMETHING is likely going to happen as a result of that, and more importantly something probably should. Whether it be getting slagged on reviews, worse contracts with future publishers, fewer sales, worse critical reviews - chances are good that some of that is going to have to do with your inability to deliver what you stated was your goal. 

And I don't think that is particularly unreasonable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sword of Funny said:

Now that's funny. If I saw that on the cover of a book, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

I'm pretty sure the marketing for L. Ron Hubbard's Mission Earth series used this in their marketing. But that was a shit series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's quite a few trilogies that start as a stand alone novel, then get expanded because the first does well. Personally I don't think it does. It's all down to the author in question, but I imagine that most will try and complete thier work simply out of professional pride if nothing else

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most people who have argued against Ser Scott and Ran, have argued that the author should have a good faith intention to finish the books.  That doesn't mean things can't go wrong.  But it also means that, where possible, the author has some obligation to satisfy the fans.  Two extreme examples I can think of are Robert Jordan and Moira J Moore.  In the case of Jordan, faced with his own impending death he went to quite extreme lengths to ensure that not only did we know how the story ended, but received three books that provided it.  In the case of Moira J Moore, with her series cancelled due to sales, she still made the final book of the series available through non-standard systems.

I do not expect that this should be matched by other authors.  I especially recognise that authors who have unexpected events (not necessarily tragedies) like what happened with Rawn can quite understandably not complete books.  However, I do think authors have some obligation where possible to answer the understandable yearning of the readers to KNOW WHAT HAPPENS.  If it is a tragedy, this may not be possible.  But I do expect something.  Harry Connolly's 20 Palaces series was fantastic, and left on a semi-cliffhanger.  But it got cancelled, he's explained this to his audience, and so we move on.  Similar with why we can't get the last Andrea Cort book in english.  

I do think it is slightly different for very long series, or ones that have taken significant time to write.  Especially where the authors are (now) old.  It was alluded to above that Jim Butcher has had some quite bad things happen in his life.  I'm sorry to hear that.  And if the Dresden files never is completed, I'll understand that.  What I won't accept is that for a series that is 15 odd books long, where he's talked about knowing where it is going, that there aren't some sort of notes on where its heading.  They might not be up to date (e.g. a book out of date), but I think when you've made an obligation like that, I'd expect that.  Similarly with Martin, Janny Wurts or Michelle West, all who are taking significant times per book for major series, where those series are have been being written for over a decade, I would expect to have some kind of notes and explanations in the event of tragedy.  Sorry, but I do think that an author creates this obligation by getting people to buy into their worlds.  I've followed all three authors for the best part of two decades - surely writing the equivalent of a novella saying what was to happen in case of the worst isn't too much to ask? 

And sometimes, the behaviour by the author is much worse.  Look at Robin McKinley.  She wrote Sunshine, a fantastic book and has made it very clear that there will be no sequel.  She doesn't like sequels, and is sick of people pestering her for one.  This is totally acceptable.  She wrote it as a single book, and even if there are some threads that could be continued, she is under no obligation and should be under no expectation to continue that.

However, she then wrote Pegasus. Published in 2010.  Which on the current listing on Amazon says "the first book in a magical tale of fantasy and friendship . . . ".  Needless to say, there hasn't been any subsequent books in the series, and there is no mention of it on her website beyond a 2012 post to say she's struggling with it.  Do I think this is acceptable? No.  And she's one of my favourite writers. Other books have come out since.  The caption on one reads "A compelling and inventive novel set in a world where science and magic are at odds, by Robin McKinley, the Newbery-winning author of The Hero and the Crown and The Blue Sword, as well as the classic titles Beauty, Chalice, Spindle’s End, Pegasus and Sunshine". I do not think this is appropriate.  At the very least, an explanation of if we should still wait for books two and three would be the minimum to put on her website.  She writes a blog! 

On 11/3/2017 at 7:52 AM, Ran said:

......

I'll be honest, the whole obligation/promise/social convention line of reasoning simply seems an attempt to rationalize why people feel entitled and basically gives some cover, some sense of righteous grievance, to those who act badly. Why would anyone want to do that?

"Oh, it's really just about disappointment", well, I'm pretty sure we all can feel disappointed by things that never entail a promise from anyone. If my ice cream cone slips from my grasp and I can't eat it, that's pretty disappointing, but neither the ice cream vendor nor the cone promised me that my purchasing it would mean I'd definitely enjoy it. My buying a book doesn't mean I'll enjoy a book. My being aware that the book is part of a series doesn't necessarily mean I'll read the whole thing, nor that the author will manage to complete the series if things get in the way. And I've no particular reason to demand they communicate the whys and wherefors -- it may be good _business sense_ for them to be communicative, but that's hardly the same thing as morality.

These are not like for like.  The ice cream vendor hasn't made a promise.  The person buying the book has not made a promise.  But I think most people would consider that the author has made a promise to try and finish the series.  There is that implicit intention.  If there was no such intention, and it was widely viewed as such, then sales of first books would be significantly less.  

On 11/3/2017 at 8:43 AM, Ran said:

A writer has an obligation to _try_. That is it. You can't say they have an obligation to continue writing and then turn around and say that it's fine Erikson has quit writing his third book! The whole point is that "these things happen" means that setting out to write a trilogy is not a _promise_ to conclude a trilogy. 

As has been mentioned, most have the view that they must try, and have a good faith go at it.  We don't expect that life won't always get in the way, but if it does, an explanation of some sort is fair.  At the very least, to say that its not happening, move on with your life.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mind you, sometimes authors also get ahead of themselves.

Jeanine Frost wrote the urban fantasy romance CAT AND BONES series which she told her readers would be seven books then she released six because, "Well, the story ended early. Sorry guys. No more here. Please move on."

Or they find themselves planning a series and end up doing a trilogy.

Artistic plans change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...