The Implied Contract Between Author and Reader. Discuss!

[ussusimiel]

This issue has come up a number of times in TLD forum, so I thought I'd start a more general discussion here in the Gen. Lit. forum.

SRD is not the first (nor will he be the last) author to disappoint some of his fans. I suppose the question is what level of criticism are we entitled to level at a writer who we feel has let us down?

Personally, after reading ROTE and getting halfway through FR I gave up on the LCs. If there had been a contract between me and SRD then I felt that it had been rendered null and void. At that point I issued the ultimate criticism of an author's work, I stopped reading it and stopped buying the books.

When I came back to the series, a couple of years later, I did so with totally different expectations (a different contract?) and managed to finish the series. I was able to take a certain amount of pleasure from the experience, which I had been completely unable to do earlier. However, I also felt that there were certain aspects of the work that I was no longer entitled to criticise because I knew exactly what I was getting the second time round.

What has your experience been when you have felt let down by an author/filmaker/musician and what level of criticism do you think we can level at them when this happens?

u.

[Avatar]

I don't think there is a contract. I've been disappointed when my vision and the author's vision were not the same, even deeply disappointed.

But that's not the author's fault, it's probably mine. There's no promise, implied or otherwise in an author's work. You just hope that you like it, and if you don't, maybe you stop reading their books. Or maybe you carry on hoping you'll like something else.

--A

[TheFallen]

This issue has come up a number of times in TLD forum, so I thought I'd start a more general discussion here in the Gen. Lit. forum.

SRD is not the first (nor will he be the last) author to disappoint some of his fans. I suppose the question is what level of criticism are we entitled to level at a writer who we feel has let us down?

Surely the only feasible answer is... "As much as we feel moved to do so".

Trying to keep this general - a thing which is rather hard to do - the problem of disappointment in a piece of art (whether novel, painting, music or whatever) is hugely exacerbated when it's part of a series, because then we have a) an emotional and intellectual investment in what has gone before and b) an established expectation as to tone, style, skill level and artistic intent. Hence, when we're faced with something - and especially something that we've eagerly awaited as the culmination of a series - that in our personal opinion falls sadly flat, feels rushed or worse yet, lecturing, then we have every right to express our indignation and/or sense of disappointment.

Getting specific for a second, a well-known fantasy author no doubt unwittingly ironically presaged this in one of his trilogies, where his main protagonist says this:-

This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken.

That's the key point. A book or indeed any part of a series needs to live up to the standards that the artist him/herself has already set within such a series. It needs to "fit" - to be stylistically and tonally appropriate within the position created for it by the artist himself.

Let me dive into some analogies here. If I were an ardent Wagner fan back in the mid-1800s and I'd simply adored Das Rheingold (premièred in 1869) and Die Walküre (premièred in 1870), imagine my massive sense of having been let down if, when the final two parts, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung were premièred six years later in 1876, they'd turned out to have the exact music that they do, but were scored solely for kazoo and swannee whistle. I'd have every reason to be harshly critical.

That's not to say that an author or indeed any artist ought not to evolve stylistically. Such a thing is only to be expected and moreover, it's frankly healthy. One could hardly imagine an elderly Yeats, for example, penning the same sort of poems at the age of 70 as he did as a young man. However, the key here is "evolution", not "revolution". The former's acceptable and justifiable to the audience (if such a thing needs to be done), whereas the latter is highly liable to cause an adverse reaction in one's fanbase.

don't think there is a contract. I've been disappointed when my vision and the author's vision were not the same, even deeply disappointed.

But that's not the author's fault, it's probably mine. There's no promise, implied or otherwise in an author's work. You just hope that you like it, and if you don't, maybe you stop reading their books. Or maybe you carry on hoping you'll like something else.

I'll agree with Avatar, but only inasmuch as there's no "contract" as such, nor an overt promise. An artist, any artist working in any medium has the unequivocal right to create whatever he/she likes, for whatever motivation (whether purely self-expressionary, a desire to proselytise or lecture, financial or whatever). HOWEVER, I do strongly believe, that although not contractual or overtly promised, there *is* a level of expectation that has been pre-set if the audience knows the author's previous works and doubly so if the new work is an acknowledged part of a series.

Moreover, if an artist is going to allow his/her work to be published for all to view and especially if the audience is going to be required to pay to view such work, then yes, absolutely anyone so doing has every right to express personal opinion on and reaction to said work, no matter how adulatory or indeed scathing this may be. THAT'S the contract - publish by all means, but if you expect payment from me in order to gain access to your work, then I'm given the right to react.

I also very strongly disagree with Av when he says "I've been disappointed when my vision and the author's vision were not the same, even deeply disappointed. But that's not the author's fault, it's probably mine." Huh? Why is it necessarily your fault, Av? Why automatically belittle yourself in thinking that you haven't in some way matched up to the author's "requirements" and that this is why you've failed to appreciate his offering? That's an unwitting large step down the path to "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome, where ardent fans of an author - or indeed an artist in any medium - start from the premise that *anything* that artist delivers simply MUST be fantastic and promptly busy themselves ignoring all the flaws and perceiving God knows what level of profundities and qualities into something, even though they simply may well not exist.

This drives me nuts. I've said it elsewhere and I'll hold it up as a truth here again. Published art invites us to be critics, It's there (hopefully) to evoke a personal response, to engage singly with its audience both emotionally and intellectually AND if it fails to do so, evoking instead a disappointed, frustrated or even irritated response in any member of its audience, THEN that's a completely valid feeling to have. It doesn't make you a dumb or unenlightened or ill-educated or deluded or delusional person for reacting in such a way.

When I came back to the series, a couple of years later, I did so with totally different expectations (a different contract?) and managed to finish the series. I was able to take a certain amount of pleasure from the experience, which I had been completely unable to do earlier.

Sure... because your expectations had been lessened by your first dip in. You were no longer expecting the series to match up to its previous widely acknowledged heights of being emotionally narratively engrossing, because you already knew that it didn't.

However, I also felt that there were certain aspects of the work that I was no longer entitled to criticise because I knew exactly what I was getting the second time round.

Grrr. See above. You're absolutely entitled to your entirely valid response to that series of novels and to express this. Have the courage of your convictions and more importantly, faith in the validity of your own personal response!

What has your experience been when you have felt let down by an author/filmaker/musician and what level of criticism do you think we can level at them when this happens?

I'll quote a couple of personal examples here...

1. Pink Floyd. One of my favourite bands. Okay, so I kind of like some of their early stuff, but they hit an absolute peak with Dark Side Of The Moon, Wish You Were Here and Animals - all three albums are absolute gems. Unfortunately, Roger Waters then took creative control and gave us the massively self-indulgent and grandiose The Wall. Not that it's all bad - "Comfortably Numb" is one of the best Floyd tracks of all time, for example - but as a whole, it is to me a disappointment. And there's precisely nothing wrong with my feeling as such. It's entirely feasible that something once loved can indeed "jump the shark".

2. Terry Pratchett. One of my favourite authors. I pretty much appreciate everything he's ever written. Yes, his earlier stuff is naïve and less multi-levelled than his later novels, but the seed of ironically comic genius is always there. He had an unbelievably sustained 14 year purple patch from 1991 (with "Reaper Man") up to 2005 (with "Thud"), delivering 24 novels within that period that are just captivatingly hysterical. Okay, since that point, he's not quite reached those dizzying heights - almost certainly due to his well-publicised suffering from Early Onset Alzheimer's Syndrome - but despite my foreknowledge of this, I'll still devour every new release from him with pleasure. That is, until he lets me down... but he hasn't yet.

Note: edited mildly to be more generic and to cause less stress to the mods.

[Orlion]

Yeah, I'll be proactive to say that any other commentary/mention of The Last Dark that has not all ready be made is forbidden from this post on and will be deleted. I don't care how strongly you feel about it or how pertinent it may be to the discussion, this is not the place for it. There's an entire forum dedicated to the book where you can gush over how great it is or bitch and moan about it... this is not the forum.

I'll return with my thoughts on the topic later.

[Wildling]

This issue has come up a number of times in TLD forum, so I thought I'd start a more general discussion here in the Gen. Lit. forum.

SRD is not the first (nor will he be the last) author to disappoint some of his fans. I suppose the question is what level of criticism are we entitled to level at a writer who we feel has let us down?

Surely the only feasible answer is... "As much as we feel moved to do so".

Trying to keep this general - a thing which is rather hard to do - the problem of disappointment in a piece of art (whether novel, painting, music or whatever) is hugely exacerbated when it's part of a series, because then we have a) an emotional and intellectual investment in what has gone before and b) an established expectation as to tone, style, skill level and artistic intent. Hence, when we're faced with something - and especially something that we've eagerly awaited as the culmination of a series - that in our personal opinion falls sadly flat, feels rushed or worse yet, lecturing, then we have every right to express our indignation and/or sense of disappointment.

Getting specific for a second, SRD himself no doubt unwittingly ironically presaged this in The Wounded Land, where Covenant himself says this:-

This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken.

That's the key point. TLD is needless to say recognisably a part of The Chronicles Of Thomas Covenant. It's not a bizarre departure way out into left field - it's just not very good. Which is pretty much exactly why SRD is taking so much heat in the specific TLD forum.

Let me dive into some analogies here. If I were an ardent Wagner fan back in the mid-1800s and I'd simply adored Das Rheingold (premièred in 1869) and Die Walküre (premièred in 1870), imagine my massive sense of having been let down if, when the final two parts, Siegfried/I] and Götterdämmerung were premièred six years later in 1876, they'd turned out to have the exact music that they do, but were scored solely for kazoo and swannee whistle. I'd have every reason to be harshly critical.

That's not to say that an author or indeed any artist ought not to evolve stylistically. Such a thing is only to be expected and moreover, it's frankly healthy. One could hardly imagine an elderly Yeats, for example, penning the same sort of poems at the age of 70 as he did as a young man. However, the key here is "evolution", not "revolution". The former's acceptable and justifiable to the audience (if such a thing needs to be done), whereas the latter is highly liable to cause an adverse reaction in one's fanbase.

don't think there is a contract. I've been disappointed when my vision and the author's vision were not the same, even deeply disappointed.

But that's not the author's fault, it's probably mine. There's no promise, implied or otherwise in an author's work. You just hope that you like it, and if you don't, maybe you stop reading their books. Or maybe you carry on hoping you'll like something else.

I'll agree with Avatar, but only inasmuch as there's no "contract" as such, nor an overt promise. An artist, any artist working in any medium has the unequivocal right to create whatever he/she likes, for whatever motivation (whether purely self-expressionary, a desire to proselytise or lecture, financial or whatever). HOWEVER, I do strongly believe, that although not contractual or overtly promised, there *is* a level of expectation that has been pre-set if the audience knows the author's previous works and doubly so if the new work is an acknowledged part of a series.

Moreover, if an artist is going to allow his/her work to be published for all to view and especially if the audience is going to be required to pay to view such work, then yes, absolutely anyone so doing has every right to express personal opinion on and reaction to said work, no matter how adulatory or indeed scathing this may be. THAT'S the contract - publish by all means, but if you expect payment from me in order to gain access to your work, then I'm given the right to react.

I also very strongly disagree with Av when he says "I've been disappointed when my vision and the author's vision were not the same, even deeply disappointed. But that's not the author's fault, it's probably mine." Huh? Why is it necessarily your fault, Av? Why automatically belittle yourself in thinking that you haven't in some way matched up to the author's "requirements" and that this is why you've failed to appreciate his offering? That's an unwitting large step down the path to "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome, where ardent fans of an author start from the premise that *anything* an author delivers simply MUST be fantastic and promptly busy themselves ignoring all the flaws and reading God knows what level of profundities and qualities into something, even though they simply don't exist.

This drives me nuts. I've said it elsewhere and I'll hold it up as a truth here again. Published art invites us to be critics, It's there (hopefully) to evoke a personal response, to engage singly with its audience both emotionally and intellectually AND if it fails to do so, evoking instead a disappointed, frustrated or even irritated response in any member of its audience, THEN that's a completely valid feeling to have. It doesn't make you a dumb or unenlightened or ill-educated or deluded or delusional person for reacting in such a way.

When I came back to the series, a couple of years later, I did so with totally different expectations (a different contract?) and managed to finish the series. I was able to take a certain amount of pleasure from the experience, which I had been completely unable to do earlier.

Sure... because your expectations had been lessened by your first dip in. You were no longer expecting the series to match up to its previous widely acknowledged heights of being emotionally narratively engrossing, because you already knew that it didn't.

However, I also felt that there were certain aspects of the work that I was no longer entitled to criticise because I knew exactly what I was getting the second time round.

Grrr. See above. You're absolutely entitled to your entirely valid response to the LCs and to express this. Have the courage of your convictions and more importantly, faith in the validity of your own personal response!

What has your experience been when you have felt let down by an author/filmaker/musician and what level of criticism do you think we can level at them when this happens?

I'll quote a couple of personal examples here...

1. Pink Floyd. One of my favourite bands. Okay, so I kind of like some of their early stuff, but they hit an absolute peak with Dark Side Of The Moon, Wish You Were Here and Animals - all three albums are absolute gems. Unfortunately, Roger Waters then took creative control and gave us the massively self-indulgent and grandiose The Wall. Not that it's all bad - "Comfortably Numb" is one of the best Floyd tracks of all time, for example - but as a whole, it is to me a disappointment. And there's precisely nothing wrong with my feeling as such. It's entirely feasible that something once loved can indeed "jump the shark".

2. Terry Pratchett. One of my favourite authors. I pretty much appreciate everything he's ever written. Yes, his earlier stuff is naïve and less multi-levelled than his later novels, but the seed of ironically comic genius is always there. He had an unbelievably sustained 14 year purple patch from 1991 (with "Reaper Man") up to 2005 (with "Thud"), delivering 24 novels within that period that are just captivatingly hysterical. Okay, since that point, he's not quite reached those dizzying heights - almost certainly due to his well-publicised suffering from Early Onset Alzheimer's Syndrome - but despite my foreknowledge of this, I'll still devour every new release from him with pleasure. That is, until he lets me down... but he hasn't yet.

That all sounds more like personal expectation more than a contract. The author/artist/musician makes no promises that you'll like the next installment of his/her work, but you, the consumer of that work, have decided already that you're probably going to like it. When you don't you feel kind of betrayed right? That's not the fault of the artist. That's you, the consumer of this art, assuming you know what's coming.

[TheFallen]

That all sounds more like personal expectation more than a contract. The author/artist/musician makes no promises that you'll like the next installment of his/her work, but you, the consumer of that work, have decided already that you're probably going to like it. When you don't you feel kind of betrayed right?

...which is pretty much what I said, no? I'm just saying that my expectations are justified, given my prior personal experience.

That's not the fault of the artist. That's you, the consumer of this art, assuming you know what's coming.

Hmmm. That surely depends. Yes, you're right in that I have a pre-judgement or an expectation if I already know that artist's works (especially if we're talking about part of a series - cf. my Wagner's Ring Cycle analogy above) .Yes, needless to say, you're right to point out that any artist can deliver whatever creation he/she likes.

Having said that, three points remain.

1. The act of publication (and especially charging to view) delivers the right of criticism, whether positive or negative, to any member of an artist's audience.

2. It's unrealistic to expect one's audience to judge a piece of art forming part of a series solely on its own qualities. It surely has to be measured against the aptness of its place in said series. Example - if Pixar had made Toy Story II a bleakly surreal and existentialist psychodrama featuring only sock puppets, it would have been a disappointment to Toy Story I fans, no matter how good a piece of drama it might be capable of being judged as being on a stand-alone basis.

3. Things *can* be the fault of an artist... artists *can* deliver less than satisfactory pieces of work in the individual perception of members of the audience... including artists who have unfailingly delighted and fulfilled up until that point. Dissatisfaction with a piece of art clearly does not need to inevitably be about any failings within those dissatisfied.

[Vraith]

I also very strongly disagree with Av when he says "I've been disappointed when my vision and the author's vision were not the same, even deeply disappointed. But that's not the author's fault, it's probably mine." Huh? Why is it necessarily your fault, Av? Why automatically belittle yourself in thinking that you haven't in some way matched up to the author's "requirements" and that this is why you've failed to appreciate his offering? That's an unwitting large step down the path to "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome, where ardent fans of an author start from the premise that *anything* an author delivers simply MUST be fantastic and promptly busy themselves ignoring all the flaws and reading God knows what level of profundities and qualities into something, even though they simply don't exist.

This drives me nuts. I've said it elsewhere and I'll hold it up as a truth here again. Published art invites us to be critics, It's there (hopefully) to evoke a personal response, to engage singly with its audience both emotionally and intellectually AND if it fails to do so, evoking instead a disappointed, frustrated or even irritated response in any member of its audience, THEN that's a completely valid feeling to have. It doesn't make you a dumb or unenlightened or ill-educated or deluded or delusional person for reacting in such a way.

In random order/snippets: "Invites us to be critics??" Really? I don't think so...and most of the rest of that paragraph shows you don't think so, either. It "invites" us to enter into an experience, come into the "home" that's been made...join the party. The role of critic is one you are perfectly free to choose, a character you may decide to play or not...but it isn't the purpose of the art nor the invitation.
Sure, you might have a bad time. Sure, that's a valid response...it doesn't make you any of those nasty things at the end...but it doesn't mean you AREN'T any of them, either...and being [or not being] any, one, or all of them might not even be relevant.
Is someone's "valid response" actually valid if they are, in fact, in some way mistaken?
More importantly, are you being invalidated/insulted if someone attempts to point out a mistake? [assuming one exists].
Most importantly, your bad experience in itself doesn't necessarily say anything about the art. Saying something about the art is a different issue. Av might go too far saying it is "probably" his " fault" when things disappoint...but saying the opposite might be going too far, too. If Av's position is self-belittling, the flip of it is other-belittling, and in no way any better. It depends on who you are and who you read.


And that's into another separation [working my way to the topic of the thread]: If separation 1 is how we feel about the work to what we know/can show about the work, then what can we know/show about the author? Even if we were, somehow, invited to be critics of a work, is that artist, as a person, inviting criticism of him/her SELF from the reader? Does the reader have any right to do so just cuz they don't feel good about the work? Is it a "valid response" for someone to say "This book was only written so we fans could pay for his new Mercedes?" Now who is violating some kind of agreement between Author and Reader?...so...

Directly to the thread title: I go back and forth on that...but in most ways I don't think there is ANY contract, implied or otherwise, between Author and Reader that is inherent. Though sometimes an Author creates such a contract in rough form with the Readers...and often a slightly more explicit one with his/her publisher.

I did a few skips in there, left some stuff out that might matter...but that's probably a digestible hunk, and I didn't feel like molding an indigestible hunk.

[Wildling]

That all sounds more like personal expectation more than a contract. The author/artist/musician makes no promises that you'll like the next installment of his/her work, but you, the consumer of that work, have decided already that you're probably going to like it. When you don't you feel kind of betrayed right?

...which is pretty much what I said, no? I'm just saying that my expectations are justified, given my prior personal experience.

That's not the fault of the artist. That's you, the consumer of this art, assuming you know what's coming.

Hmmm. That surely depends. Yes, you're right in that I have a pre-judgement or an expectation if I already know that artist's works (especially if we're talking about part of a series - cf. my Wagner's Ring Cycle analogy above) .Yes, needless to say, you're right to point out that any artist can deliver whatever creation he/she likes.

Having said that, three points remain.

1. The act of publication (and especially charging to view) delivers the right of criticism, whether positive or negative, to any member of an artist's audience.

2. It's unrealistic to expect one's audience to judge a piece of art forming part of a series solely on its own qualities. It surely has to be measured against the aptness of its place in said series. Example - if Pixar had made Toy Story II a bleakly surreal and existentialist psychodrama featuring only sock puppets, it would have been a disappointment to Toy Story I fans, no matter how good a piece of drama it might be capable of being judged as being on a stand-alone basis.

3. Things *can* be the fault of an artist... artists *can* deliver less than satisfactory pieces of work in the individual perception of members of the audience... including artists who have unfailingly delighted and fulfilled up until that point. Dissatisfaction with a piece of art clearly does not need to inevitably be about any failings within those dissatisfied.

Sorry about that. It wasn't really directed entirely at your post.

That being said ...

1) Well sure. There's always the right to judge or critique whatever work the artist comes up with. However, in my humble opinion, judging the work based on previous works is not really fair. The work should be judged on it's own merits (or lack of merit). Personally, I don't really like reading criticisms anyway, since I know it's never going to align with my feelings on any particular work.

2) For part of my answer to this see above. But for part of a series, I think you have to break it into different types of series. Are you talking about a set (ie a trilogy or quadrilogy of books or movies or whatever that are meant to be taken as a whole) or an ongoing series where each book (or movie or whatever) has a self contained beginning, middle, and end? In the first case, criticizing it's fit into the whole is completely valid, and judging it on it's own is never going to go well, since it's not designed to be taken on it's own.

In the second case it's kind of flipped, though not entirely. It IS still part of a group, no matter how loosely.

3) There is no "failings" on either behalf in my opinion. Art is weird. You like it or you don't. What I like, you may not. Does that mean one of us is wrong? If so, which one. You'll think I'm wrong for liking something you think is trash, I will think you're obviously mistaken for not "getting it". The older I get the more I realize that there's an audience for just about anything, no matter how stupid I, personally, think that thing is. For example, I hate free jazz with a fiery burning passion that is both burning and fiery. And yet, there are those who adore it and would quite happily listen to nothing else for the rest of their lives. Who is right? Am I right for thinking it sounds like 5 people playing 6 different tunes at the same time? Or are they right in thinking it holds multiple layers of counterpoint and unexpected melody and such? Or are the artists wrong for making a recording I don't like?

None are wrong. The artists made music they wanted to make. The jazz fans are right for liking what they like, and I'm right for not enjoying what I don't enjoy.

So I guess what I'm saying is, what is "satisfactory? Is it a rehash of the first Toy Story (to use your example)? That path leads to Friday The 13th Part 47: Jason Eats At Subway. (Which I would probably buy, being the fan of bad horror movies that I am )

To sum it all up (second attempt) I would say enjoy what you enjoy, don't enjoy whatever you don't enjoy, try not to be too mean to people who don't agree with either (or both) of those things, and just because an artist makes something you don't like doesn't mean he/she has failed. Someone out there will like it, and that's who the artist was aiming for, assuming they were aiming for anybody in particular.

Now, feel free to judge this post, and if I have broken the poster/reader contract please let me know.

[Orlion]

Here is what I think: the Author generally owes no obligation to the Reader, it is the Reader that has an obligation to the Author.

That obligation is that the Reader should read the book as intended. Not how they would like it. An analogy: if I pick out a recipe and choose not to follow it and cook a miserable meal, it is not because the recipe is bad... it's because I did not use it as it was intended. The same with books:

If I'm reading a ghost story, I should make myself accessible to feelings of tension, fear, and suspense. If I go in reading it with an attitude of "gee, this supernatural business is a real cop-out", I am at fault, not the author.

If I'm watching Star Wars and complain about how everything they do and have is scientifically impossible, I am not watching it in the frame of mind that it was meant to be... I am at fault, the criticism lies with me, not in the work.

That is why I have not read, nor will I read, Ender's Game. I am never going to give it a chance or fulfill my obligation as a reader to be in the right frame of mind to read it.

Once you are reading the work "in the right frame of mind", then you can have what I will call "a valid criticism" as opposed to an opinion. A criticism should look at a work of art as such and not as a list of what worked for you and what did not. A criticism takes a look at what the Author claims to have done and determines what worked well, and what did not... there are actual objective parts in Art, believe it or not.

Your tastes are your own, but one should not conflate "tastes" with "criticism".

[ussusimiel]

Glad to see plenty reaction to the topic!

I won't try and respond to all the points raised, but rather develop my own ideas taking what's been said into account (while also trying to keep it general and thus keeping Orlion happy ).

One of the points that I was trying to make in the OP is that when an artist changes direction or changes their style then they risk losing fans. An example of this would be when Dylan went electric in'66. Part of his fanbase felt outraged and betrayed.* However, imagine if the outraged and betrayed fans kept on buying his electric albums (despite hating them) and 10/20/30/40/50 years later were still giving out about hating the fact that he dared play an electric guitar! There are a couple of choice adjectives that we would apply to such people!

And this was part of what I was trying to say about choosing to continue reading an author when you know the books are not to your taste. My point is if you know the books are going to be poor and still read them, then it's a bit rich to afterwards complain about the books being poor.**

Which leads to a point I thought about but didn't put in the OP: is there another factor involved when it comes to certain artists (like Dylan)? When an artist achieves a certain intensity and quality of connection with their audience/fans, do the people feel an extra bond that changes their normal behaviour? Instead of stopping listening or reading they hold on hoping for a repeat of the previous experience.

u.

* It could be argued that Dylan (being the ornery-type) did it solely to highlight his discomfort with the kind of ardour that some of his fanbase evinced towards him.

** I like Stephen King, I've read a dozen or more of his books. I read the first few chapters of Desperation realised that it should have been called Desperate Sh**te and put it down. He overwrites and when he doesn't have a good story to tell I put the book down.

[Wildling]

Glad to see plenty reaction to the topic!

I won't try and respond to all the points raised, but rather develop my own ideas taking what's been said into account (while also trying to keep it general and thus keeping Orlion happy ).

One of the points that I was trying to make in the OP is that when an artist changes direction or changes their style then they risk losing fans. An example of this would be when Dylan went electric in'66. Part of his fanbase felt outraged and betrayed.* However, imagine if the outraged and betrayed fans kept on buying his electric albums (despite hating them) and 10/20/30/40/50 years later were still giving out about hating the fact that he dared play an electric guitar! There are a couple of choice adjectives that we would apply to such people!

And this was part of what I was trying to say about choosing to continue reading an author when you know the books are not to your taste. My point is if you know the books are going to be poor and still read them, then it's a bit rich to afterwards complain about the books being poor.**

Which leads to a point I thought about but didn't put in the OP: is there another factor involved when it comes to certain artists (like Dylan)? When an artist achieves a certain intensity and quality of connection with their audience/fans, do the people feel an extra bond that changes their normal behaviour? Instead of stopping listening or reading they hold on hoping for a repeat of the previous experience.

u.

* It could be argued that Dylan (being the ornery-type) did it solely to highlight his discomfort with the kind of ardour that some of his fanbase evinced towards him.

** I like Stephen King, I've read a dozen or more of his books. I read the first few chapters of Desperation realised that it should have been called Desperate Sh**te and put it down. He overwrites and when he doesn't have a good story to tell I put the book down.

I think guys like Neil Young and David Bowie highlight exactly what you're talking about. Neil Young fans know that they will only like about a third of the albums he puts out, but they get them all because they aren't sure if this next one is going to be the good one or one of the bad two.


And I had the same reaction to Steve King. I love a lot of his earlier books, but after I started (and couldn't finish) Gerald's Game and Delores Claiborne I gave up on him. Although I do plan to read the entire Dark Tower at some point.

[DoctorGamgee]

I have a couple of things to say. First, if an author starts a series and gets two books into the trilogy, they should finish it. Captal's Tower was promised us over a decade ago and Ms. RAWN has not finished it. She owes me for the two books I bought.

Now, whether it is finished to my liking...that is not a contract. MARTIN killed off many great characters I loved. ..but it's his story(providing he ever finishes the dratted thing).

[I'm Murrin]

I have a couple of things to say. First, if an author starts a series and gets two books into the trilogy, they should finish it. Captal's Tower was promised us over a decade ago and Ms. RAWN has not finished it. She owes me for the two books I bought.

Did you get the two books you paid for? Then you're owed nothing.

[TheFallen]

I also very strongly disagree with Av when he says "I've been disappointed when my vision and the author's vision were not the same, even deeply disappointed. But that's not the author's fault, it's probably mine." Huh? Why is it necessarily your fault, Av? Why automatically belittle yourself in thinking that you haven't in some way matched up to the author's "requirements" and that this is why you've failed to appreciate his offering? That's an unwitting large step down the path to "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome, where ardent fans of an author start from the premise that *anything* an author delivers simply MUST be fantastic and promptly busy themselves ignoring all the flaws and reading God knows what level of profundities and qualities into something, even though they simply don't exist.

This drives me nuts. I've said it elsewhere and I'll hold it up as a truth here again. Published art invites us to be critics, It's there (hopefully) to evoke a personal response, to engage singly with its audience both emotionally and intellectually AND if it fails to do so, evoking instead a disappointed, frustrated or even irritated response in any member of its audience, THEN that's a completely valid feeling to have. It doesn't make you a dumb or unenlightened or ill-educated or deluded or delusional person for reacting in such a way.

In random order/snippets: "Invites us to be critics??" Really? I don't think so...and most of the rest of that paragraph shows you don't think so, either. It "invites" us to enter into an experience, come into the "home" that's been made...join the party. The role of critic is one you are perfectly free to choose, a character you may decide to play or not...but it isn't the purpose of the art nor the invitation.

Very strictly speaking, you may be right, V. I may have been fractionally inexact with my language - I possibly muddied things by using the word "critics" - which I intended solely in its sense of "those capable of passing a valid appraisal on a thing" rather than in any inevitably negative sense. In my view, published art by the nature of its having been made public seeks and thus invites a reaction, a response from its audience. Therefore its audience not only has the right to such response, it is actively enjoined to form and have an opinion upon whatever the work may be, whether positive or negative - and there's absolutely no reason why such an opinion should not be expounded. The formation of such opinion is in my view entirely equivalent to making a personal critical judgement, but hey, I'm happy to allow hair-splitting .

Sure, you might have a bad time. Sure, that's a valid response...it doesn't make you any of those nasty things at the end...but it doesn't mean you AREN'T any of them, either...and being [or not being] any, one, or all of them might not even be relevant.
Is someone's "valid response" actually valid if they are, in fact, in some way mistaken?
More importantly, are you being invalidated/insulted if someone attempts to point out a mistake? [assuming one exists].

A major league "hmmm" here to your word "mistaken". Such a term implies strongly that someone's personal reaction to a piece of art can be in some way "wrong" against presumably an objective standard. I'm very uneasy with such a concept, because down that road lies the potential of intellectual snobbery and interpretative fascism. Sure, I'll grant that others may find a different way to view a piece of art or may take it in a differing way that had not occurred to the original disappointed viewer and thus that they may find it satisfying to them. And there's nothing wrong (and everything good) with such satisfied audience members explaining why they found a work of art to be fulfilling or satisfying to their personal taste. But that may not resonate with the original disappointed viewer and so need not necessarily invalidate the evoked reaction within him/her.

In kind of contradiction to the above, it's worth making a point here about an artist's intended audience and how hermetic/élitist he intended that such should be. Wildling touched on this point with his reference to free jazz. Case in point - what seems like a billion years ago now, I for some reason decided to focus on a specialist topic of on French symbolist poetry of the late 19th and early 20th centuries as an elected part of a course I was on at the time. So, when it comes to the likes of Baudelaire, Verlaine, Laforgue, Apollinaire & c, I kind of get what they're on about, what they're attempting to achieve and whether they're successful or not. That's a very rarified field within art and as such it wouldn't be fair on said poets to expect a mass audience to have entirely valid opinions or critical judgements upon their works - it also wouldn't be fair on a mass audience either, for that matter. I mean for very simplistic starters, not everyone speaks French, right? But then again (and here's the crucial point) said poets weren't writing for a general audience. Things are very different with works of art aimed at the mass market.

Most importantly, your bad experience in itself doesn't necessarily say anything about the art. Saying something about the art is a different issue. Av might go too far saying it is "probably" his " fault" when things disappoint...but saying the opposite might be going too far, too. If Av's position is self-belittling, the flip of it is other-belittling, and in no way any better. It depends on who you are and who you read.

In general, I'll entirely agree with you conceptually - even if it'd be very feasible from your stated tenet to then go on to maintain that no art can possibly be "bad", just that people "don't get it", a thing which I absolutely don't agree with - the fallacy that is "emperor's new clothes syndrome" can indeed rear its misbegotten head on occasion.

The crux here is that, when we're dealing with a piece of the art that's part of a series, standards against which it is indeed valid to judge are by default bound to differ from those applied to an individual work. Someone - u, I think - mentioned Stephen King in this thread and I'll fully agree that when it comes to his stand-alone novels (which, being stand-alone, live or die solely on their own individual merits), King's written in my personal opinion some great stuff and some clunkers. And that's okay. However, looking at series only, when it comes to an audience passing judgement on the 4th part of a tetra-ology (or indeed the 10th part of a deka-ology), that audience has effectively pre-qualified itself as being both able and more importantly suitable and knowledgeable enough to pass an entirely valid judgement. Why? Precisely because they've not come to the artist's work cold - they already know and (presumably) appreciate it. They've stayed with the series, with the artist as he/she worked towards his/her conclusion, presumably because they enjoyed the journey and appreciated the artistry - or it's reasonable to assume that they'd have given up at book 1, or book 7 or whatever - unless they were some kind of literary masochists or something. Having chosen to stay with the artist to the end of a series, that audience must presumably be in the "right frame of mind" - to reference Orlion's point about ghost stories - and therefore entirely qualified to hold valid opinions of any colour once they've viewed the culmination of said series. When dealing with a piece of art that's by its very nature been defined by its creator as part of a series, it is not just "a matter of taste" and it is absolutely valid for an additional critical faculty to be brought to bear by a priorly knowledgeable audience.

And that's into another separation [working my way to the topic of the thread]: If separation 1 is how we feel about the work to what we know/can show about the work, then what can we know/show about the author? Even if we were, somehow, invited to be critics of a work, is that artist, as a person, inviting criticism of him/her SELF from the reader? Does the reader have any right to do so just cuz they don't feel good about the work? Is it a "valid response" for someone to say "This book was only written so we fans could pay for his new Mercedes?" Now who is violating some kind of agreement between Author and Reader?...so...

Here, I'll agree with you fully, V. Sure, it's human nature to speculate in the face of disappointment as to WHY such occurred, but it's pretty meaningless to do so. (Although it should be said that serious critics will and indeed can validly go into biographical detail when critiquing an artist's work - see any serious piece of critical appraisal of any artist's life and output). However, for the vast majority of an artist's audience, it only behooves them to state THAT - and hopefully backed up with HOW - in their opinion such artist has failed (or delighted) them, and not to get involved in a speculative WHY.

Directly to the thread title: I go back and forth on that...but in most ways I don't think there is ANY contract, implied or otherwise, between Author and Reader that is inherent.

I'll say it again - I agree. There's absolutely NO explicit or implied contract between an artist and his/her audience - an artist is at entire liberty to create whatever he/she likes... and then, if making such output public, to face the reactions evoked and inspired. However, notably in the case of series, there very definitely is a pre-set level of expectation within a knowledgeable audience of subject matter, method, vehicle, style and tone, since said artist has already entirely by him/herself established standards against which any subsequent part of a series will inevitably - and quite rightly - be judged. And judged individually by the very audience that the artist has him/herself sought out by his/her decision to publish.

[ussusimiel]

... There's absolutely NO explicit or implied contract between an artist and his/her audience - an artist is at entire liberty to create whatever he/she likes... and then, if making such output public, to face the reactions evoked and inspired. However, notably in the case of series, there very definitely is a pre-set level of expectation within a knowledgeable audience of subject matter, method, vehicle, style and tone, since said artist has already entirely by him/herself established standards against which any subsequent part of a series will inevitably - and quite rightly - be judged. And judged individually by the very audience that the artist has him/herself sought out by his/her decision to publish.

I agree with most of what you said in the post just above this, but on this particular point I want to try to finesse it a bit more.

Say you find the later style and characters of GRRM's ASOIAF unappealing and it becomes clear that where he's heading with the series is not to your liking, does buying and reading the subsequent books, in that knowledge, entitle you to complain about them? On a technical level, it does, but in terms of the spirit of reading a writer's work, for me, there is something else involved in it. If you are a professional book critic, fair enough but otherwise why not issue the ultimate critique and stop reading. I understand that there may be an element of faith in an author, but once the reading experience has stopped being pleasurable in itself, what's the purpose in continued reading? (That there is a purpose, I have no doubt, because people (like myself) obviously behave in this slightly counter-intuitive way.)*

u.

* My own best guess is that there is some sort of unconscious hope that the purity of the reader's faith will be repaid by a miracle.

[DoctorGamgee]

I have a couple of things to say. First, if an author starts a series and gets two books into the trilogy, they should finish it. Captal's Tower was promised us over a decade ago and Ms. RAWN has not finished it. She owes me for the two books I bought.

Did you get the two books you paid for? Then you're owed nothing.

Except when I purchased the two books, The first book said,
Exiles Book 1, with the title of the second was forthcoming, and the second said Exiles book 2, with Captal's Tower coming soon printed on the inside. But Captal's Tower, so says the author, will not be forth coming. So you promise me a Bacon, Lettuce and Tomato sandwich, you serve me bacon and Lettuce and tell me I am to be happy?

Perhaps, murin, as they are each being paid for separately. But when the author states that a third book is coming, and it doesn't come, that is akin to seeing the first two acts of Albert Herring with the promise of a return after intermission for Act III, but it never comes.

My time and money was spent on two thirds of a three part story, with no ending ever to come. The last line of Lord of the Rings The Two Towers is
"Frodo was alive, but taken by the enemy." The publisher of the Balantine books said (I paraphrase), "the stunning conclusion to the tale of the Ring is finished in The Return of the King."

I am never to see the end of the story I started, and I cannot be given back the time I spent investing in the story to be left adrift. A contract of a forthcoming book was promised and it will not be done.

So eat your LT and be happy, I guess is what your saying. The promised Bacon won't be here...ever.

[Orlion]

With a series, one with an overarching storyline, we have a few specific problems.

1) The readers do expect the author to complete it. The author may choose not to, and no contracts (implied or otherwise) have been breached. But the author should not be surprised if their other works don't sell for beans because of the ill will of disappointed readers.

2) The readers are loath to abandon a series they have contributed so much time to, even if they feel the series is going in a terrible direction. This can take many forms, even getting to the point of outright hostility to the author. But no one seems to want to admit to completely wasting their time on a series they do not enjoy and have therefore decided to waste even more time.... and usually hating every moment of it. The readers are entirely at fault in this case... they need to grow up and move on.

3) In between volumes, the readers can speculate about what future volumes may bring. This is fun, and is entirely why Boards like this exist. However, one can also speculate themselves into a frenzy and get excited for the series to go in a direction of their choosing. The longer the wait between volumes, the more likely fans will be disappointed (look at, say, Martin vs. Jordan. Jordan may have churned out inferior books, but they came at shorter, regular intervals. Martin has taken six years to write a volume in his series. Neither is "more correct" then the other, but you have more vocally disappointed/pissed-off Martin fans then you do Jordan fans).

4) The longer the series, the less likely it will last. I can not see The Wheel of Time staying in print longer then A Song of Ice and Fire (assuming the later gets finished). It's just looong. This goes doubly for the Xanth novels, Malazan, Terry Pratchett... The old will just have to make way for the new. I may read one or two Discworld books, but f you if you think I'll even consider reading all forty. Of course, the later two aren't the same kind of series...

5) The author's style will change if the series is a long one... and so will a reader's taste. That's just what happens. I use to love the Wheel of Time, but it's been so long... I pretty much have to re-read the series in order to finish it to get anything out of it... and it just doesn't have the same effect on me anymore. It's all right, but I'd much rather read a dense novel by Ford Maddox Ford or John Crowley or Anthony Powell... or Mario Vargas Llosa....or James Joyce...or....

So, I avoid all series that it appears the author has no intention of finishing (like, say, a certain Exile Trilogy). I'm taking my time with series that are taking forever to be written (A Song of Ice and Fire) and reading the completed ones when I'm in the correct mood (A Wheel of Time).

[TheFallen]

... There's absolutely NO explicit or implied contract between an artist and his/her audience - an artist is at entire liberty to create whatever he/she likes... and then, if making such output public, to face the reactions evoked and inspired. However, notably in the case of series, there very definitely is a pre-set level of expectation within a knowledgeable audience of subject matter, method, vehicle, style and tone, since said artist has already entirely by him/herself established standards against which any subsequent part of a series will inevitably - and quite rightly - be judged. And judged individually by the very audience that the artist has him/herself sought out by his/her decision to publish.

I agree with most of what you said in the post just above this, but on this particular point I want to try to finesse it a bit more.

Say you find the later style and characters of GRRM's ASOIAF unappealing and it becomes clear that where he's heading with the series is not to your liking, does buying and reading the subsequent books, in that knowledge, entitle you to complain about them? On a technical level, it does, but in terms of the spirit of reading a writer's work, for me, there is something else involved in it. If you are a professional book critic, fair enough but otherwise why not issue the ultimate critique and stop reading. I understand that there may be an element of faith in an author, but once the reading experience has stopped being pleasurable in itself, what's the purpose in continued reading? (That there is a purpose, I have no doubt, because people (like myself) obviously behave in this slightly counter-intuitive way.)*

u.

* My own best guess is that there is some sort of unconscious hope that the purity of the reader's faith will be repaid by a miracle.

Good question, u, and one that I think depends upon one's prior appraisal of and involvement in a series, whether emotional or intellectual. To take your example of GRRM and Ice & Fire, sure, I've enjoyed the books so far - but to me, they're a kind of lightweight "ripping yarn" type of epic. They're not what I personally consider to be literature. And since I don't consider them to be significant, to be any more than a diversion, I'm not really invested in them. Hence to my mind they don't have to live up to any exacting or profound standard - my expectations aren't that great. So if the next one turns out to be a clunking turkey, I won't feel much more than "Oh well, fun while it lasted". I must admit to already having my eyebrows go vertical more than once at GRRM's blithe and frequent abrupt killing off of characters that I considered to be central, but hey, so what?

In a case such as the above, sure, it'd be dumb to keep on buying and reading subsequent parts to a series that one had already seen go to the dogs... what'd be the point of banging one's head against an already built wall? Grow up and move on, as Orlion says in his point 2) above.

However, where a series has meant a whole deal more to the reader, then surely different rules apply. (Damn but this is going to be hard without devolving into the specific...) If one has a profound appreciation for a series that say is going to be ten books long, if one has an abiding respect and admiration for such a lengthy oeuvre that may, let's remember, have persisted over most of one's adult life, then yes, I'm sure your small point-sized comment is absolutely right. Even if one's worried about the direction that, say, books 7, 8 and 9 have taken thematically and stylistically, there's bound to be hope that one's faith in the author as a reader will not be let down by a clunker of an ending. Especially given the standard that the author has obviously established within the reader's psyche to engender such admiration in the first place.

Again, desperately not trying to get specific, Orlion's point 5) is also well-made. If a series takes decades to complete, it's only natural that an author's style and interests will change, every bit as much as a reader's will. Taking a hypothetical ten book series again, it might take me a while to get to appreciate an authorial movement, say in books 7, 8 and 9, towards a way more internalised psychological examination of character combined with way more emphasis upon the allegorically metaphysical. However, if I've managed to overcome my initial surprise at such an evolution and still appreciated such books - possibly only via a 2nd or even 3rd re-read - then yes, I'd still expect my faith and perseverance to be rewarded by a satisfying culmination. And yes, be both rightfully irritated and disappointed if such wasn't forthcoming. The level of my vociferousness re the above, if it occurred, would no doubt be in direct relation to my erstwhile appreciation of said series.

Oh and Orlion? You're benighted if you're consciously missing out on the slyly ironic glories to be found in most everything that Pratchett has ever written

[Avatar]

Oh and Orlion? You're benighted if you're consciously missing out on the slyly ironic glories to be found in most everything that Pratchett has ever written

Agreed.

--A

[Zarathustra]

Unless an author is not charging money or offers refunds for dissatisfaction, of course he has an obligation to his audience. While he can't please everyone, he must try to be true to his characters, maintain internal consistency, and give the readers a reason to keep reading. The audience has absolutely no obligation to the author, not even this imaginary "correct frame of mind" idea. Novels aren't recipes. They don't come with instructions about how to read them. If the author can't convey that "correct frame of mind" with his narrative, then he has failed. There's nothing wrong with criticizing Star Wars for scientific flaws. The version I watched didn't come with a warning from the director that I must forget known facts and pretend I'm stupid, because the intention of the director was to make a movie for uneducated idiots. The version I watched tried to pass off scientific jargon (e.g. "parsec") that the director himself didn't understand, regardless of his intensions.

But I enjoyed it because it told a classic, mythic tale in a new context (futuristic, quasi-scientific). Lucas brought something creative and new to the screen that transcended these details ... though no one is necessarily wrong if they disagree. Nor are they obligated to overlook it's scientific flaws. Lucas chose sci-fi himself. That's the medium he chose for telling this story. Thus, that choice expresses at least part of his intention. If getting scientific facts correct wasn't part of his intention, then HE made a poor choice in choosing that genre.

It's possible to dismiss *any* flaw with this "you don't get the author's intentions" excuse ... an excuse usually made by people who can't possibly speak for the author and don't know his intentions. I don't believe in the supernatural. I don't attempt to make myself "accessible" to impossible ideas merely to enjoy a book ... I allow a story to overcome those impossibilities by giving me a compelling reason to suspend disbelief. It's not my responsibility as a reader to suspend disbelief ... that's the whole point of an author choosing to write fiction. The fact that he has chosen to write fiction tells me all I need to know about his intentions: he thinks he's good enough to lure me into this state. It's not a prerequisite for me, it's an absolute requirement for him. I *know* it's not real. I can't help not knowing this. It's up to him to make me forget.

It's like a magician's show ... we all know they're tricks. We don't have to subtract digits from our IQs in order to put ourselves in "the right frame of mind" to enjoy a magic show. We can even wonder, "How did he do that?" and try to figure it out. That's part of the "magic," too. But if the tricks are obvious, or lack showmanship, or unoriginal, or done improperly so that the illusion is spoiled, then it's not my fault that I didn't have the correct frame of mind. The whole purpose of a magician is to work against reality and to work against our knowledge of the fact that women can't be cut in two, and show us something amazing nonetheless.