Author/Reader Relationships

[imrahil]

IÔÇÖve been reading a lot of stuff lately about the rather unique relationship between authors/creators and their audiences ÔÇô and more specifically, their relationship with fans. I think a lot of what IÔÇÖve been reading offers some insight into some of the strong feelings being expressed about Thunt and the comic lately, and I thought it would be interesting and useful to discuss them.

I would like to emphasize, however, that this is not a thread for making complaints, for airing grievances, or otherwise stirring up trouble. This is for having a serious, respectful conversation about the relationship between authors and audiences, what each owes the other. This isnÔÇÖt for rehashing old arguments or pushing peopleÔÇÖs buttons, and if you donÔÇÖt feel like you can contribute without doing those things, please refrain from posting, for everyoneÔÇÖs sake (including and especially the mods). Furthermore, if you find yourself unable to read anything posted in here without getting angry, I would like to politely ask that you refrain from reading/posting ÔÇô no sense reading things that make you angry, after all, and itÔÇÖs better for everyone if people donÔÇÖt have their feelings hurt.

So, to the matter: There have been a fair few well-known examples of author/creators (whom I will just refer to as ÔÇ£authorsÔÇØ from here on out) having some complex, even adversarial, relationships with their audiences. One of the best-known is George Lucas, of Han Shot First fame. The fan reaction to LucasÔÇÖs change to Episode IV was extremely passionate (and almost universally negative), to the point of it being labeled a ÔÇ£crimeÔÇØ and the issuance of petitions for the change to be removed.

Another prominent (and more recent) example would be the case of George R.R. Martin, author of the Song of Ice and Fire series (perhaps more popularly known by the HBO title, Game of Thrones). Martin has been criticized for what some view as an excessively long gap between publications of novels in the series; five years passed between the release of the third and fourth books, and six years elapsed between the publication of the fourth and the fifth. More specifically, some see MartinÔÇÖs side projects and other activities as evidence of him wasting his time/procrastinating when he ÔÇ£should be finishing the series.ÔÇØ There is also concern that, given MartinÔÇÖs age and speculations about his health, that the series may never be finished ÔÇô concerns that are intensified by MartinÔÇÖs feelings about others finishing his work, as well as the unfortunate case of Robert Jordan, who died before he could complete his extremely lengthy Wheel of Time series (which was later finished by Brandon Sanderson). Some have gone so far as to suggest that Martin has lost interest in the series, particularly now that he has been able to ÔÇ£cash inÔÇØ with the HBO series. However, Martin also has his defenders, most notably Neil Gaiman, who wrote a passionate defense of the Thrones author on his blog (be warned, some NSFW language in there).

As an additional interesting historical example, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle eventually got sick of writing Sherlock Holmes stories (which he considered to be fairly low brow entertainment), and tried to kill him off ÔÇô but the public demand for Holmes was so great, and the hit to the publisher so tremendous, that he ended up resurrecting the famous detective.

And, germane to these forums, of course, we have Goblins ÔÇô an ongoing webcomic that recently went on a rather substantial unplanned hiatus with little word from the author for weeks. Some readers have expressed frustrations with the apparent cessation of the comic; the inconsistency/missing of deadlines; the manner in which the hiatus has been communicated to the audience, etc.

What I think unites all of these examples is that, in each case, a substantial part of the fans of each series demonstrate a sense of entitlement or ownership of the works ÔÇô in the case of Star Wars, fans felt that their reading of the films was just as (perhaps even more) legitimate as Lucas; MartinÔÇÖs fans feel they are owed a (timely) resolution to the series; DoyleÔÇÖs readers literally couldnÔÇÖt let the man stop writing the character they loved, regardless of how miserable it made him; and some of ThuntÔÇÖs audience seems to be primarily angry about inconsistency in communication/long-elapsed missed deadlines (albeit ones that were self-imposed by the author).

So I think the interesting question for discussion here is: what, if anything, do authors owe their audiences? We might even tighten up the question a little further and write what the authors of serial fiction owe their audiences (since each of these creators produce(d) ongoing stories in multiple installments).

GaimanÔÇÖs blog offers some initial thoughts on the matter, which IÔÇÖll try and condense here:

1) There is ÔÇ£no contractÔÇØ between the reader and the audience beyond ÔÇ£I will pay x dollars for this volume of fiction.ÔÇØ Any expectation beyond seeing a bunch of chapters bound between two covers is inappropriate, because the author ÔÇ£is not working for youÔÇØ (italic emphasis is GaimanÔÇÖs).

2) The creative process is such that authors often cannot work according to strict deadlines ÔÇô they may need to rest, recharge, come at the thing from a different angle, etc.

I think there is some truth in what Gaiman has to say here, especially his second point. I think his first point, however, is open to some discussion. While certainly there is no legal contract between author and audience, I think there is a kind of social contract which ought to be respected, particularly in serial fiction.

In a series, one signs up for an ongoing story with the expectation that the story will reach a (hopefully satisfying) conclusion. One does not typically buy ÔÇ£part 1 of the [x] seriesÔÇØ with the intent only to read the first installment. They may have the caveat that they will not buy more books if the first is not to their liking, but no one buys a book with the intent of not liking it ÔÇô the goal is to enjoy the book and then enjoy its sequels. If I go and buy the first book of a trilogy, I have a reasonable expectation that the author is going to make an honest effort to finish it.

This, I think, is where the issue of timeliness comes up. Authors arenÔÇÖt machines and cannot be expected to mathematically produce their work as one might produce widgets. Deadlines are always going to be fluid to some extent, especially when the quality of the work is a concern. Surely, though, there is some kind of line- taking five years off from writing to travel the world might seem a bit excessive in terms of ÔÇ£recharging the batteriesÔÇØ for creative work. Where this line falls is hard to determine, though, and I think is worth discussion. And itÔÇÖs possible that the line varies for each author, and that the appropriate way for the line to be managed is to manage reader expectations (Martin has his own approach to this, which for many years was to leave readers in the dark about the progress of his work. More recently, heÔÇÖs opened up a teeny tiny bit, but for the most part, he says very little).

We also have the concept of fan ownership of a series. Star Wars and Holmes fans felt a possessiveness about those stories, such that certain choices by the creators themselves were sharply criticized as being wrong and in need of modification. And we might consider the extent to which those fans may have been right; their ongoing support and interest in those series may give them some kind of claim over the properties, as without their patronage and enthusiasm, they would not exist. And in the case of some authors, fan feedback plays some sort of role in how they approach their ongoing work ÔÇô potentially altering their approach/content based upon what theyÔÇÖve heard from their audience.

So a second big question is: to what extent do fans have a claim on a series?

Now, IÔÇÖve put a lot out there already. I have some more thoughts, but I think IÔÇÖll save them until after weÔÇÖve gotten some other thoughts/responses here and the discussion is rolling. IÔÇÖd like to encourage everyone to draw upon their feelings/experiences with their various fandoms, though ÔÇô I gave the above examples to help get things started, but IÔÇÖm sure there are a great many others that would be worth comparing.

[DrinksTooMuchCoffee]

I'm with Gaiman. As far as Goblins goes, THunt's a guy drawing a comic, I get to see it, and that's the end of it. Just because it's in-progress doesn't convey to me any expectation or ownership. It's not my story, I'm not writing it, and it's not written for me. Sure, I'd like to see the end of it, but I'm not owed that. Yes, there are series that I would liked to have seen more installments of, but that's as far as it goes. "I would have liked there to be more" = "I would like have liked there to be more". The end. Just because I was temporally coexistent with the creation doesn't give me ownership or investment in the work or artist. They are not my servant, slave, or bitch, to continue to serve my will until I tire of them. Wanting more from them does not, just flat does not, obligate them to do so.

[mortissimus]

I would say that the social contract of storytelling - all storytelling, mind you - is along the lines of the audience suspending their disbelief and the storyteller will tell a story. Disappointment in the audience is natural if the story appears to go nowhere, either because it is circling round and round or because the telling has slowed down so much that it distracts from the actual story. Disappointment follows the usual pattern of voice and exit, some leave will others speak out (in a constructive or less constructive way). In this perspective, those that voice their disappointment is not only an annoyance, but also a placeholder for the views of those leaving without telling why - market research if you will.

Given that this won't change, the difficulty for authors - and in particular authors who choose to start to publish an ongoing series before they finish it - lies in handling it.

Also from this perspective, the audience claiming the story as with Lucas and Doyle or indeed all fanfiction that explores the story in a different direction, is a sign of parts of the audience feeling that the author did not live up to his or her end and they can no longer suspend their disbelief.

[Sessine]

There are a lot of signs George Lucas didn't grasp why his original Star Wars movie resonated so deeply with fans. It definitely did. It's no exaggeration to say that it became the mythology of an entire generation of kids, mine amongst them.

I believe it had the impact it did because, for that first movie, Lucas had just read Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces. He consciously reshaped his draft-version script to follow the Hero's Journey. He wasn't merely telling a story, he was retelling The Story, the timeless tale that Always Works because it's Right.

Han Solo filled the role of the morally ambiguous Shapeshifter character, perhaps helpful, not reliable. Han shot first because he knew Greedo was about to. That felt right. It made him a survivor on the shady side of life. It worked. It fit the mythic pattern.

Twenty years later, after those kids had grown into adults, in a re-release, Lucas decided to change his story. Not only that, he claimed that Greedo was always supposed to have fired the first shot, it was **cough** poor camerawork that made it seem otherwise. (The original script does not support him on this.) It's not surprising that fans objected. Lucas was meddling with an archetypal story that they'd grown up with, a story so powerful that in many cases they had internalized it and made it part of their personal philosophy of life. This happens. When a story really rings true, people adopt it.

When the creator then says, "Psych! Fooled you! I've changed my mind. It didn't happen that way at all," ...well. There's resistance.

Did Lucas have the right to change his movie? Of course. Was he right to do so? I'd say no. It damaged the crucial establishing moment for Solo. So why did he do it?

[CooksACarrot]

I've always avoided the "Han Shot First" debate, but the change that really bothered me (Even more than the now ambulatory Jabba who came to do his own dirty work and repeat dialogue) was in the DVD release. At the end of Jedi, Anakin appears as he did in Revenge of the Sith. This felt like a betrayal of the character's arc. That Anakin was irrevocably associated with the Dark Side, at his furthest point from the Light Side. He had not yet gone through any of the necessary steps towards redemption that he would experience as Darth Vader. But Anakin as he died had returned to the Light Side, he had been redeemed and was once again a Jedi. Obi Wan and Yoda had not reverted to a more youthful form. They were represented as they were when they had died. That change always bothered me more than anything. And it isn't something you can ignore like Greedo's shot, which only takes a moment of screen time. The ghost scene is well over a minute.

[DrinksTooMuchCoffee]

I prefer the shooting-first, looking out for #1 Solo as well, but my response to Lucas would just be, "Dammit, George, that totally changes the character and thus the story and here's why...", not "@#$% you, Lucas! You ruined my Star Wars!". And Ep. I-III also totally failed to live up to what imaginations had invented around the mythic outline of Vader's fall, but that's still no reason to smear feces on Lucas' car. (Not that I know anyone actually did that, but it seems like someone would have if they had the opportunity. )

Oh, it occurs to me that there may be some parallels to the general topic of the thread in subscription or accumulative purchase games. It's something like, "Because I bought this from you, you owe me." And again my response is that, no, you bought X for Y, and that's the end of it. It was a purchase, not a favor to place them in your debt. While they benefited from your purchase, you received the product in return and thus the transaction is completed. (No altering the deal! Okay, not exactly appropriate, but having thought it I can't resist saying it. )

[ardenwolf]

When people dedicate themselves to a story, they do so with the expectation the story will reach completion.

If a storyteller was to tell you, hey I have great story but am only going to tell the first quarter of it and that's it rest I'm going to leave forever in limbo. Honestly would you even bother reading it? I know I wouldn't.

So yes there is that expectation and social contract, anything else would be dishonest. Besides I doubt any writer goes into this desiring to disappoint their fans and leave their work unfinished.

So now we go full circle. There are things that happen outside a writers control, writers die, crippling writer's block, mental breakdowns, ect. These are not the writer's fault, some stories are cursed to never be finished.

When you start telling a story, you make a commitment to finish the story for your audience, you owe it to both yourself and them to finish it, BUT that's not always possible, things happen. It doesn't change the social contract, it's just the facts of life, and it happens. People fail, life sucks, stories don't get completed, people get disappointed.

The does the writer owe his audience or not is complete bs, the entire argument is all finger pointing, being upset is right, the social contract/expectation is failed, you are not being given the whole promised story, but at the same time, this happens because of things outside the writer's control.

No one is to blame, everyone is right, this is how life works.

Thunt started goblins, has made it clear how much he loves his story, how he can't wait for us to see it's conclusion and all the twists and turns getting there. He recognizes and wants to fill that social contract. He didn't go into this expecting he might fail, that things would happen to prevent it. He's trying. He knows people are upset, and unlike a lot of people, I'm sure he's fully understanding that this is the case and that people have the right to upset. He's been failing, and I'm sure part of the reason he's so upset is because he recognizes the contract and expectations and his failing HURT HIM AND BOTHER HIM.

Soooo telling him, it's ok, there's no expectations, he owes us nothing, flies in the face of what he himself likely feels, and spits in the faces of those who care enough about his work to actually be upset at it's loss.

He feels guilty, others are upset, expectations are failing to be met, this is because of things outside Thunt's control.

Let's all be mature and do the adult thing. Accept the truth and move on.

The truth: Thunt wants to but cannot currently meet expectations, this is scary because many of us are in love with and want to see the rest of the story. No one went into this with the understanding it would never be finished. Thunt didn't go into this with the expectation it would never be finished. Life, however, has a tendency to destroy the best laid plans. Thunt owes us the rest of the story, he knows he owes us the rest of the story, he wants to deliver us the rest of the story, he can't finish the rest of the story currently for reasons outside his control, but he is trying.

He owed us the rest of the story the second he started telling it, but let's be realistic, how often in life do any of us have the ability to follow through with everything they start?

[Guus]

Honestly, all these points have been discussed before. Let me add something else that has been discussed to get the discussion up to the level where new stuff HAS to be discussed

That point is choice. The author of a work decides how he interacts with his audience. If he decides to work on his book in seclusion that's fine. There will be people complaining about the lack of communication, but it's his right.
However, if an artist decides to actively communicate with his audience, he creates certain expectations and it's reasonable that his fans call him out on a sudden lack of communication. THunt has done this, and the social construct he created between him and the fans mean that the fans get to be critical about a sudden change in this situation.
Does an author owe us anything except what he has delivered us already? No. But it's really lame to start a story, getting a fanbase and then leave them with something unfinished. It happens, there are most often good reasons for it happening, but it's still a huge let down to the fans. The author doesn't owe fans in the literal sense, but in the social construct, as soon as he actively communicates with the audience and promises to try and keep them happy (which has often been heavily implied in his blogs/tweets/etcetera).
Counter arguments for this are that the author can't control all aspects of his life, that expectation doesn't mean right, and in Tarol's case that he has already given us so much.
Both sides are valid, although that social construct is very important to me personally.

I doubt we've missed something in the discussions past weeks, but I'll check the thread regularly, maybe someone gets a stroke of genius

[GlibTongue]

I usually despise these types of discussions, because they're usually biased towards the 'writer/artist'.

I put it as simply as I am able. A writer tells a story. I read the story. He does it for his reasons. I do it for mine.

I don't feel like the writer has 'done' anything for me. Or given me anything significant at all. In turn what have I done for him? Nothing really.

I am a simple believer in an equal exchange. If the writer/artist owes the audience nothing, then the audience owes the writer nothing.

[imrahil]

Oh, it occurs to me that there may be some parallels to the general topic of the thread in subscription or accumulative purchase games. It's something like, "Because I bought this from you, you owe me." And again my response is that, no, you bought X for Y, and that's the end of it. It was a purchase, not a favor to place them in your debt. While they benefited from your purchase, you received the product in return and thus the transaction is completed. (No altering the deal! Okay, not exactly appropriate, but having thought it I can't resist saying it. )

It's this particular notion that I find interesting in light of the way I (and some other folks I know, I guess) think about the free market and trade, etc. Because I don't think all transactions are quite so cut and dry, and I think the tendency for us to view them in that way has some dangerous, potentially dehumanizing consequences. Things like tipping spring to mind - we're under no legal obligation to servers to provide a gratuity, but there is a socially enforced expectation - indeed, a cultural expectation so great that the US Federal government set the minimum wage for waitstaff much lower than other types of work, due to the assumption that adequate tipping will take place to make up the difference.

Or to use a game example - what about bugs in video games? Are the publishers under any obligation to issue patches for them? We could make the same kind of "caveat emptor" argument with those types of goods - it's your own fault if you buy a crummy product or you are unsatisfied with it. I think most of us would feel intrinsically wronged in such a situation, yes?

And you know, I also think about shows like Firefly - are we allowed to be mad at FOX for cancelling it? I think most of the fans are/were, but do they have a right to be?

[imrahil]

Honestly, all these points have been discussed before. Let me add something else that has been discussed to get the discussion up to the level where new stuff HAS to be discussed

That point is choice. The author of a work decides how he interacts with his audience. If he decides to work on his book in seclusion that's fine. There will be people complaining about the lack of communication, but it's his right.
However, if an artist decides to actively communicate with his audience, he creates certain expectations and it's reasonable that his fans call him out on a sudden lack of communication. THunt has done this, and the social construct he created between him and the fans mean that the fans get to be critical about a sudden change in this situation.
Does an author owe us anything except what he has delivered us already? No. But it's really lame to start a story, getting a fanbase and then leave them with something unfinished. It happens, there are most often good reasons for it happening, but it's still a huge let down to the fans. The author doesn't owe fans in the literal sense, but in the social construct, as soon as he actively communicates with the audience and promises to try and keep them happy (which has often been heavily implied in his blogs/tweets/etcetera).
Counter arguments for this are that the author can't control all aspects of his life, that expectation doesn't mean right, and in Tarol's case that he has already given us so much.
Both sides are valid, although that social construct is very important to me personally.

I doubt we've missed something in the discussions past weeks, but I'll check the thread regularly, maybe someone gets a stroke of genius

I like this notion of the creation/management of expectations. I think that may be an area where Martin differs - he literally posted *no* updates about A Dance with Dragons for like... years.

And maybe we can say that for some authors, their relationship/interaction with their audience is part of the product itself? That is, that part of the reason why readers follow something might be the level of attention they receive from their authors. I'm thinking now about celebrities with strong social media presences (George Takei comes to mind, but so does Patton Oswalt). Especially in the era of reality television and unbridled access to the personal lives of others, this seems like it might be a major component.

[SeeAMoose]

Hey imrahil,

First, thanks for approaching this thread like you did, I really wasn't looking forward to moderating a thread just for complaints (and I think I can speak for the whole mod team on that), but this is something else entirely. A place for discussion of a specific issue, not complaints on everything.

Second, if I might make a suggestion, it's generally better to edit your original post rather than double or triple posting.

Best,
Moose

[Jural]

I have a lot of thoughts on this... but I'll start with one that I'm sure I can convey coherently:

The daily/weekly/periodically updating nature of a WebComic may just not be suitable for telling complicated story arcs. I believe this is a problem Goblins runs into all of the time, and I can't even imagine what would happen if A Song of Fire and Ice was released serially! The following real barriers exists:

1) The amount of content released to readers is very small in each update. Just a page. Keeping each page meaningful, and updating the plot, while having the page be a stand alone entity is difficult. Keeping this page consistent with a whole story arc which may be 1000's of pages long, and allowing the audience to digest it and marinate on the implications for a day, or a week, or an indefinite amount of time may not even be dramatically appropriate, but it's a limitation of the format

2) Published content is final content (usually)- This means any sort of "creating on the fly", or "revisions" afforded a normal author can't be afforded a web comic artist. Or it can, but will really anger the fan base.

3) Income is based on the serial nature of updates. Updating once every 3 months may be the earliest limit of what the story / writing process / readership can withstand, but your business may need to post once a week in order for you to be self-sufficient.

The social contract formed between reader and author is complex. There are a set of minimum requirements an author must fulfil to his work and to keep his readers. For some stories though, I don't know if the Web comic format is appropriate and allows that to happen.

That being said- I do think that whenever a commitment is made to a group (readers, publishers, advertisers, etc), the group has every right to be upset or irritated if the commitment isn't met. Part of what every creator needs to learn is what they can and can't commit to. For me personally, that's a learning process which has taken years.

[Jural]

And you know, I also think about shows like Firefly - are we allowed to be mad at FOX for cancelling it? I think most of the fans are/were, but do they have a right to be?

Personally, I'm not sure about the concept of anger here. It's an emotion and you will feel it or not despite whether you "should" or "have the right."

Maybe a better question is- do we have the right to punish them? And the answer to me is- absolutely. Any business which acts in a way that I do not agree with I reconsider my patronage. This includes television shows, restaurants, Web Comics.

So as an example- when THunt stopped updating Goblins, I reconsidered following the story arc (and chose to stay on board.) When the Starbucks near my house acted in what I believed to be a racist manner towards my wife, I went to a Starbucks further away. When the dealership I take my car to get serviced at started to try and upsell me repeatedly, I considered not using them anymore, but opted to have a chat with the manager and see if the behavior improved.

A consumer culture pretty much demands that you react to anything you don't like by re-considering your patronage. This includes authors, restaurants, etc.

[mortissimus]

Jural,
interesting idea, that I have to mull over.

Just noting two things:
1) some webcomics has prefered to publish a couple of pages at the time, a probably exhausting option, but an option.
2) serialised storytelling was very common in the 19th century with its newspaper culture. For example, a lot of Jules Vernes books started as a serialised story that later was published as books.

I think complicated stories do have a place as serialised stories, but perhaps there are additional demands placed on the stories. Like ending each installment with a cliffhanger

[Moroser]

Seems like many people consider a reader to be a kind of a parasite. Of course the author invests a lot of work into his/her creation and a major part of the audience sometimes doesn't give a cent (a common situation for a webcomic). But it just depends on the applied business model, which can include a bulk of non-paying readers. After all, the work is financially rewarded - if the audience likes the product. The balance restored)).

I consider a relationship between an author and an audience to be mutual. A reader wants a story, an author wants somebody to read his story. That simple. I don't believe there are authors who write just for themselves and don't want their creations to be evaluated by other people. Well, surely there are some, but we'll never know their names))). Probably an author needs a reader even more than a reader needs an author.
Anyway, in a mutual relationship it would be reasonable to respect and take care of each other. Especially when it's about such a gentle matter like emotions.

[speakslittle]

The act of storytelling might introduce a social contract between author and audience, but composing a story does not.
People write things all the time that are never meant to exist outside the moment. Sometimes these pieces find their way outside anyway. Sometimes they're brought outside by the author. But these acts of composition were always only ever meant to help the author and nothing more.

[imrahil]

I have a lot of thoughts on this... but I'll start with one that I'm sure I can convey coherently:

The daily/weekly/periodically updating nature of a WebComic may just not be suitable for telling complicated story arcs. I believe this is a problem Goblins runs into all of the time, and I can't even imagine what would happen if A Song of Fire and Ice was released serially!

Well, GoT kind of IS being released serially, just in much, much bigger chunks. And I think there's been some overlap of criticism - there was a rather lengthy stretch without the comic's titular characters being featured, and Martin went through an entire book without featuring scenes about many fan favorite characters (Tyrion, any of the Starks, etc).

The following real barriers exists:

1) The amount of content released to readers is very small in each update. Just a page. Keeping each page meaningful, and updating the plot, while having the page be a stand alone entity is difficult. Keeping this page consistent with a whole story arc which may be 1000's of pages long, and allowing the audience to digest it and marinate on the implications for a day, or a week, or an indefinite amount of time may not even be dramatically appropriate, but it's a limitation of the format

2) Published content is final content (usually)- This means any sort of "creating on the fly", or "revisions" afforded a normal author can't be afforded a web comic artist. Or it can, but will really anger the fan base.

I think #1 is an interesting point, although Rich Burlew seems to manage just fine. But you may be on to something there, inasmuch as comics "read" a lot faster than plain ol' written prose - much less action takes place in a single page, and it's consumed by the reader very quickly.

#2 seems backwards to me - authors of "flesh and blood" (okay, ink and paper) works seem like they'd have a much harder time retconning errors. A webcomic artist can always go back and correct pages if he wants (kind of like Lucas with Star Wars, I guess, though that seems to support your notion of fan backlash). But in general, I think the key thing is that most authors probably don't embark on long, complicated story arcs without at least some kind of outline, right? Why would they need to "create on the fly?"

3) Income is based on the serial nature of updates. Updating once every 3 months may be the earliest limit of what the story / writing process / readership can withstand, but your business may need to post once a week in order for you to be self-sufficient.

This is a great point, and I think the Martin parallel bears this out - the man's got a separate source of income now (GoT HBO series merch/royalties/etc), so there's no real financial impetus for him to keep writing at a brisk pace. And most webcomics authors (except maybe the big boys like PvP) probably don't make nearly enough from their comic to have much leeway in terms of losing traffic - so commerce drives the story in a major way.

The social contract formed between reader and author is complex. There are a set of minimum requirements an author must fulfil to his work and to keep his readers. For some stories though, I don't know if the Web comic format is appropriate and allows that to happen.

That being said- I do think that whenever a commitment is made to a group (readers, publishers, advertisers, etc), the group has every right to be upset or irritated if the commitment isn't met. Part of what every creator needs to learn is what they can and can't commit to. For me personally, that's a learning process which has taken years.

I really like they way you've looked at the medium here, and I think you've made a great overall point. Goblins would probably read a lot better as a collected volume of finished pages, both for artistic as well as commercial reasons. Maybe Thunt would be better off by changing his business model. I'm thinking something like, he kickstarters a "volume" of Goblins with some kind of long (or indeterminate) delivery deadline, but to maintain some ongoing income, he posts sketches or work-in-progress stuff on the main Goblins site. Visitors to the site would get "sneak preview" stuff (thereby ensuring at least some site traffic), but he wouldn't have to stress about deadlines in the same way because he'd just be putting up pieces of stuff as he draws/writes - and the final product would be much more satisfying for reader/creator both.

Personally, I'm not sure about the concept of anger here. It's an emotion and you will feel it or not despite whether you "should" or "have the right."

I think it has some bearing - in some of the other threads, I saw some responses to the effect of, "how can you be mad when it's a comic that's given away for free?" And I think that is kind of an interesting question, because on the surface, it seems very selfish. But I think, as we're beginning to uncover here, it's perhaps not so much about the product as it is about the relationship between the creator and his audience, and how that relationship (and audience expectations) are managed.

And I think most of the anger is not really about the updates to the comic, really, it's about the communication. I think most readers are used to a pretty high level of communication/openness from Thunt about his personal life - and a lot of users (and indeed, Thunt himself) seem to view the relationship between themselves and the author as being more than just "seller/buyer" or "creator/audience" - the word "friend" has been used a great many times, even by people who have never met him (or even live in the same hemisphere).

And this is interesting to me, because we have an author who has (for better or worse) fostered this kind of more intimate relationship with his audience, such that they have a set of expectations that might not normally accompany other similar transactions. I mean, if one of my friends just stopped returning my calls for a couple of months, I would feel a lot of emotions - concern, certainly, but also probably (at some point) anger, especially if I know he's been getting my messages. And that's because of the nature of our relationship, not because of any legal obligation or commercial prudence.

The act of storytelling might introduce a social contract between author and audience, but composing a story does not.
People write things all the time that are never meant to exist outside the moment. Sometimes these pieces find their way outside anyway. Sometimes they're brought outside by the author. But these acts of composition were always only ever meant to help the author and nothing more.

I think it becomes "storytelling" when you make it available to an audience, though. We're not talking about someone's hidden journal, we're talking about works that are released to readers (and for profit, at that).

[speakslittle]

But what if we are? Can a text be both simultaneously?

Bradbury's Farenheit 451 was written because the author was afraid TV was making people stupid. That's his message, his meaning. He has overtly stated it, and was passionate enough about it that he walked out of at least one (two, if I remember correctly) speaking engagements when the audience started asking about censorship. So where does this text reside in the land between author and audience? Clearly the audience has claimed it, planted a flag in it that says "Censorship" and moved on. But it was his once. It had a meaning to him. Similar arguments might be made for Sherlock Holmes or Star Wars.

And more, this problem is unique to living authors.
If these authors die before their texts are released, these problems go away and we don't have to worry about who owes whom what. Jordan was a unique case, with enough warning to allow him to choose to leave material for the story. But plenty of stories end half-way and eventually we forget that we're missing part of the story until someone remembers, then there's a sigh of sadness and we move on. What's the Canterbury tales? 10% finished?

So I guess, for me, the question is what do living authors owe us. And my answer is nothing, because they've already given something timeless (or at least time-resistant).

[Mec]

This has bugged me more than it should -- enough to post.

My relationship to Thunt: author/reader

On the ad-supported webcomic: it was usually late (by Thunt's own timetable). Didn't bother me. I just mentally added +1 day to the clock.

On the hiatus: still doesn't bother me. Thunt is a talented storyteller, and a good artist, and is poor at deadlines, and now he's having trouble continuing this professional activity at all. Okay that's the new Thunt. If he can find his way to continue producing the comic, I can easily find my way to keep reading it.

On the numerous "update coming soon, blog coming soon, next comic is nearly done": that bothers me. Every one of them has turned out untrue, and it bothers me a lot to pay attention to people who say so many untrue things. As many others have said, Thunt owes me nothing -- and I agree. On the other hand, I owe Thunt nothing, and a stream of trap-door announcements is souring my enjoyment of this reader/author relationship.

On the Mr. Fingers / Doll comic: I appreciate it. That one clearly says "I am having issues continuing to produce this comic and you should not expect a regular update, or maybe even any update ever." Of course I'm horrified that Thunt is in a state where that's how he feels about his comic, but I appreciate his openness in sharing it and letting us readers know that's how he's feeling.

On the past fundraising efforts: I've contributed money (can't even remember if it was once or 2-3 times). Each time, Thunt promised thins, and each time, he delivered. "Tempts Fate oes to Hell" was unsatisfying, artistically, but some artistic creations do miss. Each time, Thunt did deliver everything he promised in exchange for my money.

On advice for Thunt: that's a different thread (and I posted there earlier).

[imrahil]

But what if we are? Can a text be both simultaneously?

Bradbury's Farenheit 451 was written because the author was afraid TV was making people stupid. That's his message, his meaning. He has overtly stated it, and was passionate enough about it that he walked out of at least one (two, if I remember correctly) speaking engagements when the audience started asking about censorship. So where does this text reside in the land between author and audience? Clearly the audience has claimed it, planted a flag in it that says "Censorship" and moved on. But it was his once. It had a meaning to him. Similar arguments might be made for Sherlock Holmes or Star Wars.

We're getting into Barthes territory here. But yeah, this is a big part of the question - who does the text belong to? The idea of simultaneously ownership intrigues me, but I think I need to mull it over a bit more.

And more, this problem is unique to living authors.
If these authors die before their texts are released, these problems go away and we don't have to worry about who owes whom what. Jordan was a unique case, with enough warning to allow him to choose to leave material for the story. But plenty of stories end half-way and eventually we forget that we're missing part of the story until someone remembers, then there's a sigh of sadness and we move on. What's the Canterbury tales? 10% finished?

I'm reminded of the Aeneid, myself.

So I guess, for me, the question is what do living authors owe us. And my answer is nothing, because they've already given something timeless (or at least time-resistant).

I don't know that I'd be so quick to say that any work of creativity is "timeless" - a lot of it, most of it, even, is pretty forgettable (in a literary-historical perspective). And while there are many different opinions about the quality of Goblins, I don't think anyone would make the argument that it ranks up there with Chaucer (that's not meant as an attack, mind you, just a realistic comparison, I think).

[speakslittle]

Mm. I guess I was thinking more on the level of the individual. Thanks to the internet, I can probably find SOMEONE to talk about The Tain with me. I suspect this lends texts an endurance they're not necessarily used to. Thirty years ago, you'd have to read a book then shove it down your friend's throats. Now you can more readily find strangers that are already talking about it.
Although I suppose in the broader, historical perspective it is hard to know whether this is more than an infinitesimal increase in the life of a text.

[StealsJoghurt]

I'm glad imrahil made this topic the way he did - I simply could not resist adding to the discussion.

The two most obvious examples that came to mind on are the infamous Half-Life 2 Episode 3 and the Mass Effect trilogy endings.

Let's begin with Episode 3. As a big fan of the series, I have bought HF2, and episode 1 and 2. To these who do not know about this, Episode 2 left the story on a great cliffhanger - with the idea that the next episode will follow soon. However, with the release date slipping, and Valve either giving some false promises and eventually going completely silent on the matter I felt more and more dissapointed.

But why the dissapointment? Afterall, they did not technically promise anything, and are not actually obliged to do anything. But through telling the story they created a relationship with the fans, and actually got people invested into it. There was an air of expectation, fuelled by the quality of the previous games, potential rumors, and evenually silence. It is funny how complete silence can actually maintain the level of expectations for quite a while - perhaps it is true that the hope always dies last.

I feel that this can be comapred to a kid waiting for a present on Christmas morning. Even though the parents were completely silent on the matter, and perhaps the only clue that he'd get a present was a tiny scrap of wrapping paper on the floor, the expectation will still be there! And imagine the dissapointment when there will be nothing under the tree in the morning.

Do the parents owe him a present? certainly not. Should he expect a present on a Christmas morning, and therefore be disapointed when there is none? I'd like to think so.
The same conclusions can be applied to HL2E3. Valve does not owe me anything, even though I paid money for their products in good faith that it'll help them develop more great games. And yet, the experience has left a bitter taste in my mouth, and damaged the relationship we had - especially through the lack of contact, news, and in the end, the game.

Let's not forget that the relationship that we have with a game, comic, book, or a movie is the reason many of us keep coming back, and spending our hard earned money. Many publishers realise that - in case of Mass Effect, the relationship and investemnt we had in the game was simply rock solid. Then the endings to Mass Effect 3 came along, and well.. they were not great to say the least. Without going into details about them, again the expectations were not met. Except this time, the endings were.. altered and expanded to help the relations. They definately did not have to do it - in fact it was almost like telling them how their story should end. However, the relationship between the authors of Mass Effect 3 and the community proved more important - even thought they did not owe us anything, they felt obliged to act. Since then, well, everything was more or less ok.

My point is, that the relationship in necessary and important, and yes, they do not owe us anything, but there are some obligations that are necessary to fulfil if they want to maintain a good relationship. I assume the perception as to what these obligations are varies from person to person. For me, what Valve should have done was to at least let us know - we cannot do episode 3 because 'here put the reason'. It is not so much the lack of the game that gets me - just lack of clarity.

In case you'd like to know - how does this relate to Goblins in my opinion? Well, not as much as I think my post makes it out to be. I do think that Thunt's ability to keep up the relationship with us over the years has been great , even with some frustrations over deadlines etc. Recent troubles are strictly related to personal/health reasons, and do not really reflect his overall ability to keep our relationship going. That is,I think, fully understandable. Health and wellbeing of the author comes first, and I'd much rather Thunt be ok than ever coming back to the comic. Having said that, it is sadly undeniable that the lack of communicating, clarity and false hopes has damaged the relationship between some readers - if I am to trust the mood of the forums lately, quite a fair bit. To me this simply shows how fragile the author/reader relationship can be.

[Griefien]

My point is, that the relationship is necessary and important, and yes, they do not owe us anything, but there are some obligations that are necessary to fulfil if they want to maintain a good relationship. I assume the perception as to what these obligations are varies from person to person.

This. it is the author who sets the boundaries for his/her 'relationship' with the readers, there is nothing truly 'owed.' but the merits of having a good relationship can't be denied. In this case i guess its more efficient for thunt to maintain a good relationship. Too bad you can't win everybody over .

I've learnt this since i've been lurking here:
Readers shouldn't take an author for granted, while authors shouldn't take readers for granted.