Josephine Damian passed along a pretty interesting article from The Globe and Mail about the rise of author websites and specifically fantasy author George R.R. Martin’s. You see, fans are waiting on the next installment of Martin’s series, which has been a bit delayed, and some are rather impatient, to the point that they are begrudging him his vacations and trips to football games (which he blogs about).
The article then goes on to assess the impact of legions of fans/detractors as they interact with authors through websites and reviews. Clearly the era of sending a book into the ether is over. Everything is public, and authors especially.
But this got me thinking. Is there an implied contract between an author and their readers? Does an author owe their readers, whether that’s a timely delivered manuscript or a certain quality threshold?
And yes, would that we all be authors who are getting assailed because readers can’t bear to wait another day to read our books.
I think it comes down to two words.
Managing Expectations.
When Patrick Rothfuss’s book came out, he told everyone repeatedly that the trilogy was finished. That we the reader could expect a new book each year, like clockwork.
Unfortunately, life happens, his books are delayed.
But he’s not doing a good job of managing our expectations. He finally got it right when he announced this latest delay. He didn’t give an ETA, just said he’d let us know when it was out.
“Owing” seems to be an ethical question. On one hand, yes, finishing his book is something only he can do. (Unless the guy is blocked or going through a divorce or something equally horrible.) So, assuming it is in his power to finish his book, it would be professional for him to do it sooner rather than later.
However, I don’t believe he has a debt to his readers. It is certainly bad form and a bit foolish if he takes them lightly, but on the scale of ethical issues, this question just doesn’t register. It is interesting to think about, though.
A certain quality threshold is paramount for your readers. Do not think for one minute your readers understand a story that is pushy ( wrody to meet word count,overly descriptive, or too much like your other writings in theme.) Readers want a plot that builds with believable characters. An author owes that much for his or her style as much as he or she owes it to the reader.
No. The writing process is quirkie, and completely different for everyone. There is a lot more to writing than actually sitting at the computer writing. Even fiction requires research, and some of my best writing happens when I’m nowhere near the computer, in fact in bed often. Don’t go there!
I suspect readers think that a writer’s life is monastic, that he or she should be spending 24/7/365 writing. Writers have a life just like everyone else and we should let them live it however they choose.
That said, I can understand readers’ desires for the next installment, but let them wait a little–it just heightens the anticipation and book sales when it does come out. Give the guy a break!
Apart from the obvious, that readers deserve the best story you can tell, I think the problem of legions of pissed off readers mentioned in the original column is a novelty thing applicable to only a very few authors writing a continuing series with a very large and dedicated fan base.
Let me get to that stage first, and then I might have something more to say, but right now, sigh, my fan base doesn’t even include my own children.
I can understand being anxious for the next installment in a beloved series (I’ve been one of those crazed fans more than once), but on the other hand, I don’t think it’s fair to begrudge a writer his/her vacations and football games. I imagine some of us would go mad if we didn’t have some away time from our writing. Or at least we’d get burned out.
Authors do owe their readers their best effort. After all, if it wasn’t for the readers none of us would have a career in writing. And you wouldn’t have a career as an agent. 😀
I’m a fan of both Rothfuss and Martin. I will be a very happy person when those books are done and in print. That said…
Someone, I believe it was John Scalzi, said recently that what authors owe their readers is their best effort, and not a second-rate product thrown on the shelves to quiet the masses. I have to agree.
The book will be done when it’s done. It will probably be a better book for it. I’m okay with that.
All those comments are well and good, but the author of this blog promised me more about conflict on Thursday and I’m not getting it so far.
Love your blog though and am not in a hurry to unsubscribe – just give me the rest of the stuff you promised ‘cos the post about what characters want was really good and I want the next installment!!
No, I don’t think writers *owe* their fans anything, but it is a relationship. And as in all relationships, each side is not wrong to expect some give and take.
In Mr. Martin’s case, (perhaps this has been rash, but) promises were made. Therefore, there is a real matter of integrity to deal with. This is compounded by the fact that his books are very, very good. And so we wait impatiently.
That some fans let their impatience (and perhaps their anger at repeatedly broken promises) get the better of them is most unfortunate.
Writers owe their readers a well written story that’s engaging and worthy of remembrance. That’s what we owe them whether it’s our first book or 50th.
Authors owe their readers a great story, and an experience of another world from the author’s imagination. If the book finishes but leaves some open ends, then the reader can reasonably expect a followup in a certain amount of time. I lost interest in waiting for one author’s next book, while she had personal problems lasting a few years.
I don’t think the author owes their fans any more than any other celebrity or professional entertainer who markets their product. Writers should be available to their fans in some form, like a blog or website, but they aren’t obligated to devote their time to pleasing all the fans. If an author chooses to offer their work online to the ‘masses’ without a gatekeeper, then there may certain risks associated with that choice.
There should be the ability to block input if it becomes abusive.
I don’t think an author should distance themselves too much, or the fans lose interest.
An author will always need an audience, but the amount of effort you expend for that audience/fans will vary by individual priorities.
CRAZY OLD WOMAN…regarding conflict.
Google: Geo Polti’s – The 36 dramatic situations.
Each *situation* boils with conflict!
Today’s test question for creative writing… In his book, STORY, what does Robert McKee mean by – NEGATION of the NEGATION? (I’d like to know)!
Haste yee back 😉
On todays topic…
I don’t got to show nobody no stinkin’ IOU’s
An easy question you give us today, sir.
The author owes the reader the following: quality, consistency, entertainment and/or knowledge, and inspiration.
It would be nice if the reader gave the author: honesty and motivation to continue writing.
That’s all I got/ 😀
I am glad I’m not in this situation, though.
I can’t imagine the pressure. I think I would curl up in a little ball and be unable to write anything.
I admire J.K. Rowling. Martin’s pressure is nothing compared to what she must have experienced – not in terms of delay, but in terms of expectations. That she was able to do put a book out, and not bend too much to fan preferences on plot, character, etc. is admirable.
I wouldn’t begrudge Martin if he’s partly reacting to the pressure. It must be enormous. The skill of writing, and the skill of handling that type of public pressure are very different skills.
In fact, they may be opposite skills. I imagine writers are more on the senstive, introverted spectrum.
I think a lot of people have missed the point. No one expects a writer to have no personal life. People expect a writer to keep to their deadlines. I suppose the publisher, in Mr. Martin’s case, will let him go indefinitely because they are not going to take a chance of losing him.
I will state again, if you commit to writing a series, then you should also give a realistic expectation of when the next installments will be available. Five years is not a realistic expectation, even for Martin.
Even so, he would probably be forgiven if he wasn’t busy on so many other writing projects. Now, if he’s a prolific writer and can churn out his series book on time, plus various other projects, more power to him. BUT, neglecting a project readers have invested much time and interest in so you can flit around like a butterfly with other projects is irresponsible.
As for the muse being gone, well, if it’s there for all the other projects, it will probably be there for the original one.
Sometimes, regardless of how talented a writer is, they have to harness it will a bit of focus. Frankly, I think some writers just lose interest in the series.
I worked for a horse racing magazine for seventeen years. We covered every sanctioned QH race in the US and Canada every week. Every week I wondered how I was going to write an interesting story about yet another horse race and then do it up to twenty more times for one issue.
My editor, Diane Ciarloni, not only covered races, but also wrote a weekly column that won awards every year. I once asked her how she did it.
“You can’t wait on the muse to begin. You have to sit your butt down in a chair and just write. Once you start writing the muse comes to you.”
The writer is becoming(and expected to be) a performing flea, as if their record was coming out next week.
Their blogs are a waste of precious writing-time, a daily consciousness of us, the audience .
Why don’t they go off and just do some living, get away from the screen, walk down the street? Isn’t it turning into showbiz? What would Fyodor Dostoevsky do?
Incidentally, I really appreciated the use of the subjunctive in your last sentence…would that it were…
Here’s a post from my blog on the subject:
What Writers Owe Readers
What do writers owe readers? They owe readers what readers have always expected from writers. Good fiction entertains, informs, and moves. The reader should be different somehow when he or she finishes a good novel, short story, poem, or comes home from seeing a play or a movie. Anything short of that, the book is not living up to its end of the bargain.
As for writers selling their stuff directly to readers off their website, an incoming tide that will not ebb in the foreseeable future, they owe what any good business owes: value provided to the customer delivered in a timely fashion according or exceeding what was advertised.
What do you think? For this and other postings on my novel, The Case of The Kearney Music School Murders, post to my blog at http://www.kearneymusicschoolmurders.blogspot.com?
Writing is for me an entrepreneurial activity. For my entrepreneurship blog, to go http://www.hatman2.blogspot.com and for entrepreneurial real estate go to http://www.yourstopforrealestate.com/blog.
I think that writers owe their readers their best writing efforts; and readers owe their authors the patience to wait and not hurry the writer into writing what could be less than good just for the sake of writing to please fans.
I find the word ‘owe’ to be distasteful when used as it is apparently being used here. There’s a sense of entitlement implied in it. As if readers are entitled to this, that and the other.
No. Readers aren’t entitled to beg, grumble, mumble when they don’t get what they want from an author. Not even in the case of Mr. Martin who’s reaching out to his fans by blogging. Inherent in that blog, is the generosity of his time. He isn’t perfect, and perhaps wanting to satisfy his readers, he made promises he couldn’t keep. Ok, so what. So you have to wait five, ten more years? So what. Mr. Martin quite obviously wants to write a quality book, but he has to balance that with his personal life which is important to him. Maybe he’s having a little trouble finding that balance. So then the reader needs to wait and not complain.
As to the question of whether an author owes a reader a quality book, no, not really. An author owes his publisher a quality book. The publisher paid an advance commensurate with those expectations. In this sense, the word ‘owe’ is fiduciary in nature and more properly used.
Imo, an author doesn’t ‘owe’ their readers a thing. A reader who thinks that way, unconsciously shifts the responsibility for the failure of a book onto its author, who, I would imagine didn’t deliberately didn’t set out to defraud his readers by writing a bad book. So instead of blaming the author or publisher or agent, since taste is so subjective, anyway, I’d simply not buy another book written by this same author.
I do think a reader needs to take more responsibility for the books they buy, as in, be very careful to research a book before you buy it. Means taking the time to read a ton of reviews. When you find an author you really like, then be patient … and be wary when the next book comes out. Not all books are created equally. I think that’s pretty obvious.
That’s why, if Mr. Martin is writing quality books consistently, its even more important for the reader to thank their lucky stars they found an author who cares enough about that kind of quality, he won’t put out a bad book.
This is where the words, ‘be grateful and forgiving’ come into play. Unfortunately, the words, ‘instant gratification, and grandiose sense of entitlement’ are usurping them to some degree.
That needs to change imho. In all aspects of life.
Haste yee back said:
Today’s test question for creative writing… In his book, STORY, what does Robert McKee mean by – NEGATION of the NEGATION? (I’d like to know)!
I love test questions in creative writing. 🙂 I believe that McKee’s negation of the negation involves putting your fictional character through the most severe level of conflict. Earlier in the story, the character should face a conflict that’s contrary to some value, then go through what’s contradictory to that. In really great stories, the negation of the negation means the character is eventually pitted against the contradictory – the ultimate in conflict. For example, if your story revolves around the theme of justice, your character would be confronted with something unjust (something contrary to the value of justice) that they must fight against. To make a story better, however, it would turn out that they must also fight against a contradictory element, e.g. a corrupt official who on the surface is one of the good guys. To take a story to the ultimate level, however, your character must be tested to their fullest, as when evil is masquerading as good, e.g. injustice is actually the law. In this case, the law is actually a further negation – a negation of the character winning against injustice at an earlier stage. Only when the reader sees how a character passes through the ultimate test do they have a real understanding of that character. He or she must be observed standing up even to the negation of any earlier victory in the story.
Is that correct??
If the author is serious about marketing there is definitely an implied contract between author and readers. The author writes the books, the reader buys. If the author wants his readers to keep buying he had best write a compelling story and he needs to be delivering the product in a timely manner. It is a symbiotic relationship. You can’t have one without the other and each needs to cater to the needs of the other in order for it to proper. To fail to do so means writerfail. Professionally and economically.
I don’t mean to compare myself to John Lennon, by any means, but I’ve had occasion at art openings to have people coming at me with eyes like saucers and I know how it feels.
Here’s an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry for “death of John Lennon:”
“On the night of 8 December 1980, at around 10:49 p.m., Mark David Chapman shot Lennon in the back four times in the entrance of the Dakota. Earlier that evening, Lennon had autographed a copy of Double Fantasy for Chapman who had been stalking Lennon since October . . .
Hours before his murder, Lennon told RKO Radio that he felt he could go out anywhere in New York City and feel safe. While still a Beatle, Lennon was asked how he might die. Lennon replied: ‘I’ll probably be popped off by some loony.’“
word verification:
undono
Re: “What would Fyodor Dostoevsky do?”
Funny.
I just found NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND online! Less than $5 at amazon.com. Maybe I’m the only one like this – but I have a whole list in my head of books I haven’t read because…only TRULY literary people read those books. Like there’s some litmus test you have to pass before you’re allowed to read – kind of the literary version of Studio 54, or maybe a boutique on Rodeo Drive – I used to feel that way about Virginia Woolf – don’t dream of reading Woolf unless you come from five generations of English professors!
And then I was working in a fast food restaurant, and it was then that I took Virginia Woolf’s “Mrs. Dalloway” out from the library. And I love that book!
Re: Lennon – a fireplayer – as in, sometimes when you play with fire, you get burned. I don’t mean that as a criticism – I just mean, sometimes you make a middling kind of art, right smack dab in the middle of a genre or art form – you aren’t the best and you aren’t the worst – and you generate a middling response – and other times, an artist is all over the place, sometimes right on it!, exemplary work in a well-established genre…so you get tons of fans…then you move out of it…way out of it…here, there…your work is offensive, off-putting, just plain bad and even mediocre! Then maybe you do something really great again in a well-established genre that is accessible to one and all!
I’m obviously going overboard on the explanation points today. But I knew a woman, a museum curator, who wore unique clothing – strange, why-is-that-person-wearing-that? kind of clothes. She said, “I feel like everybody dresses the same nowadays.”
I don’t know. Maybe I feel that way about the arts (including fiction). Please, where are the fireplayers? Besides those Wall Street physicists who dreamed up credit derivatives? Talk about great fiction…the story of the century…an electromonetary Finnegans Wake…
Bummer mood today…a bit late for negativity week, I know.
Marilyn… re: Negation of the Negation. I personally doubt there’s a “correct” answer, but certainly a worthy character building story question for discussion.
My take… N of N is discussed in the vein of – how bad is your bad guy? McKee’s advice, as I see it, is writing your Antagonist to the most degraded level of humanity. Why? Because, for your story to transcend mediocrity, your Protagonist must be challenged to defeat the absolute worst of, or in, human nature. This battle fully explores the character traits your Protag brings to the task, increasing audience interest and identity BTW, – and when all seems lost – your Hero summons the strength/wits/cunning/, (perhaps newly discovered by our Protag), buried somewhere in the depths of his/her human spirit to overcome the Antagonist, win the day and lift the audience to a sublimely satisfactory ending.
My problem… I see clearly how a protagonist must struggle through conflicts inherent in the declension of a plot centered on JUSTICE, where you find its’ middle ground vileness, the contrary, UNFAIRNESS, and then proceed to write the character value battle to the contradictory, INJUSTICE and then on to the worst case scenario, the NEGATION OF NEGATION of INJUSTICE, to wind up with a face off of Protag vs Antag at TYRANNY. Tyranny being the N of N of the plot value JUSTICE. Why is Tyranny the NEGATION of the NEGATION… because the characters in control, (your antagonists), can pass out JUSTICE on a willy-nilly basis, apprehending, adjudicating and executing as they please leaving chaos in their wake.
It would take an extremely well written Protagonist to overcome amongst these circumstances, and that’s what McKee wants writers to do. Too many scribes simply stop at conflict centered on the contrary, UNFAIRNESS, neglecting to dig deeper into human squalor thereby truly fleshing out a memorable character/Story!
Oh, my problem? In considering McKee’s value declensions, I don’t necessarily come to the same NEGATION of the NEGATION. And that’s why literature is Art and not Science!
Clear as mud?
Haste yee back 😉
Haste yee back,
I think you’re absolutely right. Stories are most riveting when they explore multiple levels of the human condition, including good vs. evil at both the individual and societal levels. And characters, like people, grow most when they’re tested. I think that’s what McKee was getting at – literature works best when the reader learns from a character who grows after confronting great obstacles. The obstacles set the stage for the character arcs that need to take place in a story. As an example, the TV series Lost does a fantastic job of creating conflicts at multiple levels for every character, and all the characters experience tremendous character arcs.
Marilyn and Haste,
Interesting discussion, but I don’t know. Everyone has heros struggling against great odds and negating the negative baddies.
I think a more original way to do it is to have the hero struggling against really minor odds, where the outcome really doesn’t matter, and no one could care less.
Try to write a book like that. Now THAT would be a challenge.
Just a thought.
Mira,
When an exception to the rules is done well, it has a great chance of success. On TV, the Seinfeld show was a perfect example – a show about characters doing nothing special, but the humor was great.
Whoa – Marilyn, major points to you. I was making a joke, and you came up with something real.
I wonder if you could do it in novel form, though. The benefit of television is the characters are attractive and it’s easier to identify with them. Therefore you care about the outcome – even if it’s about what’s on a bagel.
I’m not joking this time – I wonder if it could be done.
I’ve sometimes fantasized about a story where the ‘spear-holder’ was the MC. You know the one who holds the spear that the hero grabs.
Although even that might be an important contribution – so maybe it’s a bad example.
Mira,
I wonder if it’s been done in a novel already. If it was done well, might be fun to read – no conflict, ahhhhhh.
I agree. 🙂
This is a really difficult question, and I’m not sure that ‘owe’ is the right word to have in play.
But I believe that both authors and readers need to remember two things: 1. Authors have lives too. And sometimes things happen, like moving, or a death in the family, or publishers going under, changing agents, or any number of events, and that will affect the author’s ability to produce, and the reader has to accept that. Admittedly if you are the kind of author who blogs or has some kind of networking platform, letting your readers know (as briefly as you are comfortable with) will always be appreciated, and as these are the people paying the bills it doesn’t hurt.
Onto point le second: I don’t believe in the whole ‘itttt’s aaaaarrrrrttt, they neeeeed the spaaace to be aabbbllee to creeeaaaate’. The exuse of the tortured artist is infuriating. When I’m applying for a job, it behooves me to consider not just if my employer is what I want, but if I fit into the requirements of my employer. If I lie about my ability to speak Japanese on my resume, and that’s part of why they hire me, it will come back to bite me later. In a similar way an author needs to be honest with their publishers, agents, readers and themselves as to their ability to produce. (I would like to point out that this really only applies to a series.) If they can’t produce, or they know that they’re precious about their muse or the precise conditions which are only formed once a month but if the moon isn’t three days before the full and two inches above the skyline they just can’t write! … If they can’t stick to basic deadlines, perhaps they should consider the possibility that commercial writing is not for them. Commercial writing is, despite it’s creative element, still a job. It gets tough sometimes. Ride it out.
And I know that sounds really cruel and omigod what about their art! And the reader is only paying for the product they’ve already finished anyway! But that’s why I said this attitude applies to series only. Because an author is asking for an investment from an author, and not just in the emotional sense. It is the reader buying those first two, four, eight books that convinces the publisher to invest in the author and pay out an advance for the next novel in the series. If its reasonable for an author to take ten years between writing novels in their series, then it’s reasonable for the reader not to buy any books until they’re all finished. But that’s not how publishing works. The author needs the reader to buy before they’re finished, and so they make promises to the reader, and it’s a dangerous thing to break that trust.
Also remember readers can be fantastic publicity. You don’t want to be the author *coughIsobelleCarmodycough* who has readers telling everyone they know not to read them because they have not one but three unfinished series. Once trust is lost it’s almost impossible to regain.
/rant 🙂
His fans should get a life. Seriously.
Re: “The excuse of the tortured artist is infuriating.”
But there are people who are tortured artists – not all of them, but sometimes artists are tortured – just like regular people – plenty of people who don’t write are “tortured” also. It’s life on planet earth, unfortunately.
I know when it comes to poetry, plenty of “tortured” poets were heavy drinkers – so there’s the whole substance abuse angle to it (although “substance abusing writer” isn’t as romantic-sounding as “tortured writer.”)
I think in the instance of Martin, he wasn’t making the claim to being “tortured,” just from the sounds of it, busy doing other fun stuff besides writing!
I think in the instance of Martin, he wasn’t making the claim to being “tortured,” just from the sounds of it, busy doing other fun stuff besides writing!
I, uh. Oh yeah. Sorry, I wasn’t actually talking about GRRM at all. Just venting in response to the original question. ^^ (Will people hurt me if I admit to never having read his books?)
Also, a big YES to the ‘well, some people are just tortured, experience is wildly varied throughout the range of human lives in existance’. Totally agree. Was more just trying to point out that there seems to be a willingness to let people slide when it comes to creative endeavours and that this seems to be because there is a lingering myth of the tortured artist (caused in part by those very substance abusers! ^^) However this isn’t always the case, and it would be nice if occaisionally people would see that standard business practices and art don’t have to be mutually exclusive, instead of coddling ‘the talent’.
Good discussion going here.
I think this is an issue that involves entertainers and artists of all kinds.
If one creates a work worthy of anay decent readership, I believe that author owes it to his/her readers to follow through with whatever is necessary to repay the readers for being there, in the first place.
Without the readers, an author is no longer an author.
Scott said: Melanie Rawn – I have been waiting over ten years for her to write the third book in the Exiles series. She’s written numerous books in between (numerous, numerous, numerous).
Actually, she hasn’t. There was a nearly ten-year gap between the second Exiles novel and Spellbinder, the first in her new urban fantasy series.
I believe there were personal reasons why she didn’t publish anything during those years.
As to the subject under discussion–whoever said that authors who blog about their extracurricular activities are setting themselves up for criticism is right.
That said, I’d prefer an author take five years to write a great book, than two to write a mediocre one.