4 ms·

Specially since the fact that George R. Martin can now enjoy his life, and not work is thanks to this same audience. Those who treat their audience like shit, i

Specially since the fact that George R. Martin can now enjoy his life, and not work is thanks to this same audience. Those who treat their audience like shit, is due to lost everything.

Veen 5y ago
His readers (not audience) paid to buy the books he had written. They didn't pay him to write books in the future. I really don't understand this bizarre "fandom" idea that a writer owes his readers something beyond what they have paid for. It's a polite fiction that some writers unfortunately indulge, but the fact that you've paid a small amount of money to read a book doesn't impose any future obligation on its author. His publishers might have cause to be annoyed if they have a contract for more books, but the readers, however disappointed, don't have a moral right to dictate a writer's future labour. And that's what writing novels is—it's work for money, like programming or plumbing, not some mystical calling or vocation.
- hoseja 5y ago
  They bought the books with the illusion they might someday read the ending. A lot of them wouldn't have bought the books if they knew there will never be a conclusion.
  - lupire 5y ago
    GOT TV ended at S8 and the only happy viewers are the ones who stopped after S6.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  No, his readers paid and followed him to hear a story. Of course he doesn't literally, in a legal sense, owe anything to them. And of course they are not entitled to harass him in any way. But they are entitled to feel cheated, and loudly proclaim that they were cheated. Especially with a story as full of intrigue as A Song of Ice and Fire. By comparison, fans of Agatha Christie's work would not have any entitlement to complain if she stopped after three novels, as those novels were complete works in and of themselves. But they would have every reason to complain if she published the first half of And Then There Were None, but never published the ending.
  - thfuran 5y ago
    >By comparison, fans of Agatha Christie's work would not have any entitlement to complain if she stopped after three novels Of course they would.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      Why? Do you feel that The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is not telling a complete story unless you also read Murder on the Orient Express? Note that I'm not saying some fans wouldn't have been pressuring her into writing more if she had stopped. I'm saying those fans, unlike the ASOIAF fandom, wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
      - lupire 5y ago
        "complete story" doesn't exist. Every story has details not followed up on. Just like real life. LOST had an ending but it was terrible because the story kept piling on more bullshit. GOT TV had an ending and it was terrible. ASOIAF is a short chronicle (yet still full of many great characterizations, episodes, and plot lines) of characters coming and going through the world. Some plot lines start in the middle, some end in the middle, because neither us nor GRRM are immortal beings.
      - thfuran 5y ago
        >Do you feel that The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is not telling a complete story unless you also read Murder on the Orient Express? That's completely irrelevant. Everyone is entitled to feel however they feel and think whatever they think and should not be precluded from voicing their opinions. Why should your opinion of the relative completeness of one story versus another determine whether someone else is permitted to express disappointment with a story?
        tsimionescu 5y ago
        That's not the question. The point is whether you are entitled to feel an author is cheating you by not writing a new novel in a series you like. My contention is that George RR Martin is cheating his ASOIAF readers by spending time on other works instead of writing the next ASOIAF novel. By contrast, I don't think Agatha Christie would have been cheating her Poirot fans in any way by writing Miss Marple novels instead of Poirot ones. The reason I draw this difference is that you can enjoy (or hate) any particular Poirot book individually. By contrast, you can't really like A Dance With Dragons without knowing if what happens next to some of those characters actually resolves the tension and mystery in a satisfying way (or doesn't resolve it, but in a satisfying meaningful way, like a good open ending).
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  > They didn't pay him to write books in the future. I really don't understand this bizarre "fandom" idea that a writer owes his readers something beyond what they have paid for. Do this day, 12 years after this was written, he blogs about how the books are his top priority. He is certainly giving his readers the idea that he owes them a finish by constantly communicating that he will finish.
- major505 5y ago
  I paid with the expectation that he would finish the story. Since he didn't I wont buy more of his books until he stop procrastinanting other porjects and release the full story.
- major505 5y ago
  Look, I understand. If I had made so much money like he had, I would be now snoring cocaine over strippers instead of writing. But I had the expecation that in his age, he would be more responsable then me.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  > They didn't pay him to write books in the future. No, but HBO did, he (co?)wrote Fire and Blood to give them material for a new GoT style TV show; they probably paid him so much to cram its writing in between the mainline ASoIaF books. On top of the licenses for the once popular TV show.
- the_af 5y ago
  > And that's what writing novels is—it's work for money, like programming or plumbing, not some mystical calling or vocation. I agree with your overall comment, but this is not entirely true. For many writers, writing is a vocation. They would do it even if they couldn't make a living out of it, just like a painter would paint even if nobody commissioned any of their work. It just happens that for a relatively small percentage of writers, writing is a viable way to make enough money to make a living.

Specially since the fact that George R. Martin can now enjoy his life, and not work is thanks to this same audience. Those who treat their audience like shit, is due to lost everything.

Veen 5y ago

His readers (not audience) paid to buy the books he had written. They didn't pay him to write books in the future. I really don't understand this bizarre "fandom" idea that a writer owes his readers something beyond what they have paid for. It's a polite fiction that some writers unfortunately indulge, but the fact that you've paid a small amount of money to read a book doesn't impose any future obligation on its author. His publishers might have cause to be annoyed if they have a contract for more books, but the readers, however disappointed, don't have a moral right to dictate a writer's future labour. And that's what writing novels is—it's work for money, like programming or plumbing, not some mystical calling or vocation.

hoseja 5y ago
They bought the books with the illusion they might someday read the ending. A lot of them wouldn't have bought the books if they knew there will never be a conclusion.
- lupire 5y ago
  GOT TV ended at S8 and the only happy viewers are the ones who stopped after S6.
tsimionescu 5y ago
No, his readers paid and followed him to hear a story. Of course he doesn't literally, in a legal sense, owe anything to them. And of course they are not entitled to harass him in any way. But they are entitled to feel cheated, and loudly proclaim that they were cheated. Especially with a story as full of intrigue as A Song of Ice and Fire. By comparison, fans of Agatha Christie's work would not have any entitlement to complain if she stopped after three novels, as those novels were complete works in and of themselves. But they would have every reason to complain if she published the first half of And Then There Were None, but never published the ending.
- thfuran 5y ago
  >By comparison, fans of Agatha Christie's work would not have any entitlement to complain if she stopped after three novels Of course they would.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Why? Do you feel that The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is not telling a complete story unless you also read Murder on the Orient Express? Note that I'm not saying some fans wouldn't have been pressuring her into writing more if she had stopped. I'm saying those fans, unlike the ASOIAF fandom, wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
    - lupire 5y ago
      "complete story" doesn't exist. Every story has details not followed up on. Just like real life. LOST had an ending but it was terrible because the story kept piling on more bullshit. GOT TV had an ending and it was terrible. ASOIAF is a short chronicle (yet still full of many great characterizations, episodes, and plot lines) of characters coming and going through the world. Some plot lines start in the middle, some end in the middle, because neither us nor GRRM are immortal beings.
    - thfuran 5y ago
      >Do you feel that The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is not telling a complete story unless you also read Murder on the Orient Express? That's completely irrelevant. Everyone is entitled to feel however they feel and think whatever they think and should not be precluded from voicing their opinions. Why should your opinion of the relative completeness of one story versus another determine whether someone else is permitted to express disappointment with a story?
      - tsimionescu 5y ago
        That's not the question. The point is whether you are entitled to feel an author is cheating you by not writing a new novel in a series you like. My contention is that George RR Martin is cheating his ASOIAF readers by spending time on other works instead of writing the next ASOIAF novel. By contrast, I don't think Agatha Christie would have been cheating her Poirot fans in any way by writing Miss Marple novels instead of Poirot ones. The reason I draw this difference is that you can enjoy (or hate) any particular Poirot book individually. By contrast, you can't really like A Dance With Dragons without knowing if what happens next to some of those characters actually resolves the tension and mystery in a satisfying way (or doesn't resolve it, but in a satisfying meaningful way, like a good open ending).
long_time_gone 5y ago
> They didn't pay him to write books in the future. I really don't understand this bizarre "fandom" idea that a writer owes his readers something beyond what they have paid for. Do this day, 12 years after this was written, he blogs about how the books are his top priority. He is certainly giving his readers the idea that he owes them a finish by constantly communicating that he will finish.
major505 5y ago
I paid with the expectation that he would finish the story. Since he didn't I wont buy more of his books until he stop procrastinanting other porjects and release the full story.
major505 5y ago
Look, I understand. If I had made so much money like he had, I would be now snoring cocaine over strippers instead of writing. But I had the expecation that in his age, he would be more responsable then me.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
> They didn't pay him to write books in the future. No, but HBO did, he (co?)wrote Fire and Blood to give them material for a new GoT style TV show; they probably paid him so much to cram its writing in between the mainline ASoIaF books. On top of the licenses for the once popular TV show.
the_af 5y ago
> And that's what writing novels is—it's work for money, like programming or plumbing, not some mystical calling or vocation. I agree with your overall comment, but this is not entirely true. For many writers, writing is a vocation. They would do it even if they couldn't make a living out of it, just like a painter would paint even if nobody commissioned any of their work. It just happens that for a relatively small percentage of writers, writing is a viable way to make enough money to make a living.