![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
Consider further: Raymond E. Feist writes bad non-shared world speculative fiction. Terry Brooks also writes bad non-shared world speculative fiction. Therefore George R.R. Martin writes bad non-shared world speculative fiction.
Obviously neither the the apple-argument nor the author-argument is deductively valid (and for the record, I do NOT think that Raymond E. Feist or Terry Brooks write bad non-shared world speculative fiction; I am just pulling their names out of the air for the sake of an argument). Perhaps, however, one or both is inductively strong.
A strong inductive argument requires a conclusion tightly connected to and drawn from the set of expressed premises. So: Apple A grew from a tree, as did apple B. So, too, did apple C, and ad infinitum. The claim that apple Z also grew from a tree is, therefore, inductively strong. The fact that all of the apples are, in fact, apples, is enough to allow us to draw conclusions about how one grows on the basis of how others grew. In other words, based on our experience with the world, we know there is a strong connection between the quality “appleness” and the way in which apples grow. Other differences that might exist between the apples (e.g., size, appearance, taste, color) are not relevant to the conclusion about growth that we want to draw.
Note, however, that we could not make an inductively strong claim about how a McIntosh tastes based on how a Granny Smith tastes, because the difference in type between the two apples is relevant and significant to the conclusion we want to draw. That difference disconnects the premises from the conclusion. The quality of “appleness” is here not enough because, based on our experience with the world, we know that a McIntosh does not taste like a Granny Smith (except at the most general level).
This is all common sense, I realize, but I have a point. Let’s try it out on another hypothetical:
R. Scott Bakker writes bad non-shared world speculative fiction. Robert Jordan writes bad non-shared world speculative fiction. Gene Wolfe writes bad non-shared world speculative fiction. Therefore J.R.R. Tolkien writes bad non-shared world speculative fiction.
Doesn’t work, does it? Make it a string of fifty names in the premises and it remains a weak argument. The reason it's weak is the same one that prevents us from concluding anything about the taste of a Granny Smith on the basis of the taste of a McIntosh – the premises lack any significant relation to the conclusion. It’s true (solely for purpose of this illustration) that all of the named authors in the premises write non-shared world speculative fiction and that they write it badly. But the only relation the authors named in the premises share with Tolkien is that he, too, writes non-shared world speculative fiction. And the quality of “writing non-shared world speculative fiction” is not enough to allow us to make an inductively strong claim that Tolkien’s non-shared world speculative fiction is bad solely on the basis of the other named authors writing bad non-shared world speculative fiction. After all, based on our experience in the real world, we know that authors vary a great deal in terms of talent, style, and tone. We’re trying to conclude something about the taste of a Tolkien-McIntosh on the basis of the taste of Bakker-Braeburn.
I’ll bet all of this is non-controversial (except to philosophy majors, who are even now critiquing my misuse of various terms like inductively strong and deductively valid; to all of you, understand that I had logic and symbolic logic as a an undergrad almost ten years ago; cut me some slack; I’m operating from memory here :-)).
This brings me to my point (finally; sheesh!).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, exactly that kind of inductive reasoning is applied with alarming regularity to shared world speculative fiction writers. I frequently hear/read comments that are one variant or another of the following: “I read a few bad shared world fantasy novels back in the 80s. Therefore all shared world writing is rubbish.”
This kind of flawed reasoning is commonplace with respect to shared world speculative fiction. It is also nonsense. The mere fact that a piece of speculative fiction writing is set in a shared world has no relevance to the question of its quality. As with non-shared world speculative fiction, the quality of the author is the determinative factor as to the quality of the work. An example to further highlight the point:
Paul S. Kemp wrote a bad shared-world speculative fiction novel set in the Forgotten Realms. Tracy Hickman wrote a bad shared-world speculative fiction novel set in the Dragonlance universe. Timothy Zahn wrote a bad shared-world speculative fiction novel set in the Star Wars universe. Therefore William King’s shared world speculative fiction novel, set in the Warhammer universe (nay, all speculative fiction set in a shared world) is also bad.
Doesn’t it seem absurd to so generalize, both across lines, across authors, across subject matter? We’re all different apples. Hell, even within the same line (say, the Forgotten Realms) authors vary so much in terms of talent, tone, and style, that concluding anything about the quality of one author’s work on the basis of the work of another author in the line is silly. It’s tantamount to drawing conclusions about all speculative fiction writers who write for Tor on the basis of one speculative fiction writer who writes for Tor.
Again, it is the author’s individual talent that determines the quality of the work. Nothing else. And here's the critical point: There is no more connection between the abundance of an author’s talent and whether or not they write in a shared world, than there is a connection between the abundance of an author’s talent and whether or not they write New Weird stories as opposed to Epic Fantasy, whether they write for Tor as opposed to Baen.
Now, I do not want to venture into the briar patch of why so many readers (and even, I’m sorry to say, so many, many, many other authors) engage in this kind of flawed reasoning. Analyzing human nature is not the purpose of this short essay. My purpose here is simply to expose the underlying weakness in the all too often repeated claim that all shared world speculative fiction is bad. It’s not. Not by a long shot.
I am, of course, not claiming that all shared world speculative fiction is good (any more than I’d claim that all types of apple are good; McIntosh apples stink; curse you, Mcintosh! Cuuuurse yoouu!). It isn’t, any more than all non-shared world speculative fiction is good. The quality of shared world and non-shared world speculative fiction varies by author. By author. By author. And those who dismiss one or the other with a hand wave and unjustified generalization tell us more about their own biases and personal psychology than they do about the category of fiction they purport to be commenting on.
Here’s my plea to those who do not read shared world fiction based on the conviction that it’s all bad – take a bite of the apple, a different apple than you’ve tried before. And if you read a bad shared-world speculative fiction novel, treat it the same way you would a bad novel set in a non-shared world speculative fiction setting – put it to the side and don’t read that author again. But don’t make the mistake of generalizing the quality “bad” to an entire category based on such a small sample size. If you didn’t like the McIntosh, try the Fiji. If not the Fiji, maybe the Gala. There are plenty of good apples out there, believe me.
(Postscript: I am aware that “bad” as I’ve used it above is not self-defining. Further, in the context of art, which is what we’re discussing, “bad” is a slippery concept. But defining “bad” is not necessary to the argument.)
Doesn’t work, does it? Make it a string of fifty names in the premises and it remains a weak argument. The reason it's weak is the same one that prevents us from concluding anything about the taste of a Granny Smith on the basis of the taste of a McIntosh – the premises lack any significant relation to the conclusion. It’s true (solely for purpose of this illustration) that all of the named authors in the premises write non-shared world speculative fiction and that they write it badly. But the only relation the authors named in the premises share with Tolkien is that he, too, writes non-shared world speculative fiction. And the quality of “writing non-shared world speculative fiction” is not enough to allow us to make an inductively strong claim that Tolkien’s non-shared world speculative fiction is bad solely on the basis of the other named authors writing bad non-shared world speculative fiction. After all, based on our experience in the real world, we know that authors vary a great deal in terms of talent, style, and tone. We’re trying to conclude something about the taste of a Tolkien-McIntosh on the basis of the taste of Bakker-Braeburn.
I’ll bet all of this is non-controversial (except to philosophy majors, who are even now critiquing my misuse of various terms like inductively strong and deductively valid; to all of you, understand that I had logic and symbolic logic as a an undergrad almost ten years ago; cut me some slack; I’m operating from memory here :-)).
This brings me to my point (finally; sheesh!).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, exactly that kind of inductive reasoning is applied with alarming regularity to shared world speculative fiction writers. I frequently hear/read comments that are one variant or another of the following: “I read a few bad shared world fantasy novels back in the 80s. Therefore all shared world writing is rubbish.”
This kind of flawed reasoning is commonplace with respect to shared world speculative fiction. It is also nonsense. The mere fact that a piece of speculative fiction writing is set in a shared world has no relevance to the question of its quality. As with non-shared world speculative fiction, the quality of the author is the determinative factor as to the quality of the work. An example to further highlight the point:
Paul S. Kemp wrote a bad shared-world speculative fiction novel set in the Forgotten Realms. Tracy Hickman wrote a bad shared-world speculative fiction novel set in the Dragonlance universe. Timothy Zahn wrote a bad shared-world speculative fiction novel set in the Star Wars universe. Therefore William King’s shared world speculative fiction novel, set in the Warhammer universe (nay, all speculative fiction set in a shared world) is also bad.
Doesn’t it seem absurd to so generalize, both across lines, across authors, across subject matter? We’re all different apples. Hell, even within the same line (say, the Forgotten Realms) authors vary so much in terms of talent, tone, and style, that concluding anything about the quality of one author’s work on the basis of the work of another author in the line is silly. It’s tantamount to drawing conclusions about all speculative fiction writers who write for Tor on the basis of one speculative fiction writer who writes for Tor.
Again, it is the author’s individual talent that determines the quality of the work. Nothing else. And here's the critical point: There is no more connection between the abundance of an author’s talent and whether or not they write in a shared world, than there is a connection between the abundance of an author’s talent and whether or not they write New Weird stories as opposed to Epic Fantasy, whether they write for Tor as opposed to Baen.
Now, I do not want to venture into the briar patch of why so many readers (and even, I’m sorry to say, so many, many, many other authors) engage in this kind of flawed reasoning. Analyzing human nature is not the purpose of this short essay. My purpose here is simply to expose the underlying weakness in the all too often repeated claim that all shared world speculative fiction is bad. It’s not. Not by a long shot.
I am, of course, not claiming that all shared world speculative fiction is good (any more than I’d claim that all types of apple are good; McIntosh apples stink; curse you, Mcintosh! Cuuuurse yoouu!). It isn’t, any more than all non-shared world speculative fiction is good. The quality of shared world and non-shared world speculative fiction varies by author. By author. By author. And those who dismiss one or the other with a hand wave and unjustified generalization tell us more about their own biases and personal psychology than they do about the category of fiction they purport to be commenting on.
Here’s my plea to those who do not read shared world fiction based on the conviction that it’s all bad – take a bite of the apple, a different apple than you’ve tried before. And if you read a bad shared-world speculative fiction novel, treat it the same way you would a bad novel set in a non-shared world speculative fiction setting – put it to the side and don’t read that author again. But don’t make the mistake of generalizing the quality “bad” to an entire category based on such a small sample size. If you didn’t like the McIntosh, try the Fiji. If not the Fiji, maybe the Gala. There are plenty of good apples out there, believe me.
(Postscript: I am aware that “bad” as I’ve used it above is not self-defining. Further, in the context of art, which is what we’re discussing, “bad” is a slippery concept. But defining “bad” is not necessary to the argument.)
January 23 2007, 19:33:41 UTC 5 years ago
But it's a worthwhile project, and I wish you luck with it. :)
January 24 2007, 14:36:23 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
January 23 2007, 21:01:03 UTC 5 years ago
I've never played Dragonlance and had never even HEARD of Necromunda until discovering Lucien was putting out a book in the setting.
The misconception, Paul, leads me to believe that Apple A and Apple B are not necessarily equated to Author A and author B, but rather to the specific world in which Author A and Author B are writing in.
Most avid readers will follow a specific author wherever he or she goes. Or they will follow a specific character (I admittedly have a weakness for John Sanford's Lucas Davenport character and have read all the Prey books to date). Or they follow a specific shared world (whether it be Eberron or World of Darkness or Warhammer).
I am one of those freaky, obsessive-compulsive completists. Thus, I have ALL Forgotten Realm fiction written in novel form (all World of Darkness, old and new, all Dragonlance, all Necromunda...you get the picture).
For me, it starts with a specific author. That author will introduce me to a new world and some of it I will enjoy, some of it I won't. (To this day, the thought of reading anything Brian Herbert writes outside of Dune makes me ill...his Vampire novel was one of the worst, if not THE worst, book I've ever read...did it stop me from reading the other books? No. If he had written another vampire book, that might have been the exception however.)
People who dislike a specific kind of fiction do so because of misconception. Did I dislike Lucien's Necromunda book even though I knew NOTHING of the world? No. Lucien was a good enough writer to write the STORY and leave the game mechanics to the introduction. I will read them all for fun, fluff sci-fi.
My introduction to Forgotten Realms was, as with most people, Salvatore. Except, instead of Drizzt, I read about Cadderly. They were enjoyable enough so that I read the Icewind Dale Trilogy afterwards...and they were enjoyable as well. Then came Halls of Stormweather and I became a big Paul Kemp fan. I knew NOTHING about Sembia...but that didn't make a difference to me because Paul (and correct me if I'm wrong), you focused specifically on character and story...and from that, location just kinda of added flavor.
To close, people who refuse to read shared-world fiction because they think it isn't REAL fiction are ignorant and lazy. They should stick to their Harlequin Romances (or whatever genre they need to be niched into) and not bad mouth something they know nothing about.
In the meantime, the amazingly talented writers like Paul and Elain and Erik and Ed and Lucien and Jess and Dave and Keith and ALL writers who spend time entertaining people in shared-world environments really shouldn't waste their time trying to convert, but rather they should let word of mouth spread and encourage their loyal followers to dissemble the myths that surround shared-world fiction. Bask in what you have, good writers, and let your talent speak for you. Word will spread...and those who are close-minded will remain so. Nothing we can do about that except educate...which is what word-of-mouth inherently does.
January 23 2007, 21:10:05 UTC 5 years ago
(Of course, if you've determined that you're not an apple lover, by no means should you then embark on a crusade to convince the world that apples are nutritionally void, worthless in taste, and otherwise lacking in any redeeming qualities)
January 23 2007, 22:35:08 UTC 5 years ago
Look at it this way: I know a bit about your taste, so I could name ten big name non-shared world fantasy writers that you would probably hate. If you read books by all ten and decided: I hate those freakin' apples. Non-shared world fantasy fiction blows. You'd never have picked up eleven, the tasty Mieville-Braeburn.
January 24 2007, 01:28:27 UTC 5 years ago
Hell, given my background it'd be pretty ballsy (and hypocritical) for me to knock shared-world writing.
So no, really I was just being a flip smartass.
January 23 2007, 21:27:08 UTC 5 years ago
Having said that...ALmost every shared world novel I've ever read has been (at best) mediocre. There's a reason the only realms novels I read now are yours, sir. I'm sure some of the newer stuff is really good too, but I've been burnt so many times.
January 23 2007, 22:25:04 UTC 5 years ago
I like shared world novels. I don't like the rabid fanboyism half the fans of the genre exude; nor do I like the constant bashing of shared worlds from those people who read a couple of books by certain authors (a couple in particular I think should have their proverbial quills taken from them and snapped in twain, but that's a rant for another time).
I agree with with the apple comparision, though I'd take it one step further... even two Red Delicious Apples may taste different from each other, and one author may be astounding in one shared world and suck in another, or s/he may have a few wonderfully written books and a few others that make you cringe.
There are ALWAYS going to be those books that aere the McIntoshes... that make you wonder who in the world allowed this travesty to come to print...
Ah well. I'd ramble more coherently, but I'm about to walk out the door to a job interview. :D
January 23 2007, 22:39:23 UTC 5 years ago
Good luck!
5 years ago
January 23 2007, 21:48:07 UTC 5 years ago
I suspect critical respect is a bit like the black lotus; looks beautiful, but you *really* don't want to touch it.
-JM
January 23 2007, 22:38:08 UTC 5 years ago
January 24 2007, 01:16:15 UTC 5 years ago
Hm, my anti-d20 twitch is starting again.
January 23 2007, 22:31:36 UTC 5 years ago
Ever since, I've collected every Realms novel published. What I've found in the Realms so far (and there are a LOT of books over the last 20 years) is that within those novels you will find all manner of writing. Great authors, wonderful stories, interesting perspectives, just as you will see stories that aren't compelling and hard to get through or authors whose style is nigh unbearable. You will also see changes in an author's style over time and may even get feelings of story grasping.
For instance, right now I am a hard core fan of Paul Kemp, I love his style; how he makes every character a REAL person, a dimensional person. I followed R.A. Salvatore like nobody's business until Paul arrived on the scene. Salvatore had captured something that resonated within me. But now, with Drizzt, I see a character that seems too powerful, too immortal because of his popularity. It seems like there are no challenges left for Salvatore to write about. So, my interest in Drizzt is still there I'm just not as enthusiastic as I used to be.
To see an author change over 20 years is interesting to watch especially within a common environment. Troy Denning, in my opinion, has a very harsh style that is very difficult to get through; I still haven't finished his Giants of Twilight series since I bought them, what, 12 years ago. I was disappointed with the Pool series, but I’ve found many other stories that were an exciting read, like Blackstaff by Stephen Schend.
The point, even within the shared world environment there is just as much diversity as in non-shared world. If you go out to the bookstore and browse the fantasy section you come across Michael Moorcock, George R.R. Martin, Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind, Terry Brooks, and thousands of other authors telling a story. How do you pick what you want to read? What about when that one book doesn't do it for you?
I think the only difference between shared-world fiction and non-shared world fiction is framework. Shared-world is held within a consistent core setting, but the stories being told within those settings are just as many and varied as any other story told anywhere else by any author. I suppose authors who bad mouth shared-world fiction are simply those who haven't indulged themselves to learn the setting or made any attempt to challenge themselves with writing within the confines of dynamic, colluded (is that the right word?) environment. They claim they are more creative because they don't have to use a game or a setting with rules as a crutch. Ironic, that kind of thinking.
Little do they know how much more demanding and satisfying it is to write in a world where your every word may be criticized by people who enjoy finding those inconsistencies, whose knowledge about the setting borders on the unhealthy (look at Star Trek and Star Wars buffs - holy crap, they are picky and particular!). Plus, financially, you can't argue. Shared-world fiction gives you access to a fan base that non-shared world authors only get after they've achieved a certain claim to fame, and how many authors can you name have that kind renown - certainly plenty, but not a whole lot compared to what's out there.
I have a lot of reading to catch up on, but for me, shared world fiction is the best place to locate a good author, for they have to measure up to a defined, established locale before being published in that setting. If you choose a book by its cover, well, at least you can claim you read a lot.
~Epheros
January 23 2007, 23:07:37 UTC 5 years ago
I favor shared world fiction. If the story is good odds are that I'll want more.
The key is to use the specific sub-genres in which a potential "victim" is interested. It backfires sometimes, but I've converted a few silly buggers to Realms fans. Show a Cthulhu fan some of Monte Cook's work for example.
Soma
Anonymous
January 24 2007, 01:16:02 UTC 5 years ago
Paul, I think you make a great point in the above in regards to making sweeping generalizations. Its a god call to remember to be openminded. I HATED the Forgotten Realms shared world. I mean HATED with the great passion that snobbery can foster. I loved fantasy novels, with my all time Fav being Leiburs Fafhrd and Gray Moser books, but I HATED the FR series, even though I never read work one of them. That was untill I played the Baldur's Gate PC game. I loved the game and hoped I would find that same enjoyment from the game in the books. So I RELUCTANTLY picked up the Salvatore Book Homeland.
It was then I found that my eleitest view of the FR books was wrong. Heck I didnt read the Moonshaes series untill last year out of a pig headed belief that the early FR books were somehow poorly written because they were the first ones out. Again, I was wrong.
I support your call to be open minded and to not think in general terms. After reading this I went out and bought one of the William King Warhammer novels. I have always wanted to read one but was 'sure' that they would not be good because they were.....well a Warhammer novel.
I guess the thing I would add to this is just go give the stuff you think might be bad a try. WHat is the worst that will happen?
Will your lungs fall out if the novel is no good?
Heck you might just be suprised.
January 24 2007, 01:19:15 UTC 5 years ago
Off topic, but I was reminded.
Heh, you think you hated the FR shared world. You should've seen me when I was more hot-tempered and younger. I hated D&D with a passion. It was so iconic about me, that when I finally saw the value in it, and the enjoyment with the right groups (As it is with all RPGs), a author on the Realms F-list said "I'm shocked you're on this list."Ah, I miss those days sometimes.
January 24 2007, 04:40:17 UTC 5 years ago
January 24 2007, 16:10:14 UTC 5 years ago
I've read all of Jordan's WoT series, and can tell you after it ends, I'll never read another incomplete series of his again. (No, this has nothing to do with his illness, which I pray he beats to write 5 more WoT length series). I has to do with the time it's taken to finish his opus and the way the story has meandered to the point where book 10 was a 700 page intermission. If it hadn't been announced that the series would end at 12, I wouldn't have picked up 11. But I've spent so much time on this story that I have to see it through. If each book was a stand alone story, I probably would've stopped reading around book 8.
Another example: Terry Goodkind. It only took me one to stop reading any more of his books. I had no desire to spend the money or time trying out another of his books, or to build on my illustration, another book in this unit. The other books he writes are guilty by association.
This is the challenge of shared worlds. Too many of your apples have given the perception of a spoiled barrel. :) Even though there are some nice juciy apples wrapped in spoil-proof plastic. I say "bad shared world fiction sucks". From the reader's side, how do you pick through the 50 FR novels to find the gems? I came back to shared-world fiction because of the Maiden of Pain contest and bought 5 FR books as research. 3 out of the 5 were just bad, in my opinon. The characters were flat, pacing poor, and average plot. That's a bad ratio.
There's two ways to beat this bad sterotype. Reader recommendations and publisher quality control. Your recent post about being listed on Pat's Fantasy List is great! And an example of reader recomendation that needs to happen. The better books need to be pushed. The qualilty needs to be better marketed.
And on the publisher side, books like the 3 out 5 (that I mentioned above) need to be weeded out before they hit the shelves. I challenge you, and the other shared-world authors, to push your editors to throw out the bad apples. If the barrel has less spotted apples, new readers will be more willing to try something new.
That was longer than I intended... I'm not trying to excuse the close-minded people who walk around saying all shared world fiction sucks, but to understand them a little better. And find a way to change their minds. :)
(And yes, even after my experience, I still pick up shared-world books. I'm just very selective now. I examine those apples closely before buying and reading. ;))
January 24 2007, 16:32:57 UTC 5 years ago
I agree that readers tend to group shared world novels by line -- but that's exactly what I would like to see end. As you point out, you'll evaluate Goodkind/Jordan/etc. on the basis of their own writing, whereas a shared world author may get "evaluated" on the basis of another writer in the line.
"From the reader's side, how do you pick through the 50 FR novels to find the gems? I came back to shared-world fiction because of the Maiden of Pain contest and bought 5 FR books as research. 3 out of the 5 were just bad, in my opinon. The characters were flat, pacing poor, and average plot. That's a bad ratio."
How do you pick the gems out of *non-shared world* genre fiction? I'd submit the ratio of good to bad books (by any particular reader's estimation; this is necessarily a very subjective exercise) does not differ materially across the shared-world/non-shared world divide. I'll bet you could walk into Borders, grab five random non-shared world fantasy novels off the shelf, and determine 3 of the 5 to be bad in your opinion. I guess I'm just saying that whatever method you use to select the good ones among non-shared world spec. fic. ought to serve just as well for shared world spec. fic.. Word of mouth, reviews from reviewers whose judgment you trust, etc.
5 years ago
Anonymous
January 25 2007, 06:36:38 UTC 5 years ago
For these people, in other words, it's not a matter of inductive logic. Shared world novels are not bad because past shared world novels have been bad, but rather because something intrinsic about them (their "appleness") is seen as limiting or limited. The argument would be that writing a novel in shared world may not say anything about the abundance of the writer's talent, but it does say something about the how fully he or she will be able to deploy that talent creatively in the novel in question.
Ironically it may be easier to persuade critics this is untrue than readers. To critics you can speak of the creative doors that writing in a shared environment opens. To readers...as you say, you must simply invite them to try another apple.
January 25 2007, 13:39:22 UTC 5 years ago
For my part, I've never felt constrained with regard to the stories I want to tell or the characters I want to develop.
January 25 2007, 17:47:53 UTC 5 years ago
On that note, I sympathize with all the posts that talk about how hard it is to pick out the gems amongst the dross. It really is difficult. 90-95%-crap rule, and all -- You were right when you talked about going into a bookstore, picking up 5 books (shared world, or non-shared world, it doesn't matter) and disliking 3 out of 5, though I wonder if it wouldn't be 4 of 5 on the average.
Perhaps I'm generous -- I don't quite buy the 90-95% thing. My own percentage puts 80% of things as slush or worse, which means 4 of 5.
Reviews and word of mouth are how it's done. And don't just listen to *whether* someone liked it -- listen to *why* someone liked it. Only go with a "It's Great!" review if you know the person well enough to know his/her tastes.
I do, however, think that fantasy as a genre is churning out some good stuff these days. This is not to imply that fantasy authors are better than in the past (Howard and Leiber and Moorcock have some pretty huge shoes, not to mention folks like Tolkien and Lovecraft and Poe, etc.), but the talent seems diverse -- spread across a wide swath. There are a number of people to look to, I think.
Cheers
Anonymous
January 31 2007, 20:49:08 UTC 5 years ago
Of course the psychology is the usual one of Us and Damned Other, reinforced by your friends agreeing or not knowing enough to argue.
There are, though, differences in how shared-world and non-shared-world fiction works, disadvantages and corresponding strengths, but I've rarely seen this fairly and lucidly discussed. And of course an author writing in a shared world he created is a different case.
Faraer
January 31 2007, 22:51:51 UTC 5 years ago
You've written this, or words to this effect, at what seems like every opportunity you get. If you mean by this to suggest that the creator of a world will necessarily tell a better story within that world merely because he or she is its creator, I'm not buying. It's fair to claim that the creator of a world is likely to get the lore and/or details "right" in a way that a non-creator would not, but it's a long leap from that to the claim that such a creator will necessarily tell a better story.
And, lest I be misunderstood in the particular case of the Realms: my respect for Ed as both creator of the Realms AND storyteller is boundless; he's a very rare talent in that regard and an inspiration to me; Ed's writing is compelling because he's a great storyteller, not because he's the creator of the Realms; the one is incidental to the other.
In any event, if it's not obvious, I am annoyed by assertions of the kind I think you to be making here (though I concede I may be misreading your intent).
Anonymous
January 31 2007, 23:48:07 UTC 5 years ago
Faraer
5 years ago