![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Tie-in Fiction
Aug. 26th, 2008 10:41 amMy friend ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jimhines had some interesting things to say about tie-in fiction this week. He admitted that he was probably wrongly biased against it. This is an issue that I find myself wrestling with all of the time. I wear many hats. As an aspiring author and Lynne’s unofficial assistant, I know and admire many authors of “original” SF fiction. Many of them have won fancy awards. Of course, I’m also a co-writer on a book that chronicles and analyzes Doctor Who tie-in fiction. If tie-in fiction is the lowest form of SF writing, what does that make me?
There have been many smart things said about the issue over time. Tie-in fiction often pays more than your average mid-list novel. It’s also guaranteed shelf space. These things have to be a little frustrating for a novelist of an original world.
There are some definite minuses to be a tie-in writer. Your deadline is tight, you need to be very familiar with the canon of the property, and deep down you know that many of your readers don’t even register your name. To top it off, you can forget about the fancy awards.
My own feeling on it, quality tie-in fiction is just as good as quality SF in an original universe. Admittedly, there’s less “literary” tie-in fiction due to the short deadlines. Otherwise, good solid writing is the same no matter what the sub-genre. There isn’t less work involved because you’re writing in an existing universe. It presents its own challenges to a writer. I honestly believe that Doctor Who authors like Kate Orman and Paul Cornell have scribed works that can stand up there with anything written by John Scalzi or Naomi Novik.
So why is there such a bias? The bubbles just don’t intersect enough. Tie-in fiction isn’t getting reviewed in Locus or on SF Site. There’s no mainstream award consideration. If you are a fan of general SF writing, you have no idea what the good tie-in stuff is. Even in the tie-in worlds, the fans of the properties only know their own fandom’s books. I can tell you with some certainty what the top Doctor Who books are, but I couldn’t tell you a thing about the Warhammer novels. This lack of knowledge makes it easy to paint with broad strokes.
The real proof of the quality of tie-in fiction to me came from this year’s Hugos. Human Nature was hailed in the Doctor Who fan community as a brilliant novel, but nobody outside of our fandom knew about it. That is until the new series decided to adapt it for the screen. Once people saw the episode, it landed a Hugo nomination.
I think that tie-in fiction will get more mainstream acclaim. Hopefully, the trend of well-known SF authors doing more tie-in fiction will continue. If more authors like Tobias Buckell and Jeff VanderMeer do it, maybe people will stop thinking of it as slumming. Perhaps readers will then discover that there are a lot of great books out there that they missed.
jimhines had some interesting things to say about tie-in fiction this week. He admitted that he was probably wrongly biased against it. This is an issue that I find myself wrestling with all of the time. I wear many hats. As an aspiring author and Lynne’s unofficial assistant, I know and admire many authors of “original” SF fiction. Many of them have won fancy awards. Of course, I’m also a co-writer on a book that chronicles and analyzes Doctor Who tie-in fiction. If tie-in fiction is the lowest form of SF writing, what does that make me?There have been many smart things said about the issue over time. Tie-in fiction often pays more than your average mid-list novel. It’s also guaranteed shelf space. These things have to be a little frustrating for a novelist of an original world.
There are some definite minuses to be a tie-in writer. Your deadline is tight, you need to be very familiar with the canon of the property, and deep down you know that many of your readers don’t even register your name. To top it off, you can forget about the fancy awards.
My own feeling on it, quality tie-in fiction is just as good as quality SF in an original universe. Admittedly, there’s less “literary” tie-in fiction due to the short deadlines. Otherwise, good solid writing is the same no matter what the sub-genre. There isn’t less work involved because you’re writing in an existing universe. It presents its own challenges to a writer. I honestly believe that Doctor Who authors like Kate Orman and Paul Cornell have scribed works that can stand up there with anything written by John Scalzi or Naomi Novik.
So why is there such a bias? The bubbles just don’t intersect enough. Tie-in fiction isn’t getting reviewed in Locus or on SF Site. There’s no mainstream award consideration. If you are a fan of general SF writing, you have no idea what the good tie-in stuff is. Even in the tie-in worlds, the fans of the properties only know their own fandom’s books. I can tell you with some certainty what the top Doctor Who books are, but I couldn’t tell you a thing about the Warhammer novels. This lack of knowledge makes it easy to paint with broad strokes.
The real proof of the quality of tie-in fiction to me came from this year’s Hugos. Human Nature was hailed in the Doctor Who fan community as a brilliant novel, but nobody outside of our fandom knew about it. That is until the new series decided to adapt it for the screen. Once people saw the episode, it landed a Hugo nomination.
I think that tie-in fiction will get more mainstream acclaim. Hopefully, the trend of well-known SF authors doing more tie-in fiction will continue. If more authors like Tobias Buckell and Jeff VanderMeer do it, maybe people will stop thinking of it as slumming. Perhaps readers will then discover that there are a lot of great books out there that they missed.
