SalokinX, on 04 June 2010 - 02:32 AM, said:
Uh, I'd just like to say 2 things D'rek.
First, Lost has a programmed schedule. It is not changeable. Some writers are forced to write at least one book per year due to contracts with the publisher, which is one reason a writer would work full time and publish a book each year. Some writers write books as HOBBIES, which would, naturally, slower writing.
So when you think about it, there's really no expectations there: a writer who writes for fun is not obligated to finish his book within a limited period of time.
As I said before, a pattern doesn't really exist on Martin's book. He wrote two books with a time gap of 2 years and one with a gap of 5 years, and his fifth book is nearing the 5th year. So, where is the pattern here? Seems like it is going 50/50, which means that, even if there WAS a pattern, it could go both ways. You might want to say "yeah, but his second and third books were in a pattern, 2 years between each". I can't deny that, but I don't consider that a pattern. It simply happened twice, doesn't mean it is a pattern.
And secondly, your examples due to the change of content are complete crap. If he "just got tired of writing about swords and wolves and gay snow men", then he wouldn't be writing the series anymore, would he?
"Martin was never a consistent writer" Really? I didn't notice. Maybe the other books weren't so gory because, well, no one was walking through the plains, witnessing the results of many battles. Maybe "abject boring stories of cleaning temples" was necessary to show the kind of person the to-be High Septon is?
I don't want to sound rude, but you seem frustrated that Martin hasn't been very active on the progress of A Song of Ice and Fire, maybe you're just a hater, or maybe you just want to tease me, but anyway, your reply was near useless as it only proved that I'm right. The only thing you did was edit my post and re-arrange a few words to make it sound the opposite, but the result was not something valid.
I just don't understand how you can compare the content of a book, which can be read, re-read, reviewed, edited, etc to writing-time, which basically just means "how much work does the author put forth into his or her book. Maybe Martin is being lazy, or maybe he is writing too much and getting tangled on the editing.
I just don't understand why someone would be angry at him and even stop reading his book for the sole reason that it is taking long. And worst, to say "I don't want it to be on the bestseller" helps your cause in absolutely nothing. It only means that you are angry because Martin didn't write the book in the time-frame you wanted him to write. Seems like something spoiled kids would do. "GIMME! GIMME! GIMME! OR I'LL BREAK ALL YOUR STUFF AND DRAW ON THE WALL!!!!"
I mean, seriously. What's wrong with enjoying other books while you wait for Martin's work to come out? What's so wrong about Martin taking his sweet time to write the book? Why the hell would you get ANGRY and wish him - or his work - ill for not continuing what HE started? Sure, you bought the books and that is somewhat an investment, but I think that each book on its own gives you enough gratification to be worth the 10 bucks you spent on it.
I hope the next person who wants to rebuke my comment does so in a decent way, instead of changing my words to try to prove a point (with no success, I may add).
Cheers.
Fine, since the notion of satire is completely lost on some people, I'll just have to do this the old-fashioned way...
I find your viewpoint - that variation in an author's writing times being acceptable but variation in the author's content not being acceptable - a misguided notion wherein you are failing to apply the same standard equally to both factors.
SalokinX, on 02 June 2010 - 09:07 PM, said:
Well, to start off, the content of a book has means to be judged, compared. If Martin or Erikson or any other author were to write an incredibly awesome series, it is only expected that next book in the series is of equal quality. Maybe a bit better or a bit worse, but for a book to go WAY off is not acceptable. Why? Because there is a pattern to be followed, and expectations to be met.
The content of a book does not have means to be judged or compared. Sure, we do it anyways, but every book of any genre of fiction can only be judged by the sole personal opinions of each individual reading it. Sure you can say MBotF is better than Twilight, but there will be plenty of people who feel its the other way around. Trying to compare the two is inevitably impossible to do completely objectionably because every fictional book is a seperate experience for every individual reader. Writers change over time like everyone and therefore their writing styles and ability to please particular people (who have also changed over time) is always going to change for plenty of people. There is no pattern to content unless you write the same book word for word repeatedly (and even then it'll be seen differently each time because of changing modern viewpoints and the impact of having done it X number of previous times).
One need only look at a forum like this where everyone is a hardcore fan of the series but no one can agree on how to rate Erikson's books against each other.
On the other hand, the time between releasing books is a factual, mathematical amount that can quite generally be understood the same way by everyon with a basic concept of how a calendar works. Any intelligent reader should know that writing styles change, authors change, they themselves may change, and so there is never anything close to a guarantee of a so-called "pattern" that will be followed as far as the quality throughout a series of books because it is entirely inherent upon personal satisfaction and some people's gold is another person's shit. They obviously therefore can see that an author can't please anyone and that eventually it will be their turn to be disappointed.
On the other hand, pointless delays in writing an on-going series or similar such occurences affect everyone equally, so if there's a pattern at all, it is that as it is not subjective to personal viewpoint.
SalokinX, on 02 June 2010 - 09:07 PM, said:
Take Lost for example. An incredibly well done story that was thrown in the garbage with, simply, the WORST last season ever made by any TV Series I have bothered to watch. It broke the pattern of mystery and surprise and didn't come even NEAR my expectations. Expectations that was built and based on previous experiences with the same series. In other words, a valid expectation.
Nope. That season being "the WORST lass season ever made by any TV Series you have bothered to watch" is entirely your opinion and not judgeable or comparable at all. There are plenty of people who had an equally valid expectation and loved every minute of that last season. You can't even compare the season they experienced with the one you did, let alone compare two different TV shows' last seasons.
SalokinX, on 02 June 2010 - 09:07 PM, said:
But, well, that's MY opinion. That's what a book content breaks down to: opinions. Writing time, on the other hand, is not so... malleable. It does NOT follow neither a pattern nor an expectation.
And now you're agreeing with me - book content breaks down to opinions, so how can that be a pattern?
And you should look up the word malleable. I do not think it means what you think it means.
SalokinX, on 02 June 2010 - 09:07 PM, said:
You may say "well, Erikson writes a book every year, that's a patterns". Yes, I can't deny that, but what if he breaks his hand? If he is shot? What if he gets sick? There are many, MANY reasons for a writer to delay the publishing of his work. There are also people who write slowly (like Martin has said many times). Maybe he just got tired of writing and for now is just taking a break. Maybe he is sick (he's not the healthiest-looking 61-year-old), maybe his wife is sick, maybe he's having a serious case of writer's block, etc, many reasons for his delay.
SalokinX, on 02 June 2010 - 09:07 PM, said:
So, you see, it IS different. Simply because the content of a book is fictional and event-less, whereas real life has many unexpected turns. A written book is immutable, whereas a writer writing a book has a life to live, specially such an old writer. You can't compare a human-being doing his work to a book, and that's really what it is.
And how is this not an equally valid argument for changes in content?
Let's say there's a happy series written by an author who's entire family is killed in a car crash. You're saying it's okay for him to delay his next novel because of that, but that next novel damned well better still be cheerful in tone right?
Real-life affects content far more than writing times if you ask me, but all I'm arguing is that it affects *both*.
SalokinX, on 02 June 2010 - 09:07 PM, said:
Some people just don't know how to appreciate the good things in life and have to demand more and more of it. "Lend me your hand and I'll want your arm".
I look forward to your ranting and raving when the content is off-pattern.
D'rek, does not watch Lost, has not read Martin...