Jump to content

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


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You're the one that said that being honest to your kids carried more weight than being honest to strangers; I took you at your word. 

You appear to not be able to understand that honesty for some people doesn't have a variable value depending on who you're talking with. Some people don't think like that; some people believe that honesty is important regardless of who you're interacting with. This appears to be difficult for you to get, but that makes it no less accurate.

Okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that none of us are sitting over the shoulder of an author, we've no way of knowing whether they are or are not trying. I've no reason to believe that Rothfuss is not trying, for example. I certainly believe Rawn tried, couldn't do it, had to do something else, and (according to Wert's report) may finally be in a position to try again. I don't expect Erikson to ever publish that third novel in his aborted series, but at the same time I don't blame him for it or consider him to have failed his readers if the reality is that he can't justify writing a book that isn't going to sell.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

Given that none of us are sitting over the shoulder of an author, we've no way of knowing whether they are or are not trying. I've no reason to believe that Rothfuss is not trying, for example. I certainly believe Rawn tried, couldn't do it, had to do something else, and (according to Wert's report) may finally be in a position to try again. I don't expect Erikson to ever publish that third novel in his aborted series, but at the same time I don't blame him for it or consider him to have failed his readers if the reality is that he can't justify writing a book that isn't going to sell.

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.

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Werthead said:

Rawn is apparently writing The Captal's Tower right now, and has been for the past two years. There's been no update or progress report, but that's perhaps understandable. If we go another year or two without any news and maybe the announcement of a new trilogy, we can assume she couldn't get back into finishing it.

 

 

Well, the last novel of her other series was only released a few months ago so I doubt she started it two years ago, but that's a good sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ran said:

 

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.

That all seems very reasonable to me, but these are separate things from a discussion about the moral obligation an author has to continue writing books 2 and 3 in a series marketed as a series, a promise based upon which the reader has probably based her acquisition of book 1. If you're not buying a standalone, there is an obvious expectation that the remaining chapters will be published at a later date. I don't get how this can be denied. If there was no such expectation, if the standard expectation in a "first in a trilogy"  series was that books 2 and 3 usually don't come, people are not buying the first 30% of chapters either.

As for Steven Erikson, I don't think anyone blames him for the fact that his publishers pulled the plug on his series. He tried something, it flopped, these things happen.

Scott,

Is it just me or are you moving this discussion from whether or not the author has an implicit agreement with the reader to publish more books in the series, to the topic of whether people are allowed to complain about the long delays in publication of such series? Seems like two different things. I see your view is that:

a) There is no such agreement and you can expect nothing even if the series is billed as such

b ) Complaining about long delays that fall outside of what is the norm in the industry is also not allowed.

Can you see how this come off as extremely reverential and apologetic of the author? In your view it seems more like the buyer should be honored and grateful to be allowed to buy the author's work, and after that, it's humble waiting time until he or she can fork over again. May not have any expectations of continuation, and may also not complain when said author doesn't publish a sequel the next 5 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

That all seems very reasonable to me, but these are separate things from a discussion about the moral obligation an author has to continue writing books 2 and 3 in a series marketed as a series, a promise based upon which the reader has probably based her acquisition of book 1. If you're not buying a standalone, there is an obvious expectation that the remaining chapters will be published at a later date. I don't get how this can be denied. If there was no such expectation, if the standard expectation in a "first in a trilogy"  series was that books 2 and 3 usually don't come, people are not buying the first 30% of chapters either.

As for Steven Erikson, I don't think anyone blames him for the fact that his publishers pulled the plug on his series. He tried something, it flopped, these things happen.

Scott,

Is it just me or are you moving this discussion from whether or not the author has an implicit agreement with the reader to publish more books in the series, to the topic of whether people are allowed to complain about the long delays in publication of such series? Seems like two different things. I see your view is that:

a) There is no such agreement and you can expect nothing even if the series is billed as such

b ) Complaining about long delays that fall outside of what is the norm in the industry is also not allowed.

Can you see how this come off as extremely reverential and apologetic of the author? In your view it seems more like the buyer should be honored and grateful to be allowed to buy the author's work, and after that, it's humble waiting time until he or she can fork over again. May not have any expectations of continuation, and may also not complain when said author doesn't publish a sequel the next 5 years. 

I can see your point.  I'm not saying people can't complain.  Clearly they can.  I'm saying the complaints, frequently, come off as whiney to me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, 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. 

Again, you're not understanding.

Erikson fulfilled his obligation by explaining why he couldn't complete the book as promised, and that explanation was satisfactory.

If he hadn't provided that explanation and no one else had, his obligation would not have been completed. He would have broken his promise. The argument is not that you have an obligation to complete; it is that you have an obligation to complete or explain why you didn't. As stated above, all promises implicitly have the 'my intent is to do X unless' clause built into them, and our society is built around the notion of promises being done unless, and then explaining the unless.

Ser Scot, as far as I can tell, doesn't think that there is any obligation to even do an 'unless', and breaking promises is fine provided that it isn't family, and no explanation or discussion is warranted or owed unless there is an actual legal basis to provide it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Ser Scot, as far as I can tell, doesn't think that there is any obligation to even do an 'unless', and breaking promises is fine provided that it isn't family, and no explanation or discussion is warranted or owed unless there is an actual legal basis to provide it. 

No.  I don't see a writer and publisher stating an intention to publish a series of books as a promise that they will complete or publish all the books.  

I was irritated when Stargate Universe was cancelled on a cliffhanger.  I was disappointed that its story wouldn't be completed.  But I didn't see the cancellation as a breach of trust.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  I don't see a writer and publisher stating an intention to publish a series of books as a promise that they will complete or publish all the books.  

Good, because that's not what I said either.

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I was irritated when Stargate Universe was cancelled on a cliffhanger.  I was disappointed that its story wouldn't be completed.  But I didn't see the cancellation as a breach of trust.  

By your logic, you should not be allowed to be irritated or disappointed, as there was nothing implied by the cliffhanger that said that you should expect more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Good, because that's not what I said either.

By your logic, you should not be allowed to be irritated or disappointed, as there was nothing implied by the cliffhanger that said that you should expect more. 

No.  People can and do complain.  I just, sometimes, see the complaing as whiney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  People can and do complain.  I just, sometimes, see the complaing as whiney.

Do you see your own complaining as whiney? Because that appears to be precisely what you're complaining about, and it seems weird to start a topic that goes for 5 pages about behavior that you yourself participate in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Do you see your own complaining as whiney? Because that appears to be precisely what you're complaining about, and it seems weird to start a topic that goes for 5 pages about behavior that you yourself participate in.

Yes, when I complain it is sometimes whiney.  Shock of shocks.  I whine too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It feels like some positions have changed pretty substantially. Now a writer isn't obliged to finish a work, they are simply obliged to provide an explanation for why they didn't finish? Does that obligation trump a right to privacy? For example, what if a personal and deeply private tragedy has taken place -- does their alleged-obligation compel them to bare their soul to their readers? Or is it enough that they say, "Look, for reasons I can't get into, this series isn't going to be finished." Is that enough to discharge this obligation? What if the publisher does it for them? What if the publisher covers for the author and says it's a business decision when in fact it's something more private?

I just find this all pretty weird. I'm starting to understand why comparing children to adults may have sprung to mind for others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ran said:

It feels like some positions have changed pretty substantially. Now a writer isn't obliged to finish a work, they are simply obliged to provide an explanation for why they didn't finish? Does that obligation trump a right to privacy? For example, what if a personal and deeply private tragedy has taken place -- does their alleged-obligation compel them to bare their soul to their readers? Or is it enough that they say, "Look, for reasons I can't get into, this series isn't going to be finished." Is that enough to discharge this obligation? What if the publisher does it for them? What if the publisher covers for the author and says it's a business decision when in fact it's something more private?

I just find this all pretty weird. I'm starting to understand why comparing children to adults may have sprung to mind for others.

 

Yes, I think that the overwhelming majority would accept this. But when no explanation is offered, the assumption is going to be that no effort is being made, because it is so easy to apologize and make some kind of statement indicating that writing has been indefinitely (or permanently) halted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Ran said:

It feels like some positions have changed pretty substantially. Now a writer isn't obliged to finish a work,

They are. Part of the thing behind an obligation is that if you cannot fulfill that obligation you are expected to offer an explanation. And depending on that explanation you might or might not be okay.

Honestly, I don't see why this is complicated. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, baxus said:

Rothfuss is an extreme case. No other author is trying to sell "completed trilogy/series" from the start. He has basically been caught in a lie. He has no valid excuse for what he did. Period. People are reasonable when they expect the finished trilogy from him when that is what he CLAIMED they will get. It is not a case of "I will do my best to finish the series", but rather a case of "trilogy is already finished and you will get the whole trilogy within two years from first book's release". There's a huge difference between the two.

A disclaimer for Scott - I'm not saying that some legal action can be taken against Rothfuss. I'm just saying it's a dick move from his side.

Basically, because it's not allowed to claim GRRM is not offering a "good faith effort" on this board. ;) 

Joking aside, like every other author I can think of at the moment, GRRM hasn't claimed that the series (originally intended as trilogy) is done and one book from the series will be released every year. Could you imagine the backlash he would've gotten had he done that?

On the bolded part, is Joe Abercrombie not doing something similar with his next trilogy? I know it was something like that, maybe it was that he will have all three books in draft form or something. Not that I have any doubts f rely publication from him. It just sprang to mind reading your post

12 hours ago, Werthead said:

Rawn is apparently writing The Captal's Tower right now, and has been for the past two years. There's been no update or progress report, but that's perhaps understandable. If we go another year or two without any news and maybe the announcement of a new trilogy, we can assume she couldn't get back into finishing it.

 

We should note that, even given the massively increased interest from the TV show, the wait for Winds of Winter has been far less rancourous, angry and spiteful than that for ADWD. The primary reason for that appears to have been GRRM's infamous note in the back of AFFC indicating that ADWD would follow a year later. What genuine anger there has been for WoW followed his New Year's Day 2016 update indicating that he hoped to get the book out in a year or so, even caveating that this was an aspiration, not a promise. This just seems to vindicate GRRM's instinct not to provide any updates at all.

Since you brought up the FfC note, how do people on either side of the argument see that in terms of promises and implied agreements? Need to look up the exact wording before concluding anything but from memory it was certainly more akin to a promise the next book would follow soon (in a year maybe? I do t recall the wording exactly). Did this note change the situation sufficiently to create an obligation?

overall I think I am most tempted by the logic that “book one of x” is a promise to attempt/try to write further books but not a promise that they will be completed, nor is there a specific timeline in which they should be completed. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

So they are obliged to finish, except they aren't. Got it. That clears things up.

They are obliged to finish. Obliged does not mean 'will do this no matter what', because as pointed out people, ya know, die and stuff. Things happen. 

An obligation means you're expected to do the thing you say you do. If you do not do it for whatever reason, you are expected to explain why. The notion that having an obligation is some kind of geas that will keep you alive through death as some sort of lich is as far as I can tell a cute fiction. 

More importantly, if you're obliged to do something and you don't, it's considered morally bad. If you explain yourself and your excuse is reasonable, it is less morally bad. 

Really, this feels like Chidi teaching Jason about ethics here. This really isn't that hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

On the bolded part, is Joe Abercrombie not doing something similar with his next trilogy? I know it was something like that, maybe it was that he will have all three books in draft form or something. Not that I have any doubts f rely publication from him. It just sprang to mind reading your post


 

 

He is. But on eleven years of past, good form and having done this twice before (with the First Law trilogy and his YA books), it's reasonable that to expect that he will deliver.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...