Just a couple of days ago, Lar and I were having a conversation about this society of entitlement that seems to have cropped up over the last few years. In the interest of honesty, I’ve been guilty of this myself a few times.

With that in mind, I invite you to head on over to Neil Gaiman’s site and read his thoughts on the matter.

- Because I Can.

Sohmer, I couldn't agree more. I think, once I eventually figure out how to make time travel work, I'm making one short trip to find the person who coined the phrase "The customer is always right." and removing him from the thread of life. It's a phrase that has grown from a simple strategy that improves customer relations, to everyone feeling they have the god given right to everything they ever wanted right now, and if you don't provide it, you should be fired, shot, and then eaten by rabid canines in the street.

I'm not entirely sure when the development happened, I'm sure somewhere in the 80's-90's. But customers are quite often idiots, and just because I'd really like them to buy my shiny object, doesn't mean I have to degrade myself to be a slave to their every whim.

And Sohmer finds a nice way to tell the whiners to "Shut the Fuck Up."

I was getting tired of all the "But this page wasn't what I was expecting" or "We're not moving along fast enough" or "I didn't like that joke, it sucked even though others liked it".

If it had been me, it would have just been "Shut the Fuck Up, I'm the one writing this, not you. I'm going to write what I want to write. If you like it, fine. If you don't, not my problem. I like it, others like it, and it provides me with the opportunity to make a living doing something I love. That's all I need."

I'm glad someone finally said it (with the eloquence you only get from writer, no less). I am so sick of people both here and on giantitp.com who get all indignant when the story doesn't go their way. Instead of kicking back and enjoying the free entertainment, they throw a tantrum and accuse an author of bad writing, simply because the story takes an unexpected turn. This is a society of crybabies and they all seem to have Internet access.

Hmm, enjoyed both comics for years, first time I've actually registered to reply since this is a topic I've talked with friends off and on for awhile, more in the past 6 months (since November) than before.

IMHO the new 'entitlement' feeling should be the name of the newest generation. We had the Baby Boomers, the Tweeners, Generation X, Y, Z, etc, the one coming of age now (and indeed in their early 20's) should be the "Entitlement Generation" for the simple fact that they don't seem to understand that the world, in fact, does not revolve around them.

Not to insult anyone in their late teens or early/mid 20's who is not like this but this is the result of the "we can't keep score for games because someone should get their feelings hurt", "let's have grief counselors available because someone stubbed their toe", "let's have the government take care of everyone, DEMAND IT, because no one should have to think or fend for themselves," mentality.

This same mentality will give us universal healthcare and the idea that everyone somewhere, somehow should get the same things as everyone else without working for it. In fact when politicians are promising everything on someone else's dime, why shouldn't people expect to be given everything right now? Instant gratification is the worst thing that's going on now and generations that have not really faced hardship or had to take responsibility.

The "Customer is always right" is not the problem, that is in fact a good business plan as long as it's coupled with "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". I also think the impersonal nature of the Internet makes people feel they can make comments that would get the slapped or worse IRL also. Having been on the Internet/BBS for over 15 years I have seen how people initially acted online and how they act now and am not surprised by how things are now.

I think a lot of people have lost perspective and that's a shame.

-Ozy

Personally, I don't believe the authors of my favourite books owe me squat. I'll happily buy and read A Dance with Dragons whether it comes out tomorrow or 2020 and I'm fairly certain I'll enjoy it regardless, I'm not going to fire off angry e-mails left and right demanding things. I can also say from my own writing experience at least that I'm happy I'm not in Mr. Martin's position, I have far and away more off-days than I do good writing days, and I definitely don't write well when someone tells me "write this story in this genre right now" when I'm not feeling up to the task. If he wants to work on other projects and enjoys himself more doing that, more power to him.

All that said, it could be argued that authors do owe their readers something. I'm fairly certain that the Song of Ice and Fire series is what made Mr. Martin so popular, and 4 years is a long time to wait when you've already set a hook in people's collective mouths. The fact that the man himself and many other authors have felt the need to defend his position at all rather than just ignore the nasty e-mails suggests that they do feel some guilt for making us wait. After all we're the consumer, and while we're certainly not always right we are the ones who pay their wage in the long run. We're the reason their able to paint their house, or that they have a house in the first place. Obviously that's a gross over-generalisation of the way it works but there's some truth to it.

I believe in several blog posts Mr. Martin has stated that he does want to give us a book, it's just that he wants it to be the best it can be, and that he's not finding it easy at the minute. Like I said earlier to me personally that's fine and admirable, but it might also be justifiable at this point for people to start getting a little annoyed, especially when there's been so little information about it from his end. If I were in that position I'd be honoured (and more than a little creeped out) that there are so many people who can't find anything else other than my work with which to occupy their time.

That's my two British pence on the subject anyhow. It's all up to what the author personally believes their readership is entitled to.

With all due respect, to everyone that reads this (agree or no) because I read everything written and respect and to a certain extent agree with many of the points mentioned...

As far as the consumerist thing goes, it's easier to complain once than to be grateful 50 times. When I get my hamburger without onions right at McDonald's for the first time in five years I want to give someone a hug. Instead I give them my debit card and go on my way. But when I get horrible service somewhere then I generally won't complain but I will take note of it. It's the society we live in, but I don't know if that's necessarily wrong. Now, I do understand the extremes. We see it every day. In fact, we indulge those people by giving them more time, attention, energy, and money. Your Paris Hilton and so on are all like that and it is a damn shame that little kids see that and look up to that.

Is it surprising somehow that someone that's entirely too rich would be arrogant and snobbish? Is that new? Did my generation make that up? Because I could swear I can give you a huge list of books that were written throughout history that depict the upper class as having said sense of entitlement. This behavior shouldn't be emulated, but to take someone that lives in an entirely different reality than most other people and use him as a prime example of the general population is not only unfair, but does not make for much of a cohesive argument. You can't take a musician (for lack of better word) and compare his attitude about something to that of the kids that are in their late teens.

Being one of those kids in the "Entitlement" generation I must say I do -see- these kids but they're not in the huge, huge number you may think. And we must remember that most of the ones that are like this will get past that stage. We're growing up. Give us the chance to do that. This isn't an easy world to live in (not to imply it ever has been) and we're just trying to figure it all out. We are becoming adults and finding our voices. They may sound whiny to you but give us time. You thought it was cute 15 years ago =)

I think it's a side to everyone, not just younger people. Anyone can be arrogant at times, self righteous, and so on. I don't think it's fair to say that the things that concerned parents do for their children is the sole cause of this. All parents really want is to give their kids all the good things they had as children, and compensate for the bad. I was one of those kids in the "don't keep score" games. It teaches you to have fun with it, then you can be competitive when you're older. To this day I have friends that won't go running with another individual because he tries to show them up and all they want to do is be outside and stay fit. It's good to have goals and focus and do your best but making everything a competition to somehow harden people and make them more humble doesn't work with everyone. A lot of these things have come into play because older people have had long-standing issues because someone didn't give them attention when they stubbed their toe, because someone made them feel inadequate because they weren't good at a certain game. I understand that coddling forever isn't a good thing, but in moderation at the right stages these things aren't inherently wrong.

In the forums I have made comment about what I do and do not like about the comic. But I wouldn't be reading every few days and in the forum at all if I didn't love LFG, good and bad. I do understand that to other fans that like all or most about the comic, it's free and so you shouldn't complain but what happened to constructive criticism? In my younger teen years I would post free stories online and I hated to hear "I hate this." but I would never ever complain about "I like this, but I don't really think this makes sense" or "I don't really like how you did this." When you do anything for an audience you become open to their thoughts and interpretations and speculation about that, and those thoughts do not have to be good. You can't control how other people perceive things. I think it's a matter of respect and being courteous on the side of the audience, though. And in many cases, you are right in that some people do fail to either convey that courtesy or on all sides lack it. And unfortunately, those people exist and we all have to share this world with them.

I'm rather cautious to say something, but seriously, playing a game without a score? Feeling that competitive natures should be avoided? Really, I mean it's the drive to always do better and out do the competition that has driven the human species out of the muddied gene pool and into opposable thumbs, let alone science and discovery.

Keeping score, developing competitiveness, and establishing a give and take and a record all encourage people to do better. Seriously, losing is a part of life, unfairness is a part of life. And anyone who has a really good perspective on life will tell you failing is a part of life, and embracing failure and looking to change, correct, and improve is a lifestyle where you can be happy.

To feel the need to protect your kids from the bumps, the bruises, the mistakes, the broken bones... these are the things that stories and personalities are made from! Remember that time we were so close and lost?! That was such a great game! Remember that time we swung the bat and no one kept score? No... that was tright and pointless.

Yes, some kids are born bigger and better, and are a versatile hercules, however give the other kids a goal to train and practice and beat them!

I dunnoe, fear of failure, of awkward situations, of making someone uncomfortable, of upsetting the status quo, it's leading to an environment where creative thinking and unique expression is stifled in the work place as "Politically Incorrect" and such. I like losing, losing always encourages me to play better, smarter, and change tactics next time. And it feels good to win. Playing without purpose is when life becomes monotonous and boring.

<3


That is all.

Is a "good perspective on life" not a relative thing?

I believe in competition. I don't believe in making little kids feel bad about who they are and what their weaknesses are. What you're describing to me seems to be sports in middle and senior high period, in which case I absolutely agree with you. Failure is a part of life, and a very important one at that. I believe there is a lesson to learn from everything and you can take it easy or hard but eventually you'll have to take it. But before you get there, learning the basics and about sharing and being on a team and learning to not take the small things too seriously is just as important as learning about drive. I'm not saying "don't score games ever." I've watched those non-competitive games and had many family members coach them. Those kids are usually between the ages of 4 and 7, usually on the younger end of that. Why force someone so young to grow up so fast? Let them have fun! I never ever knew any kids in the street to really keep score when they played catch or anything until we got older.

After all, I believe in the saying "you don't stop laughing because you get old, you get old because you stop laughing."

Let little kids have some fun. I don't think it does long term damage.

EDIT: I daresay that we've gotten off topic, though. But thank you for sharing your opinion with me, it was good to hear what you had to say and your points were valid. =) I don't think that we're entirely on different pages. As I stated before, I believe in timing and moderation when it comes to kids and these life lessons.

I understand where Neil is coming from, but it goes both ways. With no experience in the writing/publishing field I can only speak from my experience, most grunts don't have the luxury of saying "No, I don't feel like that today...wait, I promise it'll be worth it." I work at a hospital, if I say wait someone could die. Much different from fast food or books, but guess what? If you're in the hospital you expect certain things to be done for you. What do we expect from writers? Someone arguing over writing a story faster or someone criticizing their work just seems petty in comparison. Work tends to be a balancing act all the time, no matter what you do. As a creator of stories, I would guess you have to grow a thick skin to deal with the criticism alone. Comes with the job. Enjoy the fact that you have an awesome job you love where a bad day doesn't involve actual dead people and most people appreciate your work (there's always someone out there who won't).

I agree, people do seem rather spoiled these days, and my generation is just as much to blame ('sup GenX!). Do most people go to a store and expect someone to be their bitch while there? No, but there are always exceptions to the rule. If they have a question they'd like an answer if possible. Problem is, now we have people working in stores who feel they're entitled to not having to serve the customer as well, also exceptions. I'd rather just buy my crap online and research myself if possible.

All this aside, when it comes to stories or tv shows I don't mind the wait. I understand it's a long and tedious process to create something you're proud of. It's the ride, not the destination. Kites fly highest against the wind and all that jazz. Yeah, when BSG went on eternahiatus they almost lost me and I found that the show did lose steam with me. I still stuck it out because I'm a masochist, but after a year I felt I had forgotten that excitement I felt in the first season and no amount of rewatching my dvds could help that. Do I expect a story/show to always be there for me when I need it? No, there are other things I have to lose myself to, just don't expect me to remain loyal or interested if you don't care about it anymore. I don't know how many times I've read fanfics that were works in progress only to have the author lose interest and just leave all the readers hanging. Sure, it's free and who are we to complain? I don't mind using my imagination, but it just seems lazy and I find myself asking "Why did I waste my time on this one?" I can understand writers under deadlines feeling like their quality of work is going downhill under pressure and I really feel that they should take the time they feel they need, but remember how lucky you are to be able to do that at all and know the consequences of abusing that power.

So yeah. This can be debated until we're all blue in the face, but where does it get us? No where. Just someone saying "STFU and try to see things from my perspective" without them really doing the same. Maybe after reading this I just have a hard time feeling bad for the modern writer. The deadline has always been a part of the job...even if you're dying apparently. ;p

I agree, and I think one way or the other, scoreless and scored games don't matter. I think it's imposing safety regulations that prevent playing tag during recess, and other measures to force safety on kids is silly, and I think the whole concept of your kids are the most special in the world is leading to generations where the world is supposed to cater to them and their wishes.

Strange. I just made a post and it didn't show up, I wonder why? Well here it is again. Hopefully it will work this time.

Hi there. I have been following this community for a while and this topic finally drew me to register.

I understand the argument here and personally I am in no real hurry to read the next book in any series. I am content to let the authors to their thing because I know it is the only way I will get a quality product. But at the same time I can understand the people who are expectant.

I think when you read a series there are reasonable expectations to be had of it. When you buy a book and right on the cover there is a big number and at the end of the book there is a teaser for a future chapter, is it unreasonable to expect another book to be forthcoming?

Yes you only paid ten bucks for the book and that doesn't make the author "your bitch" as Neil Gaiman said. But at the time of purchase you were lead to believe there would be another book. If your book is "number 3 of 5" of series X, part of it's value is because it is part of a series. I know I wouldn't buy such a book if I knew the tale would never be completed.

Series to me are a little like subscription services. You buy the first one with the expectation of getting the other parts, of eventually getting a completed product. Is it unreasonable for someone to expect your product to be completed?

How long of an interval is it reasonable to take before delivering the product you promised to your clients? I think that is where the disagreement comes from. A year? five years? Twenty years?

And yes another book was promised to us. Blame marketing if you want but it says so on the cover of every series. That is part of the problem too I think. If you want your books to be published at irregular intervals maybe it would be better not to number them or promise them on blogs. Don't create that reasonable expectation.

There is entitlement and there are also promises given too freely. I think that is why my favorite format is the series of trilogies. Once one of the trilogy is done it is perfectly fine to take a hiatus or even stop right there without breaking any implied promises. Writing one big continuous series has to be exhausting.

Stepping aside for a second from Neil's opinion ( which I grudgingly have to admit to be honestly right) I do not get what we are having this conversation on.

I'm a bit confused mate, so you might maybe enlighten me.

In one post that you made on LICD about webcomics, you told to us that you hate webcomics because a huge part of the artists were people that were half serious about their work because of the medium.

You brought as example Bill Watterson that never missed a deadline in 30 years of work and promised solemnly that you would follow this principle and so be it help you God.

Fine.

Now I arrive on LFG and find you supporting the blog post of Neil in which it is stated that if tomorrow your chainsaw starts working again and you felt like going in the northen woods and obliterate them ( I find it more believable than you painting your house frankly) we should just let you go and wait.

Now you give me daily and twice a week two works that I love dearly. Just for the sake of being overly critic, I will state that as much LFG is constant in it's quality, so there are days in which I do read LICD and ask myself why you did not simply sleep the day before so to deliver something worthwile to read the day after.

Thus we arrive to the question: what do you want exactly mate?

If we are talking about the fact that you receive criticisms about the quality of your job, I frankly know you as a very equilibrated and receptive guy that uderstands that criticisms are the path to improvement. So no, it is not this.

If you're telling us that one day something could happen that puts you in the situation of not delivering, Well, by God so be it.

Watterson is Watterson and you are you mate. I do not know if Watterson never had a problem in his life or was a superior organizer, coming back to your chainsaw, if you ever went mate, I would not flinch. I would be sad not having my ration of Sohmer-fix everyday/twice a week, but that said I could entertain myself in other way ( as Neil pointed out).

It is not that you do not owe us an explanation, you just have to give it and then carry on what you need to do with your life.

So tell me mate. is this what we were talking about?

The idea that "entitlement" is an even vaguely recent idea is ridiculous.

Arthur Conan Doyle's fans acted entitled after he killed off Holmes.

"Entitlement" is as old as humanity, and it will never go away, ever. It is not a product of any recent pop-faux-psychosocial phenomenon, they are the product of entitlement.

People become accustomed to things. This is a neurological process, not some magical character trait imbued by the luminiferous æther. Stimulus - Response, operant conditioning. When that expected stimulus disappears, the neurology is disrupted, a reaction occurs. The most likely is an attempt to re-introduce the stimulus, standard addictive behavior. If the stimulus comes from a particular person or entity with which the conditioned person can communicate, such communication as to elicit a return of the stimulus is the obvious expected result. The nature of that communication is dependent upon the conditioned person's other conditioning towards communication. Whether that be vitriolic screeds or nuanced allusions is not dependent on the nature of the desired stimulus, thus the diversity in reaction, as well as the commensurate level of attachment to the desired stimulus.

Morality cannot be a part of it, let alone the idea of moral "weakness" induced by events which are in fact, results of the process that some claim is the outcome. It's like claiming a woman had sex because she was about to become pregnant.


You have just described the game of "catch", essentially.

Not all games have victory conditions, or even a context that could lead to victory conditions.


The idea that paved roads are a public good, but minimal healthcare infrastructure is bad, is a result of propaganda that has told you that anything that doesn't serve some particular entity's profit centers is inherently bad. Capital is not a natural object, it is an abstraction used as a tool to facilitate the interaction of members of society. Tools are not goals. If the tool impedes the goal, the tool should be set aside, not the goal. The simple fact is that in the US we pay more, and get lower quality health care, due to collusion of insurance, pharmacology, physicians, and corrupt members of government. "Universal Healthcare" is not an immoral concept, there are simply more or less effective ways of implementing it. Some suggest that an unregulated system would produce that result. They are empirically incorrect, as tens of thousands of years of human history and behavior have proved. Some suggest that a tightly controlled health care system where value is determined by executive fiat will product that result. They are empirically incorrect, as we can see by the bizarre results of Japan or the USSR, both with different kinds of stringent control, and differing weaknesses in the system.

In no case is "Universal Healthcare" a undesirable thing, however. It is used as a code word by those who wish to maintain profit from the system. Profit is an amoral thing. It is not a bad thing, in itself. Nor, and this should not be forgotten, is it a good thing in itself. Many things which are undesirable are quite profitable. Extortion is profitable, as is fraud, and theft. The fact that they are profitable is not accepted as a reason to permit such things. Why then, should the idea that something is not profitable be accepted as a reason to not permit such a thing? That is basic contrapositivity.

Do not let the propaganda of those in power who wish to remain there convince you against your own self-interest. That which is good for everyone is good for you, by definition. That it may be different from the status quo is irrelevant, even if it stems the profits of a few. For that idea that they should profit is itself entitlement. They feel entitled to a profit heavy medical industry. The MPAA/RIAA feels entitled to a centralized, heavily controlled and government enforced distribution method. The publishing industry feels entitled to readership. The television industry feels entitled to ad revenue. Marketers feel entitled to put advertising anywhere they wish. Horse drawn buggy makers felt entitled to revenue from the general public's desire for transportation. Steam engine manufacturers felt entitled to profits being "stolen" by internal combustion engines. Slave owners in the south felt entitled to human property. The cable companies feel entitled to not have to compete with public owned infrastructure, even if the public agrees to build infrastructure where no infrastructure currently exists. (That is, the cable companies wish to prevent people from building for themselves that which the cable company will not build for them.)

These are all matters of that which people have become accustomed to. The health industry is no different. They have become accustomed to huge profits, and they have impressed that entitlement into the public discourse in an effort to have you feel that they are entitled to them, as well.

Custom is not a validation of desire.

And why were you reading Gaiman articles when you could have been writing new LFG?

Please tell me this is a sarcastic statement. Seriously. He doesn't have to write 24/7. He can do whatever he pleases and I know he like's Gaiman's books from everything he's said in the past. So is it wrong for him to be reading it?

I think that right there is an example of entitlement. You expect him to be writing instead of doing something else.

That was an awesome post by Mr. Gaiman. Thank you for posting the link on LFG.

Reminds me of a customer at the used bookstore where I once worked. Someone had suggested he read Robert Heinlein books, and he did, every one, then came to me at the counter to ask when the next one would be published. He was speechless when I told him unfortunately there are no publishers in the Afterlife. How dare this favored author die before he was done reading!

I think there's really a symbiotic relationship between the consumer and the producer.

If there were no readers there would not be a book market.

If people didn't enjoy the comics there wouldn't be a market.

If there was no one to appreciate/buy/enjoy what artists (all forms of art) produce then it would simply be people working alone in their heads.

Art (all forms) grows and becomes MORE than simply something one person created when shared. For it to be truly art IMO it must be shared and experienced by others. When it IS then it becomes a part of those who enjoyed it. Or didn't enjoy it!

It bothers me that it comes down to "The artist doesn't work for YOU". Well, no they don't. But without US reading and enjoying and bringing our own personal love of the world to others it would remain just with the author.

It's a VERY fine line to walk. You can easily slip over into the "BUT I PAY YOUR BILLS BITCH!" mode. And the artist can easily fall into the "I'M AN ARTIST WITHOUT MY CREATION YOU'D BE A MISERABLE A-HOLE!"

The way to solve that is to realize that both need each other and to try and enjoy the relationship regardless of whether or not the other person does what you want. (general you)

I tell my kids (middle school students) that the hardest thing they will EVER do in life is getting along with other people. Whether they like them or not. And boy is it true.