# Paul S. Kemp's defense of shared world fiction



## Desdichado (Feb 22, 2010)

_Cross-posted from another discussion... I thought the topic interesting enough to me personally that I wanted to have the conversation again with a different crowd._

An oldie but a goodie.  What're your thoughts?

Blog of Author Paul S. Kemp - Why Authors Grow on Different Trees



> *Why Authors Grow on Different Trees  Jan. 23rd, 2007 @ 01:16 pm   *
> 
> Consider: Apple A grew on a tree. Apple B also grew on a tree. Therefore Apple C grew on a tree.
> 
> ...



Personally, I've sampled a _lot_ of apples.  The idea that "just keep trying more, you're _bound_ to find something you like!" is more masochistic than logically intuitive at some point.

Also, there _are_ constraints put on shared world fiction that Kemp doesn't acknowledge.  I read some Eberron novels a while back that I think were held back by their format and the restrictions placed on them by wordcount and whatnot.  I.e., they were decent books that _could have been_ much better books yet if not operating under some arbitrary (well, from a writing standpoint; I'm sure they weren't truly arbirtrary from a publishing standpoint) constraints about how they had to be written.

I'd say that I've tried a lot of apples, and I'm still willing to try more, but I've had enough experience to be skeptical and to have very low expectations.  It's not that there's (much) about the format of shared world fiction that makes it more likely to suck compared to "regular" fantasy fiction, its just that experience shows, and not just with a handful of novels read in the late 80s and penned by Rose Estes, that most shared world fiction just isn't very good.  I've taken a much broader sample than he refers to, and yet I've still come to that conclusion too.

Also, there are some external factors that work differently with shared world fiction than with other fiction, and some of them do, in fact, select for poorer writers.  Or, at the very least, they fail to select against them, like "regular" fantasy fiction tends to.

That said, I think there certainly are some writers who at least aren't any worse than others operating in a non-shared world environment.  Weis and Hickman made their name in shared world fiction, and since migrated relatively successfully into their proprietary Death Gate setting and Darksword settings, for instance.  R. A. Salvatore may not be a great writer, but he's certainly no worse than Terry Brooks or David Eddings.  And so on and so forth.


In the interest of full disclosure, I do like a handful of shared world books. Or, well, at least I don't completely dislike them. The original Weis and Hickman Dragonlance books I bought in paperback as a teenager, and I've read them a few times since, and never sold them back like I did hundreds of other books. Same for the original Salvatore trilogy with Driz'zt and Co. I think the original Timothy Zahn trilogy that kicked off the modern Star Wars licensed fiction madness holds up relatively well. The first few Thieves' World anthologies ain't bad.

Other than that, I've read many others that were somewhat forgettable, yet weren't bad per se, just also not really good. Certainly, they were within spittin' distance of most other published science fiction and fantasy I've read in terms of quality. Some of these are RPG settings, like D&D or Warhammer fiction, and some of them are Star Wars or Predator or Aliens based fiction, etc.

I've recently bought a couple books in an Eberron trilogy, but that's because it's about hobgoblins, and I like them. I have no idea if it's any good or not, and I probably won't get around to reading the two I have until the third book in the trilogy comes out later this year anyway. If not even later. I've also recently bought the first in a trilogy written by Kemp himself, and I probably would have bought the entire trilogy, except the bookstore only had the first one in stock.

I keep trying to like shared world fiction, and occasionally I actually do. Most of the time, though, it's well within the realm of mediocre, and most of the really bad novels I've read have been in the shared world realm.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 23, 2010)

Well!  I cross posted this thread, in part, because I thought it'd have a livelier discussion here than where I originally posted it.

Guess that was a bad call.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 23, 2010)

I read a lot of D&D shared world fiction, in fact I'm pretty sure I've read it ALL with the exception of what I've come to call "Dragonlance Furries" novels (novels about minotaurs, ogres, or whatnot where the characters are indistinguishable from humans).

Obviously, I enjoy them as I keep reading them.

I think there is a higher ratio of mediocre-to-awesome books within the D&D shared world "genre" than in fantasy fiction as a whole, but absolutely not a higher crap-to-awesome ratio.  And if the more mediocre books fill certain needs for me, I'm happy while I wait for the next stunner in the line to be released.

I tend to view the medicocre D&D novels as simple pulp fantasy novels akin to watching episodes of Xena or Legend of the Seeker . . . . not "great" by any means but certainly enjoyable.

I read more D&D shared world fiction than non-shared world fiction because it's basically print comfort food.  Like going to the Outback Steakhouse, I have a pretty good idea of what I'm going to get before I go there, and I also might get a pleasant surprise of a better than normal experience.

For my non-shared world fiction, I tend to stick with trusted authors like Tad Williams, George R.R. Martin. Jim Butcher, Stephen R. Donaldson, and others.  I don't take a lot of chances with authors unknown to me.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 23, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Personally, I've sampled a _lot_ of apples.  The idea that "just keep trying more, you're _bound_ to find something you like!" is more masochistic than logically intuitive at some point.




If you have developed a dislike for shared world fiction, fair or not, randomly picking up some new shared world fiction to "give it another try" would be a bit masochistic, I think.  However, if a friend recommends an author or book, don't reject the suggestion because it's shared world fiction, go ahead and give it a try!  Unless, of course, your friend has a habit of recommending stinkers . . .



> Also, there _are_ constraints put on shared world fiction that Kemp doesn't acknowledge.




Constraints?  Yes, writing a novel within a shared world does impose constraints an author wouldn't have with his/her own unique world.  But that has nothing to do with quality.



> . . . penned by Rose Estes . . .




HAH!  Well that's your problem right there!  

Rose, bless her heart, wrote some okay Endless Quest books back in the '80s . . . but then somebody gave her the chance at some full length D&D novels that have soured many on shared world fiction.



> Also, there are some external factors that work differently with shared world fiction than with other fiction, and some of them do, in fact, select for poorer writers.  Or, at the very least, they fail to select against them, like "regular" fantasy fiction tends to.




Totally disagree with this!

It's not that shared world novel lines have factors that select for poorer authors, not at all.  Poor authors are selected by poor editors.  There are book lines both within and without the shared world genre that have crappy editors and therefore crappy author selections.

D&D shared world fiction started with the Dragonlance Chronicles trilogy, a great novel series from the POV of a teen interested in fantasy, and a mediocre-to-good series from a more well read adult POV.  It was an experiment by TSR and was one of those wildly successful products that took the company and the audience somewhat by surprise!  (Like the Magic: The Gathering card game)

TSR had no experience prior to running a successful fiction line, and once they got past those initial three books they made some serious missteps.  The period in the 80s and early 90s right after Dragonlance debuted saw some good books . . . but also saw a decent amount of mediocre to poor books.  Almost every time I hear somebody complain about D&D shared world fiction, it's based on reading some of the stinkers from this period.

This was not due to problems with shared world fiction, but due to problems with an inexperienced company with inexperienced and poor editors (overall, I'm sure they had some good editors back in the day).

Since the dark years, first TSR and now WotC have come a long way.  I would argue that NONE of the current crop of novels (since the mid to late 90s till today) are crap.  And only SOME are mediocre.  Many are GREAT!  Future classics of literature, maybe not, but damn fine reads.

In good faith I can't recommend the Dragonlance series right now (although I do think the "Anvil of Time" series is pretty good), and can understand if Eberron isn't your cup of tea . . . but I do think checking out the current crop of Realms novels is a good idea, especially Kemp, Baker, Byers, Jones . . . the "Ed Greenwood Presents Waterdeep" series is filled with new, but good, authors and books (but I'd stay away from anything actually penned by Ed Greenwood) . . . in fact, almost anything Realms published within the past two-to-three years is pretty good (well, ah, maybe except "The Empyrean Odyssey" trilogy, that one was a bit weird) . . . especially older titles republished in omnibus format, such as "House of Serpents" and "Return of the Archwizards" . . . .


----------



## Crothian (Feb 23, 2010)

Shared fiction worlds are hit and miss and I think there have been far more misses then hits.  My issues are rarely with the restraints but with the plots.  In Stars it seemed like during the 90's when I read the novels that the authors were trying to outdo each other.  Each novel had something more powerful then the last and it was just stupid.  

In general the books that tackled something more down to eaerth and not world saving be it Star Wars, Realms, Dragonlance, or whatever were far more interesting and better.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 23, 2010)

There have only been 2 shared-world settings I enjoyed, and both focused primarily on short stories, not novels: _Thieves' World_ and _Wild Cards_.

The rest?  Seeing those setting badges on books- Dragonlance, Warhammer, Star Wars, etc.- is like a big "*WARNING*: _Do Not Read!_" sign to me.

IMHO, it has something to do with the shared worlds pre-existing any published RPG associated with them, nor any previous intellectual property.  (Yes, I know that Wild Cards were inspired by a superhero campaign played by the writers of Wild Cards 1, but there wasn't a Wild Cards RPG.)  As a result, there were more degrees of freedom for the writers.  They could really let their creativity have full rein.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 23, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> Totally disagree with this!
> 
> It's not that shared world novel lines have factors that select for poorer authors, not at all.  Poor authors are selected by poor editors.




Note that "poor" has two meanings.  One is "low quality" the other is "without much money".

If an author is really good right out of the gate, he or she can likely write their own story, in their own world, and get it sold.  If an author is perhaps not so good out of the gate, selling them might require a bit of a boost - say, from a known brand identity?  

I don't have the data, but I wouldn't be surprised if writing in some of the shared worlds (where the world is also a recognizable brand to the target audience) pays less than non-shared world writing.  Simply put, if you're cheap, you'll tend to get lesser writing.

---

There are several shared worlds that hold up well, at least for a while.  The first few "Thieves' World" books are good.  The first few "Wild Cards" books are solid.  Both of those series took a downward turn after a few volumes, however.

It would be interesting to know if in these cases some of the latter books were driven by contractual obligation - if you are required to print _something_, you sometimes can't be so picky as to what you print.

I'll note that, for most intents and purposes, the original Dragonlance trilogy is not really shared-world writing. It is more like original world writing, as Weis and Hickman were the originators - setting up the scene, on which others had to follow.  Things after the original trilogy are shared-world, and are of scattered quality.

I have not re-read them in years, so my thoughts on this are suspect, but some of the first Forgotten Realms books aren't craptastic.  I recall a pattern - the better ones are where the author is the first to work in that region of the world (the original Moonshae Trilogy, f'rex) - they are meshing with less established continuity, and probably have to worry less about cramming their works into the formula. 

Then, you have things like the Man-Kzin Wars - which to my mind remain good through something like 10 or more volumes!  Here, the cause seems pretty obvious - Larry Niven opened the world to sharing because he doesn't consider himself qualified to write war stories.  But, he does have a sense for what makes good work.  As I understand it he's kept a tight control over who and what gets published in the series.  So, here's a case where solid editorial control (and choosing good authors - Niven has the clout to ask for stories from some quality people) has created a shared-world series that maintains quality.



---

So, all in all, I am not surprised that many shared worlds books are crap.  But then, as Sturgeon's Law says - 90% of _everything_ is crap.  

Here's a thought - when you pick up a book to read, frequently you are doing so on a recommendation, or because you already know the author.  There's a selection process prior to the purchase.  But, if you are _following_ a shared world, you pick up the next book regardless of who wrote it.  You are thus getting exposure to a wider selection of authors - 90% of whom are crap.

The question is this: compare picking up the next book in a shared world with picking a non-shared-world book _at random_ from the same genre section of the bookstore.  Which do you expect is more likely to get you a quality read?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 23, 2010)

Thank you, Umbran!  

Add the Man-Kzin Wars books to my list- I'd forgotten about them.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Feb 23, 2010)

Couldn't the world of The Malazan Book of the Fallen series count as a shared world? The world was a collaboration between Steven Erikson and Ian Esselmont. Ian C. Esselmont has written two novels for the shared world in addition to Mr. Erikson's multi-volume set.

How many authors does a shared world make?


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 24, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> I think there is a higher ratio of mediocre-to-awesome books within the D&D shared world "genre" than in fantasy fiction as a whole, but absolutely not a higher crap-to-awesome ratio.  And if the more mediocre books fill certain needs for me, I'm happy while I wait for the next stunner in the line to be released.



Wow, really?  I mean, I hate to seem incredulous, but I've never heard _anyone_ make that claim before.  I want to make sure that I'm not misunderstanding.


			
				Dire Bare said:
			
		

> I read more D&D shared world fiction than non-shared world fiction because it's basically print comfort food.  Like going to the Outback Steakhouse, I have a pretty good idea of what I'm going to get before I go there, and I also might get a pleasant surprise of a better than normal experience.



Rather, it's more like eating at MacDonalds.  You have heard of the movie/documentary _Supersize Me_, right?


			
				Dire Bare said:
			
		

> For my non-shared world fiction, I tend to stick with trusted authors like Tad Williams, George R.R. Martin. Jim Butcher, Stephen R. Donaldson, and others.  I don't take a lot of chances with authors unknown to me.



You're a lot more likely to encounter authors unknown to you in the shared world universes, where author name isn't as important a draw, and authors are (to a relatively greater extent) much more replaceable.


Dire Bare said:


> Constraints?  Yes, writing a novel within a shared world does impose constraints an author wouldn't have with his/her own unique world.  But that has nothing to do with quality.



Of course it does.  If the editing team comes to a writer and tells him all the things he must include in the book, all the things that he can't include, and gives him a very specific word count target to hit, regardless of how clearly he's able to develop the characters and plot he wants to under those strict constraints... all of those are features that don't necessarily drive towards lesser quality, but will _trend_ that direction.

Also, if the writers are write for hire, contract freelancers, basically, they're also much more likely to be less enthused about the project than if they're working on their own material.

Again, not absolute drivers towards poorer quality, but certainly features that will tend to make the odds worse. 


			
				Dire Bare said:
			
		

> HAH!  Well that's your problem right there!
> 
> Rose, bless her heart, wrote some okay Endless Quest books back in the '80s . . . but then somebody gave her the chance at some full length D&D novels that have soured many on shared world fiction.



Yes, I know quite well who she is.  I also think you misread my post; I said that my opinion is _not_ just based on the Rose Estes books.  I've read a fair bit of shared world fiction.


			
				Dire Bare said:
			
		

> It's not that shared world novel lines have factors that select for poorer authors, not at all.  Poor authors are selected by poor editors.  There are book lines both within and without the shared world genre that have crappy editors and therefore crappy author selections.



I disagree.  Line editors have other considerations besides just getting the best authors.  They've got brand name to consider.  They've got deadlines to consider.  They've got a master publishing plan to consider.  "Regular" fiction writers don't have those constraints, and dare I say it, distractions.

Again; not a guarantee of higher quality, but certainly a situation that will tend more often to select for higher quality, whereas the shared world situation will tend to create situations in which quality can and sometimes does take a secondary role to production and brand considerations.


			
				Dire Bare said:
			
		

> D&D shared world fiction started with the Dragonlance Chronicles trilogy, a great novel series from the POV of a teen interested in fantasy, and a mediocre-to-good series from a more well read adult POV.  It was an experiment by TSR and was one of those wildly successful products that took the company and the audience somewhat by surprise!  (Like the Magic: The Gathering card game)



Yes; I know.  You keep telling me things I already know.  I have those books.  I already referred to them, in fact, as among the few shared world fiction that I considered good enough to retain my old paperback copies of.

And I clearly remember the advent of the D&D fiction line, and the potential inherent in the concept of D&D fiction.

Just like I clearly remember being incredibly disappointed by a lot of it, including stuff like anything written by Ed Greenwood, or the Avatar Trilogy, or the Lingering and Repetitive Adventures of Driz'zt.


			
				Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Almost every time I hear somebody complain about D&D shared world fiction, it's based on reading some of the stinkers from this period.
> 
> This was not due to problems with shared world fiction, but due to problems with an inexperienced company with inexperienced and poor editors (overall, I'm sure they had some good editors back in the day).
> 
> Since the dark years, first TSR and now WotC have come a long way.  I would argue that NONE of the current crop of novels (since the mid to late 90s till today) are crap.  And only SOME are mediocre.  Many are GREAT!  Future classics of literature, maybe not, but damn fine reads.



Seriously, did you even read my post at all, or just respond to the thread title?  I already referred to several new(ish) D&D fiction novels I've read, including several from Eberron.  I couldn't penetrate the rambling, poorly structured plot of _The Dreaming Dark_ and dropped it about 2/3 of the way through.  The War Torn series started off on an incredibly poor note, although books two and three semi-redeemed them by being decent, if not exactly great.

I've read at least a round dozen Forgotten Realms books... probably closer to two dozen.  I've read at least a round dozen each of Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Warhammer, Star Wars, and a few other shared worlds too.  Read the first few Thieves World books.  Read a few Dark•Matter books.

Again; I'm not some shared world neophyte who doesn't know anything at all about the phenomena.  I've read at least 60-70 shared world books---maybe closer to a hundred if I really stop and take inventory, and more than half of them are D&D ones.

Lately, I've found that the Black Library seems to be the most consistently pretty good.  I've read a few D&D books that I really like.  I've also, hopefully not in vain, gotten myself a bit excited about the prospect of the upcoming Golarion novels.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 24, 2010)

Umbran said:


> So, all in all, I am not surprised that many shared worlds books are crap.  But then, as Sturgeon's Law says - 90% of _everything_ is crap.
> 
> Here's a thought - when you pick up a book to read, frequently you are doing so on a recommendation, or because you already know the author.  There's a selection process prior to the purchase.  But, if you are _following_ a shared world, you pick up the next book regardless of who wrote it.  You are thus getting exposure to a wider selection of authors - 90% of whom are crap.
> 
> The question is this: compare picking up the next book in a shared world with picking a non-shared-world book _at random_ from the same genre section of the bookstore.  Which do you expect is more likely to get you a quality read?



While I appreciate the wisdom of Sturgeon's Law, let's not get carried away and use it to approximate actual probabilities of crapness.  There are factors that can contribute to that 90% being some other number, after all.

It's not like 90% of all Tolkien books are crap, for instance.  Or 90% of all Glen Cook books.

I think there are factors that tend to drive that percentage up to a higher number in shared world environments, though.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 24, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Rather, it's more like eating at MacDonalds.  You have heard of the movie/documentary _Supersize Me_, right?




Now, now.  Let's not get into the implication that someone's taste in literature is somehow "unhealthy", please.  



Hobo said:


> While I appreciate the wisdom of Sturgeon's Law, let's not get carried away and use it to approximate actual probabilities of crapness.




Of course not.  Replace the 90% with whatever you think the nominal level of crapitude is, and the example still holds - when you are buying with a prior vetting procedure, you introduce a _literal_ selection bias - you're skewing the odds towards a writing style you like.  When you're picking up an author without that vetting procedure, you're chances are going to be more reflective of the state of the art as a whole.




> I think there are factors that tend to drive that percentage up to a higher number in shared world environments, though.




Maybe, maybe not.

It occurs to me that there are a few different kinds of shared-world books, and they are not all going to be subject to the same factors.

Take, for example, the Thieves' World and Wild Card anthologies.  These are a particular kind of shared world - a mostly set stable of authors picked at the start of the project, each for the most part working their own characters and ideas.  While there's a world they share, each author tends to work within their own section of it, and they are all creating the world as they go.  The stories are mostly short-story to novella length.

These are really not at all the same as the shared Star Wars, Dragonlance, Start Trek, or Forgotten Realms worlds.  Mostly novel length (Dragonlance had a lot of short stories, admittedly), corporate-owned brands, probably some hefty "world-bible" restrictions, wordcount specs.  Maybe some formula specifications. 

Seems to me these are different populations, with different concerns.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 24, 2010)

Eric Anondson said:


> How many authors does a shared world make?




There is a major, major difference between collaboration and "shared world".  In collaborations, both authors work not just in the same world, but on the same story.  In shared worlds, the two (or more) authors may never even communicate with each other, but write stories in the same world.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 24, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Wow, really?  I mean, I hate to seem incredulous, but I've never heard _anyone_ make that claim before.  I want to make sure that I'm not misunderstanding.




I may not be expressing myself clearly . . . but, yes, really!  

I like shared world fiction . . . or at least, D&D shared world fiction.  Some of the D&D novels I've read have been poor, a small handful even dreadful enough that I couldn't finish them (Conundrum by Jeff Crook, a gnome story).  A larger number have been "okay" or mediocre . . . . but I keep reading them because I feel that the vast majority of the books have been "good" to "awesome".

I'm sure there are others out there who feel the same way, WotC has got to be selling those books to someone!  And I'm sure there are folks without bias towards shared world fiction in general that don't care for some or all of the D&D shared world lines.  Somehow, I'm okay with that!  



> Rather, it's more like eating at MacDonalds.  You have heard of the movie/documentary _Supersize Me_, right?




There are differences amongst restaurant chains.  Just as there are differences in shared world fiction lines, heck, in fiction lines in general.  I'd be embarrassed to admit to eating at McDonald's everyday, not so much at nicer chains like Outback, Olive Garden or whatever (not to take the analogy too far, I understand eating daily at the "nice" chains can actually be more unhealthy for your body than Mickey D's).



> You're a lot more likely to encounter authors unknown to you in the shared world universes, where author name isn't as important a draw, and authors are (to a relatively greater extent) much more replaceable.




Not really, not at all.  New authors are introduced all the time, both within shared fiction and outside of it.  And author name IS a draw within shared world fiction.  There's a reason why WotC has always resolved their differences with Salvatore and the Weis/Hickman duo.



> Of course it does.  If the editing team comes to a writer and tells him all the things he must include in the book, all the things that he can't include, and gives him a very specific word count target to hit, regardless of how clearly he's able to develop the characters and plot he wants to under those strict constraints... all of those are features that don't necessarily drive towards lesser quality, but will _trend_ that direction.




I would disagree that the restrictions of writing within a shared world are purely negative and trend towards poorer authors and poorer stories.  There are pros and cons . . . . and if you asked Paul Kemp he'd be happy to share that sentiment with you.  He's got a lot more "defense of shared worlds" stuff on his blog that what we started this thread with.  While Kemp's defense might seem self-serving, he speaks from direct experience.



> Yes, I know quite well who she is.  I also think you misread my post; I said that my opinion is _not_ just based on the Rose Estes books.  I've read a fair bit of shared world fiction.




Did you notice the smiley face there?  I didn't misread your post, you misread my reply (which is fine, as I said I may not have expressed myself clearly), the intent was lighthearted.  I never thought that Rose Estes was solely to blame for your point of view.  Lighten up.



> Line editors have other considerations besides just getting the best authors.  They've got brand name to consider.  They've got deadlines to consider.  They've got a master publishing plan to consider.  "Regular" fiction writers don't have those constraints, and dare I say it, distractions.




Again, I have to disagree.  "Regular" fiction DOES share these issues.  "TOR Fantasy" is as much as an important brand as "Dragonlance".  All writers have deadlines, with the possible exception of those big enough to dictate terms to their publishers, like Stephen King.



> Yes; I know.  You keep telling me things I already know.  I have those books.  I already referred to them, in fact, as among the few shared world fiction that I considered good enough to retain my old paperback copies of.  _<snip>_
> 
> Seriously, did you even read my post at all, or just respond to the thread title?




Um, sorry?  Thought you were interested in discussing the issue, no need to get dickish about it.  Why don't you type _everything_ you know about the subject here, so I don't make the same mistake again!

I'm not so much trying to change your mind as discuss the issue and share my thoughts.  If I've repeated myself, or expressed myself unclearly, or missed one or more of your points . . . . well, suck it up!  Not putting as much effort into a friendly message board conversation as I would into a paper for publication.  Sheesh.

I'm 100% behind Kemp and his defense of shared world fiction.  I think it gets an unfair rap.  But I also understand that it's unlikely I'll be changing anyone's mind on the issue, Kemp is much more well spoken than I could ever be on the subject.  I also feel that if someone dislikes a certain form of art that I enjoy, such as shared world fiction, it's okay.  Your reasons might not seem "fair" to me personally, but ultimately why should you or anyone waste time worrying overmuch about it?  There's lots to read out there, shared world or not.  Now, get me started on healthcare reform, that's a different kettle of fish . . . . (of course, I kid, no real desire to break the "no politics" rule here!)


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 24, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> I'm not so much trying to change your mind as discuss the issue and share my thoughts.  If I've repeated myself, or expressed myself unclearly, or missed one or more of your points . . . . well, suck it up!  Not putting as much effort into a friendly message board conversation as I would into a paper for publication.  Sheesh.



Now who's telling whom to lighten up?

Anyway, any links to some other specific blog posts by Kemp?  I don't want to wade through the entire thing, but I'd be curious to see if he has any more to say about it.  In fact, I have to admit that one of the reasons I crossposted this here is that he's been known, from time to time, to post here himself and I hoped maybe he'd stumble across it.


----------



## Rykion (Feb 24, 2010)

I enjoy shared world fiction, but I find it does tend towards the mediocre.  Here's a list of some reasons I feel this tends to be.

1. The authors have limited investment in, and knowledge of, the setting.
2. Shared characters/places tend to be very different depending on author.
3. The book is written to order, not as a labor of love.
4. The authors tend to be relatively new to the business, and they still have growing to do.
5. There are limitations set by the editor/IP holder.  Both length and content are often limited by this.
6. Authors are selected because they work for the IP holder rather than any sort of previous experience.

Certainly not all apply to every shared world book or line. Some reasons apply to the writing business in general, but are more common in shared worlds than professional fiction writing as a whole.


----------



## PaulKemp (Feb 24, 2010)

Hobo said:


> In fact, I have to admit that one of the reasons I crossposted this here is that he's been known, from time to time, to post here himself and I hoped maybe he'd stumble across it.




*smoke and brimstone.  Kemp materializes.*

WHO HAS SUMMONED ME!?  
Oh, it's you.  Well, I guess that's okay, then.  

I'm not sure what I can add.  I stand by the position that generalizing about the quality of tie-in fiction is misplaced.  It's difficult to change folks minds about this, especially if they're dug into a position, so I don't go at this with the same zeal I once did.  Still, I suppose I can say a couple things, based on my own experience.  

First, I haven't seen any issues with tie-in fiction that select for lower quality writers ex ante.  Publishing professionals are the gatekeepers of quality for both tie-in and non tie-in lines and the incentive in both cases is to select writers who will produce quality fiction so that it is more likely to sell well in the marketplace.    

In support of this:  Consider that there is a lot of overlap and movement of professionals between tie in and non-tie in lines.  I could name many, but two editors jump to mind because I've corresponded with both recently:  Marc Gascoigne and Christian Dunn both edited Warhammer novels for Black Library (Christian is doing so again, I believe), but both also edited (or are currently editing) non-tie in lines. Solaris for Christian, and Angry Robot for Marc.   I think both would tell you that moving from one line to another (and back again) did nothing to affect their standards.  They're still looking for and signing writers they deem talented.  In both cases, they have an enormous pool of potential authors to choose from and so can afford to be selective.

Consider too that there is considerable overlap across tie-in and non-tie-in lines not only among editors but also among authors:  Dan Abnett, RA Salvatore, Weiss and Hickman, Christie Golden, James Lowder, Ari Marmell, and I could go on for a very long time, have all written both tie-in and non-tie-in novels.  Certainly the talent level of these authors doesn't fluctuate depending upon whether they're writing tie-in or non-tie in.

In my case, I've had a few non-tie-in short stories published in anthologies but that's it.  Of course, that's primarily because I hadn't written much outside of the lines to which I contributed (like everyone, my time is limited).  When I did, however, and circulated my non-tie-in novel to literary agents, I had over a dozen of them offering representation.  Presumably they deemed the work of a high enough quality that it warranted them trying to sell it (still hasn't sold yet, though; natch). Moreover, my novels are reviewed very favorably by and at many of the same sites that review non-tie-in novels.  Unless those reviewers are grading on a curve (and I have no reason to think they are), they apparently deem my novels the equal of the non-tie-in novels they review.  Here's a link to many such reviews, should you be interested:  Reviews of Paul's novels .

A final thought:  While it's true that tie-in writers sometimes operate under different constraints than non-tie-in writers, it's often easy for those looking in from the outside to outsize the effect of those constraints.  Some lines probably have considerable creative constraints, but those I've written in do not.  The creative constraints I've experienced typically go something like this:  Editor: "Write a story about your character, Erevis Cale, okay?"  Me:  "Okay."  

In other words, I've always been able to tell the stories I wanted to tell, featuring the themes I've wanted to feature, and doing so through the eyes of characters that I've created.   Any constraints associated with the lines in which I've written have been purely theoretical.  I've never bumped up against them. There's been no heavy hand of a brand manager or beancounter requiring this or that.   And in any event I think a quality writer can tell a great story irrespective of the constraints of the setting/line.  All writing takes place within a set of constraints, whether its self-imposed or imposed from the outside.  A skilled writer can spin a great tale within the bounds of those constraints.

One final thing in response to a point raised in another post:  The idea that an author writing tie-in doesn't love his/her story, characters, and/or the setting is both offensive and, frankly, ignorant.  I don't know any author who fits that description.  Certainly I do not.  I only write in settings that I love, and rest assured I have high regard for my characters and stories.   

In fact, I strive with every book I write to _earn_ new readers and _re-earn_ the loyalty of my established readers.  You can't do that by slapping words on the page.  No one I know phones it in.  You wouldn't last long in the business if you did.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 24, 2010)

PaulKemp said:


> I'm not sure what I can add.  I stand by the position that generalizing about the quality of tie-in fiction is misplaced.  It's difficult to change folks minds about this, especially if they're dug into a position, so I don't go at this with the same zeal I once did.



Oh, hey!

I'm not sure that I necessarily expected you to add much.  I think the problem is that fundamentally both you and the other side, whomever that may be, are right.  There aren't any reasons why a really good author can't be working in a shared world environment, putting out stuff that's just as good as anything in the "regular" writing environment.  And I think that the quality selection process over the years has improved, especially at publishing houses that recognized the need for keeping a firmer eye on quality than may have been the case in the early days of shared world fiction.  But the other side is right too... there _are_ some constraints that _can_ be present in shared universe scenarios that, while individually may be unlikely to be a deal-breaker, in the generalized environment, and cumulative of each other, are not negligible.

And, well, there's preponderance of evidence.  The stereotype didn't form in a vacuum, it formed because people read several shared world books that didn't really live up to the standard of literature that they'd read in the general market.  As I sad, you're _both_ right.  Good authors can work in that environment, and in fact, some of them certainly do.  But the other side is right too in that their perception isn't just blind prejudice, it's based on the evidence of books that they've read.


			
				PaulKemp said:
			
		

> And in any event I think a quality writer can tell a great story irrespective of the constraints of the setting/line.  All writing takes place within a set of constraints, whether its self-imposed or imposed from the outside.  A skilled writer can spin a great tale within the bounds of those constraints.



No doubt, but that's not always the case.  Stepping outside the fantasy arena, look at, say, the Hardy Boys line.  You have to use the same main characters, the same secondary characters, you have strict constraints on the structure of the novel, and most importantly, everything has to be "reset" back to the state that it was before the novel was written.  No character can achieve any lasting growth that carries with him to the next novel.  No character can be killed, or move away, or otherwise have any significant change.  The setting itself has to be exactly the same as we left it.

It's great for lines that don't operate under these types of constraints, but plenty of them do.  It's a spectrum.  And while, as you say, a skilled writer can still write a good story regardless of constraints, at the same time, every constraint you add stacks the deck with incremental details that could make that more difficult to achieve.  And, just as not all line editors are created equal, neither are all authors (or members of any other profession, for that matter... I don't pretend to be any better than middle of the road at what I do professionally), so stacking the deck against them if they're _not_ the best authors writing for the line is only going to make the chances of their work turning out poorer all the greater.


			
				PaulKemp said:
			
		

> One final thing in response to a point raised in another post:  The idea that an author writing tie-in doesn't love his/her story, characters, and/or the setting is both offensive and, frankly, ignorant.  I don't know any author who fits that description.  Certainly I do not.  I only write in settings that I love, and rest assured I have high regard for my characters and stories.



Hey, if it doesn't apply to you or anytong you know, then great!  I've certainly read of situations in which it does apply and has happened.  Where the writers are just contract guys doing it to pay the bills.  I think it'd be naive to say that it's not something that happens.

Not that authors in non-shared world scenarios can't write books that are just about paying the bills.  Robert E. Howard specically owned up to writing many of his stories for no good reason other than the paycheck.  It happens.

But do I think that it's _more likely_ to happen in a shared world environment than in a non-shared world one?  I guess that's really the question.


			
				PaulKemp said:
			
		

> In fact, I strive with every book I write to _earn_ new readers and _re-earn_ the loyalty of my established readers.  You can't do that by slapping words on the page.  No one I know phones it in.  You wouldn't last long in the business if you did.



Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but plenty of authors, editors, and entire publishing houses over the years haven't lasted very long in the business.


----------



## Rykion (Feb 24, 2010)

PaulKemp said:


> One final thing in response to a point raised in another post:  The idea that an author writing tie-in doesn't love his/her story, characters, and/or the setting is both offensive and, frankly, ignorant.  I don't know any author who fits that description.  Certainly I do not.  I only write in settings that I love, and rest assured I have high regard for my characters and stories.



If this is in response to point 3 in my post, I never said that shared world writers didn't love the settings or their work. My point was that much of the best fiction starts as a personal labor of love rather than as contracted work with a deadline. 

A big name author working on a personal project has far more creative leeway than a contracted author who might be replaced for missing a deadline.  The end result is often better for the extra time spent.  If Tolkien had only been given six months to write The Fellowship of the Ring, it wouldn't be the book that it is.  

The same is true in art.  An artist can put out a good portrait for a client in a day or two and love the work.  The same artist working on a subject of personal choice and given a month is far more likely to produce a master work.


----------



## PaulKemp (Feb 24, 2010)

Rykion said:


> If this is in response to point 3 in my post, I never said that shared world writers didn't love the settings or their work.




Well, when you wrote "it's not a labor of love," it seemed to me reasonable to conclude that you meant to suggest that the author, you know, didn't love his labor.  I haven't seen that to be the case.

Now that you've clarified, the issue you're raising seems to be one of deadline pressure, backed by an assumption that shorter deadlines are more common in a tie-in environment.  I honestly can't speak to that.  I put out books at about the same pace as my colleagues who write non-tie-in novels, so I've always assumed that our deadline windows are about the same.


----------



## Rykion (Feb 24, 2010)

PaulKemp said:


> Well, when you wrote "it's not a labor of love," it seemed to me reasonable to conclude that you meant to suggest that the author, you know, didn't love his labor.  I haven't seen that to be the case.



The phrase "labor of love" specifically means something that is done for personal enjoyment rather than material gain.  I can love my job, but as long as I'm getting paid, it is not a labor of love.  A book someone writes as a labor of love is usually in their spare time and not under contract or deadline.

Many of my favorite books were written by authors who never published another book, or who only wrote a handful of books in their life.  They weren't writing to deadlines, and usually had day jobs or other forms of income.  Also I notice that authors who can afford to write at a more leisurely pace tend to have better polished books.  

I don't want to belittle professional authors, many of whom write consistently good books.  I just feel that deadlines and specific requirements put on the story by the IP holder sometimes prevent a book from reaching its full potential.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 24, 2010)

Rykion said:


> The phrase "labor of love" specifically means something that is done for personal enjoyment rather than material gain.  I can love my job, but as long as I'm getting paid, it is not a labor of love.




Then, honestly, very few authors fit into this category.  If you aren't getting paid, then unless you are already independently wealthy, you probably cannot afford to devote the kind of time a novel requires to the project.


----------



## PaulKemp (Feb 24, 2010)

Rykion said:


> The phrase "labor of love" specifically means something that is done for personal enjoyment rather than material gain.  I can love my job, but as long as I'm getting paid, it is not a labor of love.  A book someone writes as a labor of love is usually in their spare time and not under contract or deadline.




All professional writers (or would-be professional writers) write with the expectation of material gain.  Otherwise, we'd all just post our novels on the internet for free.  The expectation of material gain and engaging in a labor of love are not mutually exclusive propositions.  It's true that sometimes -- sometimes -- financial considerations can get in the way of the creative impulse, but I think that's more exception than rule.

EDIT:  I see Umbran beat me to it in the reply above.


----------



## PaulKemp (Feb 24, 2010)

And remember -- very few professional writers actually make a living at it (the numbers I usually hear are some fraction of one percent of writers support themselves with the money from writing).  Money isn't a big driver for most.  Instead, they write because they're creative people who love to create.  In that regard, it's more a labor of love than it is a financial transaction.  

My sales probably put me toward the high-end of mid-list writers, but I make far less as a writer than I do in my day job, and could probably make more money doing something else with my writing time.  But I don't, because I enjoy the writing.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 25, 2010)

Also, folks, please don't misinterpret my point in starting this thread.  I just wanted to discuss what factors could or couldn't impact the quality of shared world fiction, using the blogpost as a springboard (because I stumbled across it on wikipedia of all places.)

Although I'd say I'm a guy who's fairly significant exposure to shared world fiction has led me to go into any shared world fiction endeavor with a certain amount of skepticism, I've certainly read shared world fiction that I've enjoyed, and I still continue to seek out stuff that looks like it might be good.  I'm in the middle of reading several omnibus editions of Black Library stuff: _Mathias Thulman: Witch Hunter, Vampire Wars_ and _Eisenhorn_.  I've got Don Bassingthwaite's "Legacy of Dhakaan" trilogy on my bookshelf and in the queue.  Heck, I've got _Shadowbred_ and the rest of that trilogy on my shelf on on my docket, for that matter.  And I'm reasonably excited about the prospect of the Golarion fiction line from Paizo.

The real reason I wanted to start this discussion was just to talk around the issues.  Obviously the blog post's assertion, that there's nothing that literally _prevents_ shared world fiction from being good, is true.  Yet equally obviously, there's a widespread perception that in reality much of it is, in fact, below average in quality level.  Is this just a misplaced perception?  Is it true, but based on older titles, before game (and other) companies had really figured out the business model and practices that a good fiction editor needs to follow?  Or is there some truth to it still?  If so, what are some of the factors that could contribute to it being true?

Anyway... carry on.  Just a point of clarification.


----------



## Rykion (Feb 25, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Then, honestly, very few authors fit into this category.



This is definitely true, but they account for a disproportionate amount of the books I consider to be very good or excellent. 

Back on Hobo's original topic; I don't have the perception that shared world fiction is of lesser quality than any other fiction.  I do feel that unusual storylines and originality of setting are part of what makes most great fantasy/sci-fi books great.  Many of the classics of the genre are not so much about the quality of the writing itself, rather they are classics because of the novelty of the ideas expressed or world they contain.  Shared world books by definition have some limitations in this regard.

I do read a lot of shared world books and enjoy most.  In novels, I do look for series with a single author rather than ones where different authors write every book.  I find having a different voice every book, or characters that change personality/motivation/language depending on author, to be distracting.  You also risk running into an author whose writing you just don't like part way into a series you were really enjoying.  At least with a single author series you have a pretty good idea what to expect quality wise after reading a single volume.


----------



## francisca (Feb 25, 2010)

PaulKemp said:


> And remember -- very few professional writers actually make a living at it (the numbers I usually hear are some fraction of one percent of writers support themselves with the money from writing).




Well, that explains why most shared world material comes off like it was written by a bunch of amateurs.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 25, 2010)

Rykion said:


> Back on Hobo's original topic; I don't have the perception that shared world fiction is of lesser quality than any other fiction.  I do feel that unusual storylines and originality of setting are part of what makes most great fantasy/sci-fi books great.  Many of the classics of the genre are not so much about the quality of the writing itself, rather they are classics because of the novelty of the ideas expressed or world they contain.  Shared world books by definition have some limitations in this regard.



Yeah, I don't really feel that way.  I think that a writer who uses a bizarre setting or scenario as a _replacement_ for good writing isn't going to get very good results.  That's a poor crutch to get by on, in my experience.

Then again, I don't actually like a lot of the so-called "classics" of the genre.  For me, being well written is much more important than being innovative.  Good execution trumps innovation any day of the week and twice on Sundays.  Sure, the _best_ fiction has both, but the best fiction is really rare, and I don't demand that everything I read qualify as literally the best that the genre has to offer.  I'm content with merely well executed.


----------



## PaulKemp (Feb 25, 2010)

francisca said:


> Well, that explains why most shared world material comes off like it was written by a bunch of amateurs.




The point is that most writers, both tie-in and otherwise, don't make a living from their writing.   Given that, the logic (such as it is) of your position implies that essentially ALL writing should come off as if written by amateurs.  Is that your position, or did you just pop in the thread to offer something you thought to be clever?


----------



## PaulKemp (Feb 25, 2010)

@Hobo

Somewhat of a tangent:  I've read (or tried to read) one of the Warhammer titles you favorably mentioned above.  I found it unbearable: the prose turgid, the characters cliched, and even the point-of-view choices distracting and occasionally muddled.  It was a real struggle for me to get through the mere fifty odd pages I read.

That said, I drew (and draw) no conclusion about the Warhammer line or tie-in fiction generally (I've read other Warhammer titles and lots of other tie-in novels that I've enjoyed quite a bit).  I simply conclude that that author's style is not for me.  Nor do I conclude that my literary sensibilities are superior to yours (or anyone else who enjoyed that novel).  I simply recognize that art (and that's what we're talking about here) speaks to each of us differently and that my subjective preferences are not a proxy for objective quality.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 25, 2010)

Well, there's something to that too, of course.  Clearly we don't all appreciate the same things in our fiction.

Heck, even barsoomcore and I, who share 90+% of the same brain patterns, are sharply divided over the merits of Steven Erikson and Douglas Adams.  

There's very little that's objective about writing quality, with the exception of some editorial consensus around what constitutes "well-written" prose; beyond that, it's all subjective of course.


----------



## Rykion (Feb 25, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Yeah, I don't really feel that way.  I think that a writer who uses a bizarre setting or scenario as a _replacement_ for good writing isn't going to get very good results.  That's a poor crutch to get by on, in my experience.



 Strangely, I don't see where I said originality was a _replacement_ for good writing.  

I'm content reading well written books too, but I love when I stumble on a book that is innovative as well.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 25, 2010)

PaulKemp said:


> That said, I drew (and draw) no conclusion about the Warhammer line or tie-in fiction generally (I've read other Warhammer titles and lots of other tie-in novels that I've enjoyed quite a bit).  I simply conclude that that author's style is not for me.  Nor do I conclude that my literary sensibilities are superior to yours (or anyone else who enjoyed that novel).  I simply recognize that art (and that's what we're talking about here) speaks to each of us differently and that my subjective preferences are not a proxy for objective quality.




If only everyone could be so open minded, not just about writing, but art in general.


----------



## JLowder (Mar 2, 2010)

Rykion said:


> The phrase "labor of love" specifically means something that is done for personal enjoyment rather than material gain.  I can love my job, but as long as I'm getting paid, it is not a labor of love.  A book someone writes as a labor of love is usually in their spare time and not under contract or deadline.




Passion is indeed important to any writer, and any process that puts artificial constraints on what or how a writer creates can be deadening.

However, you are assuming you can see into someone else's heart, their creative soul. You can't. People write for different motivations and readers or even other writers or editors have no foolproof way to tell if someone is writing one of those seeming "labor of love" novels because he or she hopes to be famous or rich or to score with someone who digs the artistic type or some other non-aesthetic reason. And without being privy to the editorial process, you don't know what changes were made to any work on its way to the bookstore--or why those changes were made.

Similarly, some "shared world" books are put together in precisely the liberated fashion you describe. The first draft of _The Crystal Shard_, for example, was written without a contract or deadline and submitted blind, unsolicited, to TSR. The pitches for the original Harpers books involved writers telling TSR "This is the book I want to write, and here are some chapters and the plot" with no input or promise of contract or pay.

It's also not accurate to equate the presence of pay with a lack of passion. They are not mutually exclusive. Someone can work in publishing because she or he loves the work and, coincidentally, be lucky enough to get paid for that, just as a doctor can be passionate about medicine and get paid for that pursuit.

In fact, let me note that pay in publishing overall is miserable. The average advance for a shared-world novel is, say, $5,000; a fair number of books do not earn over that advance. If you break that down per hour of work required to write the typical 90,000 to 100,000 words, you'll find that your annual salary will likely make you eligible for government cheese. Most writers, even of shared world books, do not write full time. They write in their spare time, usually because they love to write.

All that said, there are aspects to shared world projects (contracts, editorial control, etc) that can be anti-creative, and these production issues are what contribute to the high number of mediocre titles in some shared world lines. Some writers can successfully negotiate these minefields and create the books they want to create. Others cannot.

But, in the end, it's a mistake to assume that you can tell something about a writer's motivation--whether he or she is writing for a paycheck or to tell a story--by the fashion in which a work is published.

Cheers,
James Lowder


----------



## Rykion (Mar 2, 2010)

JLowder said:


> All that said, there are aspects to shared world projects (contracts, editorial control, etc) that can be anti-creative, and these production issues are what contribute to the high number of mediocre titles in some shared world lines. Some writers can successfully negotiate these minefields and create the books they want to create. Others cannot.



This is exactly the overall point I was trying to make.  You expressed it much better than I did.  

I want to re-emphasize that I make no assumptions about the motivations of shared world authors.  The following is the third item I wrote in a list of reasons that I feel *some* shared world fiction tends to be mediocre.  "The book is written to order, not as a labor of love."  There are really 2 parts.

The first part is about books "written to order."  I'm talking about when an author is presented with pretty much everything that must be in a book with little room for deviation, and often a very tight deadline.  Good examples are some tie-in novels based on events that have already been defined by an rpg, miniatures game, or a movie.  I'm not talking about all shared world contract work in general. 

The second part is about "labor of love."  The phrase is specific to labor done for self-enjoyment or the enjoyment of others without any expectation of getting paid. When I use "labor of love," I'm talking about the kind of books that are written, often over years, without any kind of upfront money or solid guarantee to be published.  It's usually an author's first published work, something from a non-traditional author, or something an established author writes for himself as a side project.  I've found that many of my favorite books tend to fall in this category, and it is rare for shared world books to be written in this manner.  It's not only about passion, but also the time to get the books just right and the lack of editorial constraint.


----------



## JLowder (Mar 2, 2010)

Rykion said:


> It's not only about passion, but also the time to get the books just right and the lack of editorial constraint.




Most writers work better with an editor. Editors can be a constraint, but a good editor can help a writer clarify his or her vision. It has to be the right editor, and not all writers are going to find the same editors helpful, but editors are not, by definition, a bad thing.

Same with deadlines. Deadlines can also be very useful for a lot of writers. Given no firm target, writers often dawdle. Writers can endlessly noddle and revise. (Roger Zelazny once told me that he wasn't working on a word processor at the time for that reason--computers made it too easy to revise; if he typed, it forced him to focus his thoughts.) Too short a deadline can be a real problem, but a deadline in and of itself is not necessarily a problem because it can help goad a writer along, even for a "labor of love."

You're not wrong in thinking that the methods of production have a definite impact on a work's quality. However, it's usually a safer critical vantage to look at the work itself and decide whether or not it works for you from what's on the page, rather than get caught up in guessing motivations.

Cheers,
Jim Lowder


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 3, 2010)

JLowder said:


> Most writers work better with an editor. Editors can be a constraint, but a good editor can help a writer clarify his or her vision. It has to be the right editor, and not all writers are going to find the same editors helpful, but editors are not, by definition, a bad thing.




Let me just chime in here with absolute, total agreement. I will be the first in line to state that the published version of _The Conqueror's Shadow_ is markedly superior to the draft I submitted to Spectra, and that's precisely _because_ of my editor's input.

The thing is, Rykion, by your definition almost _all_ non-tie-in novels are "labors of love." Unless you're a huge name author or are lucky enough to get a multi-book contract, there's _never_ a guarantee that your next book will sell. I have two more books scheduled right now--but after that? While I'm more likely to sell my next one, there are still no guarantees. I won't know if my next novel was "worth" my time, financially, until it's accepted somewhere. I'm still going to write it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 3, 2010)

A word on Editors.

If there were one book I'd want every writer to read, it would be the annotated version of Piers Anthony's _But What of Earth?_

Anthony admits that editors have a valuable function, but not every editor serves that function.

That particular version of the book is textually the unedited version he originally submitted...plus the commentary that 4 editors made about the book in an effort to do their jobs...plus_ his_  commentary on _their _commentary.

For any writer, its educational and hilarious.  Edularious?


----------



## JLowder (Mar 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Anthony admits that editors have a valuable function, but not every editor serves that function.




Indeed. Working with a bad editor or someone who is a bad fit for a particular project can be nightmarish. Been there, more than once. This can be an especially soul-draining experience when dealing with a license or shared-world, when you may have several different editors or licensing people commenting on a draft, offering up contradictory criticisms that must be addressed. The more people involved in an approval/review process, the more likely the work is to suffer, the more generic it will likely become to satisfy all the various people commenting upon it.

Cheers,
Jim Lowder


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 3, 2010)

JLowder said:


> Most writers work better with an editor. Editors can be a constraint, but a good editor can help a writer clarify his or her vision. It has to be the right editor, and not all writers are going to find the same editors helpful, but editors are not, by definition, a bad thing.
> 
> Same with deadlines. Deadlines can also be very useful for a lot of writers. Given no firm target, writers often dawdle. Writers can endlessly noddle and revise. (Roger Zelazny once told me that he wasn't working on a word processor at the time for that reason--computers made it too easy to revise; if he typed, it forced him to focus his thoughts.) Too short a deadline can be a real problem, but a deadline in and of itself is not necessarily a problem because it can help goad a writer along, even for a "labor of love."
> 
> ...



It is a general problem with creative endeavours. Without a deadline, you can always revise your ideas and change something to make it a little better, revise it again to make it a little more better or in a different way better and so on. See Duke Nukem Forever. 

At some point, you just have to define: "This is not perfect yet, but it is good enough". A deadline helps you do that. Perfection is not attainable, even though we should always strive for it.


----------



## Rykion (Mar 3, 2010)

I should have used the term IP constraint rather than editorial constraint.  I was thinking of ideas in setting, character, etc. that an author can't use because of limitations set by the IP holder.  I definitely don't have anything against editors.  

I also agree that deadlines can be good motivators.  Unfortunately, one thing I notice in a lot of shared world fiction is that the storyline feels half-baked or that all the story's loose ends conveniently come together 3 pages before the novel's end.  I can't help but think that the deadline hit too soon, and/or there was a constraint on the length of the story. 


Mouseferatu said:


> I won't know if my next novel was "worth" my time, financially, until it's accepted somewhere. I'm still going to write it.



Yeah, that's what I consider a labor of love.  I'm not saying that all labors of love end up being great or even mediocre.  I've just found that a lot of my favorite books seem to fall into this category, and it's rare for a shared world book to be written without contracts, IP constraint and deadlines.  I definitely wish you good luck on these future endeavors.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 3, 2010)

Rykion said:


> I also agree that deadlines can be good motivators.  Unfortunately, one thing I notice in a lot of shared world fiction is that the storyline feels half-baked or that all the story's loose ends conveniently come together 3 pages before the novel's end.  I can't help but think that the deadline hit too soon, and/or there was a constraint on the length of the story.



For what it's worth, and I don't mean to offer this as an argument, really, merely an interesting aside, that's also a common criticism of Jane Austen's work.

And she's a classic who's been read consistently for _hundreds_ of years now, and didn't work under any deadline.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 8, 2010)

Rykion said:


> If this is in response to point 3 in my post, I never said that shared world writers didn't love the settings or their work. My point was that much of the best fiction starts as a personal labor of love rather than as contracted work with a deadline.
> .




Hmmmm... I'm going to go with no.

Robert E. Howard, Burrows, and other writers of the pulp era often were not proud of the work but did it to get paid. Howard rewrote, and resubmitted his material. He was often seeking to expand his audience so that he wasn't tied into one particular genre or field. They did this specifically to get paid. David Eddings? Saw a hole in the fantasy field and wrote... to get paid.

I'm not saying every author is like that, but a lot of the early pulp writers, including the creator of Doc Sampson, one of the foundations of the modern super hero (say hello Batman and hellow Superman), were done quickly, efficiently, and for profit.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 8, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Hmmmm... I'm going to go with no.
> 
> Robert E. Howard, Burrows, and other writers of the pulp era often were not proud of the work but did it to get paid. Howard rewrote, and resubmitted his material. He was often seeking to expand his audience so that he wasn't tied into one particular genre or field. They did this specifically to get paid. David Eddings? Saw a hole in the fantasy field and wrote... to get paid.
> 
> I'm not saying every author is like that, but a lot of the early pulp writers, including the creator of Doc Sampson, one of the foundations of the modern super hero (say hello Batman and hellow Superman), were done quickly, efficiently, and for profit.




Umm, yes!  

And as Mouse, Mr Kemp, and Mr Lowder pointed out, writing to get paid is not a fundamental flaw of shared world fiction.  The plain facts of the matter is that there are writers who do shared fiction that write to get paid, there are writers of shared fiction who write because they love their labor, and there are writers of shared fiction who write because they love AND they want to get paid!  And the EXACT same thing can be said of writers who do not write shared fiction at all.

The problem lies where folks unfairly assume that shared world fiction has a higher percentage of either A) crappy writers, or B) writers who only write to get paid (or both!).  When I was younger, I read a LOT of standard fantasy fiction (non-shared) that was total crap, and that is what actually pushed me towards my personal preference for D&D shared world fiction.  It's not all I read, but I read all of it.  My bias is opposite of those who distrust shared world fiction!  But, just like them, I think I need to recognize my bias and branch out a bit!


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 8, 2010)

Hobo said:


> For what it's worth, and I don't mean to offer this as an argument, really, merely an interesting aside, that's also a common criticism of Jane Austen's work.
> 
> And she's a classic who's been read consistently for _hundreds_ of years now, and didn't work under any deadline.




It's interesting when you study literature . . . you find that many of the "classics" of today were the "trash" literature of yesterday!  Makes you wonder what the classics of tomorrow will be?!?!


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 16, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> The problem lies where folks unfairly assume that shared world fiction has a higher percentage of either A) crappy writers, or B) writers who only write to get paid (or both!).  When I was younger, I read a LOT of standard fantasy fiction (non-shared) that was total crap, and that is what actually pushed me towards my personal preference for D&D shared world fiction.  It's not all I read, but I read all of it.  My bias is opposite of those who distrust shared world fiction!  But, just like them, I think I need to recognize my bias and branch out a bit!



I don't think I've talked to anyone who came by their assumptions "unfairly."  They didn't just decide that without sampling the field, in most cases, pretty extensively.

Although I read a fair amount of shared world fiction, I tend to hold it to a lower standard in general than non-shared world fiction precisely because I've had so many bad to mediocre experiences with it, relative to the field generally.  

It just so happens that I've had _just enough_ mediocre to good experiences that I keep sampling it.


Dire Bare said:


> It's interesting when you study literature . . . you find that many of the "classics" of today were the "trash" literature of yesterday!  Makes you wonder what the classics of tomorrow will be?!?!



Eh... sometimes.  Arguably that _might_ be applicable to guys like Homer or Shakespeare, but in general I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.  Not sure what you mean, though.  Jane Austen was never "trash literature" even in her lifetime.


----------



## Wayside (Mar 18, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Eh... sometimes.  Arguably that _might_ be applicable to guys like Homer or Shakespeare, but in general I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.  Not sure what you mean, though.  Jane Austen was never "trash literature" even in her lifetime.



Nope, not even arguably. Shakespeare was highly regarded in his lifetime, and Homer was used as a textbook in Greek schools. You're spot on about the credibility of the "yesterday's trash is tomorrow's literature" meme. Pretty much the closest you get are works banned in whole or part for obscenity, like _The Flowers of Evil_ and _Ulysses_, or that were just ahead of their time, like _Moby Dick_ and Emily Dickinson's poems.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 22, 2010)

Yeah, but "highly regarded" is a vague term.  George Lucas is highly regarded in our time.  At least, he was before the prequel trilogy.  

Doesn't mean that Star Wars may not pass the test of trash entertainment that becomes classic.

And by the time Homer was taught in Greek schools, he'd been dead for 500 years.  Assuming there actually was a person named Homer in the first place.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 25, 2010)

If anyone's still interested in the topic, I just did a guest blog about tie-in on my agent's web site. My point here is from the author's perspective, focusing on how writing tie-in can actually improve your writing and your career. Feel free to comment either here or there, if you're so inclined.

The Swivet [Colleen Lindsay]: Guest Blogger Ari Marmell on writing media tie-ins


----------

