Scott Lynch's THORN OF EMBERLAIN

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, Calibandar said:

It's not irrational at all. Of course there is an implicit agreement between author and reader that if the author decides to publish a 3 part series instead of a standalone book, both reader and author are doing the deal based on the solid assumption that the story gets finished. If that really wasn't there, as some people like to claim in defense of an author, these books would get bought in much reduced quantities. On the one hand you can say, you paid for 1 book so that is what you're owed, but that is a narrow view that does not fit with real life. In real life, you buy part 1 of a series bearing in mind that you will also get resolution to the story the same way you would in a "normal" standalone book, you just have to wait for it.

There is no such implicit agreement.  You want there to be one.  That doesn't mean it exists.

[unJon]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There is no such implicit agreement.  You want there to be one.  That doesn't mean it exists.

This would actually make a fun first year law school issue spotter for detrimental reliance.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

46 minutes ago, unJon said:

This would actually make a fun first year law school issue spotter for detrimental reliance.

It fails.  You bought a book.  That's all.  Further, what are your damages if the series is actually never completed?

[Darth Richard II]

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

Not to mention that the business arrangement already has built-in reciprocation: Steven Erikson can't finish his Kharkanas Trilogy due to the first two books bombing, so now he has to go write something else and people are left without the third book in the series, even those who really enjoyed the first two, and those who were waiting for the trilogy to be finished (a very numerous faction from the sound of it) now don't get to read the trilogy at all. C'est la vie.

Although, of course, logically extrapolating that argument means that the GRRM/Rothfuss school of long waits are justified because people keep buying the books, but there you go.

Oh shit, I knew it was on hold but I didn't know it was because of sales. So are any chances of the final book coming out completely fucked? Also er thread derailment, sorry.

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, Darth Richard II said:

Oh shit, I knew it was on hold but I didn't know it was because of sales. So are any chances of the final book coming out completely fucked? Also er thread derailment, sorry.

Erikson wants to finish it, but it won't be any time soon. They need to see how the first Karsa Orlong book does. If it does really well, Erikson might go back and do Walk in Shadow immediately (so it might be only a relatively short wait of a few years) or if it doesn't, the publishers may want him to finish the Karsa books first so they get a much better handle on what's going on with Erikson's profile and sales, which are going a bit weird. Personally I think the 4-year wait between FoD and FoL was a massive mistake that killed the momentum of an author whose sales and profile has never been as robust as fans believed.

But yeah, off-topic for this thread.

[unJon]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It fails.  You bought a book.  That's all.  Further, what are your damages if the series is actually never completed?

Terrible issue spotter answer. Where's your sense of law school test taking fun??

Public announcement of trilogy, including on cover of book induced purchase of book. 

Damages would either be tied to cost of book (that wouldn't have been bought absent reliance) or a measure of lost time for reading the book. 

Given Rothfuss later public statements, throw charges of intentional inflection of emotional distress into complaint. 

Bundle it into a class action (extra points for issue spotting the problems around class certification). 

[Calibandar]

16 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Then presumably you would be fine saying there is also an implicit obligation on the reader to continue buying the subsequent novels in the series, even if they don’t actually like the first? Obligations usually go two ways after all

No in this case it does not work both ways. The author is after all already requesting favor from the reader in asking for trust that the author will continue with the series. The reader may give the author this trust, or like Gertrude and other readers, they do not give this trust, they wait until the series is complete, to see if the author will really provide a full product, before they purchase. If the reader does give this trust, if they do pay for book 1 even though it is only 30% of the story they want to read, then they are not also obligated to just keep on buying even if they do not like it, that's a nonsensical idea. The author has the moral obligation here as there is an implicit agreement that he will finish what he started. That is also part of the situation the author is in as the supplier.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 hours ago, unJon said:

Terrible issue spotter answer. Where's your sense of law school test taking fun??

Public announcement of trilogy, including on cover of book induced purchase of book. 

Damages would either be tied to cost of book (that wouldn't have been bought absent reliance) or a measure of lost time for reading the book. 

Given Rothfuss later public statements, throw charges of intentional inflection of emotional distress into complaint. 

Bundle it into a class action (extra points for issue spotting the problems around class certification). 

So, are you attempting to create a class of similarly situated book buyers and who relied upon Rothfuss' claim he'd have a book out every year before purchasing NOTW?  You're going to have to prove that but for that statement those in the class wouldn't have purchased and find a class representive who is typical for that class, remember class certification is much more difficult than most people think.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

42 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

No in this case it does not work both ways. The author is after all already requesting favor from the reader in asking for trust that the author will continue with the series. The reader may give the author this trust, or like Gertrude and other readers, they do not give this trust, they wait until the series is complete, to see if the author will really provide a full product, before they purchase. If the reader does give this trust, if they do pay for book 1 even though it is only 30% of the story they want to read, then they are not also obligated to just keep on buying even if they do not like it, that's a nonsensical idea. The author has the moral obligation here as there is an implicit agreement that he will finish what he started. That is also part of the situation the author is in as the supplier.

 

In most cases there is nothing from the author claiming that the series will continue.  Did Stephen King make representations, when he first wrote The Gunslinger, about the speed of production/publication?

[Ran]

Statements from authors, publishers, and studios about _future_ production are really just forward-looking statements and are not in fact promises.

[Calibandar]

44 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

In most cases there is nothing from the author claiming that the series will continue.  

Actually if you will go out into the real world you will find that the books are usually labeled as the first part in a series, or the first part in a trilogy, and thousands such examples exist. And these are explicit claims which I was not even talking about. I was speaking of the implicit agreement between author and reader that so obviously exists when the reader gives his or her trust to the author for book 1 of the trilogy.

[Ran]

First book of a series -> first book of an anticipated series of novels -> forward-looking statement. Intention to produce is not the same as promise to produce. The case where you do not have safe harbor from such a statement is if you are lying about intending to produce a trilogy at the time the statement was made.

Consider a world where an author publishes the first book in a trilogy... and then dies a year later. Is his estate legally obligated to find someone to continue the series? Is his publisher obligated to refund purchases of the book? No.  It was a plan, not a contract with readers. And I'll go further and say there is no moral obligation, either. Any person who takes the marketing of anything as the first in a series to mean an absolute guarantee is a fool. All it promises is a book which will only be partially complete in itself. No more or less.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

27 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

Actually if you will go out into the real world you will find that the books are usually labeled as the first part in a series, or the first part in a trilogy, and thousands such examples exist. And these are explicit claims which I was not even talking about. I was speaking of the implicit agreement between author and reader that so obviously exists when the reader gives his or her trust to the author for book 1 of the trilogy.

Calibander,

Is that the Author, or the Publisher who creates the covers for these books?  Perhaps you have a claim for implicit agreement with the Publisher, but not the Author as the author isn't the one holding out the book as "the first in the series".  Further, you act as though you get nothing if you have a partially completed series.  While you don't have the full story, you do have a completed novel. 

Think of the analogy like this... if you agree to pay someone $100.00 if they walk across the Brooklyn Bridge and they break their leg and are unable to complete the journey 100 feet from the end of the bridge, do you owe them nothing, or do you have a duty to pay them something for the completion of the majority of the agreed task?

It is a more complicated question at law than you might thing.  There is a doctrine call "Quantum Meruit" that stands for the proposition that people should be paid for the work done even if it does not completely fulfill all terms of a contract.  Your "implicit agreement" argument is sort of an inverse "Quantum Meruit" implying that you are due something from the Authors because they haven't fully completed the entire story you anticipate.  But, likewise, they are entitled to compensation for the work that they have completed.  Therefore, I suggest, the entire thing is a wash.  

 

[Calibandar]

8 minutes ago, Ran said:

First book of a series -> first book of an anticipated series of novels -> forward-looking statement. Intention to produce is not the same as promise to produce. The case where you do not have safe harbor from such a statement is if you are lying about intending to produce a trilogy at the time the statement was made.

Consider a world where an author publishes the first book in a trilogy... and then dies a year later. Is his estate legally obligated to find someone to continue the series? Is his publisher obligated to refund purchases of the book? No.  It was a plan, not a contract with readers. And I'll go further and say there is no moral obligation, either. Any person who takes the marketing of anything as the first in a series to mean an absolute guarantee is a fool. All it promises is a book which will only be partially complete in itself. No more or less.

Ran,

There is no point in your driving this argument into legal obligation. No one was talking about that and everyone understands that buying book 1 of a series does not mean there is a legal obligation to complete. It's a totally different discussion.

Secondly, with regards to moral obligation, I don't think anyone believes that if the marketing of a book is as part of a trilogy, which happens all the time, it means there is an *absolute* guarantee. But people certainly believe, and rightly so, that there is a moral obligation and an implicit agreement between supplier and reader that the story will actually be continued and completed. You can't realistically claim that there is no implicit agreement of continuation, and you can't claim that there is no moral obligation for the author to complete the trilogy. It is based on that exact implicit agreement and moral obligation that the reader is willing to trust the author that eventually their initial purchase of 30% of the chapters of the story, will prove to be worthwhile.

 

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Calibander,

Is that the Author, or the Publisher who creates the covers for these books?  Perhaps you have a claim for implicit agreement with the Publisher, but not the Author as the author isn't the one holding out the book as "the first in the series".  Further, you act as though you get nothing if you have a partially completed series.  While you don't have the full story, you do have a completed novel. 

Hi Scott,

It's semantics really, to argue whether the moral obligation is between author and reader or publisher and reader.

Even if the author hasn't actually created the cover, the author is very well aware of the fact that he is producing a trilogy and what this means for the reader. It should be said that a lot of authors understand and acknowledge this. I'm not arguing against the author here, I'm just saying, let's not deny that there very much is this understanding and implicit agreement between supplier and reader that the rest of the story will come, that the reader is not just buying book 1 to get 30% of the story, and that "you get what you pay for and that's it".

Look at this quote from Steven Erikson this week:

 

Quote

Thanks so much for all your comments and encouragement. To those of you waiting for the trilogy to finish before buying, no need to apologize. Waiting for books sucks. Personally, I wish FoL hadn't taken three years to write. That alone is a long wait for any reader.

I'm positive that he would not deny that when he published Forge of Darkness, there was an implicit agreement between him and the reader that people would get 2 and 3. It always astonishes me that a few posters feel the need to wave this away and say that it does not exist. Most people would be not be picking up book 1 if they were not led to believe the story would be continued, obviously. They are willing to wait, they accept that as part of the deal, but the implicit agreement of continuation and completion is there.

[Ran]

Quote

I don't think anyone believes that if the marketing of a book is as part of a trilogy, which happens all the time, it means there is an *absolute* guarantee.

You're right. But this is the end of the story. There is no guarantee, and there is no agreement implying a guarantee. You buy a book, you do not buy a series. If you have proof that the author or publisher never intended to publish a series while marketing their book as otherwise, you're right, that'd be immoral. But an author and a publisher saying that the intention is that there'll be multiple books means just that: they intend it. There's no obligation, legal or moral, to follow through despite whatever financial, professional, or personal adversity no longer makes it worth the while of the author, creator, publisher, studio, musician, etc. 

Caveat emptor, as they say. 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Calibander,

You've completely ignored the second part of my argument.  Is the author and publisher not entitled to some compensation for their work that they have created and provided to you the consumer?  That being the case... how can you claim damage from the failure to complete the full series... how long does an author have to complete said series? 

There is no deadline or specific publication schedule offered when they state "the first in a trilogy".  As such you "obligation to complete" is open until the author is physically unable to write, is it not?  Therefore... no damage accrues to you until the author can not complete the series in question.  
 

[Calibandar]

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

But an author and a publisher saying that the intention is that there'll be multiple books means just that: they intend it. There's no obligation. 

 

I don't see how that can be true.

Let's say I'm Tor Books.

I have a contract with Robert Jordan for a trilogy.

I publish book, 1, I publish book 2, but then I choose not to publish part 3, I'm not happy with the series and I have my reasons.

I also have a contract with Ken Scholes for a trilogy.

I publish book, 1, I publish book 2, but then I choose not to publish part 3, I'm not happy with the series and I have my reasons.

How soon would my readers be utterly tired of me? How quickly would I be out of business? Soon, especially in a market where others do recognize this moral obligation.

Even from the perspective of me as the publisher, I cannot claim that there isn't a clear moral obligation and an implicit agreement that I will be publishing the remaining 60% of story chapters. I'm just not legally obligated.

 

[mormont]

I think it's probably useful to accept that just because you feel entitled to something, that does not mean you actually are entitled to it, and so that anyone is obliged to give you it, legally or morally.

But we may want to get back from the abstract discussion of obligation to the specific topic of Scott Lynch's books?

[Werthead]

28 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

I don't see how that can be true.

Let's say I'm Tor Books.

I have a contract with Robert Jordan for a trilogy.

I publish book, 1, I publish book 2, but then I choose not to publish part 3, I'm not happy with the series and I have my reasons.

I also have a contract with Ken Scholes for a trilogy.

I publish book, 1, I publish book 2, but then I choose not to publish part 3, I'm not happy with the series and I have my reasons.

How soon would my readers be utterly tired of me? How quickly would I be out of business? Soon, especially in a market where others do recognize this moral obligation.

Even from the perspective of me as the publisher, I cannot claim that there isn't a clear moral obligation and an implicit agreement that I will be publishing the remaining 60% of story chapters. I'm just not legally obligated.

The only reasons in those cases would be sales, as we've seen with Erikson, Paul Kearney (kind of), Melanie Rawn and others. Continuing to produce a work which is not profitable and is resulting in a loss for your company is not realistic either. Publishers like Tor, Bantam and others have dropped series mid-run due to poor sales on very numerous occasions and it's never led to any kind of boycott or reduced sales overall (because not enough people care).

I think there's only two occasions when an author has been dropped for other reasons: Joan Collins for producing a work that was so shit it was unprintable, despite it being expected to sell well, and Roald Dahl by his US publishers even when he was still selling simply for being an unrepentant arsehole.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I think it's probably useful to accept that just because you feel entitled to something, that does not mean you actually are entitled to it, and so that anyone is obliged to give you it, legally or morally.

But we may want to get back from the abstract discussion of obligation to the specific topic of Scott Lynch's books?

Would you, or any other mods, mind if I open another thread to discuss this issue?