117 replies to this topic

[Shryke]

Krafus, on Nov 9 2009, 13.57, said:

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?

Yup, more relativist crap.

I'm sorry, but there exist objective standards. Learn to deal with it.

[ljkeane]

Shryke, on Nov 10 2009, 00.41, said:

Yup, more relativist crap.

I'm sorry, but there exist objective standards. Learn to deal with it.

Funny how those 'objective' standards appear to coincide with your opinions.

[Zach H]

Quote

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.

Not that simple to me.  You mention Ice and Fire.  I've seen a decent amount of critics and readers claim that Ice and Fire isn't "literary" enough.  I'd have to agree with them if by literary fiction we're talking about layers upon layers of theme and ornate use of language.  Ice and Fire isn't aspiring to be that type of work, though, and that's one of the reasons why I think it's great.  Martin doesn't craft prose like Peake or play with stream-of-consciousness like Faulkner.  Despite that, the fact that I can get so emotionally caught up in his characters is pretty much all I need to name him a great writer even though he's not aspiring to create something that better fits the common definition of literary fiction.

The same goes for Matt Stover's Star Wars books for me.  His goal here is to write action-oriented space adventures, and I think he pulls it off perfectly.  For me that makes Luke Skywalker and the Shadows of Mindor a better book than, say, Jeff VanderMeer's City of Saints and Madmen despite the two books  being vastly different in style and aim.

[Stego]

Werthead, on Nov 9 2009, 15.33, said:

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.

lol.

[Werthead]

Stego, on Nov 10 2009, 01.24, said:

lol.

I must admit that this piece of informed literary analysis, fully backed up by no doubt having read all of the books referenced, is both stirring and insightful, not to mention well-argued and compelling.

It also breaches the board rules on not just posting one-word answers, but I think we can let that one slide this time ;)

[Myshkin]

Good writing is good writing, no matter the story; and good storytelling is good storytelling, no matter the setting.  But those aren't the only two criteria I use to determine quality.  In fact, many on this board highly value originality.  You will often see on this board people giving a novel a failing grade for its lack of originality, so why is it different to give a failing grade to shared worlds on the basis of that genre's inherent lack of originality?  Do shared worlds get a free pass on the originality front by dint of simply being shared worlds?  

Werthead, on Nov 7 2009, 16.38, said:

Or to put it another way, there's not going to be a huge difference to an unsuspecting reader to reading a novel about Erevis Cale, master thief of the city of Selgaunt, servant of the dark god Mask in the Forgotten Realms, or about Erevis Cale, master thief of the town of Kerfibble, servant of the dark god Bewelzedop, in a setting of Kemp's own devising.

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.

Again, I'm not saying that those who write in shared worlds are inferior authors, nor am I saying that shard world novels are inferior novels; I'm saying that writing in a shared world severely diminishes an author's opportunities to really break out.  I'm glad that Kemp left FR, because I've heard a lot about his writing, and now I'll hopefully get to see what he's capable of doing when given free reign.

[Humble Asskicker]

Quote

It also breaches the board rules on not just posting one-word answers, but I think we can let that one slide this time

And the gloves are off. :lol:

I hope none of the authors of the discussed books are present. I once, without thinking, posted on the Bioware forums that their tie-in books are so crappy the only way to account for them is ruthless profiteering.

The lead writer to Dragon Age was not at all overjoyed by my opinion. I awkwardly shuffled away from those forums when I discovered the author of the Dragon Age tie-in novel was the man himself, or his sibling of parents particularly uncreative in the naming of their children.

You may think they are writing ghetto, but that doesn't mean the authors writing the books believe they are writing ghetto and must skulk in the shadows of shame.

Besides, all of speculative fiction is ghetto. Except for the classic fiction; then it's literature with fantastic elements.

Edited by Humble Asskicker, 09 November 2009 - 09:18 PM.

[Larry.]

And in reading all these arguments about shared world/tie-in fiction, I find myself thinking about what Neil Gaiman accomplished in the DC universe with Morpheus and Death...

[Stego]

Werthead, on Nov 9 2009, 20.40, said:

I must admit that this piece of informed literary analysis, fully backed up by no doubt having read all of the books referenced, is both stirring and insightful, not to mention well-argued and compelling.

It also breaches the board rules on not just posting one-word answers, but I think we can let that one slide this time ;)

Would you rather I embarrass you, Wert? I'd rather leave it.

It seems to me very unlikely that you've read Gene Wolfe. And I will leave it at that.

[aidan]

Stego, on Nov 9 2009, 20.08, said:

It seems to me very unlikely that you've read Gene Wolfe. And I will leave it at that.

Not only are you pretentious, you're also wrong, Stego.

[Humble Asskicker]

I'm interested in knowing what objective standards of quality there are for a novel, and how this is measured.

If someone would provide a list of rules, supported by examples (brief passages to compare against each other; for example, prose/dialog/theme/character arcs done correctly versus those done incorrectly, etc), I think that would clear up a lot of misunderstanding.

[Greg]

Stego,

While I share your opinion that shared world fiction tends to lick dawg balls, I must admit you aren't doing a very good job of explaining or proving your point.  You are merely asserting over and over again that shared world fiction is inherently inferior.  Mere assertion isn't argument.  Use Strunk & White as a standard...no even better use Mark Twain's "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses".  The former would be more clinical but the latter would be really fucking funny!

Mate, I have seen you driven to apoplexy re: the dismissive attitude that the mainstream literary establishment holds towards speculative fiction.  I KNOW you can see the irony here.

ETA: Damnit, HA beat me to it.

Edited by Greg, 10 November 2009 - 12:18 AM.

[Joe Abercrombie]

I believe I can help clear this up.

For examples of writing what is objectively ace, one could simply read any part of any of my books or ultra-hi-quality posting on this forum.

For examples of way much rubbisher writing, one could read works by anyone else, such as Leo Tolstoy or William Shakespeare.

Stego is partly right that non-tie in is better than tie-in, but only because of the accidental fact - which he completely fails to pin down - that I write non-tie in.

Objective quality is not defined ace/rubbish on the basis of some arbitrary tie-in/non tie-in distinction, but by the very real and easily understandable me/non-me distinction.

[Martin Silenus]

That is a Grail of Arrogance Harlan Ellison couldn't stomach. Would you recommend your own works, Joe? :P

[mormont]

Dylanfanatic, on Nov 10 2009, 02.24, said:

And in reading all these arguments about shared world/tie-in fiction, I find myself thinking about what Neil Gaiman accomplished in the DC universe with Morpheus and Death...

An odd example given that other than a very occasional cameo or two by DC characters, Sandman might as well not have been set in the DC universe. And also given the huge range of much better examples from the comics field - indeed even just from Neil Gaiman's comic work. His run on Miracleman, for example, or Black Orchid.

[Joe Abercrombie]

Martin Silenus, on Nov 10 2009, 09.22, said:

That is a Grail of Arrogance Harlan Ellison couldn't stomach. Would you recommend your own works, Joe? :P

Only to those readers objectively ace enough to comprehend their many layers of meaning.

[Martin Silenus]

Joe Abercrombie, on Nov 10 2009, 03.44, said:

Only to those readers objectively ace enough to comprehend their many layers of meaning.

You mean like when Pennywise the Clown was really a giant spider, but the spider was really the metaphorical representation of a cosmic appendage, the appendage of a Lovecraftian horror? I'm so ace I keep 'em in my pockets.

[Stego]

Greg,

It's merely because I would rather not argue that McDonald's isn't really food. I've had to work there in my life. I'd rather not beat up on folks that have to do the same.

Also, I've not said anything over and over in this thread. Hell, I bowed out of it a long time ago until someone inferred that there is a vague possibility of a shared world production line novel being of nearing quality with Gene Wolfe's opus. It was genuinely laughable.

I read shared world fiction, btw. I've certainly read over a hundred of them. I've loved a lot of them. I love popcorn and I say it without reservation or embarrassment. But some books are beach reads, and some are not.

I'm not going to go through books and pull passages. It's demeaning. Anyone here is free to enter a library or a book store and see for themselves.

[Krafus]

Shryke, on Nov 9 2009, 19.41, said:

Yup, more relativist crap.

I'm sorry, but there exist objective standards. Learn to deal with it.

A poor way to avoid the argument, as usual. How about you defined/detailed those vaunted objective standards of yours? Thus far you've been all talk and no substance.

[Werthead]

People who have a problem with tie-in fiction:

Random people on the Internet.

People with no problem with tie-in and shared world fiction (off the top of my head):

Dan Abnett
Douglas Adams
Daniel Abraham
Roger Macbride Allen
Stephen Baxter
Greg Bear
David Brin
Tobias Buckell
Pat Cadigan
Raymond E. Feist
John M. Ford
Neil Gaiman
Peter F. Hamilton
Robert Holdstock
Robert Jordan
Graham Joyce
Paul Kearney
Greg Keyes (whose tie-in work shits all over his Kingdoms of Thorn and Bone series from orbit, that's for certain)
David Langford
Fritz Leiber
James Lovegrove
George RR Martin
John J. Miller
Alan Moore
Ken McLeod
Kim Newman
Andre Norton
Matt Stover
Jeff VanderMeer
Ian Watson
Walter Jon Williams
Roger Zelazny

I think that pretty much wraps it up. Except to say that because, say, Ed Greenwood writes shit tie-in fiction that means all tie-in fiction is shit, is exactly the same argument as saying that because Terry Goodkind writes non-tie-in fiction, all non-tie-in fiction is shit. It's an argument with zero support.

Edited by Werthead, 10 November 2009 - 12:02 PM.