If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinions?)

[Christopher]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

I really think that serialized TV shows should be contracted like this: They get the same treatment they currently get with the x number of initial episodes and if the show is canceled before 20 episodes or is canceled "suddenly" then they automatically get the ability to contract out at least ONE book to finish up their story -- and then only if the creator wants the book(s). So at least creators of a show have an automatic availability for an outlet to please their fans if they want to.

These days, it seems to be more popular and "cooler" for TV producers to turn to comic books as the medium for resolving or continuing their cancelled series. That's what Whedon did with the Buffyverse and Firefly/Serenity, and it's what Bryan Fuller has said he'll do with Pushing Daisies. And Abrams and his ST crew went to IDW rather than Pocket for their movie prequel.

 

[KRAD]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

These days, it seems to be more popular and "cooler" for TV producers to turn to comic books as the medium for resolving or continuing their cancelled series. That's what Whedon did with the Buffyverse and Firefly/Serenity, and it's what Bryan Fuller has said he'll do with Pushing Daisies. And Abrams and his ST crew went to IDW rather than Pocket for their movie prequel.

Not to mention the Jim Henson Company with Farscape. *cough*

And technically, Sereni-fly hasn't been continued or resolved. None of the Serenity comic books have been post-movie....

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

[

The biggest brick wall is sales. It's really difficult, if not damn near impossible, to launch a book line for a canceled series, .

Sadly true. Putting on my editor's hat for a moment, I can't see myself EVER buying the book rights to a cancelled series (although I've been tempted on occasion). The whole point of doing tie-ins is to piggyback on the success and publicity of a hit show or movie. Even if I wanted to take on JERICHO or whatever, I can just imagine the Marketing meetings at Tor:

"We've got a great new line of books based on an acclaimed tv series!"

"So what are the ratings like?"

"Er, they weren't very good . . . ."

"What network is it on?"

"Er, it's not actually on the air anymore . . . ."

"There's not going to be any tv commercials or ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY covers?"

"Probably not . . . ."

"So why are we doing these books again?"

 

[William Leisner]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

Sadly true. Putting on my editor's hat for a moment, I can't see myself EVER buying the book rights to a cancelled series (although I've been tempted on occasion). The whole point of doing tie-ins is to piggyback on the success and publicity of a hit show or movie.

Do you have any thoughts as to why comic book publishers are so much more willing to do so? I'll admit, I know nothing of the business of comics, but it would seem to me they are more of a niche product than novels.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

Sadly true. Putting on my editor's hat for a moment, I can't see myself EVER buying the book rights to a cancelled series (although I've been tempted on occasion). The whole point of doing tie-ins is to piggyback on the success and publicity of a hit show or movie.

Do you have any thoughts as to why comic book publishers are so much more willing to do so? I'll admit, I know nothing of the business of comics, but it would seem to me they are more of a niche product than novels.

Good question. To be honest, I don't know.

 

[Christopher]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

And technically, Sereni-fly hasn't been continued or resolved. None of the Serenity comic books have been post-movie....

Yeah, technically. But it's part of the same pattern of TV/movie producers preferring comics to prose as a tie-in medium.

 

[Mike Farley]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

Comic books sales are very much driven by creators these days. The people who are buying Buffy Season 8 are buying it because Joss Wedon is running the book and he brought a whole bunch of the Buffy TV writers along with him.

Most licensed comic books are based on active properties, Transformers, GI Joe, Battlestar Galactica, the horror movie line at Wildstorm/DC.

Also most of the licensed comics seem to be at smaller publishers like IDW or Dynamite. Even a modest to mediocre selling licensed book probably outsells any original books in their lineup just by name recognition alone. And it draws attention to their company from comic shop owners.

 

[KRAD]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

^ What Mike said. Indeed, a big part of the appeal of the Farscape comic (we hope) is Rockne O'Bannon's involvement.

 

[David Mack]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

^ It's probably got a little bit to do with the high profile of Comic-Con International and the fact that there is nothing remotely comparable for novels.

 

[Christopher]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

Maybe we need to find a way to rebrand prose literature to get onto the comics bandwagon. If they can call comics "graphic novels," maybe we should rename novels "textual comics."

 

[William Leisner]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

Comic books sales are very much driven by creators these days. The people who are buying Buffy Season 8 are buying it because Joss Wedon is running the book and he brought a whole bunch of the Buffy TV writers along with him.

Then... it's the impression that they're more "canon" than novels that drives the comic sales?

I may cry...

 

[Dayton Ward]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

^ You.

Get out.

 

[Christopher]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

Comic books sales are very much driven by creators these days. The people who are buying Buffy Season 8 are buying it because Joss Wedon is running the book and he brought a whole bunch of the Buffy TV writers along with him.

Then... it's the impression that they're more "canon" than novels that drives the comic sales?

I may cry...

It's not just an impression. They actually are canonical, since Whedon's directly "showrunning" them. Just like the Babylon 5 novels outlined by Straczynski are canonical. So it's not a comics-vs.-novels thing, it's a Whedon-vs.-notWhedon thing. The earlier Buffy comics not plotted by Whedon are not considered canonical, any more than the novels are.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

On the other hand, Whedon has stated that if the comics ever got in the way of relaunching BUFFY on the screen, he'd reluctantly scuttle the comic book continuity in a minute!

Which actually strikes me as a very reasonable position.

 

[DimesDan]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

^ What Mike said. Indeed, a big part of the appeal of the Farscape comic (we hope) is Rockne O'Bannon's involvement.

When will these be out? If of course they aren't already out.

And will they be based post PK Wars or between that and Bad Timing?

Oh and for why arn't books canon, in my own imagination, all that I have read is in my own personal continuity.

 

[Christopher]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

On the other hand, Whedon has stated that if the comics ever got in the way of relaunching BUFFY on the screen, he'd reluctantly scuttle the comic book continuity in a minute!

Which actually strikes me as a very reasonable position.

True, but arguably the same goes for screen canon in some cases. TOS wisely scuttled everything "The Alternative Factor" claimed about antimatter, and Roddenberry scuttled the humanlike Klingons of TOS (though they were later retconned back in). And you'll find plenty of shows where characters or concepts from the pilot or early seasons get abandoned later on. There's the famous case of Richie Cunningham's disappearing older brother on Happy Days, and conversely the materialization of an eldest Huxtable daughter on The Cosby Show (after they'd explicitly said in the pilot that they had four kids and not five). And plenty of TV heroes have had girlfriends who have been erased from the face of the Earth following their pilot episodes. There are even extreme cases like Dallas decanonizing an entire season with its "It was all a dream" twist.

The myth about "canon" is that it means "absolute consistency." It just means something that's treated as real until the showrunners decide to ignore or change it.

 

[terpette]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

*dragging cannon behind her* Someone order a cannon? It's preloaded with tribble-shot and everything. Very festive!

Speaking as someone who's read both official tie-in TrekLit and fanfic, I tend to like the official stuff a HELL of a lot better. Why? Because Pocket's authors actually work within the established characters, when they're working with established characters.

Now, yeah, I've read some excellent fanfic where the authors were true to the series/characters while telling an interesting original story. And I've read some hella-bad schlock, mostly "plot-what-plot", that makes me want to unleash viruses on people. In fact, there's more bad schlock out there than good fic, unless there's some secret well of excellent fanfic I don't know about. (And if there IS, someone PM me!)

Basically, if you're going to play with someone else's toys, do it right. Or make your own. (And keep the "Mary Sue" stories in your journal... Wesley was enough trauma!)

Karen

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

It's a common misconception. "Canon" does not mean "continuity." Canon doesn't have anything to do with in-universe "history".

That's true, but it's not really what darkwing_duck1 was asking. The question wasn't truly about canon, so let's set that aside. He's actually asking a question I used to wonder about myself. It does seem paradoxical: given that the books aren't considered binding on the show's continuity, why should there be any limits on what happens in the books? So it's really a question about continuity, and deserves to be addressed in those terms.

The answer is that continuity isn't the sole factor behind the decision. This is a business, and tie-in literature is a product meant to appeal to the audience of the franchise. So having the "look and feel" of the series it ties into is what matters. That's why franchise holders prefer their tie-in literature to hew close to onscreen events rather than charting their own course. It's only when there is no new onscreen material that tie-in literature is set free to advance the story in its own way, as we see with things like Trek fiction, the Buffyverse comics, and the upcoming pair of The 4400 novels that continue beyond the end of the series.

Ok, yes, that is a better way of posing my question...thank you. And I understood I think going in that there were some business reasons that made sense to the rightsholder, I just happen to think they're short sighted and self-limiting...that's my opinion.

And yes, maybe I DO need to take a new look at Trek lit. I will admit to being VERY soured on the books duing the Reign of Richard. He cut Diane Duane off at the knees at the HEIGHT of her creative output, for example.

That's why I haven't cracked open a book about the "series" crews in ages. Just too much same same same, in my opinion.

I get far more satisfaction as a reader out of something like Vanguard, where it feels like ANYTHING can happen. Major characters can be put in REAL jeopardy (they just KILLED one in the last book) and not be covered by "script immunity". I liked PAD's early NF books for the same reason.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

Why can't the writers tell whatever stories they want to tell if the books don't matter?

Just curious: which writers have you ever had walk up to you and say, "Hey, y'know darkwing_duck1, canon really burns my britches, 'cuz now I can't tell the stories I wanna tell"? Presumably, you have dozens lodging this common complaint with you, for you to start a whole thread about it.

No, the question was my own...I was SOLICITING the opinions of the writers, becasue I felt they would be in the best position to give me the best information on the reasons behind the policy.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Re: If books aren't canon, why all the restrictions? (writers' opinion

Sadly true. Putting on my editor's hat for a moment, I can't see myself EVER buying the book rights to a cancelled series (although I've been tempted on occasion). The whole point of doing tie-ins is to piggyback on the success and publicity of a hit show or movie.

Do you have any thoughts as to why comic book publishers are so much more willing to do so? I'll admit, I know nothing of the business of comics, but it would seem to me they are more of a niche product than novels.

Good question. To be honest, I don't know.

I think WL had his answer but didn't realize it...because comics specialize in "niche", and can accept lower unit sales than books can (at least I assume so).

Greg, how many copies of any particular book would have to be sold for it to make sense from a publishing perspective? A comic can sell 20-30,000 copies of an issue and be considered a modest/medium size success. Would a book series with those sales numbers be considered a success?