Majority of tie-in literature bad?
- Thread starter SpaceLama
- Start date
Not exactly. A license, in this context, is permission from the copyright owner to create a product based upon the copyrighted property. Star Trek, its TV shows, and its trademarks are owned by CBS Studios these days.
Paramount Pictures, however, owns the copyrights to the films based upon Star Trek (but NOT Star Trek itself) and to characters/elements from those films. Paramount also has exclusive license from CBS Studios to make new movies based upon Star Trek in the same manner that Pocket Books has exclusive license from CBS Studios to make novels based upon Star Trek (although Pocket does not retain ownership of the copyright to those novels as Paramount retains ownership of the copyrights to the films). Paramount also shares copyright ownership with CBS Studios on novels based in part upon elements exclusive to the films -- which is why the Titan novels are listed as copyrighted to CBS Studios and Paramount Pictures jointly, though Star Trek itself and its related trademarks remain in the ownership of CBS Studios.
In theory, the new continuity means that CBS and Paramount could both produce new Star Trek TV shows and films simultaneously that have nothing to do with one-another, and that Pocket Books could produce Trek novels set in both continuities.
Last edited:
I can safely say I've NEVER read a decent one, and I never intend to waste time on adaptations again. The last adaptation I read - I can't remember the author - was the X-Files movie from last year, and it was so unrelentingly uninspiring that it's put me off that particular subset genre forever. This camel's back is broken when it comes to adaptations.
From a general perspective - one not limited to Trek - I do admit that I don't get the same kick out of tie-in fiction as I do original. Some of that is, I think, down to quality: I find that overall the quality of original fiction tends to be higher overall (although there are exceptions on both sides). But a lot of it comes down to apples and oranges. I prefer reading original fic because it feels more challenging to me as a reader - with every new book I'm required to imagine an entirely new world, and new characters. I also think there's greater stylistic freedom in original fic, and I like that.
These things don't happen with tie-in (or with original fic that extends to umpteen bloody volumes), but the trade-off is (or should be) that tie-ins have a greater chance to explore characters over a period of time. That extended relationship with the reader means that some people will prefer tie-ins to original fic, which is fair enough.
Last edited:
A lot of Trek tie-in fiction these days does feature new characters and visit new worlds. Most of the characters in series like Titan are new, and the books revolve around the exploration of entirely new worlds. Virtually all the characters in Vanguard are new. Also, Trek fiction over the last decade has had increasingly greater stylistic freedom. While your points may be true of tie-in fiction in general, Trek Lit has become very unusual as tie-in fiction goes due to the increasing freedom it's been granted. I feel that Marco Palmieri in particular did a lot to make Trek Lit closer to original SF during his tenure.
They're stuck in the same larger setting though, aren't they? The Federation is still there, the giant stage on which all this action occurs. They're still on starships, still with the Prime Directive looming over them, still referencing and including other Trek characters. It's not the same as picking up a book by Joe Bloggs, who has created an entirely new universe from scratch.
I'm not saying that TrekLit doesn't include new characters and settings. I am saying that it doesn't do it to the extent of original fic, and I think that's a fair claim. Say Joe Bloggs decided to do a Trek book - he'd be writing for an audience who largely knew the background he was writing in. Even with a selection of new characters to interleave the familiar, Joe would be able to rely on the fictional history of his setting to build resonance with the reader.
I'm referring to stylistic freedom in the very broadest sense, though. Of course one can read Trek authors and see the difference in writing styles - in a blind test, I'm sure many of the people here could pick out Peter David, for example. But that variation is still kept within relatively narrow bounds. As it has to be, I think - I've never come across a tie-in book (of any series) that doesn't have roughly the same literary style as the rest of the books in that series. For instance, you don't see a Trek book with a strong regional idiom (such as the "chutnification" seen in many Indian writers today) or style (the South American school of magical realism). If such a book did occur, it wouldn't likely be followed by a hard core cyberpunk novel, or a series of quirky short stories like Calvino's Cosmicomics. Likely because these very strong styles polarise readers and don't encourage them to pick up same-stable books of a different type. Even Peter David's style puts off some readers, and that's with a relatively small stylistic difference. So there's incentive to keep the overall style similar enough to not "jar" the universe when another book comes in.
I realise I'm going slightly off-topic here, but do you see my point? In many ways, judging tie-in by the standards of original (and vice versa) is a fruitless exercise. And that is what I think SpaceLama is doing a bit in his OP. Yes, I can see why he gets annoyed with the same bunch of people saving the world all the time, but that's part of tie-in fic - and because that same bunch save the world so damn often, it's possible to do more in exploring their characters than our friend Joe Bloggs can do in a single novel. Unless of course you're George Orwell or some other literary genius, but they're pretty thin on the ground and I digress.
Similarly, whether you agree with something like Borg overdose or not, as SpaceLama does (admittedly I agree with him), reoccurring villains are a staple of tie-in fiction (and the films/tv shows that inspire it) the world over. Again, one simply can't have a reoccurring villain in a single, unsequelled, unprequelled novel.
It's apples and oranges. There's nothing wrong with liking or disliking tie-in fic, but as a whole I think it is a parallel genre to original fic, and shouldn't be judged on completely the same standards. (Of course, some standards cross all boundaries - no plot holes, for instance - but you know what I mean... different genres, different expectations. Like how one shouldn't judge a romance because it doesn't have the same gunfighting as a western.)
No, but neither is it as limited as normal tie-in fiction. It's a middle ground.
And Titan's adventures mostly take place beyond the familiar settings of the Trekverse, and much of the crew consists of aliens that haven't been explored much in Trek or are entirely original. As I said, my latest Titan novel is largely based on an unsold original novel of mine.
Yes, it is, but there's still room for the middle ground. It's not an absolute black-and-white distinction. I always try to write tie-in novels that would be enjoyable to people who generally prefer original science fiction.
The same is true of a lot of original fiction. And not just series fiction. A lot of standalone works of fiction nonetheless build on established tropes and subgenres, using familiar concepts as a kind of shorthand or a basis for identification. Particularly in science fiction, which is often an ongoing dialogue as different writers tackle ideas their predecessors have offered and explore new angles on them. And of course, a lot of fiction in general is just plain derivative.
I don't think that's entirely true. A book by Margaret Wander Bonanno, say, has a style very different from the usual, with lots of stream-of-consciousness, non-linear storytelling. Her style is profoundly different from mine. However, I've occasionally indulged in some stylistic experiments of my own, such as incorporating alien speech rendered in the form of verse, or doing some Alfred Bester-style typographic experimentation for rendering an altered state of mind in The Buried Age.
That's kind of like complaining that you don't see a bicycle with a snowplow attached. Why would you expect to? Any "regional" idiom you're going to see in a space-based SF novel is presumably going to be alien.
True. But my point is that the differences between classes of things are rarely absolute and mutually exclusive, and that there's usually a degree of overlap. As tie-in fiction goes, Trek Lit today is closer to the style and approach of original fiction than most. And there's a lot of original fiction that's just as limited as the tie-ins you're referring to.
To the former point, actually a lot of tie-in fiction is expected to avoid recurring anything (aside from the main cast of characters) and make each story a complete standalone. To the latter point, I daresay the majority of original SF these days consists of ongoing series or at least trilogies. Publishers like ongoing series because they have an established reader base. So a lot of the things you're attributing to tie-in fiction are true of original fiction as well -- further demonstrating that it's not a black-and-white distinction. You're right that they're not exactly the same, but I disagree that the differences between them are as profound or absolute as you allege. I think you're engaging in a considerable amount of stereotyping of both categories of fiction.
This is true: hence the large amount of WW2 stories out there. But limiting it to SF, and limiting it further to space opera, any author writing an original fic about spaceships travelling between the stars is not working in an environment that a reader can instantly recognise. They have to create a base environment - social, political, scientific - in a way that tie-in authors don't have to do, because in their case the underlying foundations of the fictional universe already exist.
Even if a tie-in author creates a new planet with a new form of intelligent life never seen before, the reactions of the main characters to that new environment are conditioned by the world they live in (similar to the reader, as a matter of fact). For example: Tuvok's reaction to, say, Planet X is predicated on the fact that we the readers are familiar with Vulcan culture and Federation norms. That informs our reaction to his reaction. We don't need a run-down on what constitutes normal Vulcan behaviour and Federation norms, as we have a good idea about that already. Whereas in an original space opera fic, the author has to establish both cultures from scratch, while the tie-in author doesn't have to waste time establishing a framework of reference.
I hope I'm misunderstanding you here.
To take one example of what I was talking about before: the "chutnification" of the English language found in a lot of Indian novels. I love this type of thing. Reading it excites me. Reading a SF novel written in chutnification style is not the literary equivalent of a bicycle attached to a snowplow. Why should everyone write as if they're Middle America? I hope that's not what you're suggesting...
Because you're writing in your own regional and cultural style as well, space-based or not. As is every other author, tie-in or not. (I presume you don't see your own writing as hauling around said snowplow?)
After all, perhaps somewhere in deepest India (and other countries) some geek experiences his regional and cultural literary style as normal, and not as a snowplough on the bicycle of English Language. I don't see why we can't spread the joy, as it were - and yet that's far easier to do in original than tie-in fic.
We might just have to disagree on that one, because to me the differences do seem to be more obvious than you make them. I may well be wrong, of course. It's entirely possible that I'm stereotyping - but I also think it's entirely possible that you are seeing more shades of grey than actually exist.
Edit: I have a feeling that we may be looking at this question through two different cladistic paradigms. I suspect that some people - you amongst them, and possibly the OP - may see tie-in and original fic existing side by side under the umbrella genre of SFF. But some others - me amongst them - may see tie-in as a separate genre to original fic, with parallel SFF branches. I think that perception necessarily impacts on the criteria with which a group of books is judged.
Last edited:
No. You're simply stereotyping.
Read more.
Read more.
Actually, Geoff there is a pretty good counterexample to your point - his style is something completely unique and weird, compared to the rest of the Trek universe. I feel like, under previous editors, he wouldn't have been published, but Marco let people really take chances, and Sword Of Damocles reads entirely unlike any other Trek books.
I mean, sure, we're not talking about the massive change in idiom you get in Indian novels, but there's certainly more variation between him and for instance KRAD than there is between just about any pair of original sci-fi authors you'd care to pick from my shelf.
I mean, sure, we're not talking about the massive change in idiom you get in Indian novels, but there's certainly more variation between him and for instance KRAD than there is between just about any pair of original sci-fi authors you'd care to pick from my shelf.
Last edited:
You may not be, but I am.
My point regarding style (the Indian novels were just an example, there are plenty of others) is NOT that tie-in books have no variation in style, because they patently do. My point is that that variation is not so massive as that variation in original fic. A narrower bell curve, if you like. That narrower curve is, IMO, one of the characteristics of tie-in fiction.It is not to comment, please note, on the quality of said style. It is simply to say that, as you point out yourself, massive changes in style are less likely to be present. Which is one reason, to my mind, not to judge the style of tie-in fiction on the style of original fiction or vice versa. It's a false comparison.
My own SFF books shelf is quite strongly variant. More so than any two random Trek authors I've read in the past 20 odd years - but that's selection bias. I tend to read indiscriminantly from the library, then buy books that I really want to keep, which admittedly limits my selection to the extremes of style - because that is one of the big things that interests me in books, so that's what I buy for. I'm too cheap to buy things I won't reread unto death.
And given that everyone has read a different swathe of books, we're all going to be looking at this from different persepctives. For example, my dad (much as I love him) loves SFF and has done for years, but these days his SFF is restricted to the never-ending, increasingly shite novels of Brooks, Feist, and Herbert. (How many Shannara books does one man need, I ask you? One is too many...).
So his opinions on SFF are very different from mine, which are very different from Geoff's. But given that there is lots of different SFF themed stuff, we can all be happy in our preferred reading niche. I just maintain that there's enough difference between the different groups that straight comparison is not the best tool for assessing quality.
^ I actually have to apologize; I kind of skimmed this thread until the end, and failed to read your original argument.
When it comes to this, I basically agree:
When you pick up a tie-in book, there are certain constants you're expecting. When you pick up an original novel, you have to learn the people and circumstances again from scratch. And both, obviously, have their appeal. This is fairly inarguable.
The problem arises, though, when you conflate a continuity of character & context with a lack of stylistic variation. It sort of misses the point, I think. The two are not inextricably connected.
Like, a long single-author series is clearly not going to vary much in style, and so that makes another valid comparison - part of the appeal of tie-ins is that several different authors get to interpret the same source material. So I'd argue that one of the appeals of tie in fiction is that you do get stylistic variation, while still keeping the continuity of character & context.
Sure, if you're telling stories about the same universe & people there's a certain amount of storytelling consistency that's forced. But that's a pretty trivial observation. Stylistic variation, or at least varying authorial perspectives, is part of the appeal of tie-in fiction, and trivializing that because the extremes of variation aren't as extreme as the extremes of non tie-in work is, as I said, missing the point. It's like criticizing mystery stories because, in all of non-mystery fiction, there are greater options for endings - you don't have to always solve a mystery, after all! - and then saying that mysteries then suffer from a lack of diverse plotting.
When it comes to this, I basically agree:
When you pick up a tie-in book, there are certain constants you're expecting. When you pick up an original novel, you have to learn the people and circumstances again from scratch. And both, obviously, have their appeal. This is fairly inarguable.
The problem arises, though, when you conflate a continuity of character & context with a lack of stylistic variation. It sort of misses the point, I think. The two are not inextricably connected.
Like, a long single-author series is clearly not going to vary much in style, and so that makes another valid comparison - part of the appeal of tie-ins is that several different authors get to interpret the same source material. So I'd argue that one of the appeals of tie in fiction is that you do get stylistic variation, while still keeping the continuity of character & context.
Sure, if you're telling stories about the same universe & people there's a certain amount of storytelling consistency that's forced. But that's a pretty trivial observation. Stylistic variation, or at least varying authorial perspectives, is part of the appeal of tie-in fiction, and trivializing that because the extremes of variation aren't as extreme as the extremes of non tie-in work is, as I said, missing the point. It's like criticizing mystery stories because, in all of non-mystery fiction, there are greater options for endings - you don't have to always solve a mystery, after all! - and then saying that mysteries then suffer from a lack of diverse plotting.
Do it. Read Destiny. I promise, you'll have no trouble jumping in.
All you need to know about Voyager is that they made it home, sans Kes and Neelix.
All you need to know about TNG is that Data died and Riker moved on to captain the Titan with his wife, Troi.
All you need to know about DS9 is that Jadzia eventually died and her new host is named Ezri; beyond that, the characterization pretty much speaks for itself.
And you don't need to know anything at all about Enterprise.
There, that's it - you're up to speed. Go. Read. You'll love it.
Yes, that's basically true, but how often is that base environment truly original rather than a set of familiar tropes and character types with the names changed?
Also, you're still grossly oversimplifying how tie-ins work, because they aren't exclusively about known characters, cultures, and settings. The default formula for a tie-in based on a series like Star Trek is to show the familiar ship and crew interacting with an entirely new world, species, society, etc. of the author's own creation. So it's not only an ignorant stereotype but an outright falsehood to claim that there is no original invention in tie-in fiction. ST fiction has given us many original settings, characters, and species, and has elaborated with great inventiveness on species and cultures that were only vaguely defined onscreen.
I think you give original SF as a whole too much credit. Sturgeon's Law applies just as much to original fiction as to tie-in fiction. Yes, there are works of original SF where the worldbuilding on the viewpoint characters' culture is fresh, imaginative, and innovative, but I daresay that the majority of "space opera" fiction is written from the perspective of characters whose culture and values are virtually indistinguishable from those of America or Western Europe at the time the books were written. Or else are just a rehash of familiar space opera cultural tropes, such as the military future or the corporate-ruled future or the revived-feudal future or, these days, the posthuman-AI future.
It's true that tie-in literature is a bounded subset of SF literature as a whole, but as Thrawn says, that's a trivial assertion. Because it's hardly the only bounded subset of SF literature. True innovation is rare in any category of fiction. It is unfair and incorrect to claim that all original SF is wildly greater in imagination and freedom than all tie-in literature.
As with most things, I don't think you can gain any true understanding of things by sticking labels on them, and using fancier labels like "cladistic paradigm" doesn't make it any less of an oversimplification. Most of reality lies in the middle ground. While it may be true that two distinct categories can be defined, those categories most likely follow bell-curve distributions. While it may be valid to say that there's a clear separation between the peak of one bell curve and the peak of the other -- i.e. that the average member of each category has codifiable differences from the average member of the other -- it's probable that the two bell curves as a whole will overlap considerably. It's always an oversimplification, and usually an excuse for prejudice, to insist that averages represent the entirety of reality. An average is nothing more than a statistical construct, a convenient fiction for approximating something more complex. The average position of a car on a circular racetrack is the geometric center of the circle, a point which the car never actually occupies.
Yes, tie-ins are different as a category from original fiction. But there are tie-ins that are far more brilliant and imaginative and stylistically fresh than the norm, and there are plenty of original works that are derivative and limited and stylistically dull. As long as you treat each category as monolithic and devoid of variation, your argument is nothing more than stereotyping.
I don't disagree with you that tie-in fiction in general is somewhat limited by its nature. But as I've said, I believe that Star Trek fiction is very, very different from normal tie-in fiction. After all, all of the series it's based on are no longer in production and unlikely ever to be revived. So the usual restrictions on growth and innovation that most tie-in lines are bound to are not present where ST fiction is concerned (although they would presumably be reinstated on any fiction based on the new movie continuity). That makes ST an exception to the norm for tie-ins. Also, Marco Palmieri was a terrific editor who really brought considerable maturity, innovation, and freshness to the line, so I daresay the quality and creativity of ST fiction these days is much higher than the norm for tie-ins. What you say may be true about the average tie-in, but ST tie-ins are a statistical outlier, far above the average, far closer to the mean of the bell curve for original fiction. Even if tie-in fiction in general is not your cup of tea, you may find, if you set aside your jargon and assumptions and actually make the effort to try, that there's stuff in current ST fiction that satisfies your tastes.
I agree with Christopher. It is not hard to imagine a tie-in story written entirely from the point of view of a new species, with different technology, social, political structures etc. set within the backdrop of known Trek.
Octavia, you preside over the assumption that a tie-in is limited by what it can accomplish because of its background. I maintain that a tie-in can accomplish what a solitary original non-series sf cannot: evolution of characters, settings, and events over large time-spans that makes the fiction wholly more believable and paradoxically allows writers to explore and use the wildly unbelievable with greater vigor.
In fact, if anything, stories that touch upon the trek universe would give us a new perspective of and heighten our appreciation of the basic fabric of trek.
Octavia, you preside over the assumption that a tie-in is limited by what it can accomplish because of its background. I maintain that a tie-in can accomplish what a solitary original non-series sf cannot: evolution of characters, settings, and events over large time-spans that makes the fiction wholly more believable and paradoxically allows writers to explore and use the wildly unbelievable with greater vigor.
In fact, if anything, stories that touch upon the trek universe would give us a new perspective of and heighten our appreciation of the basic fabric of trek.
Hmmm. My vanity forces me to take that as a compliment.
I'll go farther than that.
If you read my non-Trek fiction (and, of course, you do) you'll find that it is, on the whole, more "straightforward" when compared to SoD. The latter is a more "experimental" book for me than I might have written had it NOT been set in the Trek universe.
Marco was a large part of that. He not only allowed it but encouraged it. He wanted my voice to be mine, not something out of a cookie cutter. Somehow I doubt I am the only one who got that treatment.
I'm not a TrekLit scholar; I read a lot of the early stuff, took a long break and came back after a little more than a decade. It was the variation of style and theme in the modern books that brought me back. They are, pound for pound, not only superior to their predecessors but superior to a large chunk of the canon material. Yes, I said it. And I'll say it again: Superior.
In my experience, both as a writer and as a reader, ALL of the editors, from Ordover to Marco and Margaret, Ed and Dean and KRAD (both writers as well as editors), have actively sought out writers with voices that are not only distinct from one another but, in some cases (KRAD, I'm looking at you) quite different from book to book.
I bristle when people say tie-in fiction is, inherently, sub par in ANY way. A poor writer writes poorly. A gifted one spins excellent yarns. QED. More than bristle, actually. It pisses me off.
What, I suddenly become a moron when I read (or write) a Star Trek novel? I can't tell the difference between one more retread of RAMA or Tolkien and a stellar scifi novel that happens to also be Star Trek?
Was Alan Moore's SWAMP THING a lesser work than WATCHMEN?
No. Sorry. That argument is stillborn.
The venue is immaterial.
BURNING DREAMS is as good as ANY Clarke or Heinlein YA scifi I read as a kid and, frankly, FAR superior to 90% of the tripe that passes for scifi in the modern non-tie-in world.
If you haven't read it, you missed out.
A book is a book. Either it's compelling or it's not. Either it reaches you or it doesn't. If some preconceived notion about the inherent, intrinsic, "lesser" quality of modern tie-in fiction causes you to view it, in advance of reading, with a jaundiced eye, I submit you might want to rethink your paradigm.
I'll stack this crew up against ANY non-tie-in writers. ANY.
And, of course, no one writes exclusively in the tie-in universes. Unless you can point to a clear and obvious quality falloff between a particular writer's "original" fiction and their tie-in fiction, the entire argument is empty.
Go on. Try it.
I'll wait.
Thank you, Commander. I'll take my shore-leave now, if you don't mind.
