Paul S. Kemp's defense of shared world fiction

[Rykion]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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.