Are we ruining stuff?

Speculation, discoveries, complaints, accusations, praise, and all other Erfworld discussion.

Are we ruining stuff?

Postby Weimann » Wed May 13, 2009 8:06 pm

This thread is mostly a question for Jamie and Rob, but can surely be used for any discussion of the subject as well.

Upon reading this post in the Reactions thread for 160 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, page 147, I got a bit worried. Creating stuff is always an interactive process, and you can easily take impressions from outer sources. While this doesn't have to be a bad thing, it might make the comic different from what it might have been, and I'd really like to see the comic "as intended" rather than "as requested".

I guess my question for Jamie and Rob is, is the comic safe from any epileptic twees or otherwise insistent demands from the forum? Because it'd be nice to know I didn't ruin anything by posting here ^^
User avatar
Weimann
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 8:13 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Are we ruining stuff?

Postby Mikalyaran » Wed May 13, 2009 8:32 pm

I can;t imagine our creators being so easily influenced. Im seem to recall them saying something along the lines that anything we come up with could be used. Doesn't mean they are looking to us for the next big plot twist though. I think its cool that , if someone here come up with a sweet idea, they might make use of it.
User avatar
Mikalyaran
Tool + Erfabet Supporter!
Tool + Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:03 am

Re: Are we ruining stuff?

Postby SteveMB » Wed May 13, 2009 8:42 pm

My recollection based on Rob's comments on the GitP forum is that the story is already written, with just the actual drawing and lettering (and the occasional on-the-fly correction like the lifelike appearance of decrypted Ansom) to be done at this point.
Is this a real holy war, or just a bunch of deluded boopholes croaking each other?
User avatar
SteveMB
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Are we ruining stuff?

Postby The Old Hack » Wed May 13, 2009 8:53 pm

And my experience is that forumgoers at times have a tendency to overestimate their effect on a comic's creator(s). Common example: a forum thread correctly predicts what the author has planned next. Afterwards, certain forumgoers say, "We made the creator change the plot to what we said it would be!"

Personally, I am unworried. The story still hangs together for me. At this point I cannot say I can see any signs of Rob and Steve having been stampeded into pandering to any forum demands.
User avatar
The Old Hack
Tool + Erfabet Supporter!
Tool + Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 11:32 am

Re: Are we ruining stuff?

Postby SteveMB » Wed May 13, 2009 9:05 pm

The Old Hack wrote:And my experience is that forumgoers at times have a tendency to overestimate their effect on a comic's creator(s). Common example: a forum thread correctly predicts what the author has planned next. Afterwards, certain forumgoers say, "We made the creator change the plot to what we said it would be!"

Personally, I am unworried. The story still hangs together for me. At this point I cannot say I can see any signs of Rob and Steve having been stampeded into pandering to any forum demands.


You flatter me far beyond my merit, I fear. ;)
Is this a real holy war, or just a bunch of deluded boopholes croaking each other?
User avatar
SteveMB
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Are we ruining stuff?

Postby Mikalyaran » Wed May 13, 2009 9:09 pm

SteveMB wrote:
The Old Hack wrote:And my experience is that forumgoers at times have a tendency to overestimate their effect on a comic's creator(s). Common example: a forum thread correctly predicts what the author has planned next. Afterwards, certain forumgoers say, "We made the creator change the plot to what we said it would be!"

Personally, I am unworried. The story still hangs together for me. At this point I cannot say I can see any signs of Rob and Steve having been stampeded into pandering to any forum demands.


You flatter me far beyond my merit, I fear. ;)


Heh heh. Oh typos. Those little scamps.

At "worst" they are being nice and when we started rampantly speculating Rob decided he would be sure to tie off some of those threads for us which is fine by me.
User avatar
Mikalyaran
Tool + Erfabet Supporter!
Tool + Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:03 am

Re: Are we ruining stuff?

Postby The Old Hack » Wed May 13, 2009 9:12 pm

SteveMB wrote:You flatter me far beyond my merit, I fear. ;)

Gah! Rob and Jamie, darn it. Ah well.

(And I am not even too sure if I am flattering you beyond your merit. Didn't Rob accuse you of affecting the plot with the use of EVIL THINKAMANCY?)
User avatar
The Old Hack
Tool + Erfabet Supporter!
Tool + Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 11:32 am

Re: Are we ruining stuff?

Postby SteveMB » Wed May 13, 2009 9:17 pm

The Old Hack wrote:
SteveMB wrote:You flatter me far beyond my merit, I fear. ;)

Gah! Rob and Jamie, darn it. Ah well.

(And I am not even too sure if I am flattering you beyond your merit. Didn't Rob accuse you of affecting the plot with the use of EVIL THINKAMANCY?)


As I recall, I did a LOLErf pic with a legal-meeble joke somewhat similar to the "Terms Of Alliance" bit that showed up in the comic a bit later. So, it was either EVIL THINKAMANCY or EVIL PREDICTAMANCY. :P
Is this a real holy war, or just a bunch of deluded boopholes croaking each other?
User avatar
SteveMB
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Are we ruining stuff?

Postby Infidel » Wed May 13, 2009 10:02 pm

Weimann wrote:I'd really like to see the comic "as intended" rather than "as requested".

I guess my question for Jamie and Rob is, is the comic safe from any epileptic twees or otherwise insistent demands from the forum? Because it'd be nice to know I didn't ruin anything by posting here ^^


I think you're worrying too much.

Really!
Who is that beautiful red-headed devil,
Stabs you in the heart so that she can level?
It's Scarlet!
- BC
User avatar
Infidel
I am a Tool!
I am a Tool!
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Are we ruining stuff?

Postby Justyn » Wed May 13, 2009 10:07 pm

SteveMB wrote:
The Old Hack wrote:
SteveMB wrote:You flatter me far beyond my merit, I fear. ;)

Gah! Rob and Jamie, darn it. Ah well.

(And I am not even too sure if I am flattering you beyond your merit. Didn't Rob accuse you of affecting the plot with the use of EVIL THINKAMANCY?)


As I recall, I did a LOLErf pic with a legal-meeble joke somewhat similar to the "Terms Of Alliance" bit that showed up in the comic a bit later. So, it was either EVIL THINKAMANCY or EVIL PREDICTAMANCY. :P


And then Rob told you to get out of his teeth. I lol'd. :lol:
If I am acting as a mod, you will know it.
Justyn
Tool + YOTD + Pins Supporter!
Tool + YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:22 pm

Re: Are we ruining stuff?

Postby trevron » Thu May 14, 2009 12:25 am

I think they've got enough of a plan to not be so casually influenced.
However, it is encouraging to think that as a group we could better the product.
And I think forum-goers want to feel like they're influencing the art.
trevron
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Are we ruining stuff?

Postby balder » Thu May 14, 2009 1:09 am

Well, the complete script to the end of the book has been done since December of 2008. So in terms of any direct influence on page 147, not from this forum. The only thing I added in lettering was the Hammertime joke.

However, the general zeitgeist of what the board posters squabble about and get fixated on can be kind of a vague pointer for me, as I think about what to say and what to show. I get a sense of what's causing confusion and needs clearing up, and also where any interesting ground I might have missed is. That's a very broad thing, though.

If 147 feels artificial, it's probably because I tried to cram too much exposition and tie up too many loose ends in too brief a conversation. Sometimes the characters get the room to truly be themselves, but in the last 30 pages or so they had to be themselves in the context of what the plot required them to reveal. So dialog became less organic, and a little more stilted, in my opinion. Blame the medium, I do. :lol:
User avatar
balder
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:30 pm

Re: Are we ruining stuff?

Postby Infidel » Thu May 14, 2009 2:13 am

My point was that there is no real such thing as "as intended" verses "as requested" especially since no one in the forums is really asking for Rob or Jamie to change the story.

I read somewhere that the original outline of this story was about 150k words, or maybe 150 pages. Regardless, I am absolutely certain that those 150k words or 150 pages were heavily revised. So if you're thinking "as intended" = original version, then that never happened. Then the author is also likely to rewrite entire sections of the storyline if they are an outline for events not covered in the main story yet. Even though Rob and Jamie did that 150k outline, I'm sure that outline wasn't just edited before the story started, but it has probably been revised a few times since the story started. Also, Most authors have at least one person review their work, even if it's only the wife or some other close relative, Then there is the editor and so on. Games are beta tested, story drafts are reviewed, movies are first shown to a target audience before a final cut is made...

So it's a given that almost all authors are influenced by others. What's important isn't sweating that an author might change their story because they were influence by someone else. What's important is trusting the author to allow only positive influences. If the author thinks something improves the story, why shouldn't the author add or modify it?

Now when I made my comment referenced by the op, I wasn't making any accusations. My brain just won't shut off and the possibility occurred to me. I trust Rob and Jamie though, if they did originally intend the Stanly invasion to be first unveiled in book 2 and moved it to book 1. Then they probably had a good storytelling reason, such as clearing up confusion.

edit - I spent about the last hour trying to find a nice reference by Orson Scott Card on his own revisions. He edited out something from Ender's Game so the second or third printing didn't have a certain reference. He thought after the fact that it detracted from the story so the new versions don't have the reference. However, a certain English teacher noticed the difference when he made it the focus of a class and his student's copy of Ender's Game didn't match his own. The teacher became very angry about the difference and attributed it to editors forcing Orson to abandon his creative license and degrade a book to make it more political correct--and wrote Orson a letter complaining about the fact. Orson's response I found to be very good. I was something along the lines of, "If I knew that that passage would become the focus of a classroom assignment, I would have edited it out even sooner." Of course, while I was looking for that reference Rob posted, but I'll go ahead and leave what I said, even though it ended up being out of order.
Who is that beautiful red-headed devil,
Stabs you in the heart so that she can level?
It's Scarlet!
- BC
User avatar
Infidel
I am a Tool!
I am a Tool!
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Are we ruining stuff?

Postby Weimann » Thu May 14, 2009 4:48 am

Ah, good to know that. Then I can safely go wild ^^
Now when I made my comment referenced by the op, I wasn't making any accusations.
Of course not :) Neither did I interpret it as such.
User avatar
Weimann
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 8:13 am
Location: Sweden


Return to Everything Else Erfworld

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CelebrenIthil and 1 guest