- Jun 17, 2005
An artist has an obligation to his art, and by extension, to the patrons of his art. By creating books that are in and of themselves NOT complete he has put an obligation on himself to complete that art.He owes people nothing. If you bought book A and enjoyed book A then great, but what in the hell does that have to do with book B? Did some of you sign a contract I wasn't aware of? The sense of entitlement among "fans" is borderline laughable.
If he wrote books that were complete stories that could be read and enjoyed by themselves, but could be extended with extra plot lines, then I would agree with you. But no one can read A Feast for Crows and think it is anything close to a complete work. He did not finish his job, but instead serialized the job into several smaller projects, with each project relying on the other ones. Seen in that light, it is clear that he does indeed have an obligation to at least put a good faith effort into finishing his work. Anything less is at least a breach of the social contract between the artist and the patrons.
Think of it this way, would you have read any of his books if you knew that he would not finish the series?