What do authors owe us?

[Moshe Goldberg Rubinshteyn]

This is a spin-off of the Scott Lynch thread which was closed.

The question is the following: What do authors owe the readers?

Context: You, the reader, might have started to read an unfinished multi-volume series once. You thought the first book was great, the second even better etc. Say the first books came out in short succession. You're waiting for the next book, a year passes, then another year, and maybe one more, and there's no sign of the next book coming out. You're desperate to learn how the story continues, but you feel let down by the author. I can assume most of us have been there. ;)

On the other hand, you, the author, might have struggled a long time for your breakthrough. Many years spent in near poverty, too many rejections from publishers to count. You might have been writing your heart out for years and finally, when you thought it would never happen: success. The second book is easy, because you had written 5 different versions of it before the first one was accepted. The third one was a breeze as well. Checks are coming in, translations of your work into foreign languages which you didn't know existed. You even get an advance on your next book. If you don't spend everything at once, you might have enough to last you for a lifetime. You have made it.

So you start to do some other things, I don't know, collecting stuff, spend time with friends, virtual or real. Writing now feels like real work, not passion. So maybe you avoid it, because, you don't need to (financially). Or you procrastinate for some other reason. Or you have a straightforward writer's block. Or whatever. The result is the same, you're not finishing your next book.

Rules: The previous thread was closed because of an unfounded rumor concerning Mr. Lynch. So, let's keep any reference to any real author (in particular our beloved GRRM) out of this thread.

What does an author owe his or her readers?

Discuss

[delete this account pls]

Nothing. They produce a product and we buy it, or not. There's no obligation either way.

[me399]

[quote name='Brady' post='1614229' date='Dec 9 2008, 22.12']Nothing. They produce a product and we buy it, or not. There's no obligation either way.[/quote]

I would agree with that if the author only wrote stand alone novels. I think things change when the author starts writing multi-volume series. When they write a series I think that readers should be able to expect the next volumes to come out in a timely manner.

We can not really do this without naming names. I will keep it nice.

Stephen king did this with The Dark Tower. He had an insane gap between books 4 and 5, when we finally got books 5-7 they were very different in tone that the first 4 (at least I thought so) and that totally ruined the series for me. I love the first 4 books in the series but can not stand the last 3. I think that if he had not taken that long of a gap the outcome would have been much different. I think he lost his original story and never really found it again.

GRRM has been pretty slow but I wont complain because I think none of the books have suffered for it. I would rather wait for greatness than have rushed garbage.

[Lady Blackfish]

I'm with Brady. Nothing. Series or not.

[Larry.]

In some cases, authors owe certain readers a kick to their asses. Other than that, nothing at all.

[Jacen]

I know the correct answer is "nothing"

BUT

I have to say I appreciate authors that [i]do[/i] reward their readers. After all, writing is a business as well as an art form. If they piss us off, they might be out of a job. There are authors out there that deliver on the "promise", and those are the ones that will always be my favorites. As an aside, time of completion is not really a factor to me.

Stephen King has always maintained that any writer that doesn't write for[i] themselves[/i] first and foremost is a bad writer. I understand and appreciate his many reasons behind that logic but I also wonder if it's not possible to do that AND provide the promised entertainment to the reader?

[Centrist Simon Steele]

[quote name='Jacen' post='1614255' date='Dec 9 2008, 20.51']I know the correct answer is "nothing"

BUT

I have to say I appreciate authors that [i]do[/i] reward their readers. After all, writing is a business as well as an art form. If they piss us off, they might be out of a job. There are authors out there that deliver on the "promise", and those are the ones that will always be my favorites. As an aside, time of completion is not really a factor to me.

Stephen King has always maintained that any writer that doesn't write for[i] themselves[/i] first and foremost is a bad writer. I understand and appreciate his many reasons behind that logic but I also wonder if it's not possible to do that AND provide the promised entertainment to the reader?[/quote]

But the truth is, no matter how many witty things he comes up with about the craft of writing, it's becoming increasingly apparent that Stephen King might be a bad writer who does it for the money. He sure thinks he's better than he really is. In his mind he fancies himself a Faulkner, Hemingway. But in reality he's only a step up from a Keene, a Bentley Little, or a "Whoever wrote those horrid books Off Season and Girl Next Door."

I say it's a fine line for authors that they have to walk between themselves and their readers. A lot of these people get huge egos and let their "genius" ruin their work (King, Dark Tower). These guys need the fans from time to time to bring them back to reality.

[Jacen]

Ha. That may be true of King, however I still like the Dark Tower despite it's faults. :P

But isn't his premise valid, at least somewhat? When an author first starts writing we enjoy them for[i] their [/i]story, their ideas, their voice...but what happens when an author stops writing what he/she wants to write and starts writing what they think the fans want to read? Isn't it sometimes bad to subvert your creation to the whims of the public?

Sometimes the crowd pleasing version of a story is not the "best" version, right?

Of course there are dangers to going the opposite way. I suppose a balance is the best way to approach it?

[sologdin]

authors owe me a money-back guarantee, considering that i've done them a favor in buying their books. i have written, therefore, an [i]ad terrorem [/i]letter to enforce my rights regarding this obligation.

any of you may freely adopt the language of my letter to enforce your own rights regarding obligations owed by the authors that you've read.

[quote name='my awesome letter']Dear [Author],

I purchased a copy of your book, [title], on [date], for [price], at [merchant].

This book fails to live up to my aesthetic, political, and/or ethical standards. I will provide a bill of particulars regarding this failure, if requested.

Under art. 2-315 of the UCC, all goods in commerce include an implied warranty of merchantability within the terms of the sale. If the goods are not fit for ordinary consumption, then the warranty is violated. By writing such a failure of a book, you have rendered it unfit for my ordinary consumption, and have consequently violated my rights under the warranty.

Therefore, I urge you to remit immediately to me, [name], the amount of [price], lest I am compelled to take action more drastic than the pen permits, grinding you thereby under the heavy millstone of justice.

Thank you [sir/madam] for your timely response to this matter, and good day.

s/ [you][/quote]

[Vercint]

if you don't like a book, just return it to the store

[Paxter]

Legally, authors don't owe us anything more than the actual book that we're paying for.
Morally, if authors make a representation that the book will be part of a multi-volume series, I don't think it's right that an author suddenly says he's not going to continue with the series. However, there is, IMO, no moral obligation that the series be completed in a "timely manner". As long as, at some stage, the author resolves to finishing the series, that is good enough for me.

[Mandiric]

One might be disappointed in an author for whatever reason, but the idea of indebtedness stinks of entitlement. It is absurd.

[mashiara]

[quote name='Brady' post='1614229' date='Dec 10 2008, 05.12']Nothing. They produce a product and we buy it, or not. There's no obligation either way.[/quote]

Indeed. This whole concept of authors owing us anything is silly. Yes, I've spent many years waiting for books. Stephen King and the Dark Tower was mentioned, Robert Jordan should be mentioned, Martin is the obvious example. Do I feel they owe me anything? No. I agree a writer should write for themselves first.

You can be a reader who's eagerly awaiting the next book and still find the patience to wait, especially if you think the series deserves it. Authors are entitled to private lives and other interests, as much as they might frustrate people and prolong their wait.

There are hundreds of other books out there. Go and read all of them, then come back to your favorite series when the new book is finally out. Don't harass the authors. They'll give you the next book when they are ready.

[dbcooper]

Of course, authors don't "owe" us anything. We like to think that an author with a fan base that is large, long-standing and dedicated :cough: martin :cough: will try to take them into consideration when making decision regarding material that his fans look forward to. This may be the case for some authors, it may not for others. They aren't wrong if they ignore their fans wishes and do what they want, (like taking 2 years longer then originally planned and working on side projects instead of the main one most of his fans are looking forward to) but sometimes you just can't help but feel cheated in some way.

Some people have commented that the relationship between author and reader is merely producer/consumer. But I would like to point out that the dynamics of this type of relationship vary greatly depending on the product in question. if you've been buying cars from a certain dealership for 20 years, then a relationship is formed that is higher then just the basic level producer/consumer. I suppose you could draw a similar line of thought for an author you've been reading for 10+ years. if you are loyal to a certain brand (or a certain author) then you like to expect a amount of fair treatment.

[Lady Blackfish]

Personally I don't think there is any moral obligation either, authors attempting to write series is not the same as killing someone (I mean, not that anyone made this comparison, but yeah, I don't get the relevance of morality here).

There have been plenty of unfinished works in history and it'll continue to happen, that's life. It's totally understandable to be frustrated and confused when it happens, but the author is not only not a criminal, s/he's not a bad person either. Just a writer with a creative challenge that may or may not be overcome, and I really think that's all.

People have a right to be skeptical and irritated in these cases, but if it gets into the area of entitlement then that's gone too far, IMHO.

[Zoë Sumra]

[quote name='dbcooper' post='1614338' date='Dec 10 2008, 06.39']Some people have commented that the relationship between author and reader is merely producer/consumer. But I would like to point out that the dynamics of this type of relationship vary greatly depending on the product in question. if you've been buying cars from a certain dealership for 20 years, then a relationship is formed that is higher then just the basic level producer/consumer. I suppose you could draw a similar line of thought for an author you've been reading for 10+ years. if you are loyal to a certain brand (or a certain author) then you like to expect a amount of fair treatment.[/quote]
The difference here is that with the car dealership the face-to-face contact increases the depth of the working relationship. An author only ever meets a tiny fraction of his/her fans.

[raft]

i think it depends on the way you look at it. The distinction is this: readers aren't [i]owed [/i]anything by the writer--that is, they have no right to be entitled to anything more than what they actually purchased. But ATST the writer also has an obligation to try to live up to his reader's expectations. The "writing for yourself first" thing is a big cop out: a published book is not a personal diary. if i publish a book, that means i want people to read it, and if they read it then they enter into a relationship with me (however tenuous) that i actively choose to create. This isn't to say the fans should control my life, but I have at least some responsibility not to abuse that relationship.

Concrete example: I work hard and turn out a really awesome first novel. Oprah puts me in her book club and i make a lot of money. then i shit out a second really terrible book because i'm too busy getting blowjobs in the camen islands. My fans buy it because they trust that I'll try not to screw them. And it's true, I don't [i]owe[/i] them anything--they don't have a right not to be screwed by me. But if i do that it still makes me a giant douchebag.

[Errant Bard]

What Solo said... What would you do if the author owed you anything and you thought he didn't meet your rights? Send him an angry letter?

No, the author didn't promise anything and hasn't any obligation (moral or otherwise) towards a reader that chooses to read an unfinished serie without pausing to think about what "unfinished" can entail. If a series only worth lies in the way it is concluded, a smart reader will only read finished ones.

[quote name='raft']This isn't to say the fans should control my life, but I have at least some responsibility not to abuse that relationship.[/quote]It does not make any sense for an author who cares about his money to do that. But I still don't see the responsibility, the guy offers something, he doesn't force anyone to buy it. He didn't ask for your trust, he isn't responsible for what you feel are his obligations, all he did was release a story he wrote on the market.

[Isis]

Nothing. Series or standalone makes no difference.

[Ran]

I rather like Cobblestone's suggestion to keep this a theoretical discussion, rather than getting stuck discussing particular authors. It's a good approach, IMO.

There really is no responsibility issue here. The writer produces a book, the reader buys and reads it. The reader is free to like or dislike it, and they can decide what to do. "Time" was never part of the implicit contract when one started a series. No publisher writes, "Buy this series, guranteed to be done by XXXX!"

Just because some books came out like clockwork to begin with is meaningless, since the author could never honestly represent that that would always be the case. Writing, like any creative endeavour, has its own demands. To say an author is "allowing" it to take more time than you think it "should" is obviously wrong-headed. You could say you _believe_ they're "allowing" it to happen, but that's what it is -- belief, speculation, rumor.

Very few authors set out to fail, very few authors set out to labor away at one novel for years. But it happens, and it can happen with the best intentions -- a writer thinking they're giving readers what they want may misunderstand what qualities readers liked, a writer insisting on maintaining a standard of quality may find that a work requires far more time and presents far more difficult problems than he imagined.