As for the books themselves, you're setting up strawmen here. When I buy a book, I give money to a bookstore, who gives money to a distributor, which goes to the publisher, who hands the author a royalty check. You've yet to dispute that fact, which does indeed mean that just like with my game analogy, we, the consumers, are paying the author. Does he get an advance? Sure, but that advance is given on the presumption that the author is going to continue to provide the type of material they've been getting paid for, or whatever else is specified by that contract. So what happens when he fails to deliver on that contract? He's also failed to deliver on the expectations of the consumers. Which, as Fed points out, squanders our time & money that we have indeed invested in him as an author.
I do understand where you are coming from, honest, but I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make (which is completely reasonable because my posts tend to be poorly worded). And certainly, I don't mean to jump down anyone's throat. It's one of the things I appreciate about this place; that we can have disagreements and at the end of the day, we'll all hop on Steam and play a game together!
Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that you don't in fact pay his salary, no matter how obliquely you put it. The publisher does - end of the line. If the publisher wants to take a good chunk of the proceeds from 30 other successful authors to pay for another author, they can do that (so long as the contracts allow them to). You don't get to decide where your money goes when you buy a book. You are not setting anyone's salary.
*Of course* there is a relationship between the dollars you spend and GRRM's income, but ultimately, the decision to pay an author rests with the publisher and the contract they have with them. If you as the consumer want to stop supporting the author (supporting != paying salary) then stop buying that author's book. To suggest the dollars you spend on a given series equal an entitlement (no matter how sincere or simple) to getting more out of the series is wrong. The publisher does that - they see how well performing a series is, they give money to the author to complete it. If the author doesn't, then there are contractual methods for the publisher to deal with that situation. The readers do not enter in to it.
I really want to try the board game. A chance to play the Starks would be awesome.
I should go check its rating on the board game geek.
It's tough to find. BadMojo tried to buy it for me as an Xmas gift and the online store sent the expansion instead! Now the expansion can be played standalone, but it's also more complicated.
I really want to try the board game. A chance to play the Starks would be awesome.
I should go check its rating on the board game geek.
It's cool, but unless you have five players, some of the factions tend to get overpowered. With four players, Greyjoy sits out and Stark gets the north half of the board to themselves. What's really sweet is to play with the Clash of Kings expansion and six players, which adds Dorne to the mix. They tend to keep Baratheon and Tyrell honest. On the other hand, don't waste your time with the Storm of Swords expansion. It tends to add too much and overcomplicate the game.
Kier wrote:I really want to try the board game. A chance to play the Starks would be awesome.
I should go check its rating on the board game geek.
It's cool, but unless you have five players, some of the factions tend to get overpowered. With four players, Greyjoy sits out and Stark gets the north half of the board to themselves. What's really sweet is to play with the Clash of Kings expansion and six players, which adds Dorne to the mix. They tend to keep Baratheon and Tyrell honest. On the other hand, don't waste your time with the Storm of Swords expansion. It tends to add too much and overcomplicate the game.
I thought that would have been the A Feast for Crows expansion. Oh wait, you didn't say boring and bloated. Well, maybe you did say bloated. 
AnimeJ wrote:As for the books themselves, you're setting up strawmen here. When I buy a book, I give money to a bookstore, who gives money to a distributor, which goes to the publisher, who hands the author a royalty check. You've yet to dispute that fact, which does indeed mean that just like with my game analogy, we, the consumers, are paying the author. Does he get an advance? Sure, but that advance is given on the presumption that the author is going to continue to provide the type of material they've been getting paid for, or whatever else is specified by that contract. So what happens when he fails to deliver on that contract? He's also failed to deliver on the expectations of the consumers. Which, as Fed points out, squanders our time & money that we have indeed invested in him as an author.
I do understand where you are coming from, honest, but I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make (which is completely reasonable because my posts tend to be poorly worded). And certainly, I don't mean to jump down anyone's throat. It's one of the things I appreciate about this place; that we can have disagreements and at the end of the day, we'll all hop on Steam and play a game together!
Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that you don't in fact pay his salary, no matter how obliquely you put it. The publisher does - end of the line. If the publisher wants to take a good chunk of the proceeds from 30 other successful authors to pay for another author, they can do that (so long as the contracts allow them to). You don't get to decide where your money goes when you buy a book. You are not setting anyone's salary.
*Of course* there is a relationship between the dollars you spend and GRRM's income, but ultimately, the decision to pay an author rests with the publisher and the contract they have with them. If you as the consumer want to stop supporting the author (supporting != paying salary) then stop buying that author's book. To suggest the dollars you spend on a given series equal an entitlement (no matter how sincere or simple) to getting more out of the series is wrong. The publisher does that - they see how well performing a series is, they give money to the author to complete it. If the author doesn't, then there are contractual methods for the publisher to deal with that situation. The readers do not enter in to it.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but there is absolutely no basis for it. If a publisher has no confidence in a work, they won't buy it, period. They pay authors based on whether or not the book will sell. No sales? No deal, plain and simple. We as consumers have far more power in this regard than you're giving us credit. Now, do established authors get a little(perhaps even a lot) more leeway in this regard? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that if they put out a continuation of a series that falls flat on its' face that they'll continue supporting the author. No publisher on earth would spend money on an author with no possibility of turning a profit, it's really that simple.
Given that it's my throat you're all jumping down for advocating that people are bound by informal social contract to deliver on expectations they themselves set up, I'm gonna disagree with you on that. On top of that, you did start this one, so while you're backpedaling away from it, keep that in mind, eh? ;)
(Emphasis mine)
This is where you lose me AnimeJ. This social contract doesn't seem to exist outside of your own assumption of its existence. You aren't paying these authors for future work when you buy a book, you're buying an individual product that's available right now, nothing more. Let's look at a more mundane situation: You buy a new flavor of soda-pop made by the Coca-Cola company. You expect this new flavor to be delicious and thirst quenching as all the other soda-pop flavors made by the Coca-Cola company have been thus far. It turns out the flavor disgusts you instead and you can't even drink the whole thing despite being really thirsty.
In that situation you're disappointed that what you bought wasn't to your taste by design, and you'll never really like the product. However, the Coca-Cola company didn't break some ephemeral social contract with you stating they'd only release flavors you'd enjoy, you simply bought a product that you didn't end up liking. Your past support of Coca-Cola products doesn't obligate Coca-Cola in any way whatsoever, you got exactly what you paid for when you bought a Coca-Cola product and anything more is nowhere but in your own imagination.
You see where I'm going with this? If the next SoI&F book was six hundred pages of snow blowing over empty graves after a meteor kills everyone George R.R. Martin broke no contract with you, informal or otherwise. He wrote a book you didn't enjoy. Full stop.
Edit: I think the biggest issue I'm having is with your wording. A contract is an agreement between two parties. You having high expectations of an author doesn't put you in a contract with him, he himself has to agree to be part of the contract. You seem to be saying you have the right to be disappointed with him if he flubs a work, which I agree with. I mostly take issue with the idea that a creative work means a contract, which implies obligation. Also known as entitlement.
I will look more into the board game, I have recently discovered that games based on movie/tv/books are not inherently evil (unlike move licensed video games). I tried out BSG a little while ago and had a good time, but it really needs at least 4 players, we tied with 3 and it seemed really unbalanced.
there appears to be two conversations going on here... shall us who wish to discuss the board/card games go else where? or just keep ignoring the bickering?
I will look more into the board game, I have recently discovered that games based on movie/tv/books are not inherently evil (unlike move licensed video games). I tried out BSG a little while ago and had a good time, but it really needs at least 4 players, we tied with 3 and it seemed really unbalanced.
there appears to be two conversations going on here... shall us who wish to discuss the board/card games go else where? or just keep ignoring the bickering?
Just ignore us, we'll run out of steam soon enough.
bnpederson - AnimeJ's expectations are entirely reasonable and were created by the author, publisher, etc., and not a figment of his imagination. The book is marketed as a series by everyone involved in its production.
What gets me is that no one would be disagreeing with AJ if it weren't for Gaiman's piece. There are internet douchebags out there hating on Martin and his being older and overweight, etc., and AJ clearly isn't one of those. Let's keep our powder dry until we spot one.
What gets me is that no one would be disagreeing with AJ if it weren't for Gaiman's piece. There are internet douchebags out there hating on Martin and his being older and overweight, etc., and AJ clearly isn't one of those. Let's keep our powder dry until we spot one.
That's not true. I never read Gaiman's piece but found AJ's argument for social contract disagreeable all the same.
bnpederson - AnimeJ's expectations are entirely reasonable and were created by the author, publisher, etc., and not a figment of his imagination. The book is marketed as a series by everyone involved in its production.
I disagree. I enjoyed each of the books in the SoI&F series individually as well as part of the series. They were and remain good reads, regardless of whether the series continues, stops entirely, or slowly declines into unreadable drek. Those books are what I paid my money for, not some promise of books to come. My buying the first book of a series doesn't obligate the author to do anything just as his writing a sequel doesn't obligate me to buy or read it.
Fedaykin98 wrote:bnpederson - AnimeJ's expectations are entirely reasonable and were created by the author, publisher, etc., and not a figment of his imagination. The book is marketed as a series by everyone involved in its production.
I disagree. I enjoyed each of the books in the SoI&F series individually as well as part of the series. They were and remain good reads, regardless of whether the series continues, stops entirely, or slowly declines into unreadable drek. Those books are what I paid my money for, not some promise of books to come. My buying the first book of a series doesn't obligate the author to do anything just as his writing a sequel doesn't obligate me to buy or read it.
Yes. To try one more analogy, the cancellation of Duke Nukem Forever does not diminish my enjoyment or investment in the original game, and 3D Realms failure to deliver another game, while ultimately hurting their own interest, did not break a social contract with me.
To try one more analogy, the cancellation of Duke Nukem Forever does not diminish my enjoyment or investment in the original game, and 3D Realms failure to deliver another game, while ultimately hurting their own interest, did not break a social contract with me.
I didn't realize that the original Duke Nukem was only part of a larger story, and failed to conclude the primary character arcs and plot that were present in the game's story. 
I didn't realize that the original Duke Nukem was only part of a larger story, and failed to conclude the primary character
arcs and plot that were present in the game's story. :twisted:
In that case, given Martin's obvious predilections, if he does fail to complete the series in his lifetime, just assume that the entirety of whatever planet Westeros is on gets sheathed in a mile-high layer of ice, causing universal extinction. Should amount to the same thing :D.
Also, according to the all knowing Wikipedia, " the first cast member, Peter Dinklage, has been cast as Tyrion Lannister" and "The pilot episode will be shot in and around Belfast in Northern Ireland during the third quarter of 2009.'
Casting Dinklage is brilliant. If the rest of the process goes as well, this series is in good hands.
Jon Snow anyone?
and...and...Edie Falco could play Cersei, and James Gandolfini could play the wall.
So how quickly does HBO get the DVDs out there? I'm not sure I want to pay for HBO for one show but I'll sure as hell buy the DVD the day it hits the shelves.
So how quickly does HBO get the DVDs out there? I'm not sure I want to pay for HBO for one show but I'll sure as hell buy the DVD the day it hits the shelves.
It would be nice if HBO and the other premium cable channels offered a season pass system like Apple. I don't want to pay for an entire month, but there is a handlful of shows, such as this and Weeds, that I would gladly pay a la carte.
Jon Snow anyone?
Emile Hirsch (Speed Racer) maybe...
bnpederson wrote:So how quickly does HBO get the DVDs out there? I'm not sure I want to pay for HBO for one show but I'll sure as hell buy the DVD the day it hits the shelves.
It would be nice if HBO and the other premium cable channels offered a season pass system like Apple. I don't want to pay for an entire month, but there is a handlful of shows, such as this and Weeds, that I would gladly pay a la carte.
You can buy Weeds on DVD.
As to the series thing, Fed's pretty much put out my thoughts on it. If you're going to commit to writing a series of novels, then do so. Time doesn't matter, your weight doesn't matter, but staying true to the intent of the series does. Writing 4 novels of SoF&I then writing the 5th as something completely different? That's called 'bait and switch', and you'd find me taking the book back for a full refund in that case.
So how quickly does HBO get the DVDs out there? I'm not sure I want to pay for HBO for one show but I'll sure as hell buy the DVD the day it hits the shelves.
They seem to be pretty good about it. And likewise, I don't think I'd get HBO (I'd have to get cable tv first) just for this, but I'd buy the DVD's on day 1 in the store!
I'd buy the DVD's day one too, but they'll probably cancel it before it's over (Deadwood, Carnivale).
I'd buy the DVD's day one too, but they'll probably cancel it before it's over (Deadwood, Carnivale).
Hey, at least if that happens you won't be left wondering how you can see more of the story. 
Hey, at least if that happens you won't be left wondering how you can see more of the story.
Unless of course GRRM dies... 
Badferret wrote:To try one more analogy, the cancellation of Duke Nukem Forever does not diminish my enjoyment or investment in the original game, and 3D Realms failure to deliver another game, while ultimately hurting their own interest, did not break a social contract with me.
I didn't realize that the original Duke Nukem was only part of a larger story, and failed to conclude the primary character arcs and plot that were present in the game's story. :twisted:
Obviously you have forgotten that;
Duke Nukem 3D is set "sometime in the early 21st century" in a broken and morally corrupt Los Angeles, and expands to locations such as lunar space stations.[1] Through cutscenes and gameplay, the premise is that an alien transgenic species has infiltrated Earth in Duke's absence. Upon crash landing back to Earth, Duke finds most humans to be absent, with a few attractive women remaining as diversions for the aliens. American civilization has been reduced to a virtual wasteland while pornography has become the sole source of entertainment. As well as killing aliens to free Earth, players must also solve puzzles to progress through the various levels. Some puzzles allow access to hidden levels.
I for one have been waiting all of these years to learn the fate of Duke, the few attractive women remaining and many other mystery's that rival my curiosity about the fate of house Stark. 
bnpederson wrote:So how quickly does HBO get the DVDs out there? I'm not sure I want to pay for HBO for one show but I'll sure as hell buy the DVD the day it hits the shelves.
They seem to be pretty good about it. And likewise, I don't think I'd get HBO (I'd have to get cable tv first) just for this, but I'd buy the DVD's on day 1 in the store!
HBO is okay about the DVD's. For the bigger production shows like Rome, the dvds came out waaaay late because the production on season 2 was taking forever. I would use that more as a model for when the dvds will come out for this series as opposed to the release schedule for something like Big Love.
Also, on The Wire, once HBO caught up on their dvd releases (season 1 didn't come out until season 3, but that was "way back" in 2004), they held onto releasing the dvds until a month or so before the next season. That way they could maximize publicity for the new season.
So, in the end, don't count on the dvds for Fire & Ice coming out right away. I'm not saying you should pay for HBO for this show, but there are other ways to get to see the show before the dvds come out. Just sayin.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but there is absolutely no basis for it. If a publisher has no confidence in a work, they won't buy it, period. They pay authors based on whether or not the book will sell. No sales? No deal, plain and simple. We as consumers have far more power in this regard than you're giving us credit. Now, do established authors get a little(perhaps even a lot) more leeway in this regard? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that if they put out a continuation of a series that falls flat on its' face that they'll continue supporting the author. No publisher on earth would spend money on an author with no possibility of turning a profit, it's really that simple.
I am not arguing that there isn't a connection. I am arguing that the connection doesn't provide any reader to any sense of entitlement or set an expectation on the author BEYOND what the PUBLISHER sets. Clearly there is a relationship, which I thought I acknowledged in my last post. I specifically mentioned that if you are unhappy with an author (or artist in nearly any medium) stop buying their work, and if enough of you do that, the publisher will notice and make plans accordingly. But that connection doesn't mean that you're paying George's salary and therefore have a "say" into what he works on next. It just doesn't no matter how you argue it. That's my last comment on this particular element in the thread, since we appear to be talking around each other. It's cool that we can disagree amicably here.
As for the boardgame: it was very well done to my mind. It captured the tensions (Diplomacy style) between the great houses; the manner in which orders were placed and resolved worked well with the theme and made for compelling gameplay. The crux as others have noted is the number of players. It is possible, given the various house starting positions, to have a sub-optimal start (or conversely too much freedom) in the early game when playing with a small set of players. The game really shines the most when you have a full complement, and especially when you bring in the second expansion.
On a completely unrelated note: Today I found a copy of Wild Cards Book 1 at the used book store today. I did a little happy dance.
I really want to try the board game. A chance to play the Starks would be awesome.
I should go check its rating on the board game geek.
The board game is fun. Diplomacy is the obvious comparison, but AGOT is far more forgiving. The card deck mechanic is a little wonky. (You can go a looong time between getting reinforcements. In fact, it is possible to go an entire game without drawing that card. Likewise, the card which puts the turn order up for bidding can come up quite rarely... or it can happen three turns in a row.) It is also a little too easy to lock someone out of the water. I understand one or other of the expansions address these problems (as do certain house rules you may find).
All told, I think Diplomacy is a more satisfying game, even if it is more conducive to physical violence.
Guys, it's time to move on or start a new thread.
Pages