117 replies to this topic

[RaceBannon42]

Well something like Wild Cards, was created by the authors, so while it is shared world, I'm not going to lump it in with a property controlled by Hasbro like  FR, Dragonlance, MtG books. The WC authors have a lot more creative freedom. Dropping a moon on Chewbaca aside, tie in authors are much more bound by editorial dictate than non tie-in authors. Lucasarts, or whoever owns the book rights isnt going to let Kevin J Anderson have Han Solo's head blown off by Boba Fett in the middle of the first book A Song of Spice and Force.  Hasbro wants Salvatore to keep churning out the Drizzt books, they are cash cows, dont rock the boat.

[Shryke]

Hell, didn't Salvatore get specifically told "If you try and end the Drizzt saga, we will just find another author to unkill him and keep raking in the dough"?


On another note, those who continue to deny the existence of objective standards of quality must then admit both the existence of and the validity of a standard by which, for example, KJA's Dune books are better then Herbert's originals. Therefore, you are wrong.
QED

If you can't see why this 1 example proves that you are wrong, I have only 1 answer for you:

Stego, on Nov 9 2009, 20.24, said:

lol.

[Werthead]

Sigh. The hierarchy of contempt is alive and well indeed.

So let's wait until the next time the self-appointed literati lump Wolfe and Mieville in with Eddings and Brooks and call the entire field of speculative fiction garbage and a waste of time, and see how many people from this thread hypocritically leap up and start complaining about that.

It should be interesting.

I will point out that I never said that tie-in/shared world fiction was across the board as good as non tie-in/shared world fiction. The point that it is written under limitations, contractual and financial ones, that writers controlling their own worlds do not have, is true, although overstated (original fiction authors who create their own lucrative world can also be persuaded by their publishers to churn out more books set in the same world when they want to move on). Tie-in fiction is also often conceived for pure profit with no artistic consideration, which leads to tie-in fiction having a somewhat higher creative failure rate (Sturgeon's Law might state that 90% of original fiction is crap, but it might be closer to 95% for tie-in). However, the potential of tie-in fiction to be as generally good as original fiction, backed up by a number of examples, also seems obvious. As a writer, it is up to you to come up with the characters, plot and motivations of your story in a tie-in/shared world every bit as much as in an original world, and if you get the mix right you can produce something worthwhile and high in quality.

Of course, if just having a logo about the title means you're guaranteed 50,000 sales even if your prose is worse than The Eye of Argon, you might not be so motivated. That doesn't meant that it happens every time.

Quote

Well something like Wild Cards, was created by the authors, so while it is shared world, I'm not going to lump it in with a property controlled by Hasbro like FR, Dragonlance, MtG books

If a Wild Cards author goes to George with a fantastic idea that would involve obliterating the Eastern Seaboard and ending the Wild Card virus forever, I suspect it is also going to get shot down as definitively Lucas refusing to let the Star Wars novel writers kill off Luke Skywalker (which I believe they've asked him to do several times now).

Quote

If Kemp were to write said novel it would most likely be laughed at by the majority of this board for its utter lack of originality.

On a board where lots of authors are well-regarded despite not writing in a radically original world, I actually doubt this would happen at all.

Edited by Werthead, 10 November 2009 - 07:33 PM.

[paran]

Wert, agree with your last post. Having sadi that, I think the pertinent points should return to why has Kemp left Forgotten Realms (as I was interested in finding out what happened next), and what is RA Salvatore's pseudonym.

Shryke, please stop stirring $hit for the sake of it. If explaining yourself fully is beneath you, then perhaps refrain from repeating yourself, as yes, believe it or not, we got you the first time.

[Stego]

Werthead, on Nov 10 2009, 18.47, said:

Sigh. The hierarchy of contempt is alive and well indeed.

Not truly. Please reread without your sense of righteousness. I didn't get bent out of shape until you stated that some TSR stuff was the equal of The Book of The New Sun. If you had just said "Granted, but.." we would not still be having this conversation.

[felice]

Stego, on Nov 10 2009, 16.25, said:

You give no merit to imagination? There is none to be found in a tie-in novel. You give no merit to depth and parable? There is none in tie-in novels.

Some tie-in novels, perhaps. That's a pretty extreme claim to make about the entire category, though.

Quote

Well, unlike some of those making this argument, I've actually read some fiction and have some to hand.

I've read some too, and would consider myself to be not entirely lacking in taste: I recognise that The Book of the New Sun is a work of genius, and that The Redemption of Althalus doesn't have even a single redeeming feature.

Quote

This is so much fun. I'm plucking at random, folks, except for the BoNS first sentence which had to be added to the conversation, obviously. Mr. Kemp is represented as well.

Not all that random when all your non-tie-in examples are award winners or shortlisted for major awards.

Here are the openings to a couple of books I consider to be rather good. Can you recognise which is the original and which part of a major tie-in series?

1. "A minute ago it didn't exist and all was calm. Thirty seconds ago it came howling down the track, erupting through the fragile surface of the world. Now it's turned on its back unable to right itself, mewling and helpless. And 30 seconds from now, it will breath fire."

2. "This is true: Halfway along the Strand, half an hour and a dozen streets from the dead heart of London, there used to be a zoo. This in itself might have been something of a surprise - for a zoo to exist so far from any park, so close to the polite decadence of Covent Garden and the daily business of Holborn or Fleet Street - but the truly notable thing about the London menagerie was that it was located inside a building."

[felice]

Shryke, on Nov 10 2009, 17.40, said:

On another note, those who continue to deny the existence of objective standards of quality must then admit both the existence of and the validity of a standard by which, for example, KJA's Dune books are better then Herbert's originals.

I'd say quality is a combination of objective and subjective factors, so while some books are clearly better than others on an objective basis, two people could have utterly different but equally valid opinions over which of two objectively good books is "better".

Edited by felice, 11 November 2009 - 01:07 AM.

[Aoife]

felice, on Nov 11 2009, 06.59, said:

Here are the openings to a couple of books I consider to be rather good. Can you recognise which is the original and which part of a major tie-in series?

1. "A minute ago it didn't exist and all was calm. Thirty seconds ago it came howling down the track, erupting through the fragile surface of the world. Now it's turned on its back unable to right itself, mewling and helpless. And 30 seconds from now, it will breath fire."

2. "This is true: Halfway along the Strand, half an hour and a dozen streets from the dead heart of London, there used to be a zoo. This in itself might have been something of a surprise - for a zoo to exist so far from any park, so close to the polite decadence of Covent Garden and the daily business of Holborn or Fleet Street - but the truly notable thing about the London menagerie was that it was located inside a building."

Honestly? I'd guess the first is the original world, and the second is the tie-in. What are they?

[Werthead]

Stego, on Nov 11 2009, 03.59, said:

Not truly. Please reread without your sense of righteousness. I didn't get bent out of shape until you stated that some TSR stuff was the equal of The Book of The New Sun. If you had just said "Granted, but.." we would not still be having this conversation.

Actually, I never said that. There isn't a TSR or WotC novel that I think is the equal of Book of the New Sun.

With the one I did, it was probably overstating the case to say that Matt Stover (an author I thought you appreciated, or am I misremembering) wrote a tie-in book as good as the BotNS. If nothing else, the BotNS (often found in one volume these days) is a stand-alone single novel and you don't need to have read about 20 prior books (some of which are crap) to understand WTF is going on. Within the context of the Star Wars universe itself, Traitor is, however, operating on a literary level, undercutting reader expectations, utilising misleading and false perspectives, bringing in more advanced themes and ideas and so on. A lot of Star Wars fans hate it for the very reason that it's a more challenging and advanced work. It is in a minority of tie-in books to do those things, sure, but the fact it exists nevertheless makes the idea that all tie-in books are meritless popcorn reads a complete lie, and it is simply pig-headed stubborness to continue to insist otherwise.

[Jojen's Ghost]

Shryke, on Nov 10 2009, 17.40, said:

the existence of objective standards of quality must then admit both the existence of and the validity of a standard by which, for example, KJA's Dune books are better then Herbert's originals. Therefore, you are wrong.

There are undoubtedly objective standards that may be applied to any work of art.  A piece of music may be technically superior to another.  One painting might be more highly regarded than its contemporaries.  Heck, Dune very likely is a superior novel when compared to Paul of Dune (I have not read the latter, I confess).  

You may condescend to say that a book is ghetto-fiction or a beach read, but ultimately, there is nothing wrong with a book lacking whatever objective standards you wish to apply if it achieves the purpose of entertaining the reader.  Naturally, there are also books that foster new ideas, that encourage growth, and that present ideals to the reader and even while these may fall a bit short on the entertainment spectrum, they are as worthy and important to read.

The point is that there is room for both and that both should not be judged by the same standards.  We can all appreciate that, I hope.

[Krafus]

Stego;

Quote

Your assertion that personal taste is the only bar of merit by which one may be judged simply echoes like the argument of a tenth grader enraged at having been forced to read Shakespeare. I was that petulent child at one point; I understand.

Aah, yet again the sweet smell of elitist condescension. And your analogy, as usual, is flawed; what I dislike isn't, furthering your analogy, being forced to read Shakespeare, but that the teacher has declared it an objectively superior work while, like you and others, refusing to explain/state/list just what makes Hamlet or whatever Shakespeare work objectively superior. How can a student be expected to learn, much less gain a deeper understanding of literature, when the teacher doesn't even bother doing his job halfway?

Of course, I could almost certainly then find examples in tie-in novels that match/confirm/fit in with the points on Stego's Objective Literary Merit List, and you can't have that, can you?

Quote

Simply because you do not understand what makes language lyrical does not mean you can claim it does not exist.

Then enlighten me, O Learned One. Exactly what makes language lyrical? And furthermore, why should I or anyone else accept that your defintion is objectively correct?

Quote

You give no merit to imagination? There is none to be found in a tie-in novel. You give no merit to depth and parable? There is none in tie-in novels.

I do give merit to imagination and depth, and I have found those in a number of tie-in novels. Simply because your elitism blinds you to any and all literary merit and qualities to be found in tie-in novels does not mean you can claim they do not exist.

Shryke;

Quote

On another note, those who continue to deny the existence of objective standards of quality must then admit both the existence of and the validity of a standard by which, for example, KJA's Dune books are better then Herbert's originals. Therefore, you are wrong.

You're shooting at the wrong target, as usual. If you want to prove the existence and validity of objective standards, it is up to you to explain/state/list those standards and use them to show that Herbert's Dune books are objectively superior to the KJA ones, something that you, like Stego and others, have steadfastedly refused to do. How can a person who does believe that the KJA Dune books are better than the Herbert ones be proven wrong, much less come to change his/her views, if the man who asserts he/she is wrong never bothers clearly explaining his reasoning and arguments?

Edited by Krafus, 11 November 2009 - 08:47 AM.

[Stego]

Felice,

All of my posts were not from award winners. They were good fiction vs tie-in novels. Random good boks vs random tie-in novels. One sentence.

Both openings you posted are awful.


Krafus,

You are correct. Your teacher was a douche for insinuating that Shakespeare was better than Weis & Hickman. I bet if you were half-elven you wouldn't have to put up with that elitist condescension.  



Wert,

Stover is good, but you give him too much credit because he is your friend.

[Greg]

Krafus, on Nov 11 2009, 08.39, said:

Shryke;



You're shooting at the wrong target, as usual. If you want to prove the existence and validity of objective standards, it is up to you to explain/state/list those standards and use them to show that Herbert's Dune books are objectively superior to the KJA ones, something that you, like Stego and others, have steadfastedly refused to do. How can a person who does believe that the KJA Dune books are better than the Herbert ones be proven wrong, much less come to change his/her views, if the man who asserts he/she is wrong never bothers clearly explaining his reasoning and arguments?

Krafus,

The reason no one can list the objective standards is because....there really aren't any.

Whenever someone mentions objective standards for literature and poetry, I think of the fictional J. Evans Pritchard essay from Dead Poets Society, in which readers of poetry are taught how to chart a poem's greatness (IIRC) by plotting its characteristics on the x and y axis.  This example seems stupid of course because one can't really objectively quantify "diction" and "metaphor".  Not in the same way one can say that 1 mole of carbon 12 will always weigh 12 grams, or that the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s, or that my beagle has a mass of 19.05 kg.

I certainly possess no expertise in literature beyond a good to decent secondary and baccalaureate liberal arts education, so please don't think I believe for a moment I am delivering what I believe to be TRUTH here.

There isn't a true objective and quantifiable SI unit  for judging the quality of writing.  Instead there is a loosely agreed upon set of subjective criteria.  Works that have superior diction, apt use of symbolism and metaphor, deft and accurate characterization, use language in an original fashion, and attempt to explain or demonstrate some universal truth or theme are deemed to be superior.  Writing that fails at the aforementioned are deemed to be inferior.  The joke is that there doesn't seem to be much agreement on these standards.  This explains why one of the great poets of the 20th century, W.H. Auden, thought LOTR was a great work of art, and many academics and fans of mainstream literary work still think LOTR is steaming pile of crap.

Even with the impossibility of truly objective standards there seems to be enough agreement that a sentence like "It was the best of times it was the worst of times." is inherently better writing than "he pounded her honey hole with his mighty meat tool like he was breaking concrete with his Eludium Q-36 jack hammer!!!"

Personally if asked to judge a work on merit, which no one has asked me to do in decades, I choose a mixture of Elements of Style and Mark Twain's 14 rules of good writing and apply them.  Even then I realize that these "rules" don't work that well when looking at works like Ullyses or As I Lay Dying.  And even then I realize I may just not be sharp or erudite enough to examine these works using those tools.

Seems to me what we appreciate and what we enjoy aren't always the same thing.  I can appreciate (maybe) some of what Pynchon is trying to do in Gravity's Rainbow, but it doesn't mean I want to re-read it.  I can still read and enjoy David Brin's Uplift books, but I don't think he is a great wordsmith or literary craftsman.  It makes us that much more appreciative when we find books like (for me) Huckleberry Finn, Pattern Recognition, or LOTR :).

[mormont]

Point 1: could people please ease up on the snark. It is getting in the way of a sensible discussion of an interesting topic on which reasonable and intelligent people can and do hold different opinions.

Point 2: Greg, I think you have a good point. I am always uneasy with arguments that present 'objective' and 'subjective' standards as a simple dichotomy: this just isn't how the world works. There can be a middle ground, qualities that are widely but not universally agreed upon as 'excellence'. It is possible to measure quality without absolute objective standards, so long as we remember that the resulting measurement may not be universally recognised as reliable.

[Stego]

Sorry, Mormie,; the snark is just so much fun. :(

[aidan]

Mark Newton and Dan Abnett shoot the shit about Tie-in fiction over on Ecstatic Days.

[felice]

Stego, on Nov 11 2009, 10.31, said:

All of my posts were not from award winners. They were good fiction vs tie-in novels. Random good boks vs random tie-in novels. One sentence.

I said award winners or nominees. Defining "good" as "written by winners of major awards" is stacking the deck slightly.

1. tie-in.
2. Winner of the World Fantasy Award and the British Science Fiction Award and shortlisted for others.
3. tie-in.
4. Winner of the British Fantasy Award and shortlisted for others.
5. tie-in.
6. Shortlisted for a Geffen Award, and incorrectly listed in Wikipedia as the winner. The author has won the World Fantasy Award.
7. tie-in.
8. Shortlisted for the World Fantasy Award and the Locus Award. The author has won the Philip K. Dick Award, the Locus Award, and the World Fantasy Award.

[Werthead]

Going back to the original point, Kemp and WotC have reached an accomodation and his work for the Realms line will continue alongside his Star Wars work and his original fiction work.

Stego, on 11 November 2009 - 10:31 AM, said:

Stover is good, but you give him too much credit because he is your friend.

Never even spoken to the guy online, let alone met him.