Active Users:331 Time:20/04/2025 01:28:49 PM
But a promise was never made. Werthead Send a noteboard - 19/09/2009 06:04:55 PM
A promise was made. That promise was not kept. And that is further backed up by his feelings on the issue- the only reason he started the series was because of the promise of completion in the near future.


The note in the back of AFFC says specifically that ADWD "wasn't close to finished yet," (direct quotation) and that it "will be along next year, (I devoutly hope)," (direct quotation).

It was an expression of hope that was then supersceded by other events (the decision to rewrite significant amounts of that material).

Even if reliance theory was applicable, would it not also apply to the quality of the work? Because if ADWD had been published in 2006, it would have been an outstandingly weak book (based on the sample chapters available at the time) and people would be complaining at length about that.

As for the other point, even if ADWD had come out in 2006, there were still two more books to come, and we'd still be waiting for them even now. There never was any promise of completion of the whole series in the 'near future', certainly not in 2006 and not now either.
Reply to message
Now I understand why everyone has been bitching about a Dance of Dragons.... - 18/09/2009 12:36:21 AM 1198 Views
Welcome my son....welcome to the machine...... *NM* - 18/09/2009 03:06:36 AM 366 Views
lol Nice. *NM* - 20/09/2009 12:28:08 AM 326 Views
It's not just that. He split A Feast for Crows into two. - 18/09/2009 03:10:35 AM 494 Views
Re: It's not just that. He split A Feast for Crows into two. *NM* - 18/09/2009 04:04:06 AM 402 Views
Titles - 18/09/2009 04:15:24 AM 463 Views
Ok, Martin is published by Bantam...replace "Tor" with "Bantam" - 18/09/2009 05:43:51 PM 484 Views
Nope, still doesn't work. - 18/09/2009 08:49:09 PM 455 Views
Re: Nope, still doesn't work. - 18/09/2009 10:46:59 PM 349 Views
Is this the thread in which you'll FINALLY reveal... - 20/09/2009 12:31:49 AM 378 Views
Remember what The Neil said: "GRRM is not your bitch!" *NM* - 18/09/2009 07:32:47 AM 369 Views
I don't give a shit what Neil Gaiman thinks - 18/09/2009 05:35:54 PM 375 Views
Gaiman = The Most Overrated Author of the New Milennium. *NM* - 20/09/2009 12:33:10 AM 343 Views
In your opinion, of course. *NM* - 20/09/2009 01:28:33 AM 334 Views
Yes, and this entire thread deals with opinions. - 20/09/2009 01:52:21 AM 331 Views
I see the reason in that. - 20/09/2009 02:13:46 AM 514 Views
He might be a good comic book author, I don't know - 20/09/2009 03:05:15 AM 396 Views
I see where there might be a misunderstanding. - 20/09/2009 03:05:24 AM 449 Views
You're the man, Wert. - 20/09/2009 03:29:41 AM 424 Views
Still ruling WOT, I see. How's that going? *NM* - 18/09/2009 03:26:15 AM 316 Views
Very well, thanks - 18/09/2009 04:05:16 AM 396 Views
One thing I got to say about Robert Jordan... - 18/09/2009 03:40:20 AM 501 Views
Sometimes ... - 18/09/2009 05:07:18 AM 420 Views
I agree! - 18/09/2009 01:39:04 PM 410 Views
Sometimes...Neil Gaiman should be thrown into a meat grinder. - 18/09/2009 05:49:56 PM 458 Views
You paid for a product. You got a product. That is the end of the matter in its entirety. - 18/09/2009 09:03:05 PM 417 Views
Was this well out of line, by any chance? - 18/09/2009 10:25:57 PM 455 Views
damn you are rude *NM* - 18/09/2009 10:51:19 PM 328 Views
Gosh. This is pretty tiring. - 18/09/2009 11:25:51 PM 468 Views
So this guy still hasn't been banned yet, why exactly? - 19/09/2009 04:13:05 PM 422 Views
For several reasons. *NM* - 19/09/2009 10:15:38 PM 312 Views
Get off your high horse. Someone disagrees with you. Deal with it. *NM* - 20/09/2009 12:35:24 AM 315 Views
No, this guy is breaching the forum rules on attacks and insults. - 20/09/2009 02:57:20 AM 359 Views
What would you call a good start? - 20/09/2009 03:25:46 AM 347 Views
Oh please. Grow some thicker skin. - 20/09/2009 03:26:33 AM 358 Views
You think this behaviour would have been tolerated on Wotmania? It definitely would not have been. - 20/09/2009 03:31:20 AM 389 Views
That is factually incorrect. *NM* - 20/09/2009 03:38:06 AM 318 Views
"It" would have been. "It" was. - 20/09/2009 05:45:14 AM 394 Views
Depends on which section of wotmania you're thinking about - 20/09/2009 06:54:00 AM 389 Views
Precisely. *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:30:12 AM 313 Views
I half agree... - 20/09/2009 04:35:22 AM 376 Views
What's with the ad hominems, Tom? - 20/09/2009 06:57:33 AM 355 Views
Irony overdose. Again. - 19/09/2009 06:28:49 AM 359 Views
WTF? - 20/09/2009 01:49:23 AM 405 Views
- 20/09/2009 03:00:53 AM 396 Views
that would be very counter productive - 18/09/2009 10:50:01 PM 349 Views
Depends on what you want. - 18/09/2009 11:26:54 PM 342 Views
That's the most valid point of the argument. - 18/09/2009 11:54:26 PM 393 Views
Agreed. - 19/09/2009 03:02:48 AM 375 Views
Now to me that supports Tom's point about 'reliance theory'. - 19/09/2009 05:55:28 PM 396 Views
But a promise was never made. - 19/09/2009 06:04:55 PM 386 Views
I think we're hung up on the definition of "promise." - 19/09/2009 07:14:30 PM 358 Views
Who is GGK and where is his article? + my opinion on Martin - 19/09/2009 07:55:01 PM 403 Views
This is where the great divide comes into play - 19/09/2009 08:10:09 PM 384 Views
I think he should take a page out of RJ's book - 19/09/2009 08:36:55 PM 419 Views
Excellent point. - 19/09/2009 10:09:36 PM 370 Views
Re: Excellent point. - 20/09/2009 12:21:21 AM 388 Views
That would be the best policy. *NM* - 19/09/2009 11:23:48 PM 292 Views
Re: Who is GGK and where is his article? + my opinion on Martin - 19/09/2009 11:22:25 PM 436 Views
Re: I think we're hung up on the definition of "promise." - 19/09/2009 08:04:53 PM 365 Views
Exceptions prove the rule... - 19/09/2009 08:42:39 PM 349 Views
Re: Exceptions prove the rule... - 19/09/2009 10:00:35 PM 346 Views
I think we're winding down here. - 20/09/2009 07:41:15 AM 338 Views
Yeah. - 19/09/2009 11:27:04 PM 401 Views
Don't mind me, I just can't post in the right place. *NM* - 19/09/2009 07:13:25 PM 348 Views