Isn’t it all about the story, really?
by karenmiller on Aug.06, 2009, under Karen Miller
So there’s a certain amount of kerfuffle goes in speculative fiction circles about the place of media tie-in novels. Quite a lot of folk, it would seem, think that place is the nearest rubbish bin — or trash can, if you will. Quite a lot of those folk are writers. For whatever reasons, they don’t like it that media tie-in works sell a lot of copies. They don’t like that media-related works take up a fair chunk of shelf space in a bookshop. And they complain that these works are crap, that they’re second-rate, that only original fiction contains any merit.
And then — often in the next breath — many of these same people will wax rhapsodical about the latest episode of Battlestar Galactica, or Dollhouse, or reminisce with tears in their eyes about Buffy, or lament the premature death of Firefly — apparently and conveniently forgetting that the vast bulk of episodes for these tv dramas are not written by the show’s creator. They are written by scriptwriters who are playing in somebody else’s sandpit, writing in worlds they didn’t create. A bit, you know, like media-tie in writers. And yet while scriptwriters vie for a Hugo, media tie-in writers vie not to be tarred and feathered and run out of the genre on a rail because they dare to write fiction based on somebody else’s original idea.
Hypocrisy, let me show you it.
I write original fiction. I also write media tie-in fiction. In fact, when I finish this column, I go back to my next Star Wars novel. I’ve also written Stargate novels. Why? Because I love those stories, I love those characters, and playing in those worlds for a while is some of the greatest, most rewarding fun I’ve ever had as a writer. For me, writing a tie-in novel is a chance to share some of my thoughts and feelings about those worlds with folk who love it as much as I do. It’s an act of communion with the fans, of which I am one.
Are all media-tie in novels brilliantly written? No. Are all original novels brilliantly written? No. Is a media tie-in novel by definition devoid of literary merit? Hell, no. Is an original novel automatically imbued with literary merit by virtue of being original? Hell, no again.
For me, writing is about sharing a story with an audience. It’s about making people laugh and cry and stamp their feet and stop and think. It’s about engaging them, having a conversation with them, taking them on an adventure. And I don’t think it matters two hoots whether I created the world, or whether I’m using somebody else’s world as a springboard. For me, all that it matters is that I tell the best story I can, the best way I can, and touch as many people as I can with a genuine emotion.
The rest of it is all bullshit and snobbery.
Related posts:
- Writing tie-ins — Morgan’s questions answered So Morgan’s asked a bunch of questions, and they’re great questions, so I’ll answer them as a post. I imagine that writing a tie-in novel is a little bit like driving someone else’s car. You’ve been given the keys, but you know that you’re going to have to give them...
- Making your own worlds come alive The thing about writing tie-in fiction, for me, is how easy it is. Like I said in my answers to Morgan, I’ve already fallen in love with that world and those characters. They are real people to me (okay, remember now how I said I was nuts?) so that when...
- Bridging the gap People don’t read. Novels are for school. Fantasy isn’t real, so what’s the point? Isn’t it more fun to watch a movie or play video games? Well, that’s what I’ve heard anyway. I bet that you have, too. It surprises me how many people don’t dig into good books. I’m...
- District 9, Star Trek Hey Karen, If you could play in any franchise, is there a dream project lurking out there for you? Craving a shot at Halo, Warcraft or Hello Kitty? I want to see what writers do next with Star Trek. The film raised the bar and reset the mythology. So what...
- A Burning Question So here’s a question for you: are writers sane? The answer? No. Writing is one of the most insane occupations around. I rank it right up there with acting. And since I’ve done both, I feel confident in that assertion. So, why is it that writers’ elevators don’t got...
August 7th, 2009 on 2:23 am
I have no hatred of media tie-in novels, but this post mentions and then doesn’t deal with the real issue. People badmouth tie-in novels because they often achieve success via the strength of their intellectual property rather than the author’s writing or ideas. It’s all well and good to play in someone else’s sandpit, but if that sandpit is the sole reason that you sell books, it’s perfectly understandable for authors of better novels to be resentful. If you write a great media tie-in novel, that’s wonderful, but your book probably isn’t what upsets people. What upsets people is all of the crap with movie stars and fancy logos on the covers and sludge between. The unfortunate fact is that there are far more crappy tie-in novels than good ones. So, I agree that the story is what counts, but don’t think that just because you write a good tie-in novel that means that all tie-in novels are good.
August 7th, 2009 on 3:02 am
I would never ever suggest that all tie-in novels are good. They aren’t. Not all novels are good, full stop. And anyway, who decides what ‘good’ is? There are books published across all genre lines that don’t work for me on a lot of different levels and yet they are loved passionately by many, many readers. ‘Good’ is a totally subjective assessment. My good could well be your bad, and vice versa. I get very antsy when somebody wants to make a definitive claim of a book being good or not good, because if you talked to a wide cross section of readers you wouldn’t get a consensus. There is no ultimate good. There is only ever what is good *for you*. Which is why I accept that anything I write is, like Shrodinger’s cat’s cousin, both fantastic and crap at one and the same time. I’ve received reader mail on the same day, talking about the same book — one writer saying it was the worst thing they’d ever read, the other that I had moved them enormously and that they thought it was brilliant. Both opinions are true.
As for your contention that the badmouthing is due to resentment — well, maybe that’s true. But I think it sucks. A lot of writers get angry and resentful when they see someone else (like, say, Dan Brown or JK Rowling or Stephanie Meyers) selling a mozza while their own sales are modest. And that’s just human nature. I don’t have to like it, but it comes with the territory.
And yes, it’s true that some media tie-in writers get book sales because readers are looking for more adventures in a particular world, not because they’re following that particular author. So what? Why does that matter? If the purpose of writing a book is to communicate with the audience, share an adventure with an audience, so what if the book is set in a world the author didn’t invent? The readers love that world, presumably the author enjoys it too, so the sales follow. To complain about that is like one cook making chicken pies and one cook making beef pies, and then the chicken pie cook hating the beef pie cook because customers prefer the beef. Sure, you can blame the other cook, but the fact is that the chicken pie cook isn’t striking a chord with the culinary audience and the beef pie cook is. And that’s not her fault, and it’s not the audience’s fault either.
August 7th, 2009 on 7:48 am
As a writer, if I were invited to write a novel as a tie-in with one of my favourite films or TV series, I’d jump for the opportunity. It’s all about story.
Point is, people following a certain fandom WANT stories and I see it as my duty to give them stories.
However, when I write stories, I also aim to give my best and whether or not a novel is a tie-in or not, it’s my duty to make sure that I deliver the goods.
Too many follow-up movies could learn a thing or two from novels set in the same milieu.
August 7th, 2009 on 9:49 am
I don’t read media tie-ins and I don’t write them. I don’t watch TV, and only the occasional movie, but believe me - I love the fact that these books are written.
They are a link between the audio-visual world and the reading world - what’s not to like? Anything that brings people to the joy of reading and a good story: comics, graphic novels, manga, anime, audio tapes, story-telling around a campfire or whatever - I love ‘em all.
So take no notice of the idiotic purists and keep writing ‘em!
August 7th, 2009 on 5:44 pm
David says, “People badmouth tie-in novels because they often achieve success via the strength of their intellectual property rather than the author’s writing or ideas.”
Ah, David? Tie-in novels always sell based on the tie-in. The number of people who will buy a tie-in novel based on the author’s name is vanishingly small, and the number who will buy it based on “writing or ideas” is less than half of that. Karen’s right, nobody ever claimed every tie-in was good, and there will always be someone out there who hates the very best of them. But I don’t think there’s a higher percentage of “sludge” between the covers, necessarily, than in any other genre. And even having those stars on the cover doesn’t mean the books will sell well, or even earn out for the author.
The books are not marketed on their writing or their ideas. The fact that some of them are really excellent, outstanding even, has nothing to do with how well they sell. And it certainly doesn’t pay off in terms of crossover sales; tie-in writers know very well that the crossover from their tie-in works to their original work is miniscule.
Now, the good tie-ins will, as a rule, sell better than the poor ones, and the good (or at least the reliable) writers will generally be able to get more work in the area. But you seem to be suggesting that authors of original fiction resent tie-in writers because we have such huge sales and we don’t have to work for them, because the cover art and the TV stars are doing all the selling for us. Well, yes. That’s marketing. It still doesn’t mean huge sales.
I suspect that the folks who are waving that resentment around are, for the most part, the ones who haven’t tried it. Resentment from ignorance is still resentment from ignorance, whether it’s from a published writer or from someone who’s never sold a word and thinks all writers have to do is write stuff down and collect millions in royalties a week later, just for doing something anybody could do. You write tie-ins because you love the stories and the characters, again as Karen has already pointed out–not because you’re going to be able to buy a Porsche with the results. And you put just as much craft and skill and love into those books as you do your original works. (The fact that what appears on the page is not always what the author wrote is a whole other rant.)
Let them resent tie-ins. Let them try it!
August 7th, 2009 on 6:34 pm
Interesting discussion. Some of my favourite authors write media tie-ins. I’ve never read one of those tie-in novels - even when I’ve read every original book the author has written, and am absolutely hanging out for their next (original) book to hit the shelves. Some of my favourite tv shows and movies have tie-in novels, but I’ve never read any of those either - and have no desire to. I’m an avid reader and there’s so much out there for me still to read, but if a media tie-in novel gets an otherwise non-reader interested in reading, for whatever reason, that can’t be a bad thing can it? All power to any author who can write any book that anyone enjoys.
August 8th, 2009 on 2:13 am
@Karen Miller and Ashley McConnell, I don’t quite understand. Neither of you are saying that the sales numbers and marketing money for a media tie-in novel are commensurate with the skill of the author. My sole point was that people are upset because the sales numbers and advertising spend for media tie-in novels don’t match up to their quality on the whole.
As for Karen’s relativism argument, it’s all well and good to say that all qualitative assessments are specific to the individual. However, we all constantly are making relative judgments and statements. To believe that you can remove yourself from that framework in any meaningful way is pure hubris, in my opinion. At any rate, you seem to understand the reason why some authors and readers resent the success of media tie-in novels. I only wish that you had written about it in your original post in a more forthright manner.
And Ashley, while I completely grant the editing gripe, I’m not quite sure how to understand your post. You seem to be saying that media tie-in novels sell almost entirely based on the strength of the IP, but you’re also saying that only well-written media tie-in novels have strong sales? Whatever your point, let me be clear, I don’t think that all media tie-in novels are bad. I’m a fan, in fact. All I’m attempting to argue is that Karen’s post skirted the heart of the issue.
There are many that share my opinion that media tie-in novels often achieve sales figures beyond reasonable for their quality of story telling. I am not arguing in support of people who would badmouth every media tie-in novel for the simple reason that it’s based on another’s intellectual property. In my opinion, the media tie-in “genre” has a higher average level of storytelling than most. However, I also think that the level of storytelling does not match up with the quality of authorship, in a manner which suggests a rational criticism of these authors.
August 8th, 2009 on 8:07 am
David, there isn’t generally speaking a lot of advertising revenue put into media tie-in works. By this point, much of the sales generated happen in a kind of causality loop. For the most part, it’s the fanbase that buys the books, and the fanbase has its own way of keeping track. Plus the wider brand recognition of the worlds the books are based in play into that, given the cover designs that identify the original source material. So that point doesn’t really fly, in terms of being a reason for any upset on the sales figures.
As for hubris, well, it’s my belief the hubris lies in anyone declaring they are the sole arbiter of taste or quality of a book. Quality lies in the experience of the individual reader. Just because you feel that some tie in novels don’t deserve their sales success because they aren’t good enough — well, that might be your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, but I don’t accept that blanket condemnation. And anyway, what’s a ‘reasonable’ sales figure? As far as I’m concerned, if the books are satisfying the audience of that franchise then they’ve done their job.
August 8th, 2009 on 9:32 pm
Great discussion. I was interested to see Neil Gaiman weighing in on this topic via io9, and was disappointed when he, I thought, missed the point of what a tie-in writers job is:
“I don’t know if you’ve ever done the thing of reading a novelization of a film, before you see the film, but they’re always very very odd. As reading experiences, they’re always very unsatisfying, because they have all the beats of the film, and they don’t work in the way a novel works. They’re things that come from the pre-DVD era [where a book version was the only way you could revisit the film]. If you do that [i.e., write a novel so it will make a good movie] you come up with a very broken-backed story.”
My immediate thought was: a good tie-in doesn’t leave the structure of the movie intact at all. She dicks around with it, inasmuch as that’s possible, until it becomes a novel in its own right. That’s what I try to do, anyway, when I’m writing a tie-in.
Unless the brief is different, of course. Sometimes the movie experience is exactly what’s required, in which case a “broken-backed” story isn’t broken at all.
In discussions of tie-ins (including my own) the emphasis is usually on the writer, when in fact there’s a whole parade of people involved: editors, license holders, the original creators, the audience… Any analysis of this field needs to take the vastly collaborative nature of the industry into account. Imho.
August 8th, 2009 on 10:30 pm
You’re absolutely right, Sean. As you and I have discovered, it can be a vastly collaborative effort, with a great deal of external input into the story that a ‘regular’ novelist never experiences. That can have a huge effect on the ultimate shape of the story.
I think your Force Unleashed was a perfect example of dicking around with the original template until it became a story in its own right.
End of the day, there will always be people who want to look down their noses and pass opinion without the benefit of any actual experience in the process. Can’t do anything about it except correct misconceptions wherever we can! *g*
August 9th, 2009 on 8:53 am
Hey Sean, I agree with Karen. Force Unleashed was very well executed, and there, you had the challenge of juggling both video game and movie expectations. It had to be a tough tightwire to walk.
Force Unleashed shows the value of adding something new to the borrowed mythology. The idea of Vader’s secret apprentice added to the Star Wars universe in an exciting and unexpected way.
August 9th, 2009 on 5:49 pm
Deb, tie in work is extremely specific. That’s why not heaps of shows have attached novels, because the reader base is preselected. If you don’t enjoy the world the novel’s based in, why would you buy it just because it’s written by someone you read in regular fiction? I certainly don’t expect people to read my Star Wars stuff just because it’s me! *g*
And Nerine? Word!
August 12th, 2009 on 6:51 pm
David, you say “My sole point was that people are upset because the sales numbers and advertising spend for media tie-in novels don’t match up to their quality on the whole.” Mind if I ask who these “people” are? Because the folks who are actually writing the tie-ins understand perfectly well the parameters under which they work. The only folks who don’t get it (and would be “upset” as a result) are the folks who have never written them. So what’s the basis for their being upset? I suppose we ought to be grateful for their outrage on our behalf, but really, we know the business, and there are a lot more important things to be upset about.
Again, when you say “There are many that share my opinion that media tie-in novels often achieve sales figures beyond reasonable for their quality of story telling”–well, who are the many, and who defined what is a “reasonable” sales figure? That’s a bit like saying lower-end Ford vehicles (to pick a random example) sell better than they “ought” to based on the quality of the car. There is no such thing as a correlation between quality of storytelling and sales figures, and one very good reason for that is that no one can agree on what constitutes good storytelling. What appeals to you may not appeal to me. I have friends who worship at the feet of Jane Austen, but I’ve never really gotten into her work. Still, that’s quality storytelling–and a lot of things I consider dreck outsell her. It’s a marketplace. All you and I can do is buy the work we like.
And I did not say that “only well-written media tie-in novels have strong sales.” I said that well-written media tie-in novels have stronger sales, which is not the same thing. A really bad tie-in novel will have okay initial sales based on the fact that a core of fans will buy it on the strength of the tie-in,* but subsequent novels by that author will not sell as well and it’s unlikely that title will be reprinted, and if enough fans dislike the way that author writes, eventually the licensor will choose someone else to write the books. (Of course, there are a lot of other reasons the licensor may choose to make that decision, too.)
*Perhaps what you’re really annoyed about is the fact that media works have a very large core of fans to begin with, who will buy related works. But that’s the nature of movies and television, I’m afraid, and I doubt that’s going to change.