How many of you collect books based on TV series? (i.e. Buffy, CSI, etc.)

[bill_mchale]

I tend to not read media based fiction. I know, I am probably developing a rep for tilting at windmills, but my general impression has been that it erodes the midlist. I.e. fewer original works are published because the media based fiction is a sure thing. The basic problem ultimately is that said works constrain an author's imagination.

In addition, the work also removes a certain amount of suspense. If I am reading a Star Trek novel, I know most of the major characters (i.e. essentially anyone from one of the TV series) have predestined immunity. No author is going to be allowed to kill Kirk or Spock. Also 90% of the time, the universe essentially resets... the status quo is restored.

Essentially, as far as I am concerned, there are plenty of great books out there that share some of the same elements that make the media universes fun, but without the media universes' limitations that I see no need to spend much time on the media fiction.

--
Bill

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

In addition, the work also removes a certain amount of suspense. If I am reading a Star Trek novel, I know most of the major characters (i.e. essentially anyone from one of the TV series) have predestined immunity. No author is going to be allowed to kill Kirk or Spock. Also 90% of the time, the universe essentially resets... the status quo is restored.

Does a major character have to die to have a good story?

BOb

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I tend to not read media based fiction. I know, I am probably developing a rep for tilting at windmills, but my general impression has been that it erodes the midlist. I.e. fewer original works are published because the media based fiction is a sure thing. The basic problem ultimately is that said works constrain an author's imagination.

In addition, the work also removes a certain amount of suspense. If I am reading a Star Trek novel, I know most of the major characters (i.e. essentially anyone from one of the TV series) have predestined immunity. No author is going to be allowed to kill Kirk or Spock. Also 90% of the time, the universe essentially resets... the status quo is restored.

Essentially, as far as I am concerned, there are plenty of great books out there that share some of the same elements that make the media universes fun, but without the media universes' limitations that I see no need to spend much time on the media fiction.

--
Bill

Thats like complaining that when I read character focused novels i know the main character wont die! Jack Reacher, Temperance Brennan, Dresden, Harry Potter are not going to die in any of their books.

And actually in The star wars Novels a Massive character WAS killed off.

I think the limitations here are more in the way you think the books are rather than the way they actually are.

There are still some great books based on media and I would also argue that it forces the author to be MORE creative when they cant just kill someone off for shock value or alter the univers to suit.

[bbusybookworm]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Does a major character have to die to have a good story?

BOb

I'll say no, but such a limitation can does reduce the number of options open to an author.

For good authors its not so much a problem, being able to make the most of any limits, indeed in many cases taking advantage of them.

On the other hand, in a series, if the author is not very creative, what you can end up with is a very formulaic predictable book.

I've ran into this in the past when I used to collect Star Trek novels, and the work was quiet uneven at times, with some authors like D.C. Fontana, Peter David, Diane Duane, etc. doing a great job, but many others not so much.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by bbusybookworm

I'll say no, but such a limitation can does reduce the number of options open to an author.

For good authors its not so much a problem, being able to make the most of any limits, indeed in many cases taking advantage of them.

On the other hand, in a series, if the author is not very creative, what you can end up with is a very formulaic predictable book.

I've ran into this in the past when I used to collect Star Trek novels, and the work was quiet uneven at times, with some authors like D.C. Fontana, Peter David, Diane Duane, etc. doing a great job, but many others not so much.

Another part of that puzzle was that any book had to be approved by Paramount licensing, who had odd ideas of what a book ought to be. I know an assortment of folks who play in that sandbox, and they all have Paramount licensing stories to tell. (Like the book that got bounced because "The Federation would never do that!", and the folks I know thought for about 5 minutes and came up with half a dozen produced scripts from The Original Series where the Federation did exactly that. You have to wonder when they don't even know their own continuity.)

The line improved when John Ordover took over as editor. Previously, the attitude seemed to be "It will be a best seller because it's Trek, so we don't care if it's any good!" John felt that given that, there was no reason not to make it good as well. He insisted that anyone writing a Trek novel had already published a non-Trek SF work, simply to prove they could write a salable book. And he promptly went around to everyone in SFWA and said "Why don't you write a Trek book for me? You can probably do it in a month or 6 weeks, and what I pay you will keep food on your table, clothes on your back, and a roof over your head while you work on other things." Unfortunately, even some published writers who were Trek fans and would have loved to write for Trek knew they couldn't write one that would pass muster at Paramount.

But any line based in an established setting has those constraints. You have to maintain continuity, and not violate canon, which can require a fairly frightening amount of research. And you normally can't kill off major characters. In addition, you have to try to maintain the style and tone of the source, which can be a challenge.

It's possible to transcend the boundaries of the form and do something exceptional, and a few have done so, but mostly the best you can expect is competent formula. (There was one Trek novel that had some fans rolling on the floor, because the author had managed to portray Kirk and Spock as "slash" characters, with Spock as an unapproachable ide figure, and Kirk as a passionate diva longing for him. The folks vetting the book at Paramount were style deaf, and completely missed the sub-text. )
______
Dennis

[Taylor514ce]

The only "TV" book I've ever read is Battlestar Gallactica by our own Mr. Carver. I thought it was going to be "based on" the show, but instead it was a faithful "shot for shot" rendition of the pilot. He did an amazing job of capturing the characters. I read it and kept marveling at the effort that must have required, to be that meticulous. How many times to you WATCH that episode, Jeffrey? Wow.

I finished it with a strange mixture of, to be honest, "well that was a waste of time, I've seen the show" and complete admiration for the author, and if the entire series was so novelized, I'd likely buy every one of them.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Does a major character have to die to have a good story?

BOb

No, though we can probably think of TV series that would be vastly improved if a major character was killed off...

But the problem you run into is that most series confine the drama to individual episodes. At the end of each there's a RESET, and we're back to square one for the next episode. You know that whatever else happens, a major character won't get killed off.

This imposes limitations on the series that also affect spin off books, which must do the same. It's one reason I generally find media tie-ins unreadable. I may like the series well enough to watch it, but I'm almost certainly not interested in reading books based on it. If I want formula, I don't need to get it in two different forms for the same source material.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I tend to not read media based fiction. I know, I am probably developing a rep for tilting at windmills, but my general impression has been that it erodes the midlist. I.e. fewer original works are published because the media based fiction is a sure thing. The basic problem ultimately is that said works constrain an author's imagination.

I sympathize, but you can make a case that media-based fiction is mid-list.

In addition, the work also removes a certain amount of suspense. If I am reading a Star Trek novel, I know most of the major characters (i.e. essentially anyone from one of the TV series) have predestined immunity. No author is going to be allowed to kill Kirk or Spock. Also 90% of the time, the universe essentially resets... the status quo is restored.

Precisely. The drama is confined to individual episodes, not the series as a whole.

The major exception I can think of offhand was Babylon 5, where Joe Straczynski had a five year story arc and major characters did get killed off. And he also tried to tell the story in several different formats, so that parts of the story would be told in books and comics, as well as the TV series. I ultimately don't think the attempt was wholly successful, and the tie-in novels and comics largely didn't approach the quality of the TV show, but I deeply admired the fact that he tried to do it.
______
Dennis

[Redcard]

At one time, I believe I remember reading somewhere that media based fiction was kept "on the list." It routinely scored high, though, and so it fell into the excluded category, just like Harry Potter tended to late in the series.

Interesting stuff, though. Myself, I tend not to read media fiction because I can't keep up with it. Doctor Who is an exception, because, well, Doctor Who tends not to worry too heavily about canon. Being a Time Lord means you can rewrite canon at will.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Does a major character have to die to have a good story?

BOb

Not at all... but in an adventure story (which are what Star Trek Novels are), it helps to know that the possibility of death exists. At most the suspense in a Star Trek novel is "How will they get out of this one?" as opposed to "Will they get out of this one?"

--
Bill

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Not at all... but in an adventure story (which are what Star Trek Novels are), it helps to know that the possibility of death exists. At most the suspense in a Star Trek novel is "How will they get out of this one?" as opposed to "Will they get out of this one?"

--
Bill

I have read several Trek novels where the main TV characters were not the main characters in the book... the story just occurred in the Trek "universe". Also, there are three new Trek series that have all new characters, ships etc. Spin-offs if you will. And in one of the spin offs one of the major characters did die. So, it is possible to have good stories in these "proscribed" genres.

BOb

[bill_mchale]

Bob,
I am not saying that stories can't be well told, and I do know that some of the Trek novels have main characters outside of the usual suspects. That being said, not counting the spin-offs, the books with alternate main characters often feel like (fairly or not) the author is trying to put themselves into the story.. if that makes any sense.

I have been tempted by some of the spin-offs though. That being said, there are an awful lot of other good books out there.

--
Bill
--
Bill

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I have been tempted by some of the spin-offs though. That being said, there are an awful lot of other good books out there.

No doubt. I just enjoy them. The characters are like old friends... and they are usually very quick reads. But, as you say, some authors are better than others and the ones listed here are some of my favorites.

BOb

[bill_mchale]

Bob,
I agree that one of the appeals of books like this is that you know many of the characters going in (at least if the author is any good; you do of course sometimes get authors who totally miss the character). That being said, there are plenty of series out there that stem from no where other than the Author's imagination (and influences) that one can turn to if one wants to spend time with old friends. Honor Harrington is one great example of a series that allows one to do that. The big difference is that major characters can and do die.

--
Bill

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Bob,
I agree that one of the appeals of books like this is that you know many of the characters going in (at least if the author is any good; you do of course sometimes get authors who totally miss the character). That being said, there are plenty of series out there that stem from no where other than the Author's imagination (and influences) that one can turn to if one wants to spend time with old friends. Honor Harrington is one great example of a series that allows one to do that. The big difference is that major characters can and do die.

Indeed. At Philcon a couple of years ago, David Weber was GoH, and talked about a list his wife maintained of characters he wasn't allowed to kill off. Mac was on the list. Honor wasn't.

As I understand it, Honor was originally planned to die heroically, like Nelson at Trafalgar. That seems to have been modified or at least postponed, possibly because there is a good chance of an Honor Harrington TV series. (Weber stated that plans were far enough along that it was at the stage of looking for financing, as there was sufficient interest in the concept. reams have been written elsewhere on who ought to bo cast in various roles. )
______
Dennis