Darrin Drader Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Alright, I may stir up the flames here, but I've been wanting to vent about this for a while. Why is it that tie-in fiction gets so little respect? Tie-in fiction is any fiction that is part of a larger franchise. For non-readers, the Next Generation era of Star Trek ended with the awful movie Nemesis, but the book series continues, and it has actually gone on to do tell compelling stories, advance the timeline in ways that would have been awesome had they done it in the various series', and the books are now the only place that the timeline lives. Forgotten Realms happens to have some of the most talented authors who are currently writing books, including R.A. Salvaore, Elaine Cunningham, Paul Kemp, and others. Don't get me wrong. I'm not attempting to disparage authors who write in their own universe. Those authors are definitely great and deserve to be read! George R. R. Martin, Robert Jordan, Steven Erickson, and so many others - they're great too. My question is why so many readers feel the need to look down their noses on perfectly good books? I personally know a number of authors, and I can say with certainty that the path to getting published is just as difficult, the fiction is written to the same quality, the stories are just as compelling, and the characters have just as much investment by the author. The only true difference, is that they have a logo on their cover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodkafan Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I can only go by what I have read of tie-ins in the past Darrin, and to be honest they were of variable quality. When I was younger I read a lot of the Doctor Who books by Terance Dicks and a host of others. I would say the writing quality there was poor. I do remember reading a series of tie in books of the late 1970's British series UFO and they were very good, I read and re-read those till they fell apart, I cannot remember the author, but they were written pitched more towards adult I would say. I remember reading a tie -in book of the old American TV series The Invaders, That was well written and exciting, but I was about 15 at the time, I may think differently now. . The last tie in I read was THX 1138 based on the George Lucas film, that was good too. Not interested in Star Wars and only liked the first series Star Trek so haven't read any of those tie ins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrin Drader Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 I think it is a fair criticism that some tie-in fiction sells because of the logo rather than the author, but as the publishing business tightens up, I've been seeing many of the weaker authors either up their game or disappear entirely. On the other hand, R.A. Salvatore also writes the Demon Wars series, Peter David also writes screenplays and comic books, Paul Kemp now has a book set in his own IP called The Hammer and the Blade (good book, too!), Keith Decandido also writed the Goblin Precinct and related novels and others. I guess it's totally valid to say that you really should have some interest in the IP before you'd be moved to pick up a book set in that universe. That said, I don't know how many times I've had people look down their nose at what I was reading for no reason other than that it was tie-in. One of my friends equated it to pulp, to which I responded that so much pulp is so, so good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrissy Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) The snobbery comes from the thought that a writer has entered an already created universe / situation and merely expanding on a theme, rather than creating something for themselves. Someone else had the original idea, someone else brought it to an audience, someone else had the vision as to where the story woud head. To a degree the tie-in writer is merely cashing in on an existing idea. Now I enjoy reading tie-in ficion, although some are most definitely better than others. I find them easy reads that expand the material available to me on a film or show I have enjoyed. I don't worry too much what anyone else thinks of my reading choices - my recent reading mojo wobbly was saved by tie-ins. Edited July 30, 2012 by Chrissy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I used to read a lot of tie-ins back in the day. I don't really know why I stopped, apart from the fact that I became less interested in the tv shows/films that spawned them. Some of them were very good, but a lot of them left me a bit cold. I think the problem was that I already had an idea of how a character should sound and act from having seen them on-screen, so if the author didn't succeed in conjuring that image in my mind then it just didn't work for me. Not saying I'll never read another one, but there's so much completely original stuff out there that I want to read that I just can't see myself going back to tie-ins any time soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I don't read much tie-in fiction anymore, mainly because I find it to be badly written. I used to read a lot in my teens and early twenties, but as my reading broadened I came to realise just how bad a lot of tie-in novels are. I still go back to the well on occasion, more out of nostalgia than anything, but I rarely find it a satisfactory experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrin Drader Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 The snobbery comes from the thought that a writer has entered an already created universe / situation and merely expanding on a theme, rather than creating something for themselves. Someone else had the original idea, someone else brought it to an audience, someone else had the vision as to where the story woud head. To a degree the tie-in writer is merely cashing in on an existing idea. Well, you know what they say about there not being any such thing as an original idea. Even in science fiction or fantasy, "originals" can be reduced to a knockoff of one thing or another. Most fantasy owes its roots to Tolkien/Dungeons and Dragons. Stephen Erikson openly acknowledged that the Malazan books came directly from an RPG (though I don't recall if it was D&D or GURPS). The same is also true for Raymond Feist. Science fiction tends to be a little more varied, but odds are that somewhere along the line, the story has been told. With tie-in fiction, the author gets to skip the two hundred pages of world building and jump right into the story, which is something I can appreciate as a reader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Stephen Erikson openly acknowledged that the Malazan books came directly from an RPG (though I don't recall if it was D&D or GURPS). It came from a world created by him and his friend using GURPS. That doesn't make their ideas unoriginal - they didn't use other people's characters/races/settings like tie-in novels do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrin Drader Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 It came from a world created by him and his friend using GURPS. That doesn't make their ideas unoriginal - they didn't use other people's characters/races/settings like tie-in novels do. No, but it's still working from a familiar implied setting. When Monte Cook, one of the lead designers for D&D 3rd edition, was introducing his Arcana Unearthed series, he wrote a fairly lengthy article that discussed how D&D had a certain implied setting (humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, dragons, orcs, and other familiar fantasy trops). I would argue that a fairly large number of original fantasy works rely on the same tropes, thereby adopting the same implied setting. Sure, there are occasionally some differences - in some worlds there are only humans and monsters, and in other settings they leave out halflings, or dwarves, or dragons, but the differences from one world to the next tend to be ones of omission rather than original creation. Incidentally, Arcana Unearthed was an attempt at creating a different implied setting, and for the most part, his usual audience couldn't grok it. He released a few support products, then it was licensed to someone else, and then finally dropped entirely. In addition to this, many times with tie-in fiction, the authors come in and develop new areas of the setting that hadn't been touched before. In the Forgotten Realms, the Icewind Dale was entirely the creation of R.A. Salvatore. In Star Trek, the David Mack created all the major characters, the space station, and the metaplot for the Vanguard series (Kirk and Spock appeared only in the first book, and only as minor characters). In short, I think that the idea that there isn't originality in tie-in author's works is more perception than reality. Yes, there are books where they literally bring *nothing* new to the franchise, but again, given the changes in the fiction marketplace, I've seen this become less of a thing than it has been in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodkafan Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I am just wondering Darrin - and I am not disagreeing with you that tie-in writers can be as talented as any original writer, just the same as some original writers can in fact be quite appalling wordsmiths( we should all get better with practice though) - but if you had a good idea for your own universe, invented your own characters with motivations you gave them and thought up a cracking plot; then spent your own sweat and tears writing it all up, wouldn't you personally be more proud of that ? I know writers I love, Jack Vance, EC Tubb and others did writing jobs to pay the bills sometimes. But I bet they loved their own literary babies more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 When Monte Cook, one of the lead designers for D&D 3rd edition, was introducing his Arcana Unearthed series, he wrote a fairly lengthy article that discussed how D&D had a certain implied setting (humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, dragons, orcs, and other familiar fantasy trops). I would argue that a fairly large number of original fantasy works rely on the same tropes, thereby adopting the same implied setting. I agree with this, where a lot of lesser fantasy fiction is concerned. D&D wouldn't have existed without LotR, and a lot of fantasy authors just want to copy Tolkein. And it definitely contributes to a lot of snobbery towards fantasy and sf, imo, just as much as tie-ins. The likes of Erikson, though, have done far more to revive the genre and give it the kick up the arse it's needed for a long time. I find his originality consistently astonishing. You shouldn't get me started on Erikson - ask anyone around here Back on topic . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrin Drader Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 I am just wondering Darrin - and I am not disagreeing with you that tie-in writers can be as talented as any original writer, just the same as some original writers can in fact be quite appalling wordsmiths( we should all get better with practice though) - but if you had a good idea for your own universe, invented your own characters with motivations you gave them and thought up a cracking plot; then spent your own sweat and tears writing it all up, wouldn't you personally be more proud of that ? I know writers I love, Jack Vance, EC Tubb and others did writing jobs to pay the bills sometimes. But I bet they loved their own literary babies more. Possibly. And please forgive me for talking about my own work here, but I think this is a question that I can only answer with personal experience (this isn't a shameless attempt at self promotion). I've worked on gaming books for a number of shared worlds, including the Forgotten Realms (I actually co-authored Serpent Kingdoms with the setting's creator, Ed Greenwood), as well as my own original universes, such as Reign of Discordia, a space opera setting. I actually own the IP for Reign of Discordia, and it's currently off with a new publisher getting written up for the Savage Worlds game system. At some point in the near future, I'll probably write some fiction in that universe. Right now, I'm working on a novel set in a different game setting that I originally conceived and helped write up. I'm fairly proud of all of it, but for different reasons. Some of the supplemental material that I wrote for the Forgotten Realms made it into the core book for 4th edition. As a game writer, I take that as a major win (even though I can't claim to be a fan of 4th edition). With Reign of Discordia, I'm proud of it because the longer it stays out there, the more people seem to climb out of the woodwork to tell me about the games they've run in that universe, and how they're either excited about the new edition or disappointed that there won't be any more True20 support. Would I be more proud of a story set in that universe as opposed to one set in Star Trek? I think that ultimately it would have more to do with the scope and quality of the story rather than with who originally imagined the universe. Personally, one of my five-year goals is to be allowed to write a Star Trek novel. On the flip side, there have been some projects I've worked on strictly for the work and another mark on my list of credits even though I really wasn't all that passionate about the IP (in fact, I couldn't wait to be done working on them). Alnother question that's worth asking is how historical fantasy figures into all this? It seems to straddle the line between ti-in and original since reality and myth created the characters and setting, even though the author puts their own spin on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrin Drader Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 I agree with this, where a lot of lesser fantasy fiction is concerned. D&D wouldn't have existed without LotR, and a lot of fantasy authors just want to copy Tolkein. And it definitely contributes to a lot of snobbery towards fantasy and sf, imo, just as much as tie-ins. The likes of Erikson, though, have done far more to revive the genre and give it the kick up the arse it's needed for a long time. I find his originality consistently astonishing. You shouldn't get me started on Erikson - ask anyone around here Back on topic . . . I'll be honest - I've tried reading Erikson twice and I don't think I made it any farther than 100 pages into the first book. I will give it another shot, and probably in the near future, but what I remember of it was characters coming in and going out, but never really focusing on anyone. I can only assume that his writing style became more accessible at some point after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I would suggest reading at least Deadhouse Gates and Memories of Ice, or maybe even Midnight Tides, before jumping to conclusions about the series. I loved it from the first page, and have read them twice now, and can't wait to read them again. I shan't say any more about it in this thread, there's a separate Malazan thread on here somewhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodkafan Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 You shouldn't get me started on Erikson - ask anyone around here I never even knew that Sven Gorn Erikson was a writer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) I never even knew that Sven Gorn Erikson was a writer Shows how much you listened to me in the pub I didn't realise Sven was a Gorn, either Edited July 31, 2012 by Karsa Orlong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I wonder if Ulrika knew? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Up until earlier this year, I would have been guilty of looking down on tie-in books as poor fiction, but I had my eyes opened when I was given a whole load of books by my wife's friend. Now I have learnt to like tie-in books, but still cannot find a place in my shelves for novelisations of actual episodes of TV series or films. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 ^ What books were they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chesilbeach Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I've read a few of the Doctor Who books, and they've mostly been pretty good. Quick, easy reads, but entertaining enough, and for the most part have portrayed the characters I recognise from the television series, but been able to set the adventures in places or times that just wouldn't be practical within the budget for a television drama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 ^ What books were they? They were books based on Quantum Leap. Some were very good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Ah, Quantum Leap (a blatant rip off of Mr. Benn if ever there was one). Never read any of them, I mostly stuck to Star Trek, Star Wars and Doctor Who (with the odd movie adaptation thrown in). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrin Drader Posted August 4, 2012 Author Share Posted August 4, 2012 I've read a few of the Doctor Who books, and they've mostly been pretty good. Quick, easy reads, but entertaining enough, and for the most part have portrayed the characters I recognise from the television series, but been able to set the adventures in places or times that just wouldn't be practical within the budget for a television drama. I think that one of the things going against tie-in fiction today, particularly for currently running TV series', is that CGI has made budget practically irrelevant. The question is no longer "What can I do in a book that I can't do in the show?", but rather "How much more story can I get in a book than I can get in a TV episode?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chesilbeach Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 I'm not sure that's true. I can only speak for Doctor Who and I know that as a British television programme, they don't have a massive budget and have to count every single CGI shot, so lots of locations and effects are out of their budget, for example, for the first few series there was lots of discussion around why there were so few stories set on alien planets, and it was always down to budget. They've been very clever and tried to introduce more, but unless they can do almost all interior shots, the cost of generating a whole CGI location is too prohibitive, and the story in a book can do just that all in the readers mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodkafan Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Ah, Quantum Leap (a blatant rip off of Mr. Benn if ever there was one). I had quite forgotten Mr Benn thanks Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.