There’s been some talk around the Blogosphere of late about media tie-in fiction: its merits and demerits, whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing and so on. The good folk at SF Signal have added their two cents worth, with an interesting Mind Meld: “How do media tie-in novels affect science fiction?“.
The Mind Meld is well worth checking out and dovetails nicely with a book that I’ve been reading. Just last week I was sent a copy of Hellboy: Oddest Jobs (for which many thanks, Garth!!), and it’s been occupying my thoughts on and off ever since. The book features stories by Joe Lansdale, Garth Nix, China Mieville and others. Frankly, if it was anything other than a media tie-in I would have been aware of it, waiting for it, and would be planning reviews etc etc. Instead it blind-sided me. How did a Hellboy anthology come to have stories in it by a bunch of writers whose work I admire and follow, and how would that work stand up to their own non tie-in work?
Well, I’ve been reading it, and it’s good. The writers I’d expect to excel do: Mieville, Nix, Lansdale, and nothing is less than entertaining. In fact, for the most part, it’s a book I’m happy enough to recommend – it’s certainly better than many of the original anthologies I’ve read this year. But… you knew there was going to be a ‘but’, right? The stories are good, and if you love Hellboy then the book is for you, but the stories for the most part feel creatively ‘thin’. I don’t know how else to explain what I mean. These stories lack the kind of texture and complexity that typifies most of the authors’ non tie-in work. They’re not bad, they’re just well, ‘thin’, which I think makes it less interesting than any of the authors’ other stuff.
This reaction has left me wondering if I’m biassed against tie-in fiction. I haven’t read tie-ins in many, many years — I find the idea of reading a Star Wars or Star Trek novel a fairly excruciating prospect, no matter the writer — and while I’m aware of tie-ins, I typically don’t pay any attention to them. I don’t think such books are a bad thing, or that they in some way damage the way an author writes. I also don’t doubt for a moment that the good tie-in books are perfectly entertaining and fine, and that many of them act as introductions to written SF for readers, I just don’t want to read them. I also feel – and this might link to that idea of ‘thinness’ that I mentioned – that tie-ins have a thing in common with fan fiction: they’re the stories that happen in the corner of the eye of the main story, a distraction from the central event. Any Star Wars story is peripheral to the main films, is a ‘what next?’ kind of thing. I think that’s ok, but it doesn’t seem terribly interesting.
Nope, that creatively thin thing doesn’t make a lot of sense.
The Nix story in Dreaming Again and his Hellboy story is ‘thin’ compared to that, how? Or the vampire hunter one, etc.
Explain. :)
It is also possible you have little interest in/don’t like pulp horror as such, either? Speaking of biases, etc.
It’s true I don’t have a lot of interest in pulp horror – the main reason I avoid editing horror projects (I actually turned down editing a year’s best horror for that reason).
On the Nix and thinness – Garth is a good writer and he does a great job with both stories. I wouldn’t expect his story to be weaker than an original. So what do I mean by thin, if you take Garth as an example? Hmmm. Allowing that I wouldn’t choose Garth as an example I think there’s a greater textual depth to his Old Kingdom and Keys to the Kingdom work. It’s more engaging, more involving. Of course, that might just be me.
Interesting. I certainly have a bias against fantasy series aimed at kids given I am not one, I think. Preferring the horror end of things may have something to do with it, too.
The only thing I have read of that stuff (I think) is from his collection. While it was ok, I found it bland, uninvolving, predictable and lacking in maturity (perfectly understandable in a series aimed at younger readers, of course), depth, and good writing, so not exactly making me want to go further. I’ve flipped through a book, looks about the same to me.
Nothing in that that is in the class of any Hellboy work, in general (early Christopher Golden example aside).
Does comparing a novel series make sense here? That would be more comparing say Piccirilli or Hodge’s novels to the Hellboy variety. Because then we get Hellboy story to Perdido Street Station. Whereas a comparison to ‘Jack’, for example, is pretty reasonable. PSS of course trumps anything anybody in that anthology has written or ever will write, pretty much.
Doing a YB series you didn’t like would make all that reading worse, too. Ouch. Even if it looks good in the Super-Editor portfolio.
The Hellboy series is certainly upper-tier as far as Tie-Ins go, I think.
There’s not even a dozen of ’em (three anthologies, all pretty good – Odd/Odder/Oddest). So not actually going to have the same problem as the legions of Star Trek/Star Wars books, etc.
Couple of movie books for them too of course, so one of those entertaining novel based on a movie based on a graphic novel things. The first one was by Yvonne Navarro, no slouch, either.
Is it true that tie-in books have changed a lot in sometime 5 to 10 years ago.
Once upon a time, the star trek books were pretty darn nifty, written by pretty interesting authors. Uhura’s Song by Janet Kagan is amazing and I can think of a bunch of older ones written by good writers that did interesting and entertaining things.
Some questions:
And now? Not so much? Are there more of them? Has science fiction media become more popular, so rights holders are more interested in getting more merchandise/tie ins out? (and a lower quality as a result?) Are there more franchises now that there were in the 70s and 80s? (that’s pretty clearly a yes.) Does the incresing avilaiblity of fan fiction online mean that there’s also less demand for tie-in stuff? And I think as a mitigating variable I think that the falling price of book production (relative to 20 or 30 or 40 years ago) is really important.
But I agree fully about not caring very much about contemporary tie-ins…
As a practical matter, fiction which puts bread on the table of writers whose works I enjoy is a good thing.
Sometimes “thin” might be just what the doctor ordered (forgive the Who pun, there).
Not everyone can subsist on a diet of 100% pure original. Most people crave, even if it’s only occasionally, something that harks back to the familiar and well-loved, where catch-phrases and names substitute for elegantly rendered text describing the new and unfamiliar.
Existing on “thin” alone would be a bad thing, of course, whether it’s putting food on your table or stories in your head. There’s a balance to be reached, and I guess it’s different for everyone.
Earl: As I say, I have no quibble with tie-in fiction, and absolutely no second thoughts about the people who write it. Writing to put the bread on the table is a completely valid thing to do, and some tie-in stuff is very good.
Hey Sean: I think ‘thin’ is proving to be a very poor explanation. It relates to something in the stories being watered down, or diluted. Now that view may simply reflect my own disinterest in the ‘further adventures’ scenario which underpins a lot of tie-ins (and non tie-in sequels). I don’t know. Setting aside ‘thinness’, I agree that we all want a varied diet. I love Neal Stephenson, but I want to read David Weber or Terry Pratchett sometimes. I read Gene Wolfe and love and admire his work, but I couldn’t read it all of the time. I’d also add, I’d hoped I’d been making it clear that this post reflects my own preferences for my own diet. It’s not supposed to be some gatekeeper’s pronouncement suggesting what someone should or shouldn’t read. People who enjoy tie-ins should definitely read them when and as they want to, and can expect no criticism or condescension from me. – J
Look at all the Cinderella, Snow White and other assorted fairy stories like that, too, speaking of tie-ins.
Creativity is pretty thin there, too. I am sure you have picked out some of those as ‘bests’ though?
I couldn’t disagree more about fairytale retellings. Tie-ins and fairytale retellings are completely different. Why? Tie-ins come with bibles that tell you in detail what can or can’t be done. Fairy tale retellings have nothing like that. The level of creativity that I’ve seen invested into retellings is exceptionally high. I wonder, based on your previous statements about fantasy, if this more reflects your tastes than the fiction :)
Well, sure that can be part of it, that I like horror more than cheesy fairy stories, certainly. :)
Obviously some will be good, and some I will like – but that is not the same thing. e.g. there is Fables, and then there is ‘let’s make Cinderella a twentieth century girl and that’s it,’ sort of thing. Deviations from basic story pretty much zero, or very minor. While they aren’t going to bump Hellboy off in one of those stories pretty obviously – same goes for most of those, too.