117 replies to this topic

[Shryke]

Krafus, on Nov 7 2009, 09.32, said:

The "ghetto" of shared-world fantasy only exists because some people want it to exist.

Or ... because it's actually a ghetto.

You can make money in that ghetto. Good writers can go slumming in that ghetto. Hell, you can even occasionally find something half decent in that ghetto.

But it's still a ghetto.

[Larry.]

Myshkin, on Nov 7 2009, 18.16, said:

I never said that writers should be ashamed of writing in a shared world; I said that I imagine an author would feel prouder of a completely original novel.  If you asked VanderMeer which of his novels he's proudest of do you think his answer would be City of Saints and Madmen, or Predator: South China Sea?  If you asked Matt Stover, how likely do you think it would be that his answer would be Luke Skywalker and the Shadows of Mindor instead of Hereos Die?


I view shared world anthologies like Theives' World a little differently.

Considering what he's said in the past, VanderMeer said he learned some valuable things from writing that Predator novel that he employed in Finch.  I could ask him after his book tour ends in a month, but I suspect the answer would be more than just valuing City of Saints and Madmen more than the tie-in fiction he's done.  Wish I had thought of asking that question when I interviewed him a few weeks ago.

Oh, by the way, VanderMeer co-wrote a novella for the upcoming Halo anthology.  So did Buckell and Brian Evenson.  I will be reading that when it comes out, or earlier if I'm sent a review copy.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

Dylanfanatic, on Nov 8 2009, 00.37, said:

Oh, by the way, VanderMeer co-wrote a novella for the upcoming Halo anthology.  So did Buckell and Brian Evenson.  I will be reading that when it comes out, or earlier if I'm sent a review copy.

Huh. Well, now I will too.

[Werthead]

Shryke, on Nov 8 2009, 03.48, said:

Or ... because it's actually a ghetto.

You can make money in that ghetto. Good writers can go slumming in that ghetto. Hell, you can even occasionally find something half decent in that ghetto.

But it's still a ghetto.

Generally people don't like living in a ghetto and a lot of them are worse off than people who live outside it. But a lot of tie-in writers are actually pretty happy to work in tie-in and a lot of them are considerably better off than authors outside it, including many authors raved about on these forums. So I don't really see the connection.

It's basically elitism for elitism's sake, and yet another layer in the hierarchy of contempt that troubles the genre. It's also quite tedious by this point.

[Krafus]

Shryke, on Nov 7 2009, 22.48, said:

Or ... because it's actually a ghetto.

You can make money in that ghetto. Good writers can go slumming in that ghetto. Hell, you can even occasionally find something half decent in that ghetto.

But it's still a ghetto.

What Wert said. Real-world ghettos are typically places of misery, poverty and hopelessness. We're speaking of authors who are actually earning more money writing shared-world fiction than from their own work. In this context, the ghetto analogy doesn't hold up.

Reading is ultimately a personal, subjective experience, and so are the opinions of people about what they read. According to your preception, shared-world fiction is inferior to original fiction. According to mine, it isn't. Guess which view I value more.

[Shryke]

Werthead, on Nov 8 2009, 07.52, said:

Generally people don't like living in a ghetto and a lot of them are worse off than people who live outside it. But a lot of tie-in writers are actually pretty happy to work in tie-in and a lot of them are considerably better off than authors outside it, including many authors raved about on these forums. So I don't really see the connection.

It's basically elitism for elitism's sake, and yet another layer in the hierarchy of contempt that troubles the genre. It's also quite tedious by this point.

I think when you said "Elitism", you meant "Taste".

Some things are actually better then other things. Shocking, I know.

I figured a guy who reviews books on his blog would be familiar with this concept.

[aidan]

Shryke, on Nov 8 2009, 08.26, said:

I think when you said "Elitism", you meant "Taste".

Some things are actually better then other things. Shocking, I know.

I figured a guy who reviews books on his blog would be familiar with this concept.

Then explain how a Janny Wurts book is far worse than Tobias Buckell's Halo novel? By your standard, Wurts's original matieral, by virtue of being original, is inherently more respectable and of higher quality.

[Shryke]

Actually, what I said was that Wurt's novel has a much, much, much higher chance of not sucking ass.

Though I'm sure Tobias Buckell's Halo novel, which I haven't read, is a diamond in the rough. A hidden masterpiece that will be read for years to come.

[Serious Callers Only]

Problem with shared worlds when they are attached to collectibles is that they are even more static than normal series.
And when they end (move the history forward) they are still unsatisfying, somehow, that i can't articulate.

Not to mention the focus on *exciting* combat. Yaahnwn.

[Serious Callers Only]

Or the cliched archetypes or anti-archetypes.

[Krafus]

Shryke, on Nov 8 2009, 11.26, said:

Some things are actually better then other things. Shocking, I know.

Maybe some things are better than others, but this isn't one of them. On many other subjects you could be objectively right and myself objectively wrong, but reading taste and preferences are subjective. So when you say that shared-world fiction is an inferior subgenre of literature, you're stating your personal opinion, nothing less or more, not some objective truth as you seem to believe.

Edited by Krafus, 08 November 2009 - 07:30 PM.

[Myrddin]

Krafus, on Nov 8 2009, 17.29, said:

Maybe some things are better than others, but this isn't one of them. On many other subjects you could be objectively right and myself objectively wrong, but reading taste and preferences are subjective. So when you say that shared-world fiction is an inferior subgenre of literature, you're stating your personal opinion, nothing less or more, not some objective truth as you seem to believe.

This.

Shocking, I know. ;)

I cringe whenever I hear someone refer to themselves as the last word in taste. Self delusion is curable. Really.

[RaceBannon42]

John M Ford wrote one of the greatest tie in books ever. Star Trek : The Final Reflection. There can be some great tie in fiction, there can be horrible 100% original material. In fact there is probably more bad original material than there is bad shared world fiction. But there is also a lot more great original material than tie in material.

Argue that taste is subjective all you want, and you are right to an extent. But there are still objective qualites as well. I can prefer to have a dogs playing poker on my wall oppesed to  having a Monet, I can prefer Chicken mcNuggets to a fancy dinner at Spago, but objectively my preferences are not the same quality. Just as if I say I prefered the latest Drizzt book to the Yiddish Policeman's Union, means thats what I prefer subjectively, not what the better novel is objectively.

[Shryke]

Krafus, on Nov 8 2009, 19.29, said:

Maybe some things are better than others, but this isn't one of them. On many other subjects you could be objectively right and myself objectively wrong, but reading taste and preferences are subjective. So when you say that shared-world fiction is an inferior subgenre of literature, you're stating your personal opinion, nothing less or more, not some objective truth as you seem to believe.

Oh please, this relativist stuff is bullshit.

"I like Paul of Dune better then Dune". That means your taste sucks, since Paul of Dune is worse then Dune. Objectively worse.

Tie-In fiction has the occasional "not crap" book and it's got some good writers working in it, but it's a ghetto (even if a well paying one).

There's no Tie-In Fiction Book of the New Sun, or ASOIAF, or Lord of the Rings, etc. It never aspires that high and never even comes close.

[Krafus]

Shryke, on Nov 9 2009, 12.16, said:

Oh please, this relativist stuff is bullshit.

The only bullshit I see around here is your posts.

Quote

"I like Paul of Dune better then Dune". That means your taste sucks, since Paul of Dune is worse then Dune. Objectively worse.

No, it means that in your own opinion, Dune is better than Paul of Dune and that the taste of someone who prefers the latter to the former sucks. Plenty of people might agree with you, but that doesn't mean that the lot of you are objectively correct. After all, at one time the great majority of the world's population believed the Earth was flat, and they turned out to be objectively wrong. Carrying on your reasoning, I can just as easily do a bit of cherry-picking of my own say that the taste of Goodkind, Myers, Paolini, Rowling, etc. fans sucks since Timothy Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy was objectively better than any of them. There, I've just proven that shared-world fiction is in fact superior to original fiction.

Quote

Tie-In fiction has the occasional "not crap" book and it's got some good writers working in it, but it's a ghetto (even if a well paying one).

Again, this is no less or more than your own opinion, not some universal, objective truth. I daresay that more people believe the entire fantasy genre to be a "ghetto" than believe tie-in fiction to be one. Anyone can just as easily say "Fantasy (or any other genre, really) has the occasional 'not crap' book and it's good some good writers working in it, but it's a ghetto." If you disagreed, how would you prove that person wrong?

[Krafus]

RaceBannon42, on Nov 9 2009, 10.38, said:

Argue that taste is subjective all you want, and you are right to an extent. But there are still objective qualites as well. I can prefer to have a dogs playing poker on my wall oppesed to  having a Monet, I can prefer Chicken mcNuggets to a fancy dinner at Spago, but objectively my preferences are not the same quality. Just as if I say I prefered the latest Drizzt book to the Yiddish Policeman's Union, means thats what I prefer subjectively, not what the better novel is objectively.

But what is the measure of one novel's objective superiority or inferiority over another? And even if someone came up with such a measure, why couldn't another person put forward his/her own measure that totally contradicts the first one?

Edited by Krafus, 09 November 2009 - 01:33 PM.

[Shryke]

Krafus, on Nov 9 2009, 13.30, said:

No, it means that in your own opinion, Dune is better than Paul of Dune and that the taste of someone who prefers the latter to the former sucks. Plenty of people might agree with you, but that doesn't mean that the lot of you are objectively correct. After all, at one time the great majority of the world's population believed the Earth was flat, and they turned out to be objectively wrong. Carrying on your reasoning, I can just as easily do a bit of cherry-picking of my own say that the taste of Goodkind, Myers, Paolini, Rowling, etc. fans sucks since Timothy Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy was objectively better than any of them. There, I've just proven that shared-world fiction is in fact superior to original fiction.

No. Sorry, your over-reliance on relativism is laughable.

To go back to my example, "Dune > Paul of Dune". There is no valid measure of a novel that would come to the opposite conclusion.

Quote

Again, this is no less or more than your own opinion, not some universal, objective truth. I daresay that more people believe the entire fantasy genre to be a "ghetto" than believe tie-in fiction to be one. Anyone can just as easily say "Fantasy (or any other genre, really) has the occasional 'not crap' book and it's good some good writers working in it, but it's a ghetto." If you disagreed, how would you prove that person wrong?

By showing them actual great books. Something you can't do with Tie-In Fiction.

[Krafus]

Shryke, on Nov 9 2009, 13.46, said:

No. Sorry, your over-reliance on relativism is laughable.

Amusingly, I think the same of your over-reliance on your own opinion.

Quote

To go back to my example, "Dune > Paul of Dune". There is no valid measure of a novel that would come to the opposite conclusion.

Why should I care about whatever measure you use to declare Paul of Dune inferior to Dune? Why couldn't I come up with a measure of my own that proves the opposite, and claim my measure to be just as valid as well as superior to yours?

Quote

By showing them actual great books. Something you can't do with Tie-In Fiction.

On the contrary, I can. The aforementioned Thrawn Trilogy, Matthew Stover's Star Wars tie-ins, the Forgotten Realms novels of R.A. Salvatore and Elaine Cunningham... I happen to believe that those novels are great. If I showed someone those novels and that person agreed with me after reading them, what would that mean according to you?

[Werthead]

Shryke, on Nov 9 2009, 17.16, said:

There's no Tie-In Fiction Book of the New Sun, or ASOIAF, or Lord of the Rings, etc. It never aspires that high and never even comes close.

This is just wrong.

The Rise and Fall of a Dragon King by Lynn Abbey aspires to that league and almost reaches it. Matt Stover's Traitor is batting on that level, absolutely no question. Paul Cornell's Revelation, Love and War and Human Nature (Doctor Who) are absolutely excellent novels. Peter David's novel Vendetta utterly wipes the floor with the Star Trek movie that riffed off it (First Contact) later on. Rob Grant and Doug Naylor's two Red Dwarf novels sit completely comfortably alongside the works of Terry Pratchett and Douglas Adams as comic SF at its finest.

[felice]

Shryke, on Nov 9 2009, 13.16, said:

There's no Tie-In Fiction Book of the New Sun, or ASOIAF, or Lord of the Rings, etc. It never aspires that high and never even comes close.

I take it you've never read "This Town Will Never Let Us Go", then.