"Proper" scientifiction is preferable to Star Wars / franchised mush [DISCUSS]

[mgbfan]

dealing with Liea's kids...
which books & in what order should I read ???...

1) Ender's Game
2) Dune
3) The Mote in God's Eye
4) The Left Hand of Darkness
5) Hyperion

If after that, you won't want to touch a Star Wars "novel" with a ten-foot pole. You'll have had a taste of real science fiction.

I partly jest here, but I'm also serious. Do yourself a favor.

[AGuyNamedMike]

If you're reading, I'm all for it, no matter what the book.

:up:

[mgbfan]

Well now, it seems threadcraps have finally found their way into BookTalk. Let's not even get into the whole "is Star Wars science fiction or fantasy" thing.
I wasn't getting into that. I was getting into the whole "Star Wars books are garbage" thing.

I honestly think that a lot of people don't know any better. I'm all for these books getting kids and other non-readers started, but I also hope they graduate to real novels over glorified fanfic.

Matt

[AGuyNamedMike]

I was getting into the whole "Star Wars books are garbage" thing.

Which is what we call a threadcrap, young padewan.

[benedict]

Which is what we call a threadcrap, young padewan.

<font color=blue>Original thread cleaned up and hereby split to facilitate constructive debate.</font>

[Michael Corvin]

ahhh. I see.

Nice work benedict. Fast too. :up:

The way I see it is I read what I like, you can read what you like. It is no different than movies. Is Star Wars on the same level as Citizen Kane? No, but both can be enjoyed in their own right on different levels.

You can preach about "real" sci-fi novels all you want, but some people like the continuing adventures of the characters from the Star Wars universe. The novels may not be Shakespeare, but you know the characters, you know the world in which they exist, and want more. It's a lot like watching a tv show, tuning in each week to see what happens next. Every episode may not be Emmy material, but it is still fun to see how things unfold for the characters you love.

[mgbfan]

You can preach about "real" sci-fi novels all you want, but some people like the continuing adventures of the characters from the Star Wars universe.
Some people like Old Milwaukee's Best Light, too. Doesn't mean that in a beer forum, I'm not going to suggest to them some beers with actual flavor and body.

Some people like to smoke Swisher Sweets. But if we're in a cigar forum, I'm going to suggest Padrons, Montecristos, and Toranos.

Some people like to do a lot of things. But when we're in a particular forum, you sometimes recommend to people something better.

[mgbfan]

Also, for the record, that the absurd thread title was not mine.

[MovieExchange]

1) Ender's Game
2) Dune
3) The Mote in God's Eye
4) The Left Hand of Darkness
5) Hyperion

If after that, you won't want to touch a Star Wars "novel" with a ten-foot pole. You'll have had a taste of real science fiction.

I partly jest here, but I'm also serious. Do yourself a favor.

Guess what? I've read most of those. I also just got the latest Star Wars novel and I'm enjoying it.

Condescending people like you are what makes me hesitant to tell people that I'm a sci-fi fan, because you're acting like the stereotypical arrogant geek that they envision when they think of the genre.

[The Valeyard]

Some people like Old Milwaukee's Best Light, too. Doesn't mean that in a beer forum, I'm not going to suggest to them some beers with actual flavor and body.

Some people like to smoke Swisher Sweets. But if we're in a cigar forum, I'm going to suggest Padrons, Montecristos, and Toranos.

Some people like to do a lot of things. But when we're in a particular forum, you sometimes recommend to people something better.


I'd understand that if the original poster asked "What Science Fiction books should I read?" or "What are the best Science Fiction books around?" He didn't.

He asked...

dealing with Liea's kids...
which books & in what order should I read ???...


...and you went off on a tangent. It's like me asking "Which order should I watch the Godfather?" and you telling me I should watch Ingmar Bergman films instead.


That said....I always found Dune (and it's sequel novels) bland and hard to read. Tho I haven't read them since Jr. High so my views & tastes may have changed since then.

[boredsilly]

Yeah, I like Scifi...but very very lite Scifi. So I'm quicker to read a scifi book who's universe I'm already familiar with instead of trying to learn how a whole new world works. So if (and I haven't read many) but if I was going to read a scifi book - I would be quicker to grab a Star Trek novel then some classic or 700 page opus. It's just easier for me to dive right in and enjoy things. And reading has to be fun first for me or I'm not really interested.

That's not to say I wouldn't give what I call tougher Scifi a chance. It's just not high on the list.

[mgbfan]

Condescending people like you

Did I condescend to you? I hardly think recommending some reading and making a few comments about the quality (or lack thereof) of a particular franchise is cause for such venom.

I insulted books, not people. You can't say the same, can you?

are what makes me hesitant to tell people that I'm a sci-fi fan,

Become a fan of good fiction. You don't have to be ashamed of that.

because you're acting like the stereotypical arrogant geek that they envision when they think of the genre.

Ahh - I thank you for the assumption that I'm just a science fiction fan. It's one of many genres I read, my friend. I'm as likely to be reading Steinback as I am Simmons or Herbert. I care less about genre than I do about good writing. And you don't get good writing in a franchised set like Star Wars. Sorry.

For some reason, some people take this statement as a personal affront. It's not a personal affront. I'm insulting books, not people. Unless you happen to be an author of said books, there's no reason to be personally offended and start in with personal attacks and namecalling ("arrogant geek").

Although, that being said, I must admit that I took a certain ironic pleasure in being called a "geek" by someone who talks about Star Wars books on the internet. I believe that's a bit like being called obnoxious by Jared from Subway.

DISCLAIMER FOR THE HUMORLESS: Please note that the above paragraph was intended to be funny. The author takes no repsonsibility for any laughter or groaning persuant to said statement. Those hypersensitive to their geek status should know that all characters are fictional and in no way are meant to represent real people. Tax, title, and liscensing fees not included. Void where prohibited. No purchase necessary to enter. Must be 18 years of age or older to qualify. Women who are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant should conuslt a doctor before reading said humor.

[mgbfan]

Yeah, I like Scifi...but very very lite Scifi. So I'm quicker to read a scifi book who's universe I'm already familiar with instead of trying to learn how a whole new world works.
Then you've never read good science fiction. Skilled writers don't merely build on the creations of others. And this has little to do with the genre. This is true of any worthwhile writing. Science fiction is merely the variety we're currently discussing.

If you're judging the genre on franchised garbage, it's little wonder you have a low opinion of it. You really should read something off the list I provided and see if that changes your mind. In fact, I'll tell you what. Read The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell. If you're not genuinely moved by it, I'll pack up and leave the books forum forever.

[bishop2knight]

As I said before, reading is key. Read what you want and turn off that TV. Do that, and you're my friend. But I can also understand where mgbfan is coming from. It's sometimes tough loving a particular thing knowing that others would enjoy it if they simply tried it. For example, I've seen some wonderful indie films in my day, but my Hollywood-oriented brother won't bother...he'd rather have blow-em-up action thrillers.

I do think that ALL books have their place. I have a fairly stressful job and sometimes I want to come home to characters I already know. Something easy to read. That's why I enjoy comics and why I enjoy books like Star Wars. No, they aren't always that well written. And often they seem formulaic, but hell, sometimes I want to "shut my brain off" so to speak but still read and have entertainment value.

Personally, I try to vary my reading, whether that's genre, authors, fiction vs. non, classics vs. modern, etc. But it's nice to know that when I've had a stressful couple of days, I can plop down for a few hours with Skywalker and his friends because I already know what I'll be getting into.

[boredsilly]

Then you've never read good science fiction. Skilled writers don't merely build on the creations of others. And this has little to do with the genre. This is true of any worthwhile writing. Science fiction is merely the variety we're currently discussing.

If you're judging the genre on franchised garbage, it's little wonder you have a low opinion of it.

You've got me wrong. Nowhere did I say I had a low opinion of Scifi based on Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, or whatever franchised book series. Far from it actually. I'm saying that given the choice I would prefer to read those before Dune or something. Like I said I like <b>lite</b> scifi books, so I admit the stuff I read is like popcorn. It's just what I like in this particular genre.

As to the blanket statement that none of that stuff could possibly be anything other than garbage, I think is unfair though. It's like people who used to say all science fiction was crap - just because it was science fiction. I think a skilled writer can take an already existing character set or universe and create something great. This is something I see more off in comics as I've said I don't read a lot of scifi, but I do see it.

[Fielding Mellish]

http://www.sonofnostalgiazone.com/prodimages/BuckRogersBook.jpg

So... I take it some of you won't be joining my weekly book discussion group?

[Xander]

I'd understand that if the original poster asked "What Science Fiction books should I read?" or "What are the best Science Fiction books around?" He didn't.

He asked...



...and you went off on a tangent. It's like me asking "Which order should I watch the Godfather?" and you telling me I should watch Ingmar Bergman films instead.


That said....I always found Dune (and it's sequel novels) bland and hard to read. Tho I haven't read them since Jr. High so my views & tastes may have changed since then.


:thumbsup: Exactly.

Now, to stay on topic, I have read Heinlein, Asimov, Dune and other "adult" scifi. And most of the time, I'll take the fluff. :) I read because I enjoy it. I don't want to get a headache from the reading material. Some days I want something I can sink my teeth into, but some days I want a fun story with good characters who beat up on some bad guys. With wookies.

And mgbfan, saying things like "then you've never read good science fiction" when people say they like lite sci-fi comes off as EXTREMELY arrogant, whatever your intentions. Who the fuck made you the sci-fi judge? And how do you know what I consider lite sci-fi? It's fine to share your opinion on books, but you're basically bashing others for what they choose to read. At least they're reading. I don't give a shit if people are enjoying the Halo novels, as long as they turn the TV off once in a while. :)

[mgbfan]

You've got me wrong. Nowhere did I say I had a low opinion of Scifi based on Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, or whatever franchised book series. Far from it actually. I'm saying that given the choice I would prefer to read those before Dune or something. Like I said I like <b>lite</b> scifi books, so I admit the stuff I read is like popcorn. It's just what I like in this particular genre.
Fair enough.

As to the blanket statement that none of that stuff could possibly be anything other than garbage, I think is unfair though.
I'm going to have to stick on this one. Skilled novelists don't write about the ideas of other people. They don't use other people's characters and other people's worlds. They build their own characters, their own worlds (again, this isn't anything unique to SF). Those who can, do. Those who can't write fanfic.

It's like people who used to say all science fiction was crap - just because it was science fiction.
I'm not sure anyone knowledgable said that. A lot of SF is crap. But I don't know of anyone, no matter how literary, who has said Brave New World, 1984, Farenheit 451, or The Left Hand of Darkness is crap.

I think a skilled writer can take an already existing character set or universe and create something great. This is something I see more off in comics as I've said I don't read a lot of scifi, but I do see it.
Is it possible? Sure. Is that the case in franchised series like Star Wars? Sorry, no.

[bishop2knight]

mgbfan, have you read any Star Wars books?

[mgbfan]

but you're basically bashing others for what they choose to read.

Not at all true. I haven't attacked anyone. I've attacked a series of books.

If you choose to take my criticism of a set of books as some sort of personal attack, that's truly your problem, not mine.

[mgbfan]

mgbfan, have you read any Star Wars books?
Unfortunatly, when I was much younger.

As I've said, I have no problem with these books bringing young readers in. But I truly hope readers grow and recognize these books for what they are: glorified fanfic.

[dtcarson]

I personally prefer the 'proper' stuff to 'franchised', because in many cases it is merely a way to sell B- or C- grade stories by slapping a popular name on it. But it's not limited to books/scifi--walk down any toy store in the country. Candy Land, 5 bucks. Dora the Explorer Candy Land, 10 bucks. Hell, there's a Jeep and a Tommy Hilfiger baby stroller you can buy [for 3x the cost of a no-celeb-imprint Graco].

I think it was a scifi author himself, Theodore Sturgeon, who said "99% of everything is crap." [I might have the number wrong.]

I don't think a skilled novelist *doesn't* write about other author's characters/plots. They don't *solely* write like that, but I enjoy a good homage or 'in the style of' or 'in the universe of' sometimes. I might like the author, or the universe s/he is writing in.

While I liked the Ender stories and novels [although the fourth or fifth one dragged], I was not impressed by Mote in God's Eye or its sequel [I think] The Gripping Hand.
Right now I'm reading "At All Costs" by David Weber, it's like the 11th book in the Honor Harrington series. It's a series/universe that some other authors have also written in [haven't read any of those], and it's probably more akin to Star Wars [as a war-novel set in space] than it is to something like Stranger in a Strange Land. But I've read that one as well.
I agree, there's a time and a place for most books. Some books, including SF, are just poorly written, unoriginal, or boring. Some of those are by good authors. Sometimes I want the quick-moving but social commentary-filled works of Fred Pohl or RAH, sometimes I want the slower-moving but 'lighter' big space war books by David Weber.

If it takes reading a Star Wars or Dr Who or Dragonlance or Buck Rogers 'fanfic' to get a kid aware of people like Heinlein, Asimov, Pohl, Bear, Benford, etc, I'm all for it. I think all can agree that there are various levels of 'quality' in any entertainment medium [is Cannibal! the Musical as "good" as Citizen Kane?], and most of us can agree that there's nothing inherently wrong with enjoying/appreciating both of them [I have both Cannibal and Kane], but while it's fine to 'focus' on a particular category, it's also important to 'broaden your horizons', no matter *what* the medium.

[bishop2knight]

Unfortunatly, when I was much younger.

As I've said, I have no problem with these books bringing young readers in. But I truly hope readers grow and recognize these books for what they are: glorified fanfic.
I read plenty of books, and you're right, MOST Star Wars stuff is pretty weak. But there are a few gems hidden in there. But I don't understand why anyone would knock someone else for reading anything. Sure, I love to see people try new things, learn, expand their horizons, etc. Yet doesn't this apply: one man's junk is another man's treasure (god, that sounds pornographic)?

[mgbfan]

If it takes reading a Star Wars or Dr Who or Dragonlance or Buck Rogers 'fanfic' to get a kid aware of people like Heinlein, Asimov, Pohl, Bear, Benford, etc, I'm all for it.
Agreed 100%. Like I've said several times, I think these books serve a purpose of getting readers in the door and (hopefully) getting them turned on to geniune fiction (be it SF or any other form).

[mgbfan]

But I don't understand why anyone would knock someone else for reading anything.
Straw man. I haven't knocked anyone. All I've knocked is a series of books.

For whatever reason, a few people have chosen to read my criticism of the BOOKS as personal attacks. Criticising the quality of a book is not a personal attack (unless, perhaps, you're the author). Sorry, it's simply not.

Anyone is free to disagree with my opinions, but I think it's about time people stop claiming that I've been bashing posters. It simply hasn't happened. I've bashed BOOKS, nothing else.

[bishop2knight]

Straw man. I haven't knocked anyone. All I've knocked is a series of books.

For whatever reason, a few people have chosen to read my criticism of the BOOKS as personal attacks. Criticising the quality of a book is not a personal attack (unless, perhaps, you're the author). Sorry, it's simply not.

Anyone is free to disagree with my opinions, but I think it's about time people stop claiming that I've been bashing posters. It simply hasn't happened. I've bashed BOOKS, nothing else.

I didn't mean to imply that you were knocking anyone. My bad. When I said "anyone" I meant anyone, not to imply you at all. I actually think you and I are pretty similar in our thoughts on this whole issue anyway.

[boredsilly]

I'm going to have to stick on this one. Skilled novelists don't write about the ideas of other people. They don't use other people's characters and other people's worlds. They build their own characters, their own worlds (again, this isn't anything unique to SF). Those who can, do. Those who can't write fanfic.


See this we will never agree upon. I'm in the middle of "It's Superman: A Novel" right now. Technically a franchise book, or at the very least a book that is using things created by someone else. However I think the book is fantastic. It's one of the richest books I've ever had the pleasure of reading with very intricate plot threads, interesting characters, and a great sense of the time it was set. It's more than just a book that has Superman in it, and I feel it's really saying something about the time and how would a person from another world with great powers really operate in this world.

I honestly think it's a great book period, not a great book from a franchise and certainly more than fanfic. The author (Tom De Haven) has his own original books, so by your definition he is skilled (or at least tried to be - can't speak on the quality of those books as I haven't read them yet) since he's created his own world, characters, and such -- but he was interested enough to try and craft a Superman story. Just because it features Superman should the book be looked down upon? I sincerely doubt this was a "payday" kind of project for De Haven.

Your argument is very similar to one Erik Larsen made not too long ago. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to start that Serenity Novelization I've been putting off -wink-.

BTW - I'm not taking offense to anything you're saying. What does it matter to me if you or anyone like or approve of the books, tv, movies, music, whatever I like? It doesn't as long as the stuff makes me happy. Think you would probably agree with that. It's an interesting discussion though, even if we'll probably never agree.

[mgbfan]

The author (Tom De Haven) has his own original books, so by your definition he is skilled
Well, not really. That would be the converse of what I'm saying. I'm not saying that everyone and anyone who has written something original is skilled.

BTW - I'm not taking offense to anything you're saying. What does it matter to me if you or anyone like or approve of the books, tv, movies, music, whatever I like? It doesn't as long as the stuff makes me happy. Think you would probably agree with that. It's an interesting discussion though, even if we'll probably never agree.
Yup - and I appreciate those of you who are able to discuss it without getting personal. It's a good discussion to have, but those who feel personally attacked when a book they like is criticized really shouldn't be taking part.

Personally, I'll never be able to respect an author who piggybacks on the creation of someone else. In my opinion, there can never be the same passion and the connection to the characters when they're not your own. In my opinion, an author's characters should be a very personal thing, something that comes out of the author's self. Writing about characters that came from someone else just is never going to have the same passion and intimacy.

[benedict]

Robert J. Sawyer wrote the following article more than a decade ago....Any year that sees new books by such brilliant writers as William F. Wu, Timothy Zahn, K. W. Jeter, Roger MacBride Allen, and Garfield and Judith Reeves-Stevens should be noteworthy. Add to that the long-awaited first collaborative novel by Kristine Kathryn Rusch and Dean Wesley Smith, and 1993 should have been an auspicious year indeed.

(Wu, of course, is known for his wonderful short stories, including "Wong's Curiosity Emporium." Zahn's "Cascade Point" won the 1984 best-novella Hugo. K.W. Jeter's Dr. Adder (1984) was an outstanding early cyberpunk work. Roger MacBride Allen's The Ring of Charon (1991) was one of the most inventive hard-SF novels in many a year. Gar Reeves-Stevens gave us Nighteyes (1989), Dark Matter (1990), and several other excellent mainstream SF novels. And multiple-award-nominee Rusch and her husband Smith are the energetic team responsible for the Pulphouse Publishing empire.)

Yes, a distinguished group of authors indeed — and yet not one of their 1993 books made even the preliminary Nebula Award ballot, let alone the list of five finalists.

The reason becomes clear when we mention their 1993 titles: Wu's contributions were Isaac Asimov's Robots in Time #1, #2, and #3, plus Mutant Chronicles Volume 1: In Lunacy (based on material from Target Games). Zahn weighed in with a couple of Star Wars novels. Allen gave us Isaac Asimov's Caliban. The Reeves-Stevenses wrote The Day of Descent, first in a series of books based on the TV show Alien Nation; Jeter's book was also in that series. And Rusch and Smith served up a frothy Star Trek: Deep Space Nine novel called The Big Game.

SF used to be about exploring strange, new worlds. But 1993 was the year in which it seemed to give up the good fight, and finally admit that it had become devoted to exploiting tired, old worlds instead.

The phenomenon of SF being "product" instead of literature began with Star Trek novels. When these first started appearing, authors used words like "homage" and "nostalgia" to describe their motives for doing them. But in 1993, that pretense was finally dropped: Pocket announced a forthcoming line of books based on Voyager, a new Star Trek TV series that will hit the airwaves in 1995. No one outside of the Paramount studios knew the premise of the show, no one had seen even a single frame of it on film, no one could possibly have any sentimental attachment to the material. But the feeding frenzy of authors on GEnie (the computer network on which SFWA has its electronic home) clambering to sign contracts to do books based on that series was a sight to behold.

I don't (much) blame the writers, of course. We've all got to eat. No, the publishers are the culprits here. They pay less in real dollars now than they ever have before for original SF novels — and they often keep those novels in print for only months, or even weeks.

Not that publishers can't get behind books when they want to: Pocket mounted a campaign in 1993 to get the first Alien Nation novel onto the Nebula ballot, sending out copies to SFWA members in hopes of getting Nebula recommendations. But how does one assess a volume whose characters, premises, and backgrounds were created by other writers working in other media? For that matter, how does one assess the contributions of writers to books that have a possessive form of Isaac Asimov's name as part of the title?

I'd love to say that 1993 was an aberration. But it wasn't: 1994 and future years are shaping up to be more of the same. See, in 1993, Roger MacBride Allen signed a contract to produce a trilogy of Star Wars novels, and another couple of books about Asimov's robots. More power to him — but I'd rather have the rest of his saga of "The Hunted Earth," the ground-breaking original series he began with Ring of Charon. Also in 1993, Kevin J. Anderson signed to do a trilogy of Star Wars novels. Good work if you can get it, I suppose — but I'd much rather see another mini-masterpiece from him, like this year's Nebula-nominated Assemblers of Infinity, which he co-authored with Doug Beason. Dave Wolverton, one of our absolute best authors, has signed on to do a Star Wars trilogy, too, while Barry B. Longyear, whose "Enemy Mine" landed him both a Hugo and a Nebula in 1980, has re-appeared on bookstore shelves with an Alien Nation book.

The SF author I feel sorriest for is John E. Stith. He was a Nebula nominee for 1990's brilliant Redshift Rendezvous, and he had an even better novel in 1993 called Manhattan Transfer. But that book didn't make it to either the Nebula or Hugo ballot — and I think I know why. Many bookstores have taken to treating the terms Star Trek and Star Wars as authors' names. Stith's work was no doubt lost in the alphabetical limbo after row upon row of media tie-in books.

Indeed, it's getting hard to find any original SF on shelves groaning under the weight of Star Trek, Star Wars, seaQuest, and Quantum Leap novels; of products licensed by Target Games and TSR; of books in the universes of Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, Arthur C. Clarke, Anne McCaffrey, and Larry Niven; of false collaborations between big-name authors and newcomers; of sharecropping, franchise fiction, and packaged books. It used to be that such fare was the province of hack writers, those who needed a quick buck, and Trekkies who got lucky. Now, though, it's where many of the best and brightest of our younger writers are spending most of their time.

Pocket Books failed in its bid to get an Alien Nation novel on the Nebula ballot — but, if things continue, it's inevitable that someday, all too soon, the Nebula Award will be won by a media or gaming tie-in product. The year in which that happens will be the year in which SF literature will be said to have truly died — but when literary historians look back, they'll mark 1993 as the year in which the field's condition became terminal.....I thought it might be of some interest.

[dtcarson]

See this we will never agree upon. I'm in the middle of "It's Superman: A Novel" right now. Technically a franchise book, or at the very least a book that is using things created by someone else.

Hmm...Branching out a bit, but this could be said for virtually the entire comics industry. Bob Kane and Siegel and Schuster no longer write Batman or Superman, and quite a few comic strips are written/drawn by children/family members of the original creator. I'm not trying to equate 1984 with Family Circus, but the idea that 'you can't write a good story in someone else's universe' is a little too strict.

[mgbfan]

No offense, but I'm not sure comics are the best defense in this particular argument. I'd say the audience for comic books is pretty close to the audience for Star Wars novels.

[dtcarson]

Watchmen?
Preacher?
Sandman?
Or are you judging from the Sunday funnies, most ofwhich I'll admit aren't that great.

Saying 'comics are for dummies or neophytes or wannabes [or whatever term you want to use]' is just as bad as these people "It's like people who used to say all science fiction was crap - just because it was science fiction."
Again, certainly there is some dreck. But there are some superior titles, and excellent stories that may appear in a not-superior title.

[Draven]

I've read Ender's Game and enjoyed it. I've read all the Star Wars books and enjoyed most of them too.

So how could I like Ender's Game if I'm such a poor judge of sci-fi quality?

[mgbfan]

Saying 'comics are for dummies or neophytes or wannabes [or whatever term you want to use]'
I said nothing of the sort.

But comic books are primarily for a particular demographic. I'm merely pointing out that it may be a similar demographic as Star Wars novels - namely, younger, less experienced readers.

Let's not turn this into a comic book thread. There are more than enough of those in this forum already.

[mgbfan]

I've read Ender's Game and enjoyed it. I've read all the Star Wars books and enjoyed most of them too.
Ironically, I actually listed Ender's Game first on my list because it's so accessable to less experienced readers. I thought it an easy bridge from Star Wars-type churn-um-out series to the world of literate science fiction.

You liked Ender's Game. You liked Star Wars. I actually anticipated that. The reason Ender's Game was first on my list isn't because it's the best, or even a top-5 science fiction novel. The reason it was number 1 is because it's something someone who is used to Star Wars novels would be comfortable with.

So how could I like Ender's Game if I'm such a poor judge of sci-fi quality?
Fallacy.

My father in law likes beer. He drinks the cheapest American-made light beer he can find. He does not have a refined taste in beer. That doesn't mean that when he's here and has a good one, he's going to dislike it. He likes most beers, because he likes beer. But that doesn't mean he has discerning taste, now does it?

[Draven]

Ironically, I actually listed Ender's Game first on my list because it's so accessable to less experienced readers. I thought it an easy bridge from Star Wars-type churn-um-out series to the world of literate science fiction.

You liked Ender's Game. You liked Star Wars. I actually anticipated that. The reason Ender's Game was first on my list isn't because it's the best, or even a top-5 science fiction novel. The reason it was number 1 is because it's something someone who is used to Star Wars novels would be comfortable with.


Wow, you are sneaky! I can't wrap my feeble brain around your machinations. I better go read some Star Wars books to give it a rest.

Fallacy.

My father in law likes beer. He drinks the cheapest American-made light beer he can find. He does not have a refined taste in beer. That doesn't mean that when he's here and has a good one, he's going to dislike it. He likes most beers, because he likes beer. But that doesn't mean he has discerning taste, now does it?

:rolleyes: So he can't tell the difference between good beer and cheap beer? Because just because he likes a cheap beer, that doesn't mean he does not have a refined taste in beer. It just means...wait for it...HE LIKES CHEAP BEER.

I can appreciate a high-art film and a stupid comedy. I can appreciate a great hamburger or top-quality prime rib. I can appreciate an expensive sports car or a zippy little compact. Is the world of good sci-fi literature really so...small for you?

Back to your beer-drinking father-in-law, if he went around saying the cheapest beer he could find was the best beer in the world, I'd agree with you. No one is saying that the Star Wars books are the best books in the world. But that doesn't mean that people who enjoy the books are any less refined than...well, you.

You might think you are only criticizing the books, but you're coming across as a condescending elitist. No point in arguing, that's a fact. And furthermore, I don't need you to tell me what good sci-fi is. I've been reading books in some form or another for nearly 30 years - it's not like I'm missing something that you magically "get". I'm not going to walk into my book closet and think "man, why have I been enjoying this crap all these years? I should be boring myself to tears with DUNE while sipping congac on the terrace!"

Whatever. :lol:

[dtcarson]

I said nothing of the sort.

But comic books are primarily for a particular demographic. I'm merely pointing out that it may be a similar demographic as Star Wars novels - namely, younger, less experienced readers.


That's exactly what you said, at least the neophyte or wannabe part. Comic books are for 'less experienced' readers. Those poor children or children-at-mind, who aren't reading the 'right' things, they're just reading silly little Star Wars novels or comic books [again, just like other things, there's levels within that medium as well.
And I agree with Draven, you may not be attacking people [which is good,], but you do come off like a condescending elitist.
And like I said, by implying all comic books are for 'younger, less experienced' readers, you've just shown yourself as hypocritical as those 'educated readers' who denigrate sci-fi as a whole genre.

I went to Wendy's the other day for lunch, where would be an acceptable place for me to 'bridge' to the world of 'good' food, since I'm obviously a less experienced eater as well?

[boredsilly]

I went to Wendy's the other day for lunch

A #1 biggie sized with a coke and a order of nuggets is a slice of heaven.

No offense, but I'm not sure comics are the best defense in this particular argument. I'd say the audience for comic books is pretty close to the audience for Star Wars novels.

I get what you're trying to say here, but your wording is no good. I think you probably meant the audience for superhero comic books is pretty close to the audience for Star Wars. That makes more sense. And by the way your demographic breakdown probably isn't accurate any more either. Comics used to be for young inexperienced readers (a gateway to reading), now its more for adults who are looking for escapism IMHO.

Actually the same argument you're making here people make about comics. You will often see "Stop reading the tights (superheros) and give some real comics (usually meaning indie/creator owned stuff) a try". So this kind of talk happens everywhere in everything. In Hip-Hop discussions "Stop listening to that 50 cent and listen to some real hip-hop. KRS and Rakim", scifi tv discussions "SG-1 is ok, but check Babylon 5 and Farscape for some real scifi", movies, wine, cigars, anything. I guess it comes down to tastes and what you appreciate or are looking for in any given medium.

And I did go read a synopsis of The Sparrow at amazon because I am open to trying new stuff, but it sounded deadly boring to me. The book could be great, but I don't know you well enough to read a book on your suggestion alone and something has to jump out at me to give books a try. I didn't just write it off though.

[Michael Corvin]

Ironically, I actually listed Ender's Game first on my list because it's so accessable to less experienced readers. I thought it an easy bridge from Star Wars-type churn-um-out series to the world of literate science fiction.

You liked Ender's Game. You liked Star Wars. I actually anticipated that. The reason Ender's Game was first on my list isn't because it's the best, or even a top-5 science fiction novel. The reason it was number 1 is because it's something someone who is used to Star Wars novels would be comfortable with.

rotfl

you have an answer for everything don't you?


You might think you are only criticizing the books, but you're coming across as a condescending elitist. No point in arguing, that's a fact. And furthermore, I don't need you to tell me what good sci-fi is. I've been reading books in some form or another for nearly 30 years - it's not like I'm missing something that you magically "get".

I was going to respond earlier, but sometimes it is just best to wait for someone else. You put it more eloquently than I would have. Well said.

[krazydawg005]

I've been holding off, but I want to get my two cents in.

Spin it however you want, but add me as another to the list of those who say that you come off as an elitist. This mentality has always gotten on my nerves. The point you make is that reading Star Wars novels is a waste of time and suck except for young kids who can't grasp "real sci fi". In all reality, what you preach is no better than what you are complaining about. Are Star Wars novels not for you? Thats fine. But you are so stick in that elitist mentality, you are missing out on tons of great entertaining novels because you only let yourself read high brow crap. That is limiting yourself just as much as all those people who aren't getting "real sci-fi"

In regards to your crack on Enders Game, great spin. Most sci fi readers, elitists and not, feel that Enders Game is one of the best sci-fi novels ever written. The sequals and spin offs not to much, but trying to say that Ender's Game is only good for those coming off of lowly books like Star Wars is dumb. Even many of the most hardcore sci-fi fans out there love Ender's Game.

The fact is this. You have a right to read whatever the hell you want. If you want to spend all your time reading only the "very best" sci fi, then feel free. Nobody is attacking you for that. But maybe you should respect the fact that many people out there like more entertaining fiction as well, things like Star Wars, Star Trek, popular fiction (Tom Clancy, John Grisham etc..). THat doesn't make them any more dumb or any less of a well read person than yourself. But I'm sure you'll come up with some lame comeback and trash my post completely, because elitists like yourself get some sort of rise out of flaunting your arrogance.

[mgbfan]

:rolleyes: So he can't tell the difference between good beer and cheap beer? Because just because he likes a cheap beer, that doesn't mean he does not have a refined taste in beer.

Well, "refined" is another word entirely, with a whole different set of connotations. What I said is that he doesn't have a discerning taste in beer, and merely to point out the fallacy in your argument.

I can appreciate a high-art film and a stupid comedy. I can appreciate a great hamburger or top-quality prime rib. I can appreciate an expensive sports car or a zippy little compact. Is the world of good sci-fi literature really so...small for you?

I think more in terms of good literature, not merely good SF literature. But I suppose that is a reasonable subgrouping. So yes, it is small enough that Star Wars franchise-type, churn-um-out, cookie-cutter novels aren't in the grouping. Apparently this is a personal affront to some.

But that doesn't mean that people who enjoy the books are any less refined than...well, you.

I have never said a word about whether a PERSON is refined (in fact, I don't believe I ever used the word at all). My comments is about BOOKS, not PEOPLE. Why are you not grasping this?

You might think you are only criticizing the books, but you're coming across as a condescending elitist.

And yet, I've yet to call anyone a name. Can you say the same?

Whatever. :lol:
Isn't it cute when a guy is so confident in his argument that he feels the need to pat himself on the back at the end of the post?

Dude, you're clearly taking my distaste for Star Wars tripe as a personal insult. This suggests more about your personality than it does about mine. If you criticize something that I like, I can assure you I won't take it personally and start launching personal attacks and spats of namecalling.

In short, get a grip.

[mgbfan]

That's exactly what you said, at least the neophyte or wannabe part. Comic books are for 'less experienced' readers.

Argue it if you must, but comic books (and Star Wars novels - why has this become a comic book thread?) are not created for the older, more well-read audience. It's not an insult to comic book fans. It's a simple fact of demographics. Stomp your feet and yell at the top of your lungs, if you want. Doesn't change the simple fact.

Are there some well-read folks who like comic books? Oh, I'm certain there are. But don't fool yourself for a minute about their demographic. And as I've said, there's nothing wrong with that.

There seem to be some real hypersensitivity issues here.

[mgbfan]

you have an answer for everything don't you?
If the question is: Do you say everything you say for a reason and are you able to articulate that reason if asked?

Then the answer is: Yes.

[mgbfan]

But you are so stick in that elitist mentality, you are missing out on tons of great entertaining novels because you only let yourself read high brow crap.
Let's be frank here. Someone who is taking part in a discussion about science fiction at all shouldn't be characterized as someone who reads only "high brow crap."

I've got an open mind. I've tried the Star Wars novels. Have you tried "high brow crap?"

That is limiting yourself just as much as all those people who aren't getting "real sci-fi"
How so? I've tried it, as I've stated here multiple times. I found it to be formulaic tripe, penned by hacks. But I did try it. So where am I closed-minded? If I'd never tried it and refused to look at it, that would be closed-minded. This is just formulating an opinion based on available evidence. And the evidence I've seen has left the rather easy conclusion: the stuff is crap and the writers are hacks.

But I tried it, so I'm not sure where you get "limiting" from. All I'm "limiting" myself from is fiction that I consider to be cliched, forumualic, poorly written tripe. And yes ... I guess I would choose to "limit' myself from genuinely bad fiction. Call me crazy.

In regards to your crack on Enders Game, great spin. Most sci fi readers, elitists and not, feel that Enders Game is one of the best sci-fi novels ever written.

Pardon me, but did I make a "crack" about Ender's Game? I feel it's a great novel. That's why it was on my list. But it's also written in a simple, straightforward manner, which is another reason it was on the list. It's a great novel that's easily accessable. What is so confusing about this?

The sequals and spin offs not to much,

Speaker for the Dead is widely regarded as equaling, if not surpassing, the original (personally, I find it to be the best of the four, but that's a matter for another thread). The third and fourth fell off, though.

but trying to say that Ender's Game is only good for those coming off of lowly books like Star Wars is dumb.

Then it's a good thing I never said that. Remove the word "only" from the above statement and you'll be fine.

Even many of the most hardcore sci-fi fans out there love Ender's Game.
As do I, which is why I recommended it. Seriously, man. These other guys are getting hopping mad, but at least they're following things. Do try to keep up.

The fact is this. You have a right to read whatever the hell you want.

I don't believe anyone has challenged that. But this IS a book forum, and we DO discuss books. And in doing so, sometimes we speak out against books. Or would you prefer the Puppies and Bunnies and Everything is Good Book Forum?

It's a book forum. I'm talking about books. So get your panties out of a bundle and man up. Join the discussion or don't, but don't tell anyone not to have it.

many people out there like more entertaining fiction as well, things like Star Wars, Star Trek,
-rolleyes-

[Draven]

Well, "refined" is another word entirely, with a whole different set of connotations. What I said is that he doesn't have a discerning taste in beer, and merely to point out the fallacy in your argument.

From dictionary.com:

Main Entry: refined
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: cultured
Synonyms: aesthetic, civil, civilized, classy, courteous, courtly, cultivated, delicate, discerning, discriminating, elegant, enlightened, exact, fastidious, fine, finespun, genteel, gentlemanly, gracious, hairsplitting, high-brow, high-minded, ladylike, nice, plush, polished, polite, posh, precise, punctilious, restrained, ritzy, sensitive, snazzy, sophisticated, spiffy, suave, sublime, subtle, swanky, tasteful, urbane, well-bred, well-mannered


I think more in terms of good literature, not merely good SF literature. But I suppose that is a reasonable subgrouping. So yes, it is small enough that Star Wars franchise-type, churn-um-out, cookie-cutter novels aren't in the grouping. Apparently this is a personal affront to some.

Who is taking this personally? Your opinion doesn't affect me.

I have never said a word about whether a PERSON is refined (in fact, I don't believe I ever used the word at all). My comments is about BOOKS, not PEOPLE. Why are you not grasping this?

Because you are saying that these books are crap and that those that like them don't know what good sci fi is. How are you not grasping that?

Here are some of your choicer comments:

I honestly think that a lot of people don't know any better.
Become a fan of good fiction. You don't have to be ashamed of that.
Then you've never read good science fiction.

Can you really not see how that kind of stuff comes across as condescending?

And yet, I've yet to call anyone a name. Can you say the same?

Sure I can - I never called you a name.

Isn't it cute when a guy is so confident in his argument that he feels the need to pat himself on the back at the end of the post?

I put that there so you'd realize that I DON'T take this seriously.


Dude, you're clearly taking my distaste for Star Wars tripe as a personal insult. This suggests more about your personality than it does about mine. If you criticize something that I like, I can assure you I won't take it personally and start launching personal attacks and spats of namecalling.

In short, get a grip.

Why, because I wrote a post about it on DVDTalk? I write out posts about a lot of things...doesn't mean I take them all seriously. Your opinion of what I read means absolutely nothing to me.

Also, if you think I've personally attacked you or called you names, there's a button to report that. Feel free to use it.

[mgbfan]

From dictionary.com:

Main Entry: refined
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: cultured
Synonyms: aesthetic, civil, civilized, classy, courteous, courtly, cultivated, delicate, discerning, discriminating, elegant, enlightened, exact, fastidious, fine, finespun, genteel, gentlemanly, gracious, hairsplitting, high-brow, high-minded, ladylike, nice, plush, polished, polite, posh, precise, punctilious, restrained, ritzy, sensitive, snazzy, sophisticated, spiffy, suave, sublime, subtle, swanky, tasteful, urbane, well-bred, well-mannered

I'm assuming that you're not implying that symonyms listed in a thesarus all have the same meaning, right? I mean, you don't honestly believe that "discerning" and, say, "subtle" mean the same thing, right? And surely you don't believe that "discerning" and "snazzy" or "well-bred" mean the same thing, right?

Since I know you couldn't be implying that, I'm not sure that I understand the point of this.

Your opinion of what I read means absolutely nothing to me.
Umm hmm. Clearly.

[TimeandTide]

Argue it if you must, but comic books (and Star Wars novels - why has this become a comic book thread?) are not created for the older, more well-read audience. Doesn't change the simple fact.


:hscratch:

Watchmen. House of Secrets. Love and Rockets. Lost in Paradise. The Dark Knight Returns. Bone. Spirit. Cerebus. Maus. Astro City. Transmetropolitan. Concrete. Elementals. Preacher. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

Countless others.

And you're wondering why anyone would dare call you elitist?

So ditto to most everything dtcarson has mentioned thus far.

[Draven]

Since I know you couldn't be implying that, I'm not sure that I understand the point of this.

Also from dictionary.com

syn·o·nym
A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.

See the point now?

Umm hmm. Clearly.

You got it.

[mgbfan]

Also from dictionary.com

syn·o·nym
A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.

See the point now?

No. Unless you genuinley don't know that synonyms are words with somewhat similar, but not identical, meanings. Unless, of course, you're willing to concede that "discerning" and "subtle" mean exactly the same thing. In which case, this becomes a different discussion.

[mgbfan]

And you're wondering why anyone would dare call you elitist?
Fine. Star Wars novels are indeed written for highly literate adults. They're are wonderfully original examples of literature, not at all formulaic, and come with the full depth and passion of the other novels mentioned in this thread. They're bright and shining examples of all that is right with commercialism and franchise rights, and not at all targedted to fanboys, but to the general reading population, where they stand tall on their own merits. Further, original works of art are vastly overrated when compared to the vitality and power of pre-processed franchise books.

Long live Star Wars novels! Long live the complete non-hacks who write them!

[Michael Corvin]

You can be sarcastic all you want, but it still comes down to one point:


I've got an open mind. I've tried the Star Wars novels. Have you tried "high brow crap?"

To me "tried" means a few novels. So in this case you cannot apply a blanket statement 'All Star Wars novels are crap & written for children' if you have no frame of reference on the majority of them.

For example say I've tried William Gibson, Bradbury, Enders Game, Dune, etc. If I didn't like them I woun't dare say real sci-fi is crap, it just may not be for me. There is a big difference between this point of view and the stance you are taking.

[Nick Danger]

Mgbfan, you are coming off as condescending. Admit it and move on.

A better example than comics would be that the books written in the Star Wars universe are read by the same demographic as people who play videogames. Gamers like to play the same game many times. In franchise books, there is lots of action and excitement, but no character development. You also know that nothing can really happen to the copyrighted characters.

[Xander]

Fine. Star Wars novels are indeed written for highly literate adults. They're are wonderfully original examples of literature, not at all formulaic, and come with the full depth and passion of the other novels mentioned in this thread. They're bright and shining examples of all that is right with commercialism and franchise rights, and not at all targedted to fanboys, but to the general reading population, where they stand tall on their own merits. Further, original works of art are vastly overrated when compared to the vitality and power of pre-processed franchise books.

Long live Star Wars novels! Long live the complete non-hacks who write them!

Jesus Christ! You're the one that's obviously missing the point in this thread. While a few people have pointed out that some of the SW novels that exist are not complete drivel, as you suggest, the majority of posters are simply trying to get you to realize that you are coming off as highly offensive when you suggest that we don't know what the hell we're talking about because we read/enjoy those books. I don't think anyone in this thread has said that the SW books are the best books ever written. We're just saying that we enjoy them. Most of us, in all likelyhood, enjoy better books too. But saying things like the comments Draven quoted on the last page make you seem like an elitist jerk, whether you mean to come off that way or not, that's how you are coming across in many of your posts.

[mgbfan]

To me "tried" means a few novels.

Yup. If you believe I'm going to suffer through any more to formulate my opinion, you're sadly mistaken.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that there are some Star Wars novels written by competant authors (probably not overly talented, but competant), where the mechanics are better than those I read. But in the end, it's the same problem. They're writing about somebody else's ideas, somebody else's characters, and in somebody else's universe. It can't possibly have the same depth and passion. I could read every one of um and that wouldn't change.

[mgbfan]

Mgbfan, you are coming off as condescending. Admit it and move on.
As soon as my opponents admit that Star Wars novels are low-grade fiction written by hacks.

You believe you've got something obvious that I should admit. Guess what? I believe I've got something obvious that you should admit.

[mgbfan]

the majority of posters are simply trying to get you to realize that you are coming off as highly offensive
Interesting that so many folks want to talk about me, when I just want to talk about books.

This is, after all, a BOOKS forum, not an MGBFAN HURT MY FEELINGS forum. So why not talk about books? Is the position of defending Star Wars novels that weak?

[WallyOPD]

You claim you're just attacking the books but it's just not true. You're attacking the people who read them. You've consistently stated and implied that they are targeted to people who either aren't ready to read higher quality books or aren't capable of appreciating those books. That's not an attack on the book, that's an attack on the people who enjoy them.

[silentbob007]

For me, thread fun. Wood write better, but Star Warz books have rotted brain. Asimov books need more lightsabers and prissier robots. Battle skool in Ender's Game seriously need wookie involvement. Damn, made argument. Not supported. Will have logical fallacy book thrown at me. NOOOOOOOOOOO!

In all seriousness, there are some definite weak links in the SW novel chain, but I truly do enjoy the Thrawn Trilogy that Zahn put out. The debate over quality is pretty pointless, especially with blanket statements and no citations or examples.

Just my opinion, but ....

Mgbfan, you'd have better luck recommending what you believe to be quality books and leaving it at that. Instead, saying "These are good, those are crap" just makes people reading "crap" defensive and less likely to pick up your "good" books, which I would guess is the point of your posting a list in the first place.

I say, read. Feast on high art. Feast on pulp. Feast on non-fiction. Different moods, different times, different likes/dislikes necessitate different reading. Try not to get stuck in the rut of reading only one type of thing ... but hey, if you do ... what the hell difference does it make to me? ;)

[TimeandTide]

But in the end, it's the same problem. They're writing about somebody else's ideas, somebody else's characters, and in somebody else's universe. It can't possibly have the same depth and passion. I could read every one of um and that wouldn't change.

I can't believe you've brought up that awful argument again. By your logic, the Godfather films couldn't possibly have the "same depth and passion" as Puzo's book. That To Kill a Mockingbird or Princess Bride or Gone With the Wind or The Crucible or Of Mice and Men or even The Prisoner of Azkaban are simply not up to par with their source material because...the novel's authors didn't write the screenplays, too? That's...weird.

Anyway, I can't imagine that any of the Star Wars novels are any worse written than the film's scripts. Strip away the visuals of A New Hope and all you're left with is clunky dialogue and an oft-used plot.

You claim you're just attacking the books but it's just not true. You're attacking the people who read them. You've consistently stated and implied that they are targeted to people who either aren't ready to read higher quality books or aren't capable of appreciating those books. That's not an attack on the book, that's an attack on the people who enjoy them.

WORD.

[mgbfan]

You claim you're just attacking the books but it's just not true. You're attacking the people who read them.

Untrue. Attacking a book is not attacking a reader. By that mentality, you can't say anything bad about anything someone might like.

You've consistently stated and implied that they are targeted to people who either aren't ready to read higher quality books or aren't capable of appreciating those books.

Not true at all. In fact, this thread started when I suggested some better reading choices to a Star Wars reader. Would I have suggested those choices if I felt him not "capable" of appreciating them?

The truth, Wally, is that you want to villify me because it's easier that way. And you're willing to make things up (see above) to "prove" your point. I haven't attacked posters at all. I've attacked BOOKS. Everything else is what you and several others have CHOSEN to read into my criticisms.

I actually want this question answered, Wally. If I was saying what you ACCUSE me of saying (that Star Wars readers are incapable of appreciating real fiction), then WHY did I offer a list of recommendations? That makes no sense, Wally.

Failing an explanation, you could offer up the admission that you made up the bit about me saying Star Wars readers are incapable. Because you clearly pulled that staight out of your ass.

If you must attack me, attack me for what I've actually said. Otherwise, you're just grasping and making crap up, and that doesn't exactly send the message that you're arguing from a position of strength.

That's not an attack on the book, that's an attack on the people who enjoy them.
BS. That mentality means that everything is good and we can only talk about bunnies and rainbows and nothing should ever be criticized.

[mgbfan]

Mgbfan, you'd have better luck recommending what you believe to be quality books and leaving it at that.
Ironically, that's pretty much what I did to start this whole thread.

[mgbfan]

I can't believe you've brought up that awful argument again. By your logic, the Godfather films couldn't possibly have the "same depth and passion" as Puzo's book.

Screenplays are not books. They do not have to stand on their own for general consumption.

Mixing mediums doesn't make for good analogy.

Anyway, I can't imagine that any of the Star Wars novels are any worse written than the film's scripts. Strip away the visuals of A New Hope and all you're left with is clunky dialogue and an oft-used plot.
Agreed. But ...

Movies are not books.

[benedict]

I haven't attacked posters at all. I've attacked BOOKS. Everything else is what you and several others have CHOSEN to read into my criticisms.[....] If you must attack me, attack me for what I've actually said. Otherwise, you're just grasping and making crap up, and that doesn't exactly send the message that you're arguing from a position of strength.mgbfan, I don't read franchised novels and pretty much confine myself to what I am sure you'd regard as first division science fiction.

That said, clearly I am far from alone in finding the manner in which you have chosen to express yourself here as more than a little self-defeating. If it weren't against the board rules I'd almost think that you were deliberately trolling.

When Draven pointed out (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=6682793&postcount=45) what he termed some of your "choicer comments" to illustrate how it was that people might see your words as condescending, you filleted his post, ignoring entirely that part of what he wrote. In subsequent posts you have persisted with the same now discredited argument that you were attacking books rather than a category of reader; suggesting that it was the fault of participants here if they ascribed to your posts something that you suggest was not there. Unfortunately, it was a similar tone that created much the same backlash in an earlier discussion (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=372661).

Like it or not, well-regarded, award-winning authors do sometimes participate in franchised worlds. As pointed out in the article I reprinted earlier, they probably do it to earn a living - since their own more "worthy" efforts sometimes fail to sell in sufficient volumes to pay the bills! Now, some people engaging in this kind of work may well be no more than "hacks". However, I very much doubt that a competent author deliberately will hobble his/her writing on those occasions when he is simply working for hire in a "shared world" rather than creating something brand new.

From what I have seen here over the years, there are a good number of accomplished, widely read, eloquent individuals participating in Book Talk. Please don't imagine that you do yourself any favours by talking down to them in discussions such as this.

<centre><b>* * *</b></centre>

In the interests of moving this discussion away fropm the personal and the theoretical, given that we already have a thread on the Cthullu mythos (H. P. Lovecraft and the Cthulhu Mythos [merged), did anyone else reading here have anything to say about the following (none of which I've read myself?<ul><li>Wildcards [Shared world and superhero oriented!]</li><li>Medea: Harlan's World</li><li>Murasaki</li><li>Poul Anderson's "Cleopatra"</li></ul>And did anyone else read the high praise for Orson Scott Card story [The Originist] set in Asimov's Foundation milieu? What about well-known authors in the sf and other genres who have either participated in shared worlds or made use of fictional mileu/characters that they did not themselves create? Is any form of collaborative fiction doomed to failure because it does not represent one author's single vision? What about historical fiction where they "borrow" actual characters rather than creating their own?

[WallyOPD]

I don't really want to get into an argument but I need to respond to this. I stated:

"You've consistently stated and implied that they are targeted to people who either aren't ready to read higher quality books or aren't capable of appreciating those books."

And you responded with:

"I actually want this question answered, Wally. If I was saying what you ACCUSE me of saying (that Star Wars readers are incapable of appreciating real fiction), then WHY did I offer a list of recommendations? That makes no sense, Wally.

Failing an explanation, you could offer up the admission that you made up the bit about me saying Star Wars readers are incapable. Because you clearly pulled that staight out of your ass."

First of all you've focused on only one part of my statement, the part about being incapable, and ignored the part about just being unready. I also mentioned that some of it was implied, not explicitly stated. To answer your question, I presume the reason you provided a list of other science fiction was in the hopes that someone who started on the Star Wars novels would now be ready to move on to "quality" science fiction. To satisfy your curiousity, these were the quotes I had in mind when I wrote that sentence. They weren't all from one post but I've compiled them into one quote for space. All the parts about younger and less experienced readers is where I read into your statements the implication that they wouldn't be capable of appreciating "better" science fiction.

I'm all for these books getting kids and other non-readers started, but I also hope they graduate to real novels over glorified fanfic.

As I've said, I have no problem with these books bringing young readers in. But I truly hope readers grow and recognize these books for what they are: glorified fanfic.

I think these books serve a purpose of getting readers in the door and (hopefully) getting them turned on to geniune fiction (be it SF or any other form).

But comic books are primarily for a particular demographic. I'm merely pointing out that it may be a similar demographic as Star Wars novels - namely, younger, less experienced readers.

Ironically, I actually listed Ender's Game first on my list because it's so accessable to less experienced readers. I thought it an easy bridge from Star Wars-type churn-um-out series to the world of literate science fiction.

[TimeandTide]

What about well-known authors in the sf and other genres who have either participated in shared worlds or made use of fictional mileu/characters that they did not themselves create?

The only one (in the sci-fi/fantasy world) I can think of off the top of my head is Robert Jordan's take on Conan. Haven't read any, so I can't really comment on their quality, but I can't imagine them being anywhere near as good as Howard's.

In other genres, I did enjoy Robert Gardner's Bond novels, particularly License Renewed and Icebreaker. Found each to be much easier to digest than some of Fleming's originals.

Jasper Fforde is doing some interesting things with Brit. lit. in the Thursday Next series (beginning with The Eyre Affair). But these are simply heavier on the allusion, rather than pastiche or re-invention/update ala the Bond books.

Is any form of collaborative fiction doomed to failure because it does not represent one author's single vision?

Not when discussing film or comics. Odd that there hasn't been greater success in the world of books, however. Still racking my brain trying to come up with someone who has done it better than the original.

[krazydawg005]

I feel like I'm talking to a wall, but I'll make my point again.

Point 1: Nobody is saying that Star Wars books are amazing works of art, in fact most people will probaly agree that many, if not the majority are not that great.

Point 2: You seem to think that people are "arguing" with you because you trashed Star Wars. Thats not the case. If you just came in here and said, I dont like Star Wars books, these books are better, then ok. But you had to go on and say things about how they are only for unexperienced readers and children, which spits in the face of the millions of surely experienced readers, who also love classics like Dune, Hyperion and such, but also sometimes enjoy reading a Star Wars book or two for a quick easy read.

The point line is this. Once again, you are free to like and dislike whatever you want. If you hate Star Wars, great. If you think that Star Wars books don't hold up to any solid sci-fi book, then most everybody will agree. People don't read Star Wars novels for the same reason you read classic literature. Theres nothing wrong with bringing up this point, and even listing some good sci-fi. The issue with you that most people have is that you continually trash not only the books, but also the people that read and write them. As an above poster said, not every author who writes Star Wars novels is a hack. Some are yes, but others are highly qualified authors who jump at the chance to write one so they can pay the bills and continue to write good original novels in the future. The fact is that good novels don't always sell well, especially in sci-fi, and many authors are forced to write some franchised novels in order to pay for them to continue writing good original fiction.

[WallyOPD]

What about well-known authors in the sf and other genres who have either participated in shared worlds or made use of fictional mileu/characters that they did not themselves create? Is any form of collaborative fiction doomed to failure because it does not represent one author's single vision? What about historical fiction where they "borrow" actual characters rather than creating their own?

While it doesn't quite fit the same mold of collaborative fiction we're discussing here since the books were co-written, I think that Janny Wurts' work with Raymond Feist on the Empire trilogy was a fantastic addition and that the books are superior to the original Riftwar books.

[Michael Corvin]

Like it or not, well-regarded, award-winning authors do sometimes participate in franchised worlds. As pointed out in the article I reprinted earlier, they probably do it to earn a living - since their own more "worthy" efforts sometimes fail to sell in sufficient volumes to pay the bills!

I would bet even a few do it just because it's been a dream of theirs to meddle in that world, being fans of the OT. I would even bet that is the case with the better Star Wars novels, having love, appreciation, and knowledge of the characters and world makes those novels better for it vs. a "payday" book.

What about well-known authors in the sf and other genres who have either participated in shared worlds or made use of fictional mileu/characters that they did not themselves create?

I haven't read it, but Robert Ludlum's "Bourne" trilogy has a fourth book The Bourne Legacy by Eric Lustbader. I read two dozen reviews last summer about it and they were generally not good.

[Nick Danger]

The only one (in the sci-fi/fantasy world) I can think of off the top of my head is Robert Jordan's take on Conan. Haven't read any, so I can't really comment on their quality, but I can't imagine them being anywhere near as good as Howard's.

Karl Edward Wagner wrote an excellent Conan book. It dealt with the same issues he considered in the Kane novels. So it was quite different from Howard's blood and thunder, but just as good in its own way.

James Blish wrote the first Star Trek novel. I didn't like it much.

Harlan Ellison wrote a Batman comic in the mid-80s. It's a very funny story of Batman having a bad day.

[mgbfan]

In subsequent posts you have persisted with the same now discredited argument that you were attacking books rather than a category of reader;

Discredited? Disagreed with, yes. Discredited? No.

Like it or not, well-regarded, award-winning authors do sometimes participate in franchised worlds.

I imagine there's a nice chunk of change exchanged there. Is it possible for some franchised stuff to be passable? Sure it is. But who wants to read passable?

From what I have seen here over the years, there are a good number of accomplished, widely read, eloquent individuals participating in Book Talk. Please don't imagine that you do yourself any favours by talking down to them in discussions such as this.
And once again, the desire seems to be to talk about ME rather than about BOOKS.

I'd love to see an arguement againt my position that doesn't boil down to "you're mean."

I understand I may be fascinating, but can't we talk about books here?
What about historical fiction where they "borrow" actual characters rather than creating their own?
Characters are borrowed, but authors create them. If you write in Napoleon, you're not writing the ACTUAL Napoleon. You're writing your own version of him, suited to your needs and subject to your whims.

[mgbfan]

To satisfy your curiousity, these were the quotes I had in mind when I wrote that sentence. They weren't all from one post but I've compiled them into one quote for space. All the parts about younger and less experienced readers is where I read into your statements the implication that they wouldn't be capable of appreciating "better" science fiction.

Okay, let's look at them one by one, shall we? You claim these quotes imply that readers of Star Wars aren't capable of appreciating original fiction.

QUOTE 1
I'm all for these books getting kids and other non-readers started, but I also hope they graduate to real novels over glorified fanfic.

Seems to me that this quote is saying that I hope Star Wars readers move to better books. There's no implication that they can't handle them.

QUOTE 2
As I've said, I have no problem with these books bringing young readers in. But I truly hope readers grow and recognize these books for what they are: glorified fanfic.

This is a comment about young readers, not all Star Wars readers. Note the part where I say "young readers." And no matter how Star Wars apologists might want to kick and scream, inexperienced teens are a BIG part of the Star Wars demographic. So this is merely a statement of fact. A lot of young, inexperienced readers read Star Wars. Which is why I said that I hope it brings "young readers" in.

QUOTE 3
I think these books serve a purpose of getting readers in the door and (hopefully) getting them turned on to geniune fiction (be it SF or any other form).

Ditto. All this says is that I hope readers move on to better books. There's absolutly NO implication that they can't handle better books. That's an implication you're making up.

QUOTE 4
But comic books are primarily for a particular demographic. I'm merely pointing out that it may be a similar demographic as Star Wars novels - namely, younger, less experienced readers.

Statement of fact. A big part of the Star Wars demographic is younger, less experienced readers.

QUOTE 5
Ironically, I actually listed Ender's Game first on my list because it's so accessable to less experienced readers. I thought it an easy bridge from Star Wars-type churn-um-out series to the world of literate science fiction.

A statement that readers used to Star Wars could read Ender's Game while staying in their comfort zone and with what they're used to. Nowhere does it say that they have to read Ender's Game first, because they'd have no chance of keeping up with, say, Dune. Merely that it's a good starting point.

Five quotes, and none of them imply what you claim they do. Seems to me there's a hypersensitivity at work here.

[mgbfan]

Point 2: You seem to think that people are "arguing" with you because you trashed Star Wars. Thats not the case.


Mmm hmm.

But you had to go on and say things about how they are only for unexperienced readers and children,


Never said it. What I did say is that's where I saw value in them. There's a difference.

If you hate Star Wars, great.


I don't. I adore the movies for the same reasons many others do. But I resent the influx of worthless churn-um-out, cookie-cutter, hack novels that has resulted.

If you think that Star Wars books don't hold up to any solid sci-fi book, then most everybody will agree.

Ahh - but they don't. Some of them get stomping mad, in fact.

The issue with you that most people have is that you continually trash not only the books, but also the people that read and write them.

A lie. I've trashed the books. I've trashed the authors. But nobody has yet shown me trashing the readers. They've tried to show it, insisting on implications that just aren't there. But in the end, it's a matter of hypersensitivity - he's insulting something I like, therefore he must be insulting me.

Here's the difference. You claim I've insulted Star Wars readers. It's not true. What I've done is offended Star Wars readers. Giving offense and giving insult are VERY different things.

[boredsilly]

QUOTE 4
But comic books are primarily for a particular demographic. I'm merely pointing out that it may be a similar demographic as Star Wars novels - namely, younger, less experienced readers.


This "fact" isn't true at all. I doubt you really hit up comic shops or travel in those circles, but the demographic for comics has changed greatly in the last 20 years (especially in the last five). One of the big arguments in comics is writting and producing books that are ok for younger kids, teens, and tweens to read - and when a book actually does that (and does it well) they are applauded (see Runaways). So the intended audience isn't younger readers. Even though the words aren't exactly hard to read comics are not intended for less experienced or younger readers. I think that's just the perception. Like how someone might think cartoons are only for kids just because it done in that form. Simplicity doesn't always equal dumbed down. Hell, isn't that why Apple gets so much acclaim?

[benedict]

I think we've probably got as far in this thread as is possible given the topic in question and the manner in which the "debate" is being conducted....

.... closing thread.


Benedict
Moderator, Book Talk