Sammael said:
I agree that they are not entirely without merit, and that there are a few gems hidden throughout. However, I've become hugely negative about the D&D novels ever since I gained more insight into the interplay of WotC novel/R&D departments through a former employee.
To clarify - my comment did not mean that I am inherently bashful towards all shared world novels. If an author enjoys one of the shared worlds and has a good idea for a novel - or series of novels - set in that shared world - let him work on them! However, if the publisher rings up an author and tells him that he should write a 700-page novel on setting X, featuring characters X, Y, and Z, with a plot that includes A, B, and C, and the ending is like so... that is, IMO, no longer art in any sense of the word.
Sure, novels represent escapism as well as art, and I've read (and enjoyed, to a point) a fair amount of "commercial" works (e.g. Jordan) in addition to the classics. I hope I managed to get my point accross in the above paragraph.
With all due respect, I believe this to be a ludicrous opinion. But it's not obviously flawed on the face of it, so I feel compelled to respond in depth. Many of the non-literary "classics" were in fact, work for hire, by necessity: the materials and the free time to create them did not come cheaply in a pre-industrial society. I can't think of anything more "on demand" than painting someone's portrait, but indeed many of the great works are such, including the Mona Lisa, according to the prevailing opinion.
Greek and Roman sculptures? Commissions. Ancient friezes, murals, architecture, frescoes? Commissions. Most of the great works of the Rennaisance? Commissions. Further, any of the great plays of the past we enjoy were, if not direct commissions, then definitely commercial works, such as you've only managed to enjoy to a point.
The classic literary works are a bit different, as the printing press, which made books available to the masses, was rather lately invented, and even then, the near universal literacy we enjoy in the western world followed much later. But still, despite the fact that most of the works considered classics were written by a middle to upper class with a similar tint to their window on humanity, and were written for the same middle to upper class, to think that they weren't motivated by commercial concerns is ridiculous. The only reason many were free to seek only fame was because wealth was not an issue. Fame, though, too, is a measure of commercial success, and even if the author was unconcerned, certainly the publisher was.
Even so, many of the classics are, by a modern reading, not very good. Many address social issues that have long since been settled, rely on background knowledge that only the most learned historian can truly comprehend, or rely upon scandalous situations for tension that are no longer scandalous. Many have good plots, but by modern standards are subpar at keeping the reader engaged and encouraging emotional identification. Yes, I'm sure that they were much admired in their day. So are today's books.
Personally, I find neither the time since publication nor the dogmatic adherance to the narrow 19th century subject matter of small-scale interpersonal to be valid considerations in considering the worth of a book, as many modern day critics who enjoy mainly the classics or "litarary" fiction seem to claim.
Oh, and your comment to Mousefaratu was, IMO, unnecessarily rude.
