Active Users:910 Time:03/01/2026 01:44:10 AM
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 1237 Views
Welcome my son....welcome to the machine...... *NM* - 18/09/2009 03:06:36 AM 405 Views
lol Nice. *NM* - 20/09/2009 12:28:08 AM 392 Views
It's not just that. He split A Feast for Crows into two. - 18/09/2009 03:10:35 AM 536 Views
Re: It's not just that. He split A Feast for Crows into two. *NM* - 18/09/2009 04:04:06 AM 444 Views
Titles - 18/09/2009 04:15:24 AM 499 Views
Ok, Martin is published by Bantam...replace "Tor" with "Bantam" - 18/09/2009 05:43:51 PM 532 Views
Nope, still doesn't work. - 18/09/2009 08:49:09 PM 501 Views
Re: Nope, still doesn't work. - 18/09/2009 10:46:59 PM 386 Views
Is this the thread in which you'll FINALLY reveal... - 20/09/2009 12:31:49 AM 419 Views
Remember what The Neil said: "GRRM is not your bitch!" *NM* - 18/09/2009 07:32:47 AM 407 Views
I don't give a shit what Neil Gaiman thinks - 18/09/2009 05:35:54 PM 412 Views
Gaiman = The Most Overrated Author of the New Milennium. *NM* - 20/09/2009 12:33:10 AM 384 Views
In your opinion, of course. *NM* - 20/09/2009 01:28:33 AM 381 Views
Yes, and this entire thread deals with opinions. - 20/09/2009 01:52:21 AM 366 Views
I see the reason in that. - 20/09/2009 02:13:46 AM 561 Views
He might be a good comic book author, I don't know - 20/09/2009 03:05:15 AM 438 Views
I see where there might be a misunderstanding. - 20/09/2009 03:05:24 AM 486 Views
You're the man, Wert. - 20/09/2009 03:29:41 AM 464 Views
Still ruling WOT, I see. How's that going? *NM* - 18/09/2009 03:26:15 AM 358 Views
Very well, thanks - 18/09/2009 04:05:16 AM 433 Views
One thing I got to say about Robert Jordan... - 18/09/2009 03:40:20 AM 544 Views
Sometimes ... - 18/09/2009 05:07:18 AM 464 Views
I agree! - 18/09/2009 01:39:04 PM 450 Views
Sometimes...Neil Gaiman should be thrown into a meat grinder. - 18/09/2009 05:49:56 PM 495 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 459 Views
Was this well out of line, by any chance? - 18/09/2009 10:25:57 PM 494 Views
damn you are rude *NM* - 18/09/2009 10:51:19 PM 372 Views
Gosh. This is pretty tiring. - 18/09/2009 11:25:51 PM 508 Views
So this guy still hasn't been banned yet, why exactly? - 19/09/2009 04:13:05 PM 467 Views
For several reasons. *NM* - 19/09/2009 10:15:38 PM 355 Views
Get off your high horse. Someone disagrees with you. Deal with it. *NM* - 20/09/2009 12:35:24 AM 352 Views
No, this guy is breaching the forum rules on attacks and insults. - 20/09/2009 02:57:20 AM 404 Views
What would you call a good start? - 20/09/2009 03:25:46 AM 387 Views
Oh please. Grow some thicker skin. - 20/09/2009 03:26:33 AM 396 Views
You think this behaviour would have been tolerated on Wotmania? It definitely would not have been. - 20/09/2009 03:31:20 AM 427 Views
That is factually incorrect. *NM* - 20/09/2009 03:38:06 AM 357 Views
"It" would have been. "It" was. - 20/09/2009 05:45:14 AM 432 Views
Depends on which section of wotmania you're thinking about - 20/09/2009 06:54:00 AM 432 Views
Precisely. *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:30:12 AM 352 Views
I half agree... - 20/09/2009 04:35:22 AM 414 Views
What's with the ad hominems, Tom? - 20/09/2009 06:57:33 AM 392 Views
Irony overdose. Again. - 19/09/2009 06:28:49 AM 401 Views
WTF? - 20/09/2009 01:49:23 AM 447 Views
- 20/09/2009 03:00:53 AM 430 Views
that would be very counter productive - 18/09/2009 10:50:01 PM 385 Views
Depends on what you want. - 18/09/2009 11:26:54 PM 382 Views
That's the most valid point of the argument. - 18/09/2009 11:54:26 PM 434 Views
Agreed. - 19/09/2009 03:02:48 AM 420 Views
Now to me that supports Tom's point about 'reliance theory'. - 19/09/2009 05:55:28 PM 438 Views
But a promise was never made. - 19/09/2009 06:04:55 PM 423 Views
I think we're hung up on the definition of "promise." - 19/09/2009 07:14:30 PM 396 Views
Who is GGK and where is his article? + my opinion on Martin - 19/09/2009 07:55:01 PM 448 Views
This is where the great divide comes into play - 19/09/2009 08:10:09 PM 424 Views
I think he should take a page out of RJ's book - 19/09/2009 08:36:55 PM 457 Views
Excellent point. - 19/09/2009 10:09:36 PM 425 Views
Re: Excellent point. - 20/09/2009 12:21:21 AM 434 Views
That would be the best policy. *NM* - 19/09/2009 11:23:48 PM 333 Views
Re: Who is GGK and where is his article? + my opinion on Martin - 19/09/2009 11:22:25 PM 477 Views
Re: I think we're hung up on the definition of "promise." - 19/09/2009 08:04:53 PM 410 Views
Exceptions prove the rule... - 19/09/2009 08:42:39 PM 394 Views
Re: Exceptions prove the rule... - 19/09/2009 10:00:35 PM 388 Views
I think we're winding down here. - 20/09/2009 07:41:15 AM 380 Views
Yeah. - 19/09/2009 11:27:04 PM 440 Views
Don't mind me, I just can't post in the right place. *NM* - 19/09/2009 07:13:25 PM 389 Views