4 ms·

I think your focus on the financials, which was a very small part of the article is misguided. I'm under the assumption that the article is part of the author t

I think your focus on the financials, which was a very small part of the article is misguided. I'm under the assumption that the article is part of the author trying to "piece things together" - as a part 2 of his spiritual journey where he concluded: > I wrote a story for a friend, but in the end, he didn't treat me like a friend, and I'm hurt. By accepting this premise, these are examples of when he expected to be treated as a friend, but was instead treated as an outsider. As for the legality, I don't think a vague agreement can clarify if the work is licenced or if the licence was transfered.

cmeacham98 4y ago
But he was an outsider, he wasn't Notch's friend. Notch contacted him for the express purpose of writing the End Poem. Of course, I'm sure they were friendly in their discussions, there's no point in being actively hostile to the people you're working with. But the idea the relationship extended anything past a game developer and a contracted writer seems to be entirely in the author's mind.
- operator-name 4y ago
  I definitely agree, and on the basis of the information given that seems to be the crux of the issue. Yet I can easily believe and totally see that the author saw it as more - who's to say that they weren't closer to friends prior to the initial discussion about contracts?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- mcv 4y ago
  One side sees it as the start of a friendship, the other as a work contract. It certainly feels a bit like he was feeling lonely and needed to see this as a friendship. I'm sure there was a deep artistic connection, but that's not quite the same thing as a friendship. It's awkward and frustrating when only one side sees a relationship as a friendship.
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    It's possible this is true, but then the author needs to stop acting like they are totally blameless and everything is just where the universe took him. All of the author's problems here are self-inflicted.
    - Karellen 4y ago
      Where does the author act like they are totally blameless?
      - cmeacham98 4y ago
        > Nobody is the bad guy > We just didn’t understand each other, because we were playing different language games. The author collectively places the blame on poor communication from both sides. But the reality is that all of the poor communication was entirely from his side, and he knew in advance he struggled talking about money and had an agent for that very purpose. There's also this whole weird subsection where he describes things the universe did to him as if he has no agency in his own actions and where he ended up in life.
    - soneca 4y ago
      Very weird take. The author talks several times that “there are no baddies”. At one point they literally say about the conversation with the CEO: ”The misunderstanding was all mine.”
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - 3np 4y ago
      How could you possibly read that into it? The only blame I see assigned in the text is self-blame. Select snips: > I just misunderstood what was going on. > Now, Carl didn’t do anything wrong here. Carl is not the baddie either. He was a CEO, and major shareholder, behaving the way a CEO and major shareholder is supposed to behave. The misunderstanding was all mine. > But that anger was of course misplaced. If I had trouble paying for my kid’s clothes and shoes, that was on me: my life, at that point, after all those years, was the direct result of all the decisions I had made over its course, and those decisions involved prioritising art and deprioritising money, again and again. (As Robert Louis Stevenson dryly put it, “Everybody, soon or late, sits down to a banquet of consequences.") > Again, I have to calm down and remind myself, and you, there are no bad guys in this story. Do not hassle Markus, or Carl (or even Microsoft) about this. I’m sure they didn’t even think of it as “tricking” me; that’s my perspective, not theirs. > He was projecting his motivations onto me, in the same way I had been projecting my motivations onto him. Mutual misunderstanding. > Most of the fault there is mine (I am a deeply flawed guy) > But that anger was of course misplaced. If I had trouble paying for my kid’s clothes and shoes, that was on me: my life, at that point, after all those years, was the direct result of all the decisions I had made over its course, and those decisions involved prioritising art and deprioritising money, again and again. (As Robert Louis Stevenson dryly put it, “Everybody, soon or late, sits down to a banquet of consequences.")
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
simmerup 4y ago
It’s fair to focus on financial when the author spends the entire article mulling over legal action because he feels hard done by, and then ends the article begging for money in the form of donations.

cmeacham98 4y ago

But he was an outsider, he wasn't Notch's friend. Notch contacted him for the express purpose of writing the End Poem. Of course, I'm sure they were friendly in their discussions, there's no point in being actively hostile to the people you're working with. But the idea the relationship extended anything past a game developer and a contracted writer seems to be entirely in the author's mind.

operator-name 4y ago
I definitely agree, and on the basis of the information given that seems to be the crux of the issue. Yet I can easily believe and totally see that the author saw it as more - who's to say that they weren't closer to friends prior to the initial discussion about contracts?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
mcv 4y ago
One side sees it as the start of a friendship, the other as a work contract. It certainly feels a bit like he was feeling lonely and needed to see this as a friendship. I'm sure there was a deep artistic connection, but that's not quite the same thing as a friendship. It's awkward and frustrating when only one side sees a relationship as a friendship.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  It's possible this is true, but then the author needs to stop acting like they are totally blameless and everything is just where the universe took him. All of the author's problems here are self-inflicted.
  - Karellen 4y ago
    Where does the author act like they are totally blameless?
    - cmeacham98 4y ago
      > Nobody is the bad guy > We just didn’t understand each other, because we were playing different language games. The author collectively places the blame on poor communication from both sides. But the reality is that all of the poor communication was entirely from his side, and he knew in advance he struggled talking about money and had an agent for that very purpose. There's also this whole weird subsection where he describes things the universe did to him as if he has no agency in his own actions and where he ended up in life.
  - soneca 4y ago
    Very weird take. The author talks several times that “there are no baddies”. At one point they literally say about the conversation with the CEO: ”The misunderstanding was all mine.”
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - 3np 4y ago
    How could you possibly read that into it? The only blame I see assigned in the text is self-blame. Select snips: > I just misunderstood what was going on. > Now, Carl didn’t do anything wrong here. Carl is not the baddie either. He was a CEO, and major shareholder, behaving the way a CEO and major shareholder is supposed to behave. The misunderstanding was all mine. > But that anger was of course misplaced. If I had trouble paying for my kid’s clothes and shoes, that was on me: my life, at that point, after all those years, was the direct result of all the decisions I had made over its course, and those decisions involved prioritising art and deprioritising money, again and again. (As Robert Louis Stevenson dryly put it, “Everybody, soon or late, sits down to a banquet of consequences.") > Again, I have to calm down and remind myself, and you, there are no bad guys in this story. Do not hassle Markus, or Carl (or even Microsoft) about this. I’m sure they didn’t even think of it as “tricking” me; that’s my perspective, not theirs. > He was projecting his motivations onto me, in the same way I had been projecting my motivations onto him. Mutual misunderstanding. > Most of the fault there is mine (I am a deeply flawed guy) > But that anger was of course misplaced. If I had trouble paying for my kid’s clothes and shoes, that was on me: my life, at that point, after all those years, was the direct result of all the decisions I had made over its course, and those decisions involved prioritising art and deprioritising money, again and again. (As Robert Louis Stevenson dryly put it, “Everybody, soon or late, sits down to a banquet of consequences.")
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

simmerup 4y ago

It’s fair to focus on financial when the author spends the entire article mulling over legal action because he feels hard done by, and then ends the article begging for money in the form of donations.