3 ms·

I mean, it's kind of implicit when someone starts telling a story that the story is going to come to some kind of conclusion at some point since that's how stor

by imgabe 5y ago

I mean, it's kind of implicit when someone starts telling a story that the story is going to come to some kind of conclusion at some point since that's how stories work. It's not something that usually needs to be stated. I take your point though, but I think they've also explicitly stated that they intend to finish it at some point.

mcphage 5y ago
> when someone starts telling a story that the story is going to come to some kind of conclusion at some point since that's how stories work Yes, but you bought the start of the stories. You didn't buy the conclusion. There's no cheating involved.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  The start is only valuable if there is an end, especially for a novel built on mystery and intrigue. When George RR Martin will, sadly, die without having finished A Song of Ice and Fire, all its parts will be forgotten by history (except, perhaps, A Game of Thrones), as they only work as scaffolding for a future ending (save a few extraordinary moments here and there, like the Red Wedding). But if by some miracle he finishes them (and it would be a miracle by this point, given he has spent more than a decade writing the next book, with no end in sight), and if the finale holds up to the quality of the mysteries he has built up, then it may be remembered right next to Lord of the Rings as one of fantasy writing's greatest masterpieces.
  - Beldin 5y ago
    > The start is only valuable if there is an end I don't think Game of Thrones lost money. I would guess HBO paid George Martin well. Moreover, I think that in the eyes of most, GoT would have been better without going beyond Martin's published works. In other words: finishing that story significantly reduced its value. In case you think this is an exception: Matrix, Terminator, Coupling, How I Met Your Mother, Battlestar Galactica reimagined: all stories whose value was diminished greatly by their ending.
    - mcphage 5y ago
      > Coupling Are you talking about the 4th season with Oliver? I mean, he was no Jeff, but it wasn't all bad—and Jane got a bit more depth, which I appreciated. Or do you mean the actual series finale with Susan having the baby?
- imgabe 5y ago
  If you bought the beginning based on the implicit (and explicit) promise that the story would be finished, because A. stories usually have an ending, and B. they've both said many times that they are going to finish them, then yeah you did kind of get cheated, you bought them under false pretenses. If George R.R. Martin wrote 5 books and told everyone "Hey, here's half a story, I'm never going to finish it", most people probably would not have bought it and HBO probably wouldn't have spent millions of dollars producing a TV show about it.
  - mcphage 5y ago
    > and HBO probably wouldn't have spent millions of dollars producing a TV show about it But they did. I don't think HBO had any confusion about what they bought, and the series being unfinished was either not a problem for them, or possibly a plus.
burnished 5y ago
Sounds like you aren't acquainted with shaggy dog stories. For your reading pleasure, I present perhaps the finest example: http://folklore.usc.edu/longest-joke-in-the-world/ http://folklore.usc.edu/longest-joke-in-the-world/
- gwd 5y ago
  This is the exception that proves the rule: The whole reason people sit and listen to shaggy dog stories for so long is that they're expecting some sort of satisfactory conclusion to the story; and the reason people are (in my experience) typically angry at the teller of the story afterwards is that the implicit promise of a satisfactory conclusion has been purposely broken.
  - burnished 5y ago
    I mean if you're going to try and be all 'on-topic'.. Its important to note that you're making details up in your analogy. It is implicit in your story that the storyteller intended a betrayal of expectations, otherwise the emotional response wouldn't make any sense. It is also a very limited scope of time which is hugely important in how people see abandoning a project. At this point your anecdote and the topic of discussion have nothing to do with each other. It is reasonable to experience disappointment that this story will likely never be concluded. Going past the place of having and owning one's emotions into angry blaming is not reasonable. This is the point of TFA, taking any understandable bad feelings around not getting what you wanted and transmuting them into specific directed grievances or demands is embarrassingly entitled behavior. I don't think this will be controversial to you, but I did want to mark the difference.
    - gwd 5y ago
      I think you're reading more into my comment than intended. Someone said, there is an implied promise of a conclusion when you start telling a story. Someone responded, well, that's not true with shaggy dog stories. My response to that person is, on the contrary -- shaggy dog stories are what they are because there is an implicit promise, which they break. That there is an implicit promise was my only point; I didn't mean to comment at all on the situation w/ Game of Thrones. Perhaps "promise" is too strong of a word; "intention"? I certainly don't think Martin, when he started writing Game of Thrones, was planning on leaving his work unfinished. If he had, then he'd certainly deserve some annoyance, just as the teller of shaggy dog stories does. Nor do I even think that Martin got to a certain point and then said, "Welp, I'm rich now, I can just sit back and relax; no need to do that pesky writing stuff any more." And if that was his attitude, then I think he deserves some annoyance. Presumably there's a part of him that would like to finish them off, but finds it difficult for whatever reason. I think that's unfortunate, naturally, but as long as he has, within himself, made a good-faith attempt to move things towards completion, then I think he's held up his end of the bargain. And I agree that the expectation of anything more is toxic entitlement.

by imgabe 5y ago

mcphage 5y ago

> when someone starts telling a story that the story is going to come to some kind of conclusion at some point since that's how stories work Yes, but you bought the start of the stories. You didn't buy the conclusion. There's no cheating involved.

tsimionescu 5y ago
The start is only valuable if there is an end, especially for a novel built on mystery and intrigue. When George RR Martin will, sadly, die without having finished A Song of Ice and Fire, all its parts will be forgotten by history (except, perhaps, A Game of Thrones), as they only work as scaffolding for a future ending (save a few extraordinary moments here and there, like the Red Wedding). But if by some miracle he finishes them (and it would be a miracle by this point, given he has spent more than a decade writing the next book, with no end in sight), and if the finale holds up to the quality of the mysteries he has built up, then it may be remembered right next to Lord of the Rings as one of fantasy writing's greatest masterpieces.
- Beldin 5y ago
  > The start is only valuable if there is an end I don't think Game of Thrones lost money. I would guess HBO paid George Martin well. Moreover, I think that in the eyes of most, GoT would have been better without going beyond Martin's published works. In other words: finishing that story significantly reduced its value. In case you think this is an exception: Matrix, Terminator, Coupling, How I Met Your Mother, Battlestar Galactica reimagined: all stories whose value was diminished greatly by their ending.
  - mcphage 5y ago
    > Coupling Are you talking about the 4th season with Oliver? I mean, he was no Jeff, but it wasn't all bad—and Jane got a bit more depth, which I appreciated. Or do you mean the actual series finale with Susan having the baby?
imgabe 5y ago
If you bought the beginning based on the implicit (and explicit) promise that the story would be finished, because A. stories usually have an ending, and B. they've both said many times that they are going to finish them, then yeah you did kind of get cheated, you bought them under false pretenses. If George R.R. Martin wrote 5 books and told everyone "Hey, here's half a story, I'm never going to finish it", most people probably would not have bought it and HBO probably wouldn't have spent millions of dollars producing a TV show about it.
- mcphage 5y ago
  > and HBO probably wouldn't have spent millions of dollars producing a TV show about it But they did. I don't think HBO had any confusion about what they bought, and the series being unfinished was either not a problem for them, or possibly a plus.

burnished 5y ago

Sounds like you aren't acquainted with shaggy dog stories. For your reading pleasure, I present perhaps the finest example: http://folklore.usc.edu/longest-joke-in-the-world/ http://folklore.usc.edu/longest-joke-in-the-world/

gwd 5y ago
This is the exception that proves the rule: The whole reason people sit and listen to shaggy dog stories for so long is that they're expecting some sort of satisfactory conclusion to the story; and the reason people are (in my experience) typically angry at the teller of the story afterwards is that the implicit promise of a satisfactory conclusion has been purposely broken.
- burnished 5y ago
  I mean if you're going to try and be all 'on-topic'.. Its important to note that you're making details up in your analogy. It is implicit in your story that the storyteller intended a betrayal of expectations, otherwise the emotional response wouldn't make any sense. It is also a very limited scope of time which is hugely important in how people see abandoning a project. At this point your anecdote and the topic of discussion have nothing to do with each other. It is reasonable to experience disappointment that this story will likely never be concluded. Going past the place of having and owning one's emotions into angry blaming is not reasonable. This is the point of TFA, taking any understandable bad feelings around not getting what you wanted and transmuting them into specific directed grievances or demands is embarrassingly entitled behavior. I don't think this will be controversial to you, but I did want to mark the difference.
  - gwd 5y ago
    I think you're reading more into my comment than intended. Someone said, there is an implied promise of a conclusion when you start telling a story. Someone responded, well, that's not true with shaggy dog stories. My response to that person is, on the contrary -- shaggy dog stories are what they are because there is an implicit promise, which they break. That there is an implicit promise was my only point; I didn't mean to comment at all on the situation w/ Game of Thrones. Perhaps "promise" is too strong of a word; "intention"? I certainly don't think Martin, when he started writing Game of Thrones, was planning on leaving his work unfinished. If he had, then he'd certainly deserve some annoyance, just as the teller of shaggy dog stories does. Nor do I even think that Martin got to a certain point and then said, "Welp, I'm rich now, I can just sit back and relax; no need to do that pesky writing stuff any more." And if that was his attitude, then I think he deserves some annoyance. Presumably there's a part of him that would like to finish them off, but finds it difficult for whatever reason. I think that's unfortunate, naturally, but as long as he has, within himself, made a good-faith attempt to move things towards completion, then I think he's held up his end of the bargain. And I agree that the expectation of anything more is toxic entitlement.