The New Yorker takes a look at Martin's Fans

[aliantha]

I think a completely fair comparison is between Martin and Erikson. In less time, Erikson has produced twice the novels, of greater length and quality than Martin's, and made most books better than the last, and all of them better than the first. Erikson under-promised and over-delivered. Martin is the exact opposite.

This seems to be the main issue. People loved his early books so much that they have high expectations for the next.

Which begs the question: is it better to slowly build your career, with mild success at first followed by greater and greater recognition, or to have one massively popular success that financially sets you up for life?

In that respect, Erikson and Martin are apples and oranges. Erikson was an unknown -- he switched fields from archaeology to write. Martin already had some success as a writer, albeit as a TV scriptwriter. One has to assume he had a reputation and some connections in publishing by the time he left Hollywood.

I'm not even sure it's fair to say Erikson "under-promised", Syl, given the fact that he was basically unknown to start with -- altho I mentally shake hands with you, sir, for the rest of that statement.

[Orlion]

It's only their work until they sell it, and then it's ours.

Couldn't disagree more. The only thing we buy is the right to view their work... and only that part of the work that they have sold. Buying aGoT does not entitle you to a copy of aCoK, nor does making said purpose entitle you to tell the author what to do. You are a consumer, not a producer. Much like how buying bananas doesn't entitle you to tell banana farmers how to grow them. If you don't like em, don't buy them.

Tolkien, for all his faults, submitted a complete manuscript for Lord of the Rings. The publisher split it up. Many diehard Tolkien fans argue that the Silmarillion and other unfinished works at the time of his death aren't canon for precisely that reason, and won't accept the things put together from his notes just because of authorial intent.

They don't define his world, Tolkien does.

By most accounts, it took "Homer" (no such author likely existed) a few hundred years to compile all the stories of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Along the same lines, nobody's really upset that the original creator of Batman (won't pretend to know who) hasn't finished the series yet.

Many also agree that one person wrote the Illiad (there is some disagreement if the same person wrote the Odyssey). Just because he wasn't the originator of the stories does not make him not the author (Shakespeare did this also, making plays of all ready existent stories, that is). The Illiad is a good example here because even though it just ends, it is still considered a classic. Hell, historically it had been considered superior to the more complete Odyssey! Once again, it was the author's intention for whatever reason to end the Illiad abruptly, and it turns out to be arguably the most influential work of literature in the Western culture.

let us look at the similar example of Pope's Rape of the Lock. He would have seriously pissed off his circle of friends that were waiting for the work to bring some kind of closure to a contentious event if he had dithered about traveling back and forth from Ireland, France, etc. while they were waiting for it.

He still pissed off his intended audience upon its publication. But guess what? That did not detract from its vision that the author intended, and he didn't decide to make it less embarrassing for his friends' sake. And we still read it today.

Chaucer almost hits the mark. He did originally claim to be writing far more than he actually did. Killing a few loved characters doesn't equal making the English language an accepted, respected, national language of literature. And until Martin writes all of his books with quill and parchment, and until he gets a job in Obama's cabinet, I don't think he can claim he doesn't have the time.

What you're saying is that Chaucer had a life outside Canterbury tales. Guess what? Martin does as well. He works on several projects much like Chaucer did, just because his aren't political does not mean that these projects are any less taxing. It also doesn't mean that Chaucer never sat down to enjoy his favorite sport of jousting to relax. Also, I doubt the Tales turned English into a literary language instantly. That's not how things work. A similar example: Don Quixote is credited with reinventing the Spanish language, but before that it was just a read a lot of people enjoyed and eventually became part of the culture and thus changed very aspects of it, including language. Dickens did the same thing (a lot of idioms and junk are a direct result of his writings... but first and foremost, he was popular, and that popularity made itself a part of the culture).

I think a completely fair comparison is between Martin and Erikson. In less time, Erikson has produced twice the novels, of greater length and quality than Martin's, and made most books better than the last, and all of them better than the first. Erikson under-promised and over-delivered. Martin is the exact opposite.

Here, I'll get to the crux of the matter: it has nothing to do with Erikson being a better writer than Martin (if that even is the case). It's this: you don't like what Martin is doing. That is all that it is. You don't like the direction he decided to take the series to such a degree that you don't think it's worth waiting for installments. You might change tone when all is said and done, but right now that's where you are at. Erikson, whether you liked him completely or not during the course of his writing, never really made you wait. You felt that his vision was worth the time he made you wait. Others do not. It's an opinion, but it still comes down to personal preferences, not authorial accountability.

I hated the direction Lost finally took. I, however, do not think the producers owe the fans anything but their original vision, if people like it enough to pay them, great! If not, bummer. I think they deceived us a little, but that may have been ABC, and it's not what Martin is doing. Martin simply got enthusiastic before reality kicked his ass with regards to this latest volume.

I think Martin will continue to stand based on his output. If you don't like what he's doing, stop reading. You haven't paid for the entire series. Only the publishers have done so, and only they have any say as to if Martin is doing his job, being his employer.

[dANdeLION]

Along the same lines, nobody's really upset that the original creator of Batman (won't pretend to know who) hasn't finished the series yet.

Bob Kane.

[[Syl]]

Couldn't disagree more. The only thing we buy is the right to view their work... and only that part of the work that they have sold. Buying aGoT does not entitle you to a copy of aCoK, nor does making said purpose entitle you to tell the author what to do. You are a consumer, not a producer. Much like how buying bananas doesn't entitle you to tell banana farmers how to grow them. If you don't like em, don't buy them.

Who's telling the author what to do? I'm just saying he sucks. Yes, it's an opinion, but it's a perfectly valid one. It's as if I say, "Hey, Chiquitas suck, what with them constantly sending to market cheap, flavorless, unripened bananas. Let's stop talking about how great Chiquita is because they used to sell better bananas and start buying organic bananas instead." Not buying them because I don't like them is precisely the point. I won't buy another Martin book until he finishes the series, and even then I'll probably just check it out from the library. Meanwhile, I'll continue to enjoy the banana smoothies ('made with real Chiquita bananas!) that is the HBO series.

They don't define his world, Tolkien does.

Being dead, Tolkien doesn't define but Jack and shit. And Jack left town. For a better understanding of part of where I'm coming from, try reading Barthes' essay The Death of the Author.

Many also agree that one person wrote the Illiad (there is some disagreement if the same person wrote the Odyssey). Just because he wasn't the originator of the stories does not make him not the author...

It doesn't? Doesn't that make him, at best, a compiler? Gardner Dozois deserves all the credit he gets for assembling and editing a slew of excellent anthologies, but he does not deserve the same credit as their author (I've never liked his actual writing that much). If people had been telling the stories of Westeros for years, we wouldn't consider Martin a great author of the tale who owns the work, just the best chronicler (which is still a worthy title), and we likely we wouldn't be waiting in great anticipation for the next installment since we already more or less know the story.

He still pissed off his intended audience upon its publication. But guess what? That did not detract from its vision that the author intended, and he didn't decide to make it less embarrassing for his friends' sake. And we still read it today.

Intentionally pissed them off. That makes a big difference when you're talking about the author's ability.

What you're saying is that Chaucer had a life outside Canterbury tales. Guess what? Martin does as well. He works on several projects much like Chaucer did, just because his aren't political does not mean that these projects are any less taxing.

I haven't read anything about his pursuits that seems to equate. Care to fill me in?

It also doesn't mean that Chaucer never sat down to enjoy his favorite sport of jousting to relax.

I don't care if Martin takes 8 or even 12 hours off a day, with 4 day weekends to raise llamas. Assuming a full year from final manuscript to publication, that still gives Martin over 5000 hours to write... that still means he wrote, on average, 1/3 of a page per hour. By comparison, under the same schedule between novels in the 3rd Chronicles, Donaldson (who by his own account is a slow writer) would have written 2 pages per hour. At best, Martin had some serious writer's block. At worst, it shows a lack of dedication to his craft.

Also, I doubt the Tales turned English into a literary language instantly.

For a pre-industrial society? Yeah, pretty much. Once Chaucer did it, it became cool (as opposed to previous English works like Gawain and the Green Knight, written by some anonymous hick). Really, this is one of the areas for which Martin deserves praise. He's hardly the first person to ever write 'dark' fantasy, but he really has legitimized the genre, as proven by the successful HBO series and the likely scores of imitators coming to the book stands.

... you don't like what Martin is doing. That is all that it is.

I don't like what Martin is doing, but that is not all there is to it. I, and many others, have very good reasons for not liking it. I'm not saying you guys are wrong for putting up with it (though I do think such unwavering loyalty prevents the publisher from putting Martin's feet to the fire and could perhaps lead to establishing this as an acceptable practice).

It's an opinion, but it still comes down to personal preferences, not authorial accountability.

Yes, it's an opinion, but my point has been that it's a justifiable one, not the unreasonable petulance that previous posts have made it out to be.

I hated the direction Lost finally took. I, however, do not think the producers owe the fans anything but their original vision...

And Lost lost (ha) a lot of viewers, not escaping the fate of Heroes by a wide margin and through many of the same missteps. I, personally, liked where the show went, though producers have no one to blame for their decreased ad revenue but themselves. Give the people what they want or live with the consequences (and no, I don't mean torching their houses or anything like that).

Martin simply got enthusiastic before reality kicked his ass with regards to this latest volume.

Whose fault is that (actual question, not (entirely) rhetorical)?

I think Martin will continue to stand based on his output.

I don't know, man. ADwD currently has 3 stars on Amazon. That's not bad, but it certainly isn't great.

If you don't like what he's doing, stop reading. You haven't paid for the entire series. Only the publishers have done so, and only they have any say as to if Martin is doing his job, being his employer.

I am doing just that. At least, I'm waiting to see if he can finish what he started before seeing if it's worth my time to pick it back up again. I'm not going to tolerate another Robert Jordan (or, god, Terry Goodkind). I do not yet feel "so far steeped in blood" that I have to just accept whatever bone the author throws me, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. But then, if it hadn't been for AFfC, I'd probably feel quite differently about it.

[Orlion]

GRRM may not be my bitch, but he is a bitch. And like it or not, he is his readership's bitch, since they pay his mortgage.

This statement implies that GrrM is employed to the readers, and as such the readers can make demands on him. That is not the case and is what I was spending most of my time refuting.

Now, you are entitled to your opinion. That's fine, some may even agree with your opinion. But that doesn't change that aSoIaF is still Martin's work to be done in Martin's way on Martin's time schedule. He has no accountability to anyone but himself and his publishers.

But, I think we agree on that, so I won't continue to belabor the point

Now, the particulars: I don't put much stock in amazon reviews. Why? First, anyone can give a rating for any reason. Towers of Midnight got tons of one-star reviews not because of the book itself, but because it wasn't available on Kindle. That's pure crap. I prefer to look at the better reviews on both spectrum before making a decision, though it is hard to find good ones of both since they always follow a formula: for the good"X exceeds previous novels with this installment!" For the bad:" Let me first say that I'm a huge fan of this series, BUT..." It's frankly pathetic.

Two: Homer drew on material, he didn't compile an anthology. He's more like a Shakespeare or T. H. White than Dozier.

Three: Tolkien clearly defined his world thoroughly before he wrote books taking place in it. There are many, many references to events in the past age that he knew about and had in his notes, so I'd say he had things defined pretty well.
Four: As far as Chaucer is concerned, language doesn't work that way, it hadn't before, it doesn't after, why then?

Of course, those last points are mostly off-topic opinions on my end

[Orlion]

Hold on, what am I doing defending Martin? That's SerScot's job!

[aliantha]

Well, SerScot hardly ever comes in here. So you're having to shoulder his load.

[ussusimiel]

I may have to revisit the Gap series. I think I read four of them before I stopped

DON'T STOP!

You march straight to your nearest bookstore this very instant and buy "This Day All Gods Die." You can NOT stop reading before you finish it!

Hmm... no "whipped" smiley... I suppose I'll have to make do with a trout.

Learn the smiley menu!

I think it was in book four of the Gap Series that SRD's new style got to me. And, unfortunately it continued in the LCs. I am not particularly enjoying the books but I am glad to be able to read them and get to have great coversations like this one with you folks

(Even if I do have to suffer some occasional mortification of the flesh for my apostate ways )


Just as an addition to the debate (and to get back on topic ) I find that a new fantasy book is more and more often the material for one book padded out over three (or six or nine). I often now only read the first book of a new series and don't bother with any more because all the novel stuff (characters, forms of magic, new races etc.) is in the first book and the next two are simply the working out of the (usually blatantly obvious or boring plot). I would like to see more one-off fantasy novels that combine novelty with pace. Some of my favourite books are one-off sci-fi novels. Sci-fi probably lends itself more easily to this type of book but my feeling is that publishers know that there is a huge market for fantasy series and push hard for them.

As regards the author's obligation to their readers; in my opinion, the author's only obligation is to their work and if, for whatever reason, a writer loses interest in a story or loses the ability to write that story then that's that, end of story (:oops:). For a writer to continue writing something that no longer engages their passion is inauthentic and will, in the long run, be a bigger let down for their readers. It will also damage the writer's ability to create vibrant new work.


u.

[lucimay]

i love you sheriff but sometimes you're a hard man.

writing is not an easy job although some writers have an easier time with it than others.

i couldn't give two farts what anyone else thinks about the stuff i read (amazon reviews on ADWD, or any other reviews for that matter.) i also couldn't give two farts how long it takes a writer to write what i like to read. yeah i wish martin wrote quicker but having difficulty myself on my purgatory story, i totally understand and forgive. it's that simple to me.

i can't take all your points and refute and besides, what good would that do? you have your opinion and i have mine. we shall agree to disagree on this one, i think.

[dANdeLION]

i love you sheriff but sometimes you're a hard man.

That's what she said!

[[Syl]]

This statement implies that GrrM is employed to the readers, and as such the readers can make demands on him.

No, it means that without readers, Martin would be without income (to include royalties, bigger contracts, book signings, and possibly TV deals). Without fish, a fisherman starves. That doesn't mean the fisherman is employed by the fish. And until he starts using bait that is up to my standards and starts putting his line in the water when I want it, this fishie ain't biting no more.

But that doesn't change that aSoIaF is still Martin's work to be done in Martin's way on Martin's time schedule.

No one is arguing Martin doesn't have the right to piss away his readership and reputation. I just don't think it's a good idea.

He has no accountability to anyone but himself and his publishers.

Legally or contractually, no. But ethically, or at least pragmatically? Obviously, I think that's debatable.

Now, the particulars: I don't put much stock in amazon reviews.

You should read them. Considering fantasy doesn't get very much critical press (and considering it looks like the publisher couldn't find a single decent critical review about the novel itself to put up for it), there's not a lot else to go on. Many of the bad reviews I've read look not only damning but qualified. Many of the good reviews seem too eager to exonerate Martin for sins. And the ones in between, while probably more honest, are exactly what I'm talking about.

Two: Homer drew on material, he didn't compile an anthology. He's more like a Shakespeare or T. H. White than Dozier.

Assuming that a Homer existed, even an Odyssean Homer, I've never seen any evidence of this and question how such could even be determined, especially absent any evidence of a man of such great talent and renown ever existing (even if he or his heirs had to write it themselves).

Three: Tolkien clearly defined his world thoroughly before he wrote books taking place in it. There are many, many references to events in the past age that he knew about and had in his notes, so I'd say he had things defined pretty well.

Even when he didn't, like when he wrote The Hobbit (whose audience is firmly placed in an industrial world, looking at the the novel as a story, rather than a chronicle of great events, much less a slice of it)? Regardless, you still have to read the linked essay or at least acknowledge the place of reader response critical theory and the importance of interpretive communities' response to a work. Which isn't to say you have to ascribe to it, but practically no one follows the old Historicism approach to authorial ownership of a text in the public medium.

As far as Chaucer is concerned, language doesn't work that way, it hadn't before, it doesn't after, why then?

Sure it does. Successful memes propagate themselves in society. Chaucer, through both his accomplishment in the work and his social status, proved that this English thing was worth doing.

Similarly, the biggest reason fantasy novels exist in series is because people loved Tolkien (again, who had a complete manuscript before it was published) and came to expect it. Publishing companies love it because it allows them to minimize risk while maximizing profits. I don't think that excuses an author for taking advantage of a built-in readership.

[[Syl]]

i love you sheriff but sometimes you're a hard man.

Dan beat me to it.

writing is not an easy job although some writers have an easier time with it than others.

Some people aren't cut out to be writers. As Donaldson has said (quoted from someone else, I think), it requires putting ass to chair and doing the job. I think Martin needs to recover that necessary trait.

I have it on good authority that I'm a pretty good writer. But I'm not a writer. Why? Because I don't (yet?) have what it takes to sit down and bang it out (quiet, Dan).

Technically, A Feast for Crows was well written. By all accounts, so is A Dance with Dragons. Artistically, at the former was a mess, and I'm hearing the same for the last. Writing, the story, whatever, appears to be kicking Martin's ass. It's getting away from him, and so is a large part of his audience (even as a newer, larger audience moves in).

Hey, I hope I'm wrong. I hope he ends up validating all his supporters and doesn't make a mess of the overall story or die before finishing it (no spring chicken, and he doesn't look to be in prime physical shape for his age). If so, I'll read it and plunk down my money for a permanent copy. Doesn't look likely from where I'm sitting, though.

[Orlion]

This statement implies that GrrM is employed to the readers, and as such the readers can make demands on him.

No, it means that without readers, Martin would be without income (to include royalties, bigger contracts, book signings, and possibly TV deals). Without fish, a fisherman starves. That doesn't mean the fisherman is employed by the fish. And until he starts using bait that is up to my standards and starts putting his line in the water when I want it, this fishie ain't biting no more.

Syl, you should know better. Calling someone something's bitch does not merely establish a relationship of survival. When someone is somebody's bitch, you are pretty much their personal servant. The person who works at McDonalds, for example, is not your bitch and doesn't have to do anything you ask him to. Same with Martin. He has no obligations towards you. At the same time, you have no obligations towards him.

[[Syl]]

Syl, you should know better. Calling someone something's bitch does not merely establish a relationship of survival. When someone is somebody's bitch, you are pretty much their personal servant. The person who works at McDonalds, for example, is not your bitch and doesn't have to do anything you ask him to. Same with Martin. He has no obligations towards you. At the same time, you have no obligations towards him.

Oh now you're splitting hairs. You really want to argue about the proper meaning of being someone's bitch? Substitute 'at the mercy of' if it makes you feel better. 'Beholden to' or 'Owes a debt of gratitude to' would also work.

Regardless, I explicitly said Martin was not my bitch, nor did I ever imply an employer/employee relationship. I did say his readers pay his mortgage, but before you supply me with the date he bought his house free and clear, that's not meant to have a literal meaning.

As for GRRM, I've never read the series, but while I can well imagine the fans' frustration, I think Gemmel put it best:

George RR Martin is not your bitch

To which I said he was "a bitch." Note the indefinite article. I went on to make my opinions about that pretty clear, namely, if he wants to make a living as a modern writer, he needs to meet the expectations of a modern audience (I'd add, "...or live with the 'fans' frustration" but I don't get the feeling either you or Martin would care about that).

I'm not saying that Martin is a hack, the worst writer ever, or even that I won't continue to read his books (when I get around to it). I am saying that readers have a right to be pissed, and he doesn't get a pass where authors like Jordan, Goodkind, or, hell, even Piers Anthony do not, just because we consider him 'more worthy.'

[Orlion]

As for GRRM, I've never read the series, but while I can well imagine the fans' frustration, I think Gemmel put it best:

George RR Martin is not your bitch

To which I said he was "a bitch." Note the indefinite article. I went on to make my opinions about that pretty clear, namely, if he wants to make a living as a modern writer, he needs to meet the expectations of a modern audience (I'd add, "...or live with the 'fans' frustration" but I don't get the feeling either you or Martin would care about that).

I'm not saying that Martin is a hack, the worst writer ever, or even that I won't continue to read his books (when I get around to it). I am saying that readers have a right to be pissed, and he doesn't get a pass where authors like Jordan, Goodkind, or, hell, even Piers Anthony do not, just because we consider him 'more worthy.'

You went on to state that he was his 'readership's bitch'. Indeed that is how it happened, and that is how it was read... and I, the reader, read it as such... because you are clearly dead.

[[Syl]]

You went on to state that he was his 'readership's bitch'.

Very true. It would be sheer folly, however, to think his entire readership thinks like I do. You're a part of it as much as I was. I didn't intend such a simple relationship, nor could a reasonable reader assume such.

Indeed that is how it happened, and that is how it was read... and I, the reader, read it as such... because you are clearly dead.

That's almost clever. However, if you'd take the 15 minutes required to read the essay and some of the associated critical theory, you'd see it's not that simple. The inverse of your argument would be that I could not possibly be wrong, since I wrote it and only I am in a position to judge the worth of my own posts. The only option you'd have is to decide you no longer want to engage in the debate.

[Orlion]

You went on to state that he was his 'readership's bitch'.

Very true. It would be sheer folly, however, to think his entire readership thinks like I do. You're a part of it as much as I was. I didn't intend such a simple relationship, nor could a reasonable reader assume such.

Indeed that is how it happened, and that is how it was read... and I, the reader, read it as such... because you are clearly dead.

That's almost clever. However, if you'd take the 15 minutes required to read the essay and some of the associated critical theory, you'd see it's not that simple. The inverse of your argument would be that I could not possibly be wrong, since I wrote it and only I am in a position to judge the worth of my own posts. The only option you'd have is to decide you no longer want to engage in the debate.

What is this, War Games? Nah, I understand your position now and am just taking pot shots. As far as being a part of the readership, I'm 300 pages into aGoT...

From an economic standpoint (i.e. Martin making money) you really should be right. The only reason why you are not is because the same schism that this wait has caused is also a bunch of free publicity. People look at the hate and say, "What's all this?" read the first book, love it, and then go on.

That was the first I had heard of it... I think danlo was complaining about it. Sure, HBO's series peaked the interest as well, and it gives me something to talk about with my brother who started the series as a result of the show.

I'm kinda of the opinion that the show kinda sucks now...

[[Syl]]

What is this, War Games?

Here I was getting ready to say how all language is war (more memetics), and then I got the reference. Well done.

Nah, I understand your position now and am just taking pot shots. As far as being a part of the readership, I'm 300 pages into aGoT...

Thanks for telling me ahead of time. Now turn back before it's too late.

I don't really care if Martin makes a lot of money, even if he does it off the backs of rubes. For instance, the whole edited Mark Twain editions thing doesn't bother me a bit. I wouldn't read it, but even Mark Twain could agree on someone doing what they could to make a buck. What I care about is that a story should have a beginning, middle, and an end (even if one or all of them aren't great), and that until Martin's done that, I feel he is kind of ripping people off (if others don't mind that, that's fine with me). Like TV shows, ill-planned movie series (*cough* Avatar *cough*), sometimes stories are cut short, and that sucks. But the publisher is doing their part, the audience is doing their part, but Martin... Ending a book on cliffhangers or tossing off half-baked work to try to placate the masses just makes it worse in my eyes. People got antsy over this last Harry Potter movie. Can you imagine what would have happened if Rowling pulled a stunt similar to Martin's?

If Martin doesn't get on the ball, the influx of readers he's getting from HBO is only going to make this sentiment worse in the long-run.

[Avatar]

Great posts Syl. I was thinking of the Jordan comparison myself.

I've only read the first Martin book, and am in no rush to track down the others. (Unlike Erikson for example...I rushed out and bought every available one (as soon as they became available here) and then each subsequent one as soon as it was published.)

Part of that is probably because I already knew from here that there appeared to be no end in sight...

--A

[lucimay]

soooo, lemme get this straight if i can, sheriff. you're not buying any more martin books until he finishes the series but you don't really think it's good enough to read anyways; you'd just rather watch the hbo show?
and you buying his books makes grrm your bitch? have i got it right or have i misconstrued?
cause maybe orlion see's where you're comin from at this point, but i don't. just tryin to clarify here (for my own sanity.)


(did i get enough smilies in there?)