4 ms·

I enjoy the musings of the contract between writer and reader. If the author doesn't agree, on some level, to finish the series and it's the reader's requireme

I enjoy the musings of the contract between writer and reader. If the author doesn't agree, on some level, to finish the series and it's the reader's requirement that a whole series must be read, then the reader is left with no choice but to wait until a series is finished before beginning. In various degrees of depth, we enter into obligations to others by beginning something, whether writing a book, having a child, ordering food etc. Seems the blog author's opinion is that GRRM has no obligation to his readers. I'd argue he has some form of professional obligation, but certainly no contractual ones w/ recourse.

Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
I don't think Gaiman is simply pointing out that there is no contractual resource, I think he's pointing out, in part at least, that there's no point in trying to hold someone in a creative endeavor to a commitment of this type, at least not if you don't want the quality to suffer as the process simply doesn't work like that. People in technology are very keen to point out when people don't understand how our processes work and when they're asking us to work in ways which are counter productive. This feels to me like a writer doing the same, essentially saying, I understand what you want, but please understand that the way you want it to work isn't going to get you the result you want.
orclev 12y ago
The author has no FORMAL contract, but there is certainly an expectation that a series will be finished at some point. It is certainly the case that when someone purchases one of a series of works, unless it is of a nature that it's expected to continue indefinitely (E.G. any given Marvel comic for example) people generally expect that at some point in the future the series will conclude. At a bare minimum they expect the current story arc to be resolved in something approaching a satisfactory way (for varying values of satisfactory). Importantly there is no guarantee of when precisely that conclusion will be provided, or truly a guarantee it will be provided at all, but there is certainly the expectation. Further once an author has set a known "pace" to his writing people tend to expect him to continue that pace (rightly so or not), so when he massively deviates from that pace people tend to take notice. E.G. if an author were to publish 3 books in a series, one every year, and then suddenly go 4 or 5 years before publishing the next book in the series people would most likely be very angry with that author (wrongly or not, it's more a question of human nature). So no, while the author is not in fact their "bitch" as Neil Gaiman puts it, there is a certain expectation on both sides, namely the audience expects the work to be concluded at some point in the future and for work to be released at something approaching a regular schedule, while the author should then also have the reasonable expectation that those purchasing his books will continue to do so in the future. Generally both parties end up with their expectations largely met, and things work out for everyone.
enneff 12y ago
The notion that an author has an obligation to finish writing a series is as absurd as the notion that a reader must finish reading a series.
- maerF0x0 12y ago
  One key difference is that the reader is compensating the author for some product. Presumably, a product (series) that doesnt conclude has a different value than one that does.
  - enneff 12y ago
    It hasn't concluded until it has concluded. If you value it as something it is not then you made a mistake. The author is compensating the reader for their money, too.
mikeash 12y ago
There's clearly no obligation whatsoever. The transaction is quite simple: you spend $X, you get $BOOK. Perhaps later you spend $X2 and you get $BOOK2. That's it, end of story. That's the case for the legal/contractual side of things, but also for this "professional obligation" side of things. The flip side, of course, is that readers are under no obligation to buy a book. If somebody needs to read an entire series, then they should wait until the entire series is available. To start reading a series that isn't finished yet, when you need to read the whole series, is stupid. There's no implied obligation of the nature you discuss as when happens when you have a child. If you want there to be one, then I suggest contacting the author and offering to pay him in advance for writing the next book in exchange for a promise to complete it and some sort of hard deadline. Of course, you may find that this costs several orders of magnitude more than the ~$25 you'd pay for the initial release hardback if you just sat back and waited.
- maerF0x0 12y ago
  >The transaction is quite simple: you spend $X, you get $BOOK. Perhaps later you spend $X2 and you get $BOOK2. I believe this has analogues to how Jack Welch says (paraphrasing) "At the end of the week when the you have your paycheck, you and the company are even"-- implying that there is not further obligation. I find this hard to believe on a professional level. If I am a key person on a team, I have an obligation to give no less than 2 weeks notice, and probably much more if I want to remain in good professional standing w/ the company I work for (eg, more notice for small companies) . Why? Because despite the lack of contract and resolutions, there is more at stake than just what is stated on paper, there is reputation, business continuity and implied continuations in the relationship. I see it similarly with an author. Yes, there has been a transaction that takes place and is complete. But if GRRM wants to keep relationship and reputation intact, then there is more to the picture than money in and book out. There is the way the customer feels when they hear the series is cancelled, for example.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Welch may get it wrong for an ongoing relationship where you're dedicating 25% of your life to the company, but I think he has it exactly right for an occasional one-off that you pay a small amount of money for, and where the other guy doesn't even know who you are. I mean, you're talking about a situation with two weeks notice as somehow being relevant to a situation where the ideal involves multiple years between transactions. You say "if GRRM wants to keep relationship and reputation intact...." I agree with that. But "keep relationship and reputation intact" is completely different from "obligation". Yes, if GRRM wants to maintain his reputation as the author of a series worth reading, it would be helpful if he could get new installments out on some sort of regular basis. (But who are we kidding: people will buy them by the million regardless.) But if he decides that he doesn't care about people buying his books anymore, that's his choice. There's no obligation on his part to maintain his reputation.

Tyrannosaurs 12y ago

I don't think Gaiman is simply pointing out that there is no contractual resource, I think he's pointing out, in part at least, that there's no point in trying to hold someone in a creative endeavor to a commitment of this type, at least not if you don't want the quality to suffer as the process simply doesn't work like that. People in technology are very keen to point out when people don't understand how our processes work and when they're asking us to work in ways which are counter productive. This feels to me like a writer doing the same, essentially saying, I understand what you want, but please understand that the way you want it to work isn't going to get you the result you want.

orclev 12y ago

The author has no FORMAL contract, but there is certainly an expectation that a series will be finished at some point. It is certainly the case that when someone purchases one of a series of works, unless it is of a nature that it's expected to continue indefinitely (E.G. any given Marvel comic for example) people generally expect that at some point in the future the series will conclude. At a bare minimum they expect the current story arc to be resolved in something approaching a satisfactory way (for varying values of satisfactory). Importantly there is no guarantee of when precisely that conclusion will be provided, or truly a guarantee it will be provided at all, but there is certainly the expectation. Further once an author has set a known "pace" to his writing people tend to expect him to continue that pace (rightly so or not), so when he massively deviates from that pace people tend to take notice. E.G. if an author were to publish 3 books in a series, one every year, and then suddenly go 4 or 5 years before publishing the next book in the series people would most likely be very angry with that author (wrongly or not, it's more a question of human nature). So no, while the author is not in fact their "bitch" as Neil Gaiman puts it, there is a certain expectation on both sides, namely the audience expects the work to be concluded at some point in the future and for work to be released at something approaching a regular schedule, while the author should then also have the reasonable expectation that those purchasing his books will continue to do so in the future. Generally both parties end up with their expectations largely met, and things work out for everyone.

enneff 12y ago

The notion that an author has an obligation to finish writing a series is as absurd as the notion that a reader must finish reading a series.

maerF0x0 12y ago
One key difference is that the reader is compensating the author for some product. Presumably, a product (series) that doesnt conclude has a different value than one that does.
- enneff 12y ago
  It hasn't concluded until it has concluded. If you value it as something it is not then you made a mistake. The author is compensating the reader for their money, too.

mikeash 12y ago

There's clearly no obligation whatsoever. The transaction is quite simple: you spend $X, you get $BOOK. Perhaps later you spend $X2 and you get $BOOK2. That's it, end of story. That's the case for the legal/contractual side of things, but also for this "professional obligation" side of things. The flip side, of course, is that readers are under no obligation to buy a book. If somebody needs to read an entire series, then they should wait until the entire series is available. To start reading a series that isn't finished yet, when you need to read the whole series, is stupid. There's no implied obligation of the nature you discuss as when happens when you have a child. If you want there to be one, then I suggest contacting the author and offering to pay him in advance for writing the next book in exchange for a promise to complete it and some sort of hard deadline. Of course, you may find that this costs several orders of magnitude more than the ~$25 you'd pay for the initial release hardback if you just sat back and waited.

maerF0x0 12y ago
>The transaction is quite simple: you spend $X, you get $BOOK. Perhaps later you spend $X2 and you get $BOOK2. I believe this has analogues to how Jack Welch says (paraphrasing) "At the end of the week when the you have your paycheck, you and the company are even"-- implying that there is not further obligation. I find this hard to believe on a professional level. If I am a key person on a team, I have an obligation to give no less than 2 weeks notice, and probably much more if I want to remain in good professional standing w/ the company I work for (eg, more notice for small companies) . Why? Because despite the lack of contract and resolutions, there is more at stake than just what is stated on paper, there is reputation, business continuity and implied continuations in the relationship. I see it similarly with an author. Yes, there has been a transaction that takes place and is complete. But if GRRM wants to keep relationship and reputation intact, then there is more to the picture than money in and book out. There is the way the customer feels when they hear the series is cancelled, for example.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Welch may get it wrong for an ongoing relationship where you're dedicating 25% of your life to the company, but I think he has it exactly right for an occasional one-off that you pay a small amount of money for, and where the other guy doesn't even know who you are. I mean, you're talking about a situation with two weeks notice as somehow being relevant to a situation where the ideal involves multiple years between transactions. You say "if GRRM wants to keep relationship and reputation intact...." I agree with that. But "keep relationship and reputation intact" is completely different from "obligation". Yes, if GRRM wants to maintain his reputation as the author of a series worth reading, it would be helpful if he could get new installments out on some sort of regular basis. (But who are we kidding: people will buy them by the million regardless.) But if he decides that he doesn't care about people buying his books anymore, that's his choice. There's no obligation on his part to maintain his reputation.