Paul S. Kemp's defense of shared world fiction

[Desdichado]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.