Pat Rothfuss XVIII: Whereof one cannot speak...

[unJon]

5 hours ago, IFR said:

 Sorry, my mistake. It really did seem like out of nowhere you ambushed me with an enfilade of hostility. That is the problem of interacting through pure text.

This is how I perceived our interaction. You asked your initial question of R Scott Bakker. I had no idea how he related to any of this. The extent of my knowledge regarding Bakker was that I love his work, and that he apparently on this forum is viewed negatively on a personal level because people believe he has misogynistic views.

Based on this, it seemed that you may have been passive aggressively insulting me. I sought clarification. I don't consider being compared to Bakker as an insult. So in my first question, I asked if there was some history where Bakker also criticized this element of fandom. In the second question I asked if instead you were attacking me because there is some shared community knowledge about Bakker that makes such a comparison disparaging. 

Then it seemed to me you followed up with a disingenuous question asking if the two are mutually exclusive, suggesting to me that in my criticisms of toxic fandom this disparaging connection to Bakker applies to me.

If I mistook your intentions, then I apologize.

a) Not cool.

b) Cool. 

c) Not cool.

d) Not cool.

e) Not cool.

All good. I was just making a joke, not meaning to personally attack you. Bakker once before posted under an alias incognito here and he does have a history of bashing “toxic fandom”.

I considered doubling down on your perceived persecution by me and post something about my schadenfreude in upsetting people that get schadenfreude from Rothfuss fans getting upset. But it felt too meta and mean spirited (if it was only one of those things I probably would have, but both together would have made it a cardinal sin).

There are like 20 Bakker threads on this board. Almost always one “active.” You should feel free to dive in!

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by unJon

[IFR]

25 minutes ago, unJon said:

All good. I was just making a joke, not meaning to personally attack you. Bakker once before posted under an alias incognito here and he does have a history of bashing “toxic fandom”.

I considered doubling down on your perceived persecution by me and post something about my schadenfreude in upsetting people that get schadenfreude from Rothfuss fans getting upset. But it felt too meta and mean spirited (if it was only one of those things I probably would have, but both together would have made it a cardinal sin).

There are like 20 Bakker threads on this board. Almost always one “active.” You should feel free to dive in!

 

Fair enough. I generally don't indulge in schadenfreude, but the sense that a group of people gather in a tribe and relentlessly persist in this notion that some stranger "owes" them a work of entertainment bothers me. And to be clear, I reiterate that I am specifically talking about those who actively harass authors. I imagine you too agree this is poor behavior?

Rothfuss himself may have engaged in pernicious behavior too, in which case it becomes the spectacle of a pit match of villains.

I felt it wasn't out of place to indulge in some schadenfreude on this board, since with respect to some things it is very common here (e.g. see the politics thread which is 70% outrage and 30% schadenfreude).

Edited September 4, 2023 by IFR

[unJon]

14 minutes ago, IFR said:

 

I felt it wasn't out of place to indulge in some schadenfreude on this board, since with respect to some things it is very common here (e.g. see the politics thread which is 70% outrage and 30% schadenfreude).

That may be right.  As a rule I stay out of the General Chatter subforum. 

Edited September 4, 2023 by unJon

[Gaston de Foix]

6 hours ago, IFR said:

a) Not cool.

b) Cool. 

c) Not cool.

d) Not cool.

e) Not cool.

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.  

[IlyaP]

3 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

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. 

Are we talking about deadlines and the like? 'Cause, I can speak to the publishing part of things having worked in the industry for a good number of years (also studied it at university, because hapless booklover is hapless). But obviously, generally speaking, good optics are always preferred among a publishing house's authors, as it causes all kinds of internal frustrations that then need to be dealt with. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Here's the thread where Bakker checked in post Great Ordeal:

 

[Gaston de Foix]

11 hours ago, IlyaP said:

Are we talking about deadlines and the like? 'Cause, I can speak to the publishing part of things having worked in the industry for a good number of years (also studied it at university, because hapless booklover is hapless). But obviously, generally speaking, good optics are always preferred among a publishing house's authors, as it causes all kinds of internal frustrations that then need to be dealt with. 

Yes, partly.  

[IFR]

15 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

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.

Magnitude of response to disappointment has been the crux of my criticisms. If an author does not produce a book or chapter that you want, feel free to be sad. Complain to friends. And then accept that such is the way of life and move on. This doesn't give anyone the right to pester the author, especially to the relentless extent that fans are known for.

As for whatever is going on between Rothfuss and his publishers, I don't really care. I generally do not focus my sympathies on businesses. I don't support unethetical behavior that harms businesses, but that's very far down on my list of important concerns.

10 hours ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Here's the thread where Bakker checked in post Great Ordeal:

 

Interesting stuff. I really do wish Bakker was a more active author.

[Larry of the Lawn]

11 minutes ago, IFR said:

.

Interesting stuff. I really do wish Bakker was a more active author.

Same.  For me there really isn't much fantasy that compares to the Second Apocalypse series.  

[unJon]

14 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Same.  For me there really isn't much fantasy that compares to the Second Apocalypse series.  

No sobbers on the Slog!

[Rhom]

2 hours ago, unJon said:

No sobbers on the Slog!

To the coffers boys!!!!

[Lord Patrek]

If only death could come swirling down more often, I'd be a happy camper!

[Gaston de Foix]

9 hours ago, IFR said:

Magnitude of response to disappointment has been the crux of my criticisms. If an author does not produce a book or chapter that you want, feel free to be sad. Complain to friends. And then accept that such is the way of life and move on. This doesn't give anyone the right to pester the author, especially to the relentless extent that fans are known for.

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.   

[Argonath Diver]

I for one enjoyed reading every Bakker thread on this forum even more than the books (in which I eventually fell to the inevitable slog). The height of this Literature forum was when those incredibly high-level philosophical conversation threads were neck-and-neck as popular as the brilliance of the Tairy threads. Also, back then we did have stronger Summon Author rolls.

Edit: I should add that at approximately the same period, the Rothfuss threads were also generally a delight, with a nice mix of theory-crafting the puzzles (remember when someone figured out the poem!) and light-hearted mockery of some of the, well, fairy-featuring bits. That was also when we all still thought Pat was, you know, not a fraud as well.

Edited September 5, 2023 by Argonath Diver

[Ninefingers]

On 9/4/2023 at 1:57 PM, IFR said:

 

Rothfuss himself may have engaged in pernicious behavior too, in which case it becomes the spectacle of a pit match of villains.

 

This is where I'm at.

Taking to twitter, or email, or in person harassment of Rothfuss is assholeish behavior. (Although I would note that polite requests for updates I consider completely in bounds.)

On the other side of the ledger, Rothfuss has repeatedly lied, broken promises, and gone on record that people who ask for updates on book 3 should "fuck off and die".

So, yeah, no heroes here. 

[Ser Not Appearing]

All Rothfuss discussions end up grimdark somewhere along the way. There are no heroes and everybody sucks and life is full of disappointment.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Ser Not Appearing

[Ninefingers]

3 minutes ago, Ser Not Appearing said:

All Rothfuss discussions end up grimdark somewhere along the way. There are no heroes and everybody sucks and life is full of disappointment.

I find this precisely in keeping with my username, thank you.

[Ser Not Appearing]

I'm sure I've stated it before but I do think publishing an incomplete work is an implied social contact to finish it which means there is an obligation (social) for the author to fulfill the promise of a complete story. To that extent, I understand much of fan frustration and feel it myself, even. And, as it is a social frustration, it can and should be expressed socially.

That doesn't excuse all behavior but explains it well (there's inevitably a spectrum of frustrations and severe distress or belligerence is part of that) and makes it rather understandable even if I don't endorse all ranges of complaint and manifestations of disappointment.

I cringe at the most extreme temper tantrums thrown by fans but I commiserate with the underlying frustration a bit too much to ever enjoy an author snapping back.

... and then I also think I can appreciate a good bit of the performance and expectations stress authors endure and how seeking perfection can lead to delays. Butt it's a lot like real work. Every individual delay is potentially understandable but somewhere along the line you reach a point beyond which you've gone too long and anything more is simply an excuse not to fulfill that social contract.

I, personally, feel Pat and GRRM have reached that point and I'm fundamentally disappointed.

It's tough but life goes on and there's always hope.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Ser Not Appearing

[Ser Not Appearing]

2 minutes ago, Ninefingers said:

I find this precisely in keeping with my username, thank you.

You have to be realistic when you enter these threads ...

[Proudfeet]

1 minute ago, Ser Not Appearing said:

I'm sure I've stated it before but I do think publishing an incomplete work is an implied social contact to finish it which means there is an obligation (social) for the author to fulfill the promise of a complete story.

I disagree. Putting aside practical concerns such as not having enough sales to justify continuing, how would you feel if your employer told you that your notice period needs to be extended? They can't manage without you and they'd like to get your replacement in and trained before you go.

Not to mention that a forced or rushed conclusion would likely result in a poorer product. Is it worth it? Or even simpler, lets have a chapter briefly summarising the present and end it with the protagonist considering their future. The end.