a note of sanity

[ironymaiden]

still thinking about this.

scarlettina passed on the interestingly timed news from Patrick Rothfuss that the sequel to Name of the Wind will be delayed. Rothfuss diffuses things well:

Now I'm not saying you can't be pissed. Feel free. And I'm not saying you shouldn't express those honest emotions. Don't keep it bottled up. It's not healthy.

What I *am* asking is that you don't bring your frothy rage round here to my house. Screed away on your own blog, curse my name on a discussion board, punch your pillow. By all means, vent your spleen. Just don't vent it at me. It makes me hurty inside.

that's much better than a local author calling someone a "bad reader"* for complaining about another author online. *headdesk*

much better than the litany from author commenters of (as one Whatever commenter paraphrases) “Your anger is stupid. You are being stupid and unreasonable. Stop being such a stupid stupid-face, stupid.”

thumbs up to Mr. Rothfuss for acknowledging that readers' feelings are valid, and stating clearly that his feelings are hurt when he's on the receiving end.

still thinking about the author/reader relationship and books as commodities vs art. but part of what had been needling at me was the extremity beyond "don't harass the nice author" of "you are not allowed to be upset".


*in an unscientific poll of the people who live in my house, the phrase "bad reader" means that someone has poor reading comprehension. yet the person in question had demonstrated reading comprehension and composition skills...

Comments

[spazzychic.livejournal.com]

Since we saw PR at Norwescon, I am glad that he has continued to be that likeable fanboy who also writes. I have a burning desire to invite him over to D&D...

[e-bourne.livejournal.com]

I feel really stupid because honestly, I don't understand all this anger. I understand disappointment. As a reader, I know I'm sad when I hunt the shelves for the next book in a series and can't yet find it. Then I go on and give my money to someone else.

I don't understand being pissed off at the author. Maybe the book is hard for them. Maybe their doing something else. I don't actually think it's any of my business since they have a livlihood to make and I am a tiny, itsy bitsy part of it that may not even matter a hill of beans.

I don't understand the author being pissed off at readers (is that not self-defeating somehow?).

I do understand that, if an author blogs, he/she takes the risk of inviting commentary from their audience, negative and positive. That's living in public and you have to put on the grown up pants and deal with it responsibly.

If author doesn't want negative commentary, don't open up your life to the public. The risk is always there.

But I don't see what that has to do with whether books are commodities. Of course they are. Just like CDs are commodities and posters are commodities and anything you exchange money for is a commodity.

The art behind is a different thing. If I can use an argument from the digital art world, the story is the "orginal," the readers are buying copies. The original art belongs to the publisher who owns the copyright on it and paid the upfront price (which they hope to get back by selling the commodity). The readers own the commodity, the book.

There has been years of exploration of what is "art" and what is a "commodity" in the art world due to the development of digital art. My opinion is based upon it. It seems sound to me, but go ahead and form your own. We live in a world where art is increasingly ephemeral.

still half-formed, but

[ironymaiden]

i think the reason that readers get upset is because they are sold a commodity and think of it as such. authors don't think they are making a commodity. boom.

Re: still half-formed, but

[e-bourne.livejournal.com]

This, I think, is where I would argue we are seeing the melt-down of the publishing industry. Because ideally, the author is not making a commodity. They are making art to the specs of the publisher, who makes the commodity. The publisher, however, should be exerting some controls over their artists, because artists, in many instances, are difficult. They are flaky. They get distracted. They see shiny over -there- and want to follow it. Someone, and traditionally it's been publishers, agents, gallery owners, who took them by the hand and said, no, not now. Later. You have to deliver on this thing here, first. Then go after shiny.
When that doesn't happen, the unspoken contract can breakdown. Not so big a deal if there isn't open communication. When writers are blogging about following shiny instead of following the deal, I can start to see the problem. But the person I think the finger pointing should be going to is the person who's job it is to make the commodity. They are the ones I see as not holding up their end of the bargain, because they are so worried about what is happening to their industry people have been fired, and instead of operating as it used to, it's half- assed and half-operating and when an artist is all, you know, artsy, things go terribly, terribly wrong.

Again, just my opinion. But I know artists are flakes. I am one.

"Here's what I think," he said...

[andrew-the-oga.livejournal.com]

what had been needling at me was the extremity beyond "don't harass the nice author" of "you are not allowed to be upset"

I think we need to remember that there are a great many people who forget that it's possible to have a strong feeling without acting upon it. It'd be nice to be able to just say, "Don't harass." But there are many of us who need it phrased more strongly-- and directed at our hearts and minds rather than just at our whining mouths and typing fingertips.

Probably begs questions about the relationships between fans and authors in the SF community. We don't like the obvious comparison to the fans of more generic celebrities-- but there it is.