Home » Forums » Talk About It » Books

Media Tie Ins

Submitted by RED SHIRT on January 26, 2009 - 12:55pm

I am starting this topic in the hopes that a genuine discussion can occur here. In a few months time, the podcast is going to features this topic as a round table. I fear, based on listening to a recent episode, that it's going to be a love fest and an opoprtunity for those gathered to plug their latest Buffy novel or whatever.

I must start out by saying that I am not a fan of media tie in work. I'm not going to get into the fact that they are real lietrature or not, but rather, as a fan of a particular series, the books, unless labeled so on the cover, are not canon.

I know, I know, canon as an evil word, especially to the tie in writer, because they fear that it invalidates their work. Here's the rub, it does. I'm so looking forward to JJ Abrams Trek movie this May and then sit back and watch the fanboys moan how it doesn't jibe with so and so's novel.

When I look at these tie in novels, especially ones that go to such lengths to weave a continuity, I think of Bill Shatner in that old SNL sketch. "You've done something I did as a lark for a couple of years and turned it into a complete waste of time."

Oh, I know, the sales prove me wrong. Yeah, well they also buy Doritos, watch The Girls Next Door and American Idol, and can't tell you who the secretary of defense is.

Yes, I'm a snob. How is it that when you argue against the dumbing down of America, you are listed as a snob? And media tie-in novels fit right in there. The authors have their universe set for them. The readers don't have to read too much into the character's motivations. Picard will always have a bug up his ass and Kirk will always be a one dimensional skirt chaser. It works on the screen and we all have a bit of fun, but I really don't want to read about it.

My two cents.

‹ Poe The Garbage Man ›
John S. Drew's picture

Topic Closed

Submitted by John S. Drew on January 27, 2009 - 12:55pm.

This topic has devolved from talking about the subject to personal attack. I'm shutting it down.

—

John
Creator, Producer, All Around God-Like Being
"What?  Too much?"

»

It's remarkable

Submitted by celticboy (not verified) on January 26, 2009 - 6:47pm.

How we can disagree on so many points.  That's life though, and it would be equally remarkable on how boring it would be if everyone agreed.

I'll leave the Canon or Not-So-Canon question for now.  Whilst I've often said I'd love to see more derivative work mentioned in the source (such as events in a novel mentioned in passing in a episode), as happened, once in Babylon 5, I can also see the point that often derivative work comes after a particular show/movie or other source material has been completed.

For an author, I can completely understand that working in tie-in is, for me at least, an excellent way to hone your craft.  The characters and settings have already been created and exist for the most part in the audience's mind.  That leaves you free to create the story, which is always the most important part of any work. I know from Keith's work, he's used the experience he's gained writing in the varied tie-in work to publish his own universe story with Dragon's Precinct.

however, to suggest that a tie-in novel is leading to the dumbing-down of America (and the rest of the world no doubt), is a poor attempt at baiting.  To me, the "book of the film" serves to elaborate on things that the director couldn't include, and the "continuation" work serves marvellously to keep alive something people have a passion for.  If there was no tie-in media, would Star Trek have returned with The Next Generation as easily?   I for one am interested in such things.  What DID happen between All Good Things and Generations, or First Contact and Nemesis.  What happened to the crew of Serenity after Jubal Early was sent floating into space and what, just WHAT happened after the end of Blake's Seven????   (Ok, that hasn't been answered yet, but I hold out hope)

Lastly, I cannot understand how you can suggest this is in the same league as the general state of television being the reason for the general decline of intellect throughout the modern world.  How can you compare Keith working in someone else's sandpit to the endless dross parading across the airwaves, X-Factor, American/Pop Idol, Britain's got talent (no, it really doesn't), and the equally endless wave of celebrity this and a Star doing that.   It makes me want to switch off the aptly named boob tube and pick up a damn book.

»

But That's Just It

Submitted by NickelNDime (not verified) on January 27, 2009 - 12:45pm.

Keith is treated with the type of celebrity status that one gets from being an Idol contestant. He writes media tie-in books. He's not even writing good ones. (Sorry, my opinion.)

Everyone goes on and on about his Articles of the Federation. First, he clearly admits he was influenced by another TV show, The West Wing. Second, he had the entire universe and political setting worked out for him thanks to the TV series. Now, I'd be more impressed had he done something along the lines of creating a future history story projecting what a president of the first unified groups of worlds would be like. He would have to create new races and political situations. Oh, wait a minute, that's called Babylon 5. I guess there's no point in trying then.

 

»
krad's picture

tell me....

Submitted by krad on January 26, 2009 - 1:55pm.

...did you go see The Dark Knight? Iron Man? Any of the Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter films?

Because they're not canon, either. The canon of Batman consists of the comic books published by DC Comics. The canon of Iron Man consists of the comic books published by Marvel. The canon of LOTR consists of the work by J.R.R. Tolkien, and that of HP is the work of J.K. Rowling. The movies are just derivative works based on that of another medium.

Those movies aren't canon, either. So I assume you look down on them too, right? And dismiss them as irrelevant? Since they're not "real"?

I love that, if you take a novel, gut most of the story and turn it into a 120-page screenplay, you're eligible for one of the most prestigious awards in the world (that has its own category for what you do, even), but if you take a movie and expand it and give it enough story to actually be a novel, you're a talentless hack who doesn't write "real" books.

I will now sit back and watch you condemn me for pouting and being a hack. Knock yourself out.

 

—

Keith R.A. DeCandido | keith@decandido.net | kradical.livejournal.com | Facebook.com/kradec | Twitter.com/kradec

"Even when you turn your back, you're still facing something."

»

You Made My Point

Submitted by NickelNDime (not verified) on January 26, 2009 - 2:48pm.

You're right. It's not fair. There is a double standard. I feel no derivative work should get such recognition. It steams me to see movies like The Wizard of Oz or Gone with the Wind be considered great works of cinema. I enjoyed them for what they are, but there was far better original movies. As for Batman and Iron Man, I've never seen them. I don't read comics and the movies don't interest me.

I know you may not believe this, but I feel for you, Keith. When you die, nobody is going to remember your writings save for the sad Trek fan who has them lined on his wall. There won't be a news brief announcing your death the way Arthur Clarke was recognized when he passed. I never said you weren't a writer, but you're a writer the same way a writer for the New York Post is a writer. You are a writer, but you're not an artist.

It does suck that you will never get the recognition you think you deserve or the awards or plaudits. The recognition of movies like Wizard or Lord of the Rings as great theater is another example of the dumbing down of America.

 

»
krad's picture

one more thing...

Submitted by krad on January 26, 2009 - 3:04pm.

I assume you also dismiss the plays of William Shakespeare? Aside from The Tempest, all his works were either derivative or just retellings of history. And the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was a media tie-in work-for hire, so Michelangelo's obviously just another hack in it for the money, also...

 

—

Keith R.A. DeCandido | keith@decandido.net | kradical.livejournal.com | Facebook.com/kradec | Twitter.com/kradec

"Even when you turn your back, you're still facing something."

»

Wooooo Boy!

Submitted by NickelNDime (not verified) on January 26, 2009 - 4:10pm.

I was wondering when you were going to pull that little chestnut out. I've seen you pull it on your blog. Do you honestly believe that there is any similarity to what you do and what Shakespeare and Michelangelo accomplished?

See, I don't get you, on the one hand, you appear to see that what you're doing, while fun and clearly profitable, is not rocket science, but then you pull nonsense like that or whine about not getting awards.

Tell me, honestly, how do you see yourself? Is what you do really in the league of writers like Robert Heinlein or Thomas Disch? If you truly believe that, then I'll back off as I'll never rid you of that delusion.

Now, if you know that what you do is produce literary Twinkies and you do it well and you make a living off it, then we can discuss the merits of it and how you are contributing to the decline of America.

»
krad's picture

of course not!

Submitted by krad on January 26, 2009 - 4:31pm.

I don't remotely see myself on the same level as Michelangelo and Shakespeare. That is not at all the point. I bring up that example, not to elevate my own work, but to point out that tie-ins and derivate work aren't limited to Star Trek novels, and that remakes and retellings aren't new things, and that what is now considered great art is something that started out as the same kind of popular art that is being condemned now.

I don't whine about not getting awards, I complain (okay, maybe I do whine) about the double standards of existing awards. Again, it has nothing to do with my work as such, but the type of work I do.

To answer your direct question: I see myself as someone who is providing entertainment to people who are moved by it in various and sundry ways. Some of them are moved to vomit, but that's the risk. *grin* But some enjoy themselves when they read my words, and ultimately that's the only yardstick I give a crap about.

One person was moved to a career in politics solely on the strength of a Star Trek novel I wrote called Articles of the Federation. And I've lost track of the e-mails I've gotten from people for whom one of mine was their first novel, and it led them to read other things. If I provide nothing else to the world, the knowledge that I was a gateway drug to someone for the wonderful world of books -- then I don't give a hoot in hell what people say when I'm dead. (I won't much care either way, anyhow, what with being dead and all....)

If that's not good enough for you, well, I'll somehow manage to live with your disappointment.

 

—

Keith R.A. DeCandido | keith@decandido.net | kradical.livejournal.com | Facebook.com/kradec | Twitter.com/kradec

"Even when you turn your back, you're still facing something."

»
krad's picture

at least you're consistent

Submitted by krad on January 26, 2009 - 3:01pm.

Most of the people who dismiss tie-ins as non-canon as you did are also the first ones in line to see a Batman film, so I'm glad to see that you at least have the strength of your convictions. That's rare.

Having said that, save your pity. I neither desire it nor need it; for one thing, my career ain't over yet. And even if I remain a tie-in writer, there'll also be sad Buffy fans, sad Supernatural fans, sad Farscape fans, and sad StarCraft fans who'll be sorry to see me go, too! So there! Nyah! *big grin*

 

—

Keith R.A. DeCandido | keith@decandido.net | kradical.livejournal.com | Facebook.com/kradec | Twitter.com/kradec

"Even when you turn your back, you're still facing something."

»

Well

Submitted by NickelNDime (not verified) on January 27, 2009 - 12:40pm.

You are right about one thing, there are sad fans of yours out there. They couldn't even be bothered to take their shots at me in the forum where the comments originated. I guess it's nice to shout fire in the safety of one's own home field and it certainly gave you the warm fuzzies.

I thought about commenting there, but I don't have an LJ account and I don't see the point of signing up for one to listen to the zombies go on and on, "You're crazy. It was better than Cats. I'll read it again and again."

»

If I Works

Submitted by NickelNDime (not verified) on January 26, 2009 - 4:14pm.

And if you're satisfied with that, being the subject of a group of fanboys and fangirls for as long as they remember until there is a "Third Coming of Peter David" (and dude, you really need to lose that moniker and not embrace it.), then good for you.

Maybe it's easier.  Maybe it's that you're scared that some Hollywod hack will tear your original work apart should it ever be made into a movie.

Whatever.

It's safe and it's easy and you're happy with it.  Good for you.

»
krad's picture

*laughs*

Submitted by krad on January 26, 2009 - 4:35pm.

I could respond to this, but you and I are so obviously on totally different wavelengths on this that there really isn't any point in continuing. I don't need to justify my existence to you, and you don't need to justify your notions of what is worthy to me, and we're never going to convince the other one that he's wrong.

The only thing I agree with in this post is "you're happy with it." I am, in fact, very happy with my life and my career, and while I have regrets, they're not the ones you think I should have.

Now if you'll excuse me, this discussion has been keeping me from finishing the Farscape comic book script I'm working on. Ah, irony...

 

—

Keith R.A. DeCandido | keith@decandido.net | kradical.livejournal.com | Facebook.com/kradec | Twitter.com/kradec

"Even when you turn your back, you're still facing something."

»

Our Amazon Store