Discussion of media tie-ins continues all over the place. There’s a piece over at Jonathan McAlmont’s SF Diplomat, and he links to more. I don’t typically find that my worldview aligns with SF Diplomat all that much, but I was struck by one point: the underpinning to my own view of tie-ins is that I’m not the market for them. Without implying that there’s anything inferior or wrong about them (a view I find is usualy rather elitist and tiresome), I’m usually not interested. I want to read the next thing, something challenging and different. Tie-ins are inherently a continuation of the known. I don’t find that interesting.
Now, that view is a product of the reader that I happen to be. I’ve no criticism at all of the many people who find tie-ins enjoyable and worthwhile. I should add that very, very occasionally I find something interesting in the tie-in world. John M Ford wrote a very good Star Trek novel, Ed Bryant & Dan Simmons wrote a dynamite Batman novelette, Joe Lansdale’s Hellboy novellete is excellent, as is Howard Waldrop’s Wild Card’s story. It’s not an absolute. Tie-ins can be fine, but for the most part I’m focussed elsewhere.