Gaston de Foix

I always find it kind of amazing the people that think, live and die by slogans project uniformity of thought upon others.

This is an awesome thread, btw. Have learned so much about WoT (the series and the show) from reading your takes. Maybe I should try to pick up the books sometime.

Thank you. Would you mind elaborating on what a delivery clause in a publishing contract typically states? If it's a contract for an entire trilogy why wouldn't it have one?

Touche. I think that's because journalists would rather burnish their personal brands than, say, the traffic at washingtonpost.com and post their scoops there first. But even that's dwindling...

Now, now there are many different types of evil not just capitalism. What is really striking to me is that Twitter isn't just dying - it's dead. There are still people broadcasting their shit out because that's their business model. They don't read the replies (or if they do, they don't reply to the replies). Good faith engagement doesn't exist. QTing ppl to ratio them is what a big subset of people do. Ads are much less clearly labelled, and tend to recur in mind-numbing repetition - I see the ad for vet services 160 times a day. I never really used or understood Tweetdeck but it's obviously gone. I'm on Threads and Bluesky but so far neither of them seems particularly interesting or exciting. We have the global public square we deserve but not the one we need.

This is fair. I just don't think it's accurate to say there's no legal or moral obligation. As I said earlier in this thread it is a more contentious claim to say that fans are the real parties in interest [and the publishers are middlemen] or that fans are in some sense third-party beneficiaries of the contract. I'm not interested so much in whether it is a legally tenable claim (probably not, actually), as whether it reflects our moral intuitions. Certainly mine, but certainly not yours.

@IlyaP, is that how publishing contracts are drafted? I would have assumed that the contract provided for the delivery of three books with separate advances for each. I would also have assumed that it contained a termination or cancellation or non-delivery provision that directed for the repayment of the advance upon non-delivery upon a specified date. To have a provision for unwinding a contractual obligation is different from not having it in the first place.

He has a legal obligation to his publishers, surely. They signed a contract for a three-book trilogy not two books. They marketed it on the basis it would be a three-book trilogy.

It's not just your feeling, it's been reported (https://www.alreporter.com/2023/07/27/inside-alabamas-republican-plan-to-overturn-section-2-of-the-voting-rights-act/). That said, I don't think it's true. It's possible that Kavanaugh acted unethically but really, he didn't need to. He wrote a road-map in his concurrence for all to see. And if Alabama presents complications, LA is not far behind. That said, it may not be possible to delay this case at least till 2025. It's on direct appeal to the SC from a three-judge court. They'll have to rule on cert by summer's end at the latest.

Yep, exactly. This is a good explainer from Ian Millhiser on June 26 (!) that i just found that basically captures my thinking: https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/7/26/23806856/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-allen-milligan-defiance-brett-kavanaugh The only thing I would say is that Millhiser is if anything being too credulous. Kavanaugh doesn't have any deep theory of the VRA. He was just unwilling to gut it in the same term as affirmative action lest he be seen too openly as hostile to African-Americans. So he followed the CJ's lead and punted. He didn't join Part III-A of the CJ's opinion which basically defended the VRA as a necessary measure to ensure adequate representation of AA in Congress. But he intends to come back and knock it out sometime in the future.

In Merrill? I thought it was 5-4 with ACB dissenting. There is a part of me that wants Alabama to force the issue reserved in Kavanaugh's concurrence now (basically he said, Thomas may be right that race-based remedies were constitutional when passed but have become unconstitutional now but Alabama has not raised that argument so I'm not deciding it). Realistically, raising that argument now is Alabama's best chance of getting cert. But forcing the issue now is also the best way to get Kavanaugh to come down on the liberal side. Not going to happen. I agree with Scot. Kavanaugh is simply going to vote to deny cert and that'll be that.

Yeah, for sure. And they are filing for cert at the Supreme Court. Which will hopefully slap them down, and not grant a stay. But who knows after SB8?

Sure, this is true. But if an author chooses to communicate directly with fans (and most authors do to a greater or lesser extent), then you should expect fans to communicate back. You can always ignore the communication, ofc.

It's hard to know what the Alabama GOP and government was thinking (if it was). I remember during the argument of Shelby County v. Holder, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked the Solicitor General: "JUSTICE KENNEDY: But if -- if Alabama wants to have monuments to the heroes of the Civil Rights Movement, if it wants to acknowledge the wrongs of its past, is it better off doing that if it's an own independent sovereign or if it's under the trusteeship of the United States government?" How delusional those words sound today. Alabama hasn't changed and won't change. It must be made to change.

Yes, partly.

Thanks. Based on your answers I can conclude that you accept that authors are generally expected to behave in a professional manner; i.e., be honest, keep their contractual promises and communicate clearly and directly with those whom they have a financial relationship, as well as make good any losses incurred by failing to fulfill these basic obligations. The fact that example (d) and (e) involved a financial relationship through the intermediary of a publishing house does not, in my opinion, change the fact that the real parties to the transaction are the author and his fans (or patrons, to use a more old-fashioned word). This is particularly true when the publishing house in question is small and the author in question is a big deal. I suggested we stay away from real-world examples, but DAW and Rothfuss probably fit the description quite well here. DAW, of course, took a risk on Rothfuss when he was a complete unknown, helped market him and did many other things that justify their role as middlemen. Yet, as Sanderson has been proving, in an important sense in the modern world that's all they are. I think it is completely right to call out a lot of fan behavior as disproportionate, ugly, rude, or to use your word "toxic". But you have to start with the fact that these are people who are deeply invested in the author's work and are justifiably disappointed by unprofessional behavior. What motivates that unprofessional behavior is a more complex question but in my opinion the fear of disappointing those who are most invested in their work (and in many cases, love, feel and hate all the same things the authors themselves do), plays a major role. But an author can't fault her fans for liking her stuff too much, or recommending her to your friends, or for pulling her from obscurity and giving her life-long financial security.

OK. Let's avoid real-world examples. Please tell me what you think of my hypos below: (a) I, a well-respected author, start crowdfunding to publish my next book. After hitting my target amount, I find the book unexpectedly hard to write and abandon the project. I refund the balance sums after deducting the costs of setting up, marketing and managing the project (approx 50% is left). Cool/not cool? (b) Same as (a) but I take the brunt of the losses myself. Cool/not cool? (c) Same as (a) but I apologize and state (honestly) that I would take the financial hit if I could but I can't. Cool/not cool? (d) Same as (a) but instead of crowdfunding I secure a huge publishing advance from a small publishing house whose financial future is dependent, to a large extent, on the book. As a result it places the book on pre-order on Amazon and elsewhere as soon as it can to generate revenue. When the book is cancelled, I return the advance and the publishing house returns the pre-orders (marketing, reputational and other sunk costs are not recovered). Cool/not cool? (e) Same as (d) but instead it is a large publishing house and it can take the hit. Cool/not cool?

Such a process could (and perhaps should be) undertaken in secret. There's no obligation to finish the book within a deadline or publish it if you don't like it. In respect of ASOIAF, you also have GOT having plotted out the whole story as a comparison point. That's a significant aid in terms of clarifying those parts of the TV version you want to reject, and what you want to accept. I'm sure GOT does contain many ASOIAF future plot points/ideas that GRRM shared, some of which he may now be rethinking, and that too is real-time feedback for public reception that no other author has ever really had. In economic terms, there's a significant demand for more ASOIAF novels and a single supplier (a monosopny). You absolutely do not want to give away your monosopny because it is a wonderful thing to have. But you do want to exploit it while the demand exists because it will wane over time, and people (not board posters, we are not representative), will move on. Hence the need for subcontractors. There's this common intuition that writing (and other fields of activity like science or philosophy) are the product of one person's obsessive genius. And that's not been true for the last 60-70 years in physics, for example. Team effort and marginal improvements are what define modern activity. Why should writing blockbuster fantasy novels be different?

The ideal solution would be to let Rothfuss and Martin edit/rewrite their own books supervising a team of people with a mandate to finish it. That's how brief-writing works in my profession. I assume that's how scriptwriting works for highly successful shows. It's the Brandon Sanderson method of writing self-confessed not very good drafts and then rewriting and rewriting and editing it into shape. In case of both Rothfuss and Martin, the economic incentives are there to help. GGK did something analogous for the Silmarillion and this stuck in my head: https://www.tolkiensociety.org/2014/10/guy-gavriel-kay-describes-working-on-the-silmarillion-as-quietly-exhilarating/ I'm often stuck as a writer and perfectly fluent as an editor. I have colleagues who are terrible editors but excellent writers. Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes can really help.

If I were his lawyer (*shudder*), I wouldn't let him anywhere near a witness stand. But Trump has been a gambler all his life, and human beings tend to overreact to their last experience. He followed his lawyer's advice not to testify in NY and he lost that case. So I wouldn't rule out him deciding to testify at the last minute, if only to try to impress the jury and in the hope that a couple of MAGAheads would like to engage to in jury nullification at his behest. If he does testify, he will likely perjure himself rather than confine himself to the truth.

That's why he's kept a low profile. Cross Trump and best case scenario you are politically dead. Lie for Trump and you are headed to Sing-Sing. And you can't defend him without lying. Amongst the slippery and horrible characters in Trump's orbit, Meadows was perhaps the worst, combining the red-faced ranter fanaticism of the hard-right with the opportunism and dishonesty of a Ponzi schemer. Talk about teaching your kids this tripe: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/mark-meadows-and-the-undisclosed-dinosaur-property

It won't impact his political fundraising or his Super PAC funding the defense of the other Jan. 6 traitors as well. But yes, he's under siege. Now that Meadows has waived his fifth amendment rights in federal court one of the most important questions is whether he'll be able to escape sitting for depositions with the Special Counsel. He's probably sat for an interview, and a proffer of evidence as Giuliani did. But that was on his own terms. It's one thing to survive cross-examination when you've sprung it as a surprise on the Fulton County DA. It's another to escape sustained and repeated questioning by the DOJ. The path he's started walking on will lead to him testifying against Trump eventually or perjuring himself.

Let's see how federal removal plays out. The Georgia cases are heading for any almighty clusterfuck. Some defendants want a speedy trial (a constitutional right) and severance from the other defendants. There's no way that Oct. 23 works for Trump or Meadows. Others want removal to federal court as a prelude to asserting immunity under the Supremacy clause. You can assert immunity in either venue but getting into the 11th circuit is favorable for Trump who has appointed a clear majority of serving judges there. Based on the Judge's comments I expect Meadows to succeed in his removal petition. And that's a slippery slope problem for all the other federal office holders.

Yes, fair enough. I stand corrected. Although there's no contradiction between ASOIAF being your favourite series and being angry that the next volume has not been published. That's very impressive. In an important sense, you are the perfect test audience (assuming you like Rothfuss' books which maybe you don't) whether you feel similarly or differently about him and the Kingkiller Chronicles.

Thank you for this detailed report from Arizona, which is not the first that I've found extremely informative. I note that it is already somewhat out of date with the news Blake Masters is planning to challenge Kari Lake for the GOP nomination! Interestingly, Rachel Mitchell is the one who was "the female prosecutor" of legend at the Kavanaugh hearings.