Michael Corvin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

WORD.

mgbfan

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

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.

BS. That mentality means that everything is good and we can only talk about bunnies and rainbows and nothing should ever be criticized.

mgbfan

Ironically, that's pretty much what I did to start this whole thread.

mgbfan

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

Mixing mediums doesn't make for good analogy.

Agreed. But ...

Movies are not books.

benedict

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 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.

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>* * *</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, did anyone else reading here have anything to say about the following (none of which I've read myself?

• Wildcards [Shared world and superhero oriented!]
• Medea: Harlan's World
• Murasaki
• Poul Anderson's "Cleopatra"

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.

TimeandTide

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

Discredited? Disagreed with, yes. Discredited? No.

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?

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?
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

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

Mmm hmm.


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


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.

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

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

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