Authors and their obsession with one world.

[Andrew Gilfellon]

First topic so be nice, hah!

Watching Frasier on Amazon Prime got me thinking about authors and their works.

Terry Brooks

Terry Goodkind

Robin Hobb

Steven Erikson

Joe Abercrombie

Just to name a few. Why do you think these authors rarely if ever write outside one world? Terry Brooks has made a career out of his world and has only ever written one series that has no connection to Shannara and the same goes for the others. I mean I can excuse Erikson and Joe as there are obviously more tales to tell in those worlds, but I've always wondered why some authors never take a chance to write outside these worlds.

Is it because they're popular and they can always rely on people to buy book xxx in the oogly boogly land saga? Is it because they're afraid of trying something new and everyone likes comfort and as long as they have ideas it's okay? I mean I don't mind people writing in the same world as long as they have a fresh idea, a story that can stand on it's own, but sometimes I don't want to read another story set in Malazan world. I want to see random author write a new world, y' know.

[polishgenius]

Well Abercrombie and Erikson are relatively new authors, give them a sodding chance! Especially since Abercrombie is, you know, currently writing a series not set in Adua and Erikson has an SF comedy coming out... this year, I think? Or possibly next.

[ljkeane]

Robin Hobb's written in a couple of worlds as Robin Hobb, admittedly one of them wasn't very good, and presumably more as Megan Lindholm (I haven't read those books).

[beniowa]

Ditto on the Abercrombie. Also, Steven Erickson and Robin Hobb both published several books under their real names before becoming more well known for their work under their pseudonyms. You can look it up on wikipedia.

eta: Oh! Just beaten to the punch! :P

[Gigei]

Ok, I have to come clean.

It's totally my fault. I will automatically read the next book in a series that I like (why wouldn't I?) but think twice if its in a new setting.

[jagilki]

Non-Fiction is totally worse at this. Every single Non-Fiction book I can think of is set on "Earth".

[all swedes are racist]

Frasier?

[sologdin]

it's an economic proposition, no? setting development takes time, and may not sell. with a developed setting, already sold, the risk is lower and the marketing exposure is higher.

aesthetically, a writer may be fond of a successful setting, and, committed to it, think that other narratives are necessary.

[AverageGuy]

it's an economic proposition, no? setting development takes time, and may not sell. with a developed setting, already sold, the risk is lower and the marketing exposure is higher.

Ref Stephen Donaldson.

[Frank Fitzpatrick]

Publishers want more of the same because they know there's an established audience and therefore are more willing to offer decent book deals to the authors. Obviously money doesn't drive all of said authors, but you'd imagine it's a factor in lots of their decision-making. I don't blame them. Also, they probably feel they have more to tell in their already established worlds.

At least, that's how I see it.

[Joe Abercrombie]

I blame the readers, man.

Always blame the readers.

[Howdyphillip]

Terry Brooks has written series in several different worlds. He even wrote the book release of a Star Wars movie... So,out of your list, you have Terry Goodkind left, and I'm not sure that qualifies as writing.

Also... Damn that unimaginative Tolkien.

[Migey]

OP.

I'm not an author myself, but I suspect it's very easy to get attached to a world. If you spend a lot of time planning, thinking about, and writing in a world which you develop in depth and know, I'd expect it to be very difficult to tear yourself away from it. Also, many authors who do this probably planned long series in the first place. And if it's then well recieved, and there's pressure to write more in the world, and there's more stuff there to explore... it really doesn't surprise me that many authors spend so much time in their creations. Still, most good ones try to branch out at some point and write some other stuff, or at least very different stuff within the same world. Look at Hobb, for example. While the Farseer books and the Liveship Traders are in the same world, they are such very different types of books that it doesn't feel like she's trying to stay in her comfort zone (even if subsequent entries in that world totally do...).

[Darth Richard II]

Brooks only has two worlds he writes in. Three if you want to count Star Wars I guess.

[jagilki]

I blame the readers, man.

Always blame the readers.

Pssh but what do you know about things?

[rondo has three heads]

It's hard enough thinking up new characters and plots, there's not much motivation to come up with an entirely new world.

[Andrew Gilfellon]

Oh crap. I forgot about Robin Hobbs works as Megan, and yes good points on Abercrombie, and Goodkind. I don't really like him actually. I just know he's written one long story about evil chickens and child beating heroes and rape happy villains.

It was just a general thought I had and yes, it probably applies more to Brooks and such than newer writers. I appreciate the replies.

[john]

Heh, I like how you linked Frasier to fantasy fiction. That seems more like a writing thing, or wanting to work with Kelsey Grammer, rather than marketing since Frasier isn't anything like Cheers. Friends writer David Crane now writes the vastly superior Episodes with Matt le Blanc and surely there's not much crossover with audience there.

Anyway, I do know what you mean. I've had the same thought regarding Brandon Sanderson. He wanted to write in one world so much that he set his different fantasies in one fictional universe. It seems weird to me but I suppose authors form attachments as much as readers.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Brooks retrospectively put some of his later works in Shannara. As originally conceived, they were different settings.

Mind you, Tolkien did that too. The Hobbit was not supposed to be in the same world as The Silmarillion.

The extreme example, of course, is Michael Moorcock, who has spent well over thirty years trying to shoehorn "continuity" into his books, with the result that you end up with nothing but pointless references to his other works.

[Darth Richard II]

Well, the um, Void and Word or whatever they were called books always had vauge references to Shannara stuff, but really, at the end of the day, why in the hell am I arguing about Terry Brooks. I need to re-evaluate my life.