That screams "franchise crossover potential".
What's KRAD up to these days?
- Thread starter Mage
- Start date
That screams "franchise crossover potential".
I hope he gets tagged to do more I.K.S. Gorkon novels at some point. Four of my favorites Trek books. Everytime I read a part with Goran in any of them, I can't help but imagine Fezzik from Princess Bride who is supposed to be the inspiration for the character. A Klingon Fezzik, now that is way cool.
Well, it's probably going strong since there is a whole genre of mystery novels out there.
Its more mystery than TV-show tie-in probably.
Well, it's probably going strong since there is a whole genre of mystery novels out there.
There are whole genres of science fiction and fantasy novels out there too, but most SF/F shows' tie-ins don't outlive the shows.
I agree with what you're saying except that the "mystery formula" story-wise is pretty consistent across mystery writers. Whereas sci-fi and fantasy novels can vary widely from "universe" to universe. I can understand why MSW might still be going strong still whereas other shows haven't. There's probably Columbo novels out there too vs. Buffy.
As Sho says, there were a few Columbo novelizations published in the '70s (during or shortly after the run of the original series) and a few original novels published in the '90s (during the later, sporadic part of the revival movies' run), and co-creator William Link apparently published an anthology of Columbo short stories in 2010. So that pretty much follows the standard pattern of novelizations not outlasting the shows they're based on by any great length of time.
Keep in mind that publishing tie-in books requires paying a licensing fee, so it's not as profitable for a publisher as an original series that gets equivalent sales. When tie-ins in any genre are profitable, it's because the popularity of the shows/films they're based on is sufficient to generate a lot of sales, enough that the added expense of the license fee is more than made up for. Usually, when a series ends, audience interest wanes and the tie-ins become less profitable. So if Murder, She Wrote books were really as interchangeable with other mysteries as you say, that would be an argument against continuing to publish them, not in favor of it. Because if that were the case, they could just publish an original series in its place and not have to worry about a license fee.
Therefore, there must be something specific about the MSW books that makes them an exception to the rule, just as Star Trek and Doctor Who have been exceptions where the SF genre is concerned.
Keep in mind that publishing tie-in books requires paying a licensing fee, so it's not as profitable for a publisher as an original series that gets equivalent sales. When tie-ins in any genre are profitable, it's because the popularity of the shows/films they're based on is sufficient to generate a lot of sales, enough that the added expense of the license fee is more than made up for. Usually, when a series ends, audience interest wanes and the tie-ins become less profitable. So if Murder, She Wrote books were really as interchangeable with other mysteries as you say, that would be an argument against continuing to publish them, not in favor of it. Because if that were the case, they could just publish an original series in its place and not have to worry about a license fee.
Therefore, there must be something specific about the MSW books that makes them an exception to the rule, just as Star Trek and Doctor Who have been exceptions where the SF genre is concerned.
I'm not saying MSW doesn't have an appeal. What I was trying to say that b/c of the mystery formula it can appeal to actual MSW fans from when it was on TV as well as mystery fans who never watched MSW.
Whereas with ST and Dr. Who, I do think the bulk of the readers where fans of the shows. There may be others that started read TOS books that may not have been alive in the 1960s, but with DVDs/Blu-Rays, this ST pop culture phenom keeps on, um, trekking.
And I'm far from convinced that the genre alone is the explanation. Otherwise there would probably be plenty of other ongoing book lines based on long-cancelled mystery shows, or other genres known for being formulaic. And I don't think that's the case. Your assumption about ongoing Columbo novels was wrong, for one thing.
I do think MSW has some appeal for sure. It's more like a genre mystery series than other TV series liek JAG, etc. However, I do think having Angela Lansbury on the cover helps and Jessica Fletcher was an appealing character. The TV series ran 12 years after all. I'm not saying genre alone is the appeal, but I think it helps for MSW. However, no one knows how to bottle lightning. I'm glad ST and MSW fans can continue to read lit about their fave character(s).
^ Can't wait for the IDW story when they team up!
A ST/MSW x-over written by KRAD drawn by John Byrne.
And it's not just a matter of having to pay the licensor and the author. As a rule, publishing tie-ins tends to be more complicated and labor-intensive than publishing an original novel because there are more cooks involved--and everything needs to be approved by the licensor: the original outline, the manuscript, the cover art, the cover copy, any ads or promotions, etcetera.
The advantage is that you get to cash in on the popularity of a hit show or movie, and take advantage of all the hype and publicity surrounding the show. It's like riding piggy-back on a giant with a much bigger audience and advertising budget. And when that hype and publicity goes away, as when a show goes off the air, there's a lot less incentive to keep publishing the books.
Unless, as in the case of STAR TREK or DOCTOR WHO, you have a devoted audience of fans that aren't going anywhere. Which I'm guessing applies to MSW as well, or the books wouldn't still be selling.
One must also take into consideration that TV shows and books that are highly formulaic are made for the lowest common denominator viewer/reader. I'll take an educated guess that the people reading the MSW books are the older women that watched the shows and younger women who are stay-at-home moms and watch/ed the reruns. MSW books are probably the mystery equivalent of Mills and Boon.
Okay, I gotta object to the idea that somehow mystery tie-ins appeal more to the "lowest common denominator" than, say, science fiction tie-in novels. That's just genre snobbery. And since when are older women and stay-at-home moms somehow considered less demanding readers than, say, Trekkies? (Never mind that I've met plenty of older women and moms who devour Trek books--and even write them on occasion!)
Having written both, I can certainly testify that mysteries aren't any easier to write than sf or fantasy books.
There's many out there who would contend that us 'nerdy trekkers' are the lowest common denominator.
I'd suggest it's the sports nerds that can quote teams and stats for the last 50 years.
Everyone needs someone to look down on...
Sad but true. I've seen sf fans (and writers) look down their noses at fantasy or romance or westerns, the same way mainstream types often look down on sf or comic books. Which is ridiculous.
Ultimately, no one genre has a monopoly on quality. It's all just telling stories around the campfire.
Perhaps, though I would argue that there should always be a desire for society to produce artistic writing - which is part of a wider cultural use and awareness of what is 'artistic', and the heritage it partakes in - and that genres, led by producers working with those genres, should strive to be more and more 'artistic'.
What do I consider artistic? It can not simply be the creator having a purpose or point which he or she wishes to convey (that is social critique, religious experience, ideology or such like). Nor simply the possession of a self-consciousness about the particular genre or media's conventional forms, rules and history. Nor the ability to transcend or subvert these rules. Nor is it just the ability to deliberately produce beauty or ugliness or other emotional effects in a deliberate and well-constructed piece of art. Nor a wide knowledge of and excellent use of a vocabulary of forms. Nor that it necessarily should challenge or cause a mental, emotional or spiritual change in its viewer.
What I would consider artistic therefore, and which is achievable in any genre form, is a work and a producer (in this case, writer) who evidences an awareness of the above formal traits and shows either innovation with them or refinement of existing trends. (1) The result of this is that there are probably within every genre artists who to greater or lesser extents have mastered the genre's formal qualities, and use them to create works of indefinable 'art'.
However it is these high standards by which much so-called 'genre fiction' falls foul to critical complaint - since it seems that more artistic producers are found writing literature outside 'genre fictions'. This is perhaps cultural bias from the past against those genres which do not have enough history to have the conventional rules to master, break or build upon - or also cultural bias against the consumers of genre fictions, but also the result of microcultural growth within those consumer groups that repel others or is repelled by the demands of others. Perhaps microcultures allows us to defend why there might seem to be less artistic writers within genre than there are who write within 'mainstream' or 'non-genre' genres, such as realist genres, stream-of-consciousness genres, realism, and - indeed - poetry (which demands very high formal awareness to be succesful). Simply too many artistically capable writers did not make it through the door, either because of repulsion by the consumers, or rejection by the consumers?
So do I believe that some genres and media forms are more artistic than others? Yes and no. As a researcher I can read historians, art historians, theologians, poets, authors and the like who have produced art, within medias favourable and hostile to the production of art. These are my loves and my challenges. Yet these writers are unashameably high culture exponents.
And within genre fiction? Certainly some genres are currently more artistic than others by my categories above, but they need not be in five or ten years time, when new or existing producers genuinely capable of artistic achievement react to changes in the marketplace and the reception of previously denigrated genre forms (such as medieval fantasy at present, due to Game of Thrones).
Anyway a long post, but I hope that my (entirely subjective) conclusions are concrete - that there are individual artists within genres, but that genres are constrained by the number of artistically capable writers working within them? And that though literature is judged by many conflicting and entirely subjective demands - that change between micro-cultures and which evolve generationally - but that a common denominator is a formal ability on the producer's part, and something else that is much harder to define.
Footnote
(1) This thereby removing the need for 'innovation' which though the hallmark of post-Romantic assessments of art, was not paramount important until the Enlightenment's waning, and was non-existant in the world that produced the Ste-Chapelle and Chartres Cathedral. To compare different artistic mindsets, compare the three Limbourg brothers who produced the Tres Riches Heures for the majestic early 15th century French patron, the Duc de Berry, and who are barely distinguishable in output - and the three Duchamp brothers - Marcel, Jaques and Raymond).
Last edited:
^On the other hand, "artistic" and "literary" writers who decide to tackle genre fiction usually end up rehashing elementary tropes that the genre writers developed fully and grew beyond decades before, because the outsiders don't realize how much the genre writers have already accomplished. (I was once at a book fair seated next to a guy who was so proud of this novel he'd written that was a social allegory about how he thought society would realistically develop in the future as an extension of current social trends and problems, talking about it as though it was an innovative, visionary work, and I didn't have the heart to tell him that his predictions were tired, elementary cliches that SF readers have seen dozens of times over the decades, like corporations taking over and resources becoming scarce.)
Similar threads
