of interest, via genreneep

[ironymaiden]

looks like a new organization has been created for writers of licensed material. they're also planning to do awards.

what i find most interesting is that they use the term "tie-in" proudly, rather than "shared world fiction." i've observed even people who write them consider contract stories to be something less than their original fiction, but i get the impression these gigs have become the bread-and-butter of working writers. there's major talent, known and unknown, being poured into other people's intellectual property.

are they the replacement for the pulps of the first half of the 20th century? there are some brilliant stories that were published in those magazines.

who was reading the pulps? i admit that i'm not reading shared world fiction, and i'm primarily a genre reader, but they sell really well. Bueller?

Comments

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

So here's the distinction, based on my experience. "Tie-in" fiction usually refers to novels based on other media in a licensing arrangement: movies, TV, games, what have you, for exmaple, Star Wars, Star Trek, etc. "Novelizations" tend to be scene-for-scene recreations of movies and TV on the written page. "Shared world" fiction usually refers to a fictional universe originally created in print by one or more writers and shared out with others. Darkover, Thieves World and Wild Cards all come to mind. These are all seen as strict distinctions by professional writers.

Writers who don't write tie-in work tend to look down on writers who do, claiming that tie-in writers aren't doing hard work; they see them as hacks ot writing anything original. I see it differently but I shan't get on that soapbox here; we'd be here all night.

i've observed even people who write them consider contract stories to be something less than their original fiction...

Depends upon who you ask. Ask kradical, Mike Stackpole or Loren Coleman and that's not the answer you'll get. These are guys for whom tie-in work has become bread and butter, and they take no less pride in their work-for-hire stuff than they do in their original work. The audience for one often feeds the audience for the other.

...are they the replacement for the pulps of the first half of the 20th century?

That's a really interesting question and I admit to wanting to think about it more before I give an off-the-cuff response.

[ironymaiden]

i appreciate the definitions. i've heard "Shared World" in author panels applied more broadly to things like Star Wars and the various WotC properties.

i question the audience feed thing. i love Greg Keyes' work, but i've never considered picking up one of his work-for-hire novels. and i've not looked up the statistics, but i'd heard that RA Salvatore's original novels didn't sell well.

but as M&C (in reference to something else) used to say - "you're not the target audience."

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

i question the audience feed thing.

It often depends upon who the author is and how they flog their work. For some writers it works. The example that comes immediatly to mind is Timothy Zahn, many of whose Star Wars readers have crossed over.