| Author |
 Topic  |
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
 Posted - 01 Mar 2011 : 00:49:51
|
Okay, NOT the current editors or this "no novels set before 4e" stuff I've just heard about...
I was in the Bard's Rumor's sections and I noticed in the carious compilation of author notes the constant refrain that the editors said I had to do this, the editors made me change this, the editors cut that and so on and so forth.
Now, I write for a living, not fiction, but history. I generally find editors very helpful, but I have the advantage that on content, I get the last word because they are not the subject matter experts, I am. So I readily admit my personal experiences may not be appropriate here.
That said, I started to wonder if this excuse had become a bit too convenient for FR writers.
What do we think? Do FR editors have far too much power historically? Should we be blaming the editors more vorciferously for things we don't like?
I'm back and forth on this myself, so I'm really curious what others think.
|
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2011 : 01:29:29
|
I edit for a living, and . . .
We can't make definite judgements without at least knowing the author's, publisher's and sometimes copy-editor's perspectives (and purposes and circumstances), which are almost never all made public. In very general terms, TSR and Wizards have taken a more active role, from commissioning and outlining to dealing with manuscripts, in determining the content of Realms novels than publishers of non-write-for-hire, non-series fiction, though this has been far from consistent over the years and between authors and series. Realms novels have sometimes been naively evaluated as if all their elements were their authors' idea, to no good effect. There are probably cases where the situation is more nuanced than authors make out, especially as the book department heads have usually been taciturn, and there are probably editorial interventions we don't know about but might dislike if we did.
Another instance is when an author overwrites and whole scenes are cut: responsibility is shared in that case.
My impression is that the Realms novel line would have benefited at times from a looser editorial hand (not making Ed write Elminster) and at times a tighter (see novels Y and Z I don't like). But this would be a subjective and purpose-dependent judgement even if we had full information. |
 |
|
|
Knight of the Gate
Senior Scribe
USA
624 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2011 : 01:52:11
|
| Not affecting *only* novels, but affecting novels at least as much as the game products, was the decision to purge the role of 'traffic cop' (content/continuity editor). I mention it as it is the one clear (to me) instance where the entire line suffered for lack of editorial oversight. |
How can life be so bountiful, providing such sublime rewards for mediocrity? -Umberto Ecco |
|
|
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2011 : 02:00:12
|
GMWestermeyer,
I have edited for a living, too, and still edit part-time, for fun. I'm also one of Ed's "home Realms campaign" players, and have been for years and years and . . .
I think it's important to bear in mind that TSR and WotC Realms writing is "work for hire," whereas a lot of fiction and non-fiction writing is not.
In other words, you may be fortunate enough to have the "final say" in wording (except in cases where your publisher's legal department insists on changes or else "we can't publish this").
However, an FR writer is ALWAYS subject to having their wording changed, multiple times, often without them seeing the result until it's in print, because the publisher has the legal right to do so. Sometimes this power is used for good, sometimes . . . not.
In the case of Ed's writings, I have sometimes seen (or heard him read aloud, at GenCon and other places) bits and pieces of his writing, or got glimpses of his final drafts, then read the published novels, and in some cases noticed changes that were simplifying the story, changes that cut lore and detail seemingly for the sake of cutting them out, changes that were misspellings or clearly the result of an editor having far less of a grasp of the English language than Ed does, and, yes, changes that were clarifications or improvements.
I have over the years noticed an ongoing tendency in editors to want clear-cut statements rather than any vagueness (Ed might have a character disappear in a fight, to leave their "fate" vague until someone notices them missing, but the editor wants a sentence or two added clearly showing the character escaping, or being killed).
All writers (Ed included) should be edited, but the result should always be a better story. I trust that it does . . . but if you read writers griping about changes made here, there, and everywhere in Realms novels, be aware that it happens, all the time, and sometimes without any consultation with the writer. Most Realms books get a story edit (done in-house) and then a copyedit (sentence by sentence grammar edit; usually done freelance these days). Multiple pairs of eyes should result in better books, IF everyone's "on the same page." I recall some utter disaster stories from the early TSR days when the various parties involved weren't.
For instance, just to give one example, with all names removed: a D&D game world novel gets written, goes to story edit, then copyedit, then checked by the lawyers, then goes to the internal company "Rules Council" (because at that time, the novels were supposed to adhere EXACTLY to game rules).
At the Rules Council, some bright spark of a staff game designer notices that the heroes (a band of adventurers) are travelling overland, and sleeping overnight under the stars (around a campfire, in the wilderness). So he decrees that, under the D&D game rules of the time, they should all lose 1 point of Constitution for this exposure to the elements, and therefore all make a System Shock roll. He sits down and makes one for each character, and two characters fail . . . so he clumsily rewrites the next scene in the manuscript to say that those two heroes die in their sleep, at night, around the campfire, without explanation, and triumphantly hands the MS back to the fiction line editor with a message that (paraphrased) runs like this: "Finished. I caught the one really horrible rules oversight the writer made, and fixed it. It's ready to be printed, now, or will be when the writer deals with the two characters dying; they'll have to be written out of the rest of the novel. Pity; they have a lot of major scenes, later on, and some were pretty good."
No, I'm not kidding. That happened. Yep, really.
(I've heard this tale from several former staffers, from their different viewpoints, and the stories mesh.)
An extreme example, but it proves that FR writers are writing under FAR different conditions than you are, or for that matter many fiction writers are.
These days, a gaming company may (and USUALLY does) tailor details and elements (including story content) to support a unified "brand" approach: if the theme for books this year is "the neogi attack!" (and win, and bring their deity to the world, and destroy other deities and replace them with their deity, and we have the miniatures and the card game and the big board game and the D&D adventures and the D&D novels all to match), then the overall plot and specific climax events (this character dies, that deity ascends or descends) WILL be specified by the editors, and the novel will go their way, even if the author isn't happy about it. It's the way the system works.
So it may in some instances be a "too convenient" excuse, but it almost always applies. The writers who flourish are those who can tell stirring tales using those "givens" (or constraints, if you will).
Or to put it another way: Ed's most recent Realms novel is entitled ELMINSTER MUST DIE! - - and you can be certain that Ed couldn't, and can't, kill Elminster or any other major character, without editorial agreement.
love,
THO
|
Edited by - The Hooded One on 01 Mar 2011 02:08:39 |
|
|
|
ErinMEvans
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
294 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2011 : 02:22:03
|
Having been an "evil editor" and an FR author, obviously, I have an opinion about this. But fundamentally Faraer is right: there is a lot to this question, and a lot you are never going to know due to the situation.
As appropriate or inappropriate as one may think it is for an author to blame their editor, it is arguably much, much worse for an editor to come out and "blame" the author. I do not know a single editor who would come out and say, "I cut that scene because it was terrible," because an editor's job is to make the book as good as it can be given the constraints of time, length, cost, etc. It's a hard job, that you really have to put your whole heart into--you care about all those books because you are their champion. And talking badly about a book is never part of that, even if you were "only" defending yourself.
THO is very right that when you are writing shared world, you are inevitably going to have things that have to change because it isn't how the world works or it doesn't fit the style that's been established. I can't make devilkin the illegitimate spawn of Mystra just because I think it would be cool, and I can't write Brimstone Angels in present tense. And--this is the important part--you need to accept that going in. Because it is probably right there in your contract, and no one is forcing you to sign. You sign and you write what they're asking for, or you don't and you find something else to do. That's work-for-hire.
And speaking as someone who's edited FR books and been edited in FR books recently, a lot of the horror stories I've heard about the "old days" are just shocking. That sort of thing doesn't go on anymore. If anything, a late-breaking, game-dictated change (at the point referred to in THO's story) would have had me dragging the designer into a meeting room, defending my author like a mama-wolverine.
Finally, getting edited is always necessary, and often hard. My experiences certainly aren't everyone's I've been very lucky to work with editors with whom I've had an excellent rapport and who will discuss the reasons they want the changes and listen to different versions that address them.
|
www.slushlush.com |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2011 : 05:24:02
|
As an author who has worked with now three editors at WotC (and starting to work with a fourth), I have not had any horror experiences. I have a vision, and I'm ok with changes being made to it, because that's the contract I signed--generally, the editor asks me to fix it in a particular way, or not to do something I thought was a good idea but doesn't work for the specific product, and I'm fine with that. If I really love the idea, I'll advocate for it (or a compromise between the editor's position and mine), and I have never worked with a WotC editor who wouldn't negotiate.
The editors I have worked with (including Erin) have all been extremely professional and definitely authorial advocates. Their efforts have made my work better. Believe you me!
If I really don't support something, I'll withdraw from a project or ask to have my name taken off it (assuming I can afford to do so, as I have financial responsibilities to my family, etc).
That said, yeah, carp happens, and I have so far been extremely fortunate in avoiding any of it. I sympathize with writers who dealt with the tough old days or encounter trouble now, and I'm really glad I haven't had to deal with that sort of stuff.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2011 : 06:03:03
|
Well it is an interesting discussion, however there has from time to time been loss of continuity editor based on the random changes that occur to history of the realms.
I can well understand a contract and THO has reported Ed being asked for 300,000 because they expected to cut 50,000 because of his vision of Realms and what the owners were willing to print.
|
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2011 : 06:47:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
In other words, you may be fortunate enough to have the "final say" in wording (except in cases where your publisher's legal department insists on changes or else "we can't publish this").
I don't have 'final say' by any means but my writing work is very, very different from what TSR/WotC writers do, absolutely.
I didn't want to bring up names, but Ed does seem to often state that 'this would have made sense without the editing" or words to that affect. And since ED created the Realms, and is a genuinely nice guy who really gets into fan interaction, people tend to take his side in the fan debates.
I like Ed, and I generally prefer his version of the Realms, I've said the Volo Guides are some of the best RPG books ever, for any game system, IMO.
But after writing so many novels, one has to ask... if the editing is always messing with the book, then why did you write it that way? Why not shift to what the editor will pass on? Why not write around these issues?
And, if none of the decisions are made by the authors, why not specify WHICH editors? Choices are made by people, not vague passive voice 'understood' nouns. "It was decided Elminster must die." Okay, decided by who?
THO, your horror tale regarding the death due to exposure sounds... well, frankly it sounds too good to be true. You say it did so I believe you, but I wonder if there is not more to the story. Perhaps the game designer was being facetious, for example. I know I often miss such jokes and irony, being, as my wife says, an unobservant, humorless bore. 
And though I appreciate the current crop of authors chiming in, can the current situation be very good if this "no pre-4e stories" rule is in effect?
I was a big fan of Thieves' World, the first true shared world, I've got every anthology and novel all the way through the revival. That setting collapsed for its fiction because the authors failed to keep a consistent tone (they couldn't even agree on the city's tech level, High Medieval or Hellenistic) so I'm very much in line with Knight of the Gate's Traffic Cop lament.
But a traffic cop doesn't have to dictate everything. FR novels have produced some real gems but all in all very, very few of the FR novels have risen above the catagory of cheap setting fiction. Modern Dime novels. I think FR could have produces some stories that are true literature, if the editors (or whoever wasactually in control) would give the writers more freedom while carefully holding the continuity whip over thier heads. :)
p.s. and writing in FR you SHOULD have to follow the game rules. Mages should memorize spells, halflings should not be paladins, ect. 
|
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2011 : 07:25:04
|
Let me start by saying that so far, I've been happy with all my editors at WotC.
As others have noted, it's inevitable that editors are going to exercise a level of control over a franchise book that they often won't exercise over a non-franchise one. In addition to the literary merit of a particular story, they're supposed to think about its impact on the viability and direction of the franchise as a whole. No matter how cool it might be, I can't nuke the Sword Coast if the editors think the setting would benefit from keeping the Sword Coast around.
Still, it's been my experience that the writer of a FR novel has quite a bit of freedom. And the longer you've been knocking them out, the more inclined the editors are to trust your judgment.
It's also true that unless you're one of the principals involved, you can't know how or why a certain book turned out the way it did. You certainly can't know if a different editorial perspective would have resulted in a better book. Without seeing that alternate version of the book, there's no way to make a valid comparison.
What I'm trying to get at (in what I realize is a somewhat rambling way) is that if you think FR fiction is "cheap setting fiction," trying to decide whether to blame the writers or the editors is a pointless exercise. Just recognize that you don't like it and go read something you'll enjoy more. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2011 : 15:53:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
But after writing so many novels, one has to ask... if the editing is always messing with the book, then why did you write it that way? Why not shift to what the editor will pass on? Why not write around these issues?
Not to speak for Ed (he has a MUCH lovelier proxy than me for such things, in the form of THO), but I'm pretty sure Ed *does* do that, whilst simultaneously pushing the envelope to keep the FR fiction line evolving/progressing. I think largely due to his efforts, we've seen so-called "moral content standards" relaxing a little over the years, as he manages to slip in more risque content and material. (And to make it clear, I think this is a GOOD thing, and the FR needs to lighten up even more.)
quote:
And, if none of the decisions are made by the authors, why not specify WHICH editors? Choices are made by people, not vague passive voice 'understood' nouns. "It was decided Elminster must die." Okay, decided by who?
Well, that would be professionally discourteous, damaging to the author's relationship with the editor (which impacts future work), and (IMO) a little cowardly.
If you're an author and you spent a lot of time writing something, you should stand up for it, not deflect responsibility. To take this example, Ed was complicit in the execution of Elminster Must Die, either in that he was part of the decision-making process, or he went along with it willingly. Not fighting against or refusing a decision is still a choice.
I also don't think it's fair to open up a professional editor to that level of public criticism. If I were to write a book that a large number of people happened to dislike, I could blame the editor and name names, and that might shift the blame to the editor or at least include the editor. That's not fair to a professional who's just doing his/her job.
quote:
And though I appreciate the current crop of authors chiming in, can the current situation be very good if this "no pre-4e stories" rule is in effect?
I'm not sure I understand the logic here. Maybe you mean that "no pre-4e stories" is a huge example of editorial fiat? From my perspective, that's just the way it is--if you're writing in the Realms, you're writing in the current Realms (with a few notable exceptions*). WotC wants its novels to advance the setting, and the setting is where/when the setting is.
(*See numerous Ed novels, particularly Making of a Mage, Myth Drannor, and Temptation, as well as the Arcane Age series, and even as recently as Rosemary Jones's Crypt of the Moaning Diamond, which takes place in the 13th century, I believe.)
Also, I have seen no official "no pre-4e stories" commendment leveled, only that tendency. If an author pitched a blow-your-socks-off pre-4e story or the story team came up with one, it's perfectly possible one would be printed. As I said before, they just want to advance the setting, and why wouldn't they?
Thirdly, never say never. It's a cliche because it's true. 
quote:
I'm very much in line with Knight of the Gate's Traffic Cop lament.
I would love to have a FR traffic cop. (I would love to *be* the FR traffic cop, but one can always dream.)
As for quality--I don't see the logic linking that to a traffic cop, and I don't see that as being a function of authors not having more freedom. It's possible that authors given more leeway could produce books you found more pleasing, but it's also possible that with looser editorial control, they'd produce stuff you found less pleasing. I largely go with RLB here: if you like it, read it--if not, find something else. FR fiction is what it is: what the authors, editors, and audience make it.
quote:
p.s. and writing in FR you SHOULD have to follow the game rules. Mages should memorize spells, halflings should not be paladins, ect.
This is an interesting discussion for another thread, specifically that the game rules are always changing as time passes. Halflings couldn't be paladins pre 1370s FR, but they can now. Even in 3e, some mages prepare/memorize spells (wizards), but another set of mages (sorcerers) don't. Now in 4e, wizards still prepare spells but pretty much no one else does.
But like I said, the changing mechanical system of the game rules and its effect on fiction probably belongs in another thread, as it has nothing to do with the editorial step.
Cheers
[/quote] |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
879 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2011 : 16:48:21
|
I don't have a lot to add beyond what my colleagues have said. I had a very positive editorial experience with Sandstorm (waves at Erin).
Cheers,
Christopher |
Edited by - Christopher_Rowe on 01 Mar 2011 16:49:16 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2011 : 22:41:36
|
And another thing. I wasn't going to address this because it's just so ridiculous, but it points to a larger trend, so I thought I'd point it out. Also, I know of several people who were personally offended by that snide and inaccurate remark, so I'm going to address it right here.
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
FR novels have produced some real gems but all in all very, very few of the FR novels have risen above the catagory of cheap setting fiction. Modern Dime novels. I think FR could have produces some stories that are true literature, if ...[snip]
First of all, that's extremely disrespectful, and I don't know why we're tolerating it. Maybe you didn't mean it to be an insult, but that's how it comes across.
You don't like FR novels, fine--but that doesn't give you license to slap us all across the face for it. And if you do, that doesn't mean you aren't going to get called out on it.
So please--don't post like a jerk.
Secondly, that's your opinion. YOUR OPINION, not fact. As I phrased it earlier, maybe a different editorial schema would produce books that pleased you more, or maybe it wouldn't. But it *certainly* wouldn't make the books "objectively better."
There's no such thing as "objectively better"--all books in every genre are written for a particular audience, of a particular size and makeup, and written in a particular context/era/style. The body of printed fiction is WAY too diverse and complex and variable for there to be an objective standard. What matters is what's good to YOU, the individual reader.
So if you don't like FR novels or think they're the equivalent of dime novels, PLEASE go read something else and stop wasting everyone's time.
And thirdly, you are NOT going to start an intelligent and respectful conversation about writing and editing in a shared world setting by denigrated shared world writing in that manner. And people wonder why the designers and editors don't hang out at forums after things like that get said. WotC has a stated policy of encouraging its editors and writers not to go on messageboards, and Candlekeep is one of the boards specifically named as a place not to go. I for one do NOT think that should be encouraged. I'd rather the authors, editors, and designers felt comfortable being here, not that clicking on the web address to the keep meant painting bullseyes on their backs.
So again, try to be a little constructive with your feedback and lighter on the condescension.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 01 Mar 2011 22:43:37 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2011 : 23:17:56
|
| I concur. With the number of authors we have who kindly consent to share their time and thoughts with us, it's rather rude to offer criticism that isn't constructive in nature. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Arcanus
Senior Scribe
485 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2011 : 23:24:52
|
Well I for one would like to thank everyone involved in the Realms. Authors, editors, artists, everyone! You have made me laugh and cry, cheer and boo. You have kept me enthralled over the years and I hope will continue to do so for many years to come.
Thanks for the memories guys, and here's to many more in the future! |
|
|
|
Fellfire
Master of Realmslore
1965 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2011 : 23:40:48
|
| I too am grateful to all the authors that take the time to answer questions here at the 'Keep. Thank You. |
Misanthorpe
Love is a lie. Only hate endures. Light is blinding. Only in darkness do we see clearly.
"Oh, you think darkness is your ally? You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but.. blinding. The shadows betray you because they belong to me." - Bane The Dark Knight Rises
Green Dragonscale Dice Bag by Crystalsidyll - check it out
|
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31727 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2011 : 23:55:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
So again, try to be a little constructive with your feedback and lighter on the condescension.
This is a very crucial point.
It's important for us all to remember, that we are very fortunate to have various Realms designers and writers share some of the valuable time here at Candlekeep. The least we can do, is show them each degrees of courtesy and respect -- for both themselves and their works -- that that they are due. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2011 : 00:38:49
|
First, I brought this up because I kept seeing, in old posts & files in Candlekeep, authors deflecting criticism by blaming the editors. I wondered if that was fair and what others think of that.
As for disrespect and insults, and WotC/Hasbro discouraging its writers from interacting with fans well...
If WotC doesn't see value in you being here, that's their loss. 'They' (I have no idea who the 'they' of WotC/hasbro is, it seems to change with seasons) have been spitting in fans' faces for years and have been rewarded with sales, I suppose. That is what it is. I respect people, not things and corporations are just things.
Considering how often I read about WotC layoffs, I doubt they show thier staff any respect either.
I like many, actually most, of the Realms novels I have read over the years but I won't apologize for calling it cheap shared world fiction, that's pretty much what it is. Why consider that an insult? Writing is a craft. Some work gets done quick and cheap, some long and expensive. Genre fiction can, IMO, rise to great heights but a lot of it is written to make money, for a quick sale. Heck, isn't that what Charles Dicken's did? Or Alexandre Dumas? Their output was prodigious partially because they were paid by the word. A lot of it was bad writing, some was incredible. That applies to Realms fiction as well.
Frankly, I don't think my statement was insulting. Far worse things have been said by critics about shared worlds like FR. The Dime Novel approach to writing has a long, honorable tradition, and I would expect people here to know that.
I don't know anything about this "4e only" thing but what I have seen other authors post here. You Realms authors would have a better idea how firm it is. For me, if it is true, it is another example of whoever is running FR for Wotc/Hasbro telling me my money is no good here. <shrug>
Anyway, I'm not alling people names, nor insulting individuals, I'm commenting on the writing and the work - and in a pretty even handed way, IMO. If people just want adoration, fine, I'll shut up and leave. |
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2011 : 00:48:38
|
I wonder if there's a tradition of more interventionist copy-editing in the States than in the UK; at least, most of the horror stories I've heard are American. (Though they can't be taken credulously; one far from first-time author last year was riled by my nerve in suggesting possible improvements he was free to reject.)
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
Multiple pairs of eyes should result in better books, IF everyone's "on the same page."
Meaning, of course, trained 'eyes'; I hear this phrase used by self-publishing authors who think passing the MS round a few friends will find everything wrong with it.
I think a vague melancholy about lost chances in Realms fiction is basically correct. But I think Paul's dime novels comment is off the mark: the difference between the three-decker novel and the penny dreadful, the pulps and the slicks, is not quality but social class. There are trade-offs in shared-world writing, which like the question of setting/rules fidelity are their own thread, but overall it spans the same range of vision, craft and hackery as every other kind of commercial fiction.
I can't turn that melancholy into hard blame partly because managing a shared world is a very difficult, more or less new task that the TSR and Wizards managers practically had to make up as they went along. |
Edited by - Faraer on 02 Mar 2011 00:56:02 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2011 : 01:51:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
First, I brought this up because I kept seeing, in old posts & files in Candlekeep, authors deflecting criticism by blaming the editors. I wondered if that was fair and what others think of that.
I for one would be interested in seeing citations. Whose and what remarks are we talking about?
quote:
I like many, actually most, of the Realms novels I have read over the years but I won't apologize for calling it cheap shared world fiction, that's pretty much what it is. Why consider that an insult?
One might consider it an insult to the people who spend months or years on these books, who really try to make them legitimate literature, rather than pot-boilers with no depth.
That's just one possible reason one might be insulted.
quote:
Frankly, I don't think my statement was insulting. Far worse things have been said by critics about shared worlds like FR.
I'm sure you don't, and yes there have, but regardless of whether you intend something to be an insult, if people take it as an insult, then it's an insult.
quote:
Anyway, I'm not alling people names, nor insulting individuals, I'm commenting on the writing and the work - and in a pretty even handed way, IMO. If people just want adoration, fine, I'll shut up and leave.
Hardly and hardly. I for one want neither adoration nor across-the-board condemnation--I just want constructive criticism.
Some FR novels are much better than others. That's just the nature of the game. Let's talk about the specific traits of a novel by name. If we're talking about Spellfire, say, let's talk about Spellfire. If you don't like that novel, say why. Don't say it's a modern dime novel, and certainly don't say "most" FR novels are modern dime novels.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2011 : 02:12:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
First, I brought this up because I kept seeing, in old posts & files in Candlekeep, authors deflecting criticism by blaming the editors. I wondered if that was fair and what others think of that.
I for one would be interested in seeing citations. Whose and what remarks are we talking about
*holds hand up* Though I blamed both author and editor as to not being happy with editors. I do not actually recall any author blaming the editor for change of content. Above I did indicate that THO spoke for ED that TSR would ask for 50,000 more words then they would go to press. Even there however Ed did not blame the editors in that or followup post. Ed appeared more then happy about he got past the editors of a more adult nature then policy at the time was set at.
It does make me though wonder about those 40, or so words deleted from first draft(s) |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2011 : 03:08:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I for one would be interested in seeing citations. Whose and what remarks are we talking about?
The spark was rereading "Manshoon of the Zhentarim" by Ed Greenwood available in Bard's Rumors under Alaundo's Library here at Candlekeep. Specifically, this paragraph:
quote:
Just as what goes into a game product is specifically listed and detailed beforehand, what appears in novels is too - and our prose is rewritten. TSR book editors can tell you what battles I have with them...I want to write like Guy Gavriel Kay, but I have to put in 'guys fighting and dying every 8 pages.' If I don't change things, editors do. The current aim of FR novels is to introduce and explain things to NEW readers (don't just bring this umber hulk onstage, describe exactly what it looks like; these may be non-gamers who've never seen a Monster Manual), so this leads to a lot of 'look what I'm doing! I'm plotting the ovethrow of the free world! And here, so I don't forget it for myself, is the dastardly plan I've worked on for twenty years' sort of writing. I could go on...but that's unfair to everyone involved; I'm sure both the editors and readers have their own legitimate beefs. For the record, over a third of Spellfire was cut from my original, and all the dialogue rewritten; readers of a first printing can find the "corpse" of a character falling between rocks, only to spring up again, fit as a fiddle, and fight on (an editor combined two characters, removing one throughout the novel), and also find references to scenes now gone from the narrative, etc. The extra dracolich battle at the end was added in, etc. (my take: They're fighting dracoliches AGAIN? Why?). ALL of Manshoon's meetings and plottings scenes were dumped as 'static, not advancing the action' (note, not 'plot,' 'action').
I didn't want to call Ed out on this individually, which is why I didn't bring it specify originally. Plus, the impression I have had is that this is a common issue with FR novel editing. Or at least that people claimed it was an issue. I was curious to find out if it was or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
One might consider it an insult to the people who spend months or years on these books, who really try to make them legitimate literature, rather than pot-boilers with no depth.
Some of them were pot boilers with no depth, I never said all - in fact I said some were real gems. And I didn't name names or specifically call out any works.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I'm sure you don't, and yes there have, but regardless of whether you intend something to be an insult, if people take it as an insult, then it's an insult.
If you rethink that statement you will realize how unworkable that can be.
I didn't insult anyone.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Hardly and hardly. I for one want neither adoration nor across-the-board condemnation--I just want constructive criticism.
And I think the criticism I've provided has been constructive. But I haven't provided much criticism in this thread. I've simply asked about the editor question. The only criticism I noted was continuity and I supported the same fix you and others have also suggested concerning a traffic cop. That seems constructive to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Some FR novels are much better than others. That's just the nature of the game. Let's talk about the specific traits of a novel by name. If we're talking about Spellfire, say, let's talk about Spellfire. If you don't like that novel, say why. Don't say it's a modern dime novel, and certainly don't say "most" FR novels are modern dime novels.
Well, I'm NOT talking about Spellfire. I'm too blunt to pretend. Ed was defending his writing in that novel in the post I read that sparked my curiousity, but I'm not writing a review of that novel - which I do like to the extent that I like any of Ed's fiction.
What I'm interested in is this tendancy I've seen over the years to blame 'the editors' (always nameless, I've noticed) sometimes by writers, far more often by fans, for things people find wrong with a Realms novel. Does it strike others as unfair? My guess is, that at least the current crop of writers who have all posted in here think it is. |
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
Blueblade
Senior Scribe
USA
804 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2011 : 03:17:49
|
I and six other lucky gamers once sat at a table in a bar at GenCon with Ed and Mr. Brian Thomsen, who was then head of Book Publishing for TSR and later Ed's editor for his Tor Books novels (and has since passed away), after a "How to Get Published with TSR" seminar. Mr. Thomsen invited us all along to continue the seminar discussion, and he and Ed were friendly, informal, and candid.
Ed freely admitted "I'm nowhere near being a halfway good novel writer yet" and like all writers I'm "learning on the job." Mr. Thomsen explained how good editors don't try to rewrite a book they're editing, or make the author write "the book they would have written if given the assignment," but rather try to "steer and coax" the best STORY out of the writer.
(Yes, all these quotes are straight. I took notes!)
Apparently TSR initially told Ed "write a great big novel that shows us the Realms." When they got it (SPELLFIRE), all of the fiction publishing personnel were changing or had changed, and what Ed delivered was three times longer than what TSR had decided novel lengths would be. They also got an adult, panoramic story (Ed described it as akin to Julian May's Pliocene Exile quartet or Tolkien's LOTR "in scope, not anywhere near in quality") but had by then decided they wanted a small-cast, tightly focused book suitable for young readers. To try to get that, with SPELLFIRE, the editors had to "steer" Ed in a hurry because of publishing deadlines - - but over the years and books since, Ed has tried to write, and learned to write, smaller cast, more tightly focused books for the Realms yet still try to impart "a strong flavour of the Realms" in every one, because (I think this is what Mr. de Bie was pointing out, in his initial post) he wants to give the editors what the company is looking to publish (and so not waste everyone's time in endless rewrites) but at the same time impart new little details and the FEEL of the Realms in every book, because fans and editors and other writers and designers alike love that colour, and look at those little details and build them into new story ideas.
Ed and Mr. Thomsen agreed that there's "always an inherent conflict" between the demands of a fast-moving action novel with a specific wordcount that is more often standalone than trilogy or longer story arc, and all the details ("realism") an author might want to cram into a story.
I have the following sentence noted as by Mr. Thomsen, but with Ed nodding "firmly" when it was said: "If an author uses nuance and hinting, their frustration with copyedit changes that alters what they intend to impart, or wipes out supportive detail, will inevitably be higher than that of an author who prefers flat, Hemingway-style declarative sentences, that will suffer less in sympathetic editorial changes."
Ed added that Realms fiction editors have a harder job than other fiction editord working for publishers who don't publish games, because they have game rules (and game rule CHANGES) to deal with, and a shared world that because it has specific game statistics, can employ less "fudging" than a purely fictional fantasy setting.
Ed expressed his admiration for almost all of the editors he'd worked with, despite disagreeing with some of them "more than once or twice," because he recognized and "appreciated" that they were doing their jobs of trying to bring "the best possible result" to print in a given time. He said his pet peeve was people who didn't care about the integrity of the setting, and would make changes on a whim that introduced continuity problems or contradictions, without checking with other staffers as to how a change could be subtly worded or even reconsidered, but that as a longtime comics fan, "both major comics companies have landed in many, many continuity problems that make ours look small."
Mr. Thomsen said that it seemed to be inevitable, with many cooks at work in the kitchen, that small continuity problems would creep in, but that they could be solved "as long as we CARE deeply about those problems, and try to fix them in consultation with each other rather than each person trying to do it by him- or herself."
He also said that TSR's books had been aimed at "the 12-year-old American male" and were still supposed to be "suited to that audience," but at the same time authors had been encouraged to "write more widely" about "what moved them" to "grow that audience in age and gender."
So there, as THO might say, you have it.
What was said about this, back in the day.
Reading over this entire thread, I think the OP is not seeing (or not stressing enough) the difference between an author complaining or just explaining about what "might have been" in a book had the editorial desire not gone in another direction, and an author "blaming" editors for how a book turned out.
Or as Mr. Tom Doherty, the founder and head of Tor, once said at a Worldcon, "There's the inevitable distance between the desires of my heart, and the publishing reality of the book at hand, right now, with THIS budget and THAT looming printers' deadline."
Anyway, that's my two coppers.
BB |
|
|
|
A Publishing Lackey
Seeker
74 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2011 : 04:17:24
|
Well, as someone who's been around publishing for more decades than I care to count, and heard quite a bit of inside information from TSR circa 1986 through 1989, let's take a look at the Ed quotation GMWestermeyer cited:
"Just as what goes into a game product is specifically listed and detailed beforehand, what appears in novels is too - and our prose is rewritten. TSR book editors can tell you what battles I have with them...I want to write like Guy Gavriel Kay, but I have to put in 'guys fighting and dying every 8 pages.' If I don't change things, editors do. The current aim of FR novels is to introduce and explain things to NEW readers (don't just bring this umber hulk onstage, describe exactly what it looks like; these may be non-gamers who've never seen a Monster Manual), so this leads to a lot of 'look what I'm doing! I'm plotting the ovethrow of the free world! And here, so I don't forget it for myself, is the dastardly plan I've worked on for twenty years' sort of writing. I could go on...but that's unfair to everyone involved; I'm sure both the editors and readers have their own legitimate beefs. For the record, over a third of Spellfire was cut from my original, and all the dialogue rewritten; readers of a first printing can find the "corpse" of a character falling between rocks, only to spring up again, fit as a fiddle, and fight on (an editor combined two characters, removing one throughout the novel), and also find references to scenes now gone from the narrative, etc. The extra dracolich battle at the end was added in, etc. (my take: They're fighting dracoliches AGAIN? Why?). ALL of Manshoon's meetings and plottings scenes were dumped as 'static, not advancing the action' (note, not 'plot,' 'action')."
As I recall, we had marketing flacks from TSR, at that time, at ABA (as it still was, then) flat-out stating to folks in book publishing that their D&D "world" novels had wizards and monsters, but these are basically guys fighting and dying every 8 pages." That was said to me, and several other times in my hearing. Ed has expressed it as a quote, and he's right. So that WAS a stated aim/approach of the fiction line, at the time.
When Ed asserts that at the time of his writing about Manshoon "The current aim of FR novels is to introduce and explain things to NEW readers (don't just bring this umber hulk onstage, describe exactly what it looks like; these may be non-gamers who've never seen a Monster Manual), so this leads to a lot of 'look what I'm doing! I'm plotting the ovethrow of the free world! And here, so I don't forget it for myself, is the dastardly plan I've worked on for twenty years' sort of writing") I strongly suspect he's correct about that aim, because I've heard both TSR and later WotC marketing personnel talk at trade shows about how "accessible" their books are. One of them even said, "If your young reader encounters anything that they aren't already familiar with from Harry Potter, whatever it is will be explained within the covers of the book they're reading, before the end of the story. So you don't have to have read our previous forty books to understand the latest one."
And yes, a commandment to explain would seem to encourage explanatory writing, which Ed satirizes with the classic villain soliloquy here (to give an overly obvious explanation: wherein the bad guy explains to himself, or a sidekick, something he/they already know, for the benefit of the audience/reader).
Ed correctly points out that going into exhaustive details is unfair to everyone involved. (One thing that I should point out to GMWestermeyer: in many cases, an author doesn't know who, specifically, made this or that change or decision. That's why "the editors" gets used, as a collective. I've edited nonfiction books in which I had a close working relationship with authors, but I know of some authors at publishing houses I've worked at who never even knew the surnames of their contact editors.)
Going back to Ed's quote, it's no secret that Spellfire was trimmed by two-thirds. That tale has been told and retold, but let me provide a bit of background, without naming any names: Ed gets told "show us the Realms, you have carte blanche" by one staffer, backed up by his boss (neither of them in the fiction department, but said boss is theoretically also "the boss of" the book department). Ed starts writing, on his typewriter. Head of book department retires; new head arrives but goes on pregnancy leave or is on said leave, so Ed has no one to consult with until rewrite time. TSR wants the book delivered on computer disk, and the advance payment for the novel is not cash but a computer of TSR's choosing (the venerable Mac II Ed still has today, I'm told, though he no longer uses it to pound out Realms novels), but it arrives in Ed's hands far too late for the book to be written on it.
So people (I've heard five different individuals) in the secretarial pool at TSR input chunks of the novel. Note: these are hired secretaries, NOT fantasy readers, writers, or designers. They don't understand some of Ed's archaic English words, and of course none of his invented ones. Some of them, with the best of intentions, try to "clean up" what they're inputting into modern American usage.
Resulting assembled and varying-in-authorial-voice book is (horrors!) far longer than the book department was expecting, or has decided is now the length of the novels they publish (all mass market paperback format at the time, remember). The returning-from-leave head of book publishing has to QUICKLY cut it down to size, and makes some cuts that result in the scenes involving the "dark horror" monsters (that got turned into "darkenbeasts" when written up by a staff designer as a formally statted game monster) disappearing.
The removal of a party character and fusing of two characters together with the unfortunate "corpse" falling down between rocks during a battle (later printings got fixed into "body" falling down between the rocks, after Ed pointed and pleaded) happen at this time, and the decision is made (I think rightly, and Ed has said at various points that he agrees) to take out most of Ed's archaic dialogue to make the Realms more accessible for a wider audience (I seem to recall Mr. Lowder once saying this was an assignment he was given, and citing the line "Think you me a cod-loose winker?" as an example of WHY such changes had to be made).
I recall TSR designers later publicly (at GenCons) regretting the removal of the Malaugrym as "behind the scenes prime mover villains" throughout the book, and Ed saying he wished he'd known about their removal before the book went to print, so he could put a few lines in here and there to explain why the Knights seem to uncaringly let Narm and Shandril go off unprotected, on their own (in his original, the Knights, and Elminster and his fellow Chosen, were fighting the Malaugrym constantly in the background).
I also readily see and believe the tension between Ed wanting to show us the Zhentarim conferring and Manshoon plotting, but a shorter, simpler book not having the wordcount to let those scenes stay in.
In short, this quotation of Ed's is a legitimate gripe because the creator of a game setting was told he had "carte blanche" to do one thing, and delivered in good faith, but the book department that had evolved during his writing time had another approach to books (that is much better for their purposes, presenting a fantasy world setting for the wider gaming and reading public), and the two collided.
That's a different situation than the one Ed is in today, that Erik and Erin have both pointed out in their posts here: as a Realms fiction writer, you sign a contract, knowing the work-for-hire situation going in, accept it, and so have no legitimate gripe.
I have chatted with Ed from time to time over the years at various conventions, trade shows, and even chance meetings on the street, and I know he is very happy with his recent editors, loves to work with Mr. Lowder and "old hands" from the early days, holds no grudges, and is thrilled with the new crop of Realms writers.
Yet I can REALLY understand where he was coming from with his first Realms novel, wanting to show what his setting truly was at the outset of its publication with the wider world and being told he could do that, putting in the writing time, and then running full-tilt into the brick wall of publishing needs he wasn't made aware of . . . oh, yes. That would hurt, and hurt big time, because you only get one chance to make a first impression, and he saw his first impression turning into a trainwreck.
NOT because of "evil editors" or maliciousness, but because of bad communications and misunderstandings.
If you spend all those years crafting a fantasy world, it's hardly surprising you care so deeply about how it's first presented.
I work in a genre that has creators often throwing fits (anyone here familiar with the name "Harlan Ellison"?) when their work is, in their view, tampered with. Ed is your typical quiet Canadian saint compared with some of the guys (and gals!) I have had to work with.
I don't think Ed's badmouthing editors or giving anyone a bum rap; I think he was explaining how things happened at the outset to those who asked questions about why Manshoon and the Zhentarim were presented thus-and-so in print.
If Ed has one fault, it's that he is honest . . . and you know what? I don't think that's a fault!
|
Edited by - A Publishing Lackey on 02 Mar 2011 04:24:18 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2011 : 04:22:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
I didn't insult anyone.
You may not have intended to insult anyone, but if someone feels insulted by something you said, then it is an insult. Intent is one thing, perception is another. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Sage of Stars
Seeker
USA
59 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2011 : 04:38:07
|
As someone else who's been involved in publishing for a long time, I just wanted to chime in and say that A Publishing Lackey's post squares pretty closely with what I've heard over the years, from various ex-TSR folks.
However, I should add one point that I don't think has ever been made public, that would I think make any of us frustrated, not just Ed Greenwood, that I heard from a lawyer who at the time worked for TSR:
Apparently the contract for Ed's novel was sent to Ed for signing long after he'd started work on the book. When he got it, the wordcount specified in the contract was much longer than he'd been told he could use, and before he signed it, he called TSR to query.
The switchboard, knowing the new head of the book publishing department was on leave, routed his call to the lawyer who'd sent the contract to Ed (the same lawyer who told me this story, and who knew nothing of the creative details of the Realms), who sternly told Ed: "If you don't match that wordcount, the book will not be accepted, and the company will look to recover costs from you."
So Ed dutifully wrote the long, long version that subsequently had to be severely shortened by the book department.
No WONDER he was frustrated.
And as Ms. Evans has posted, that's almost certainly something that would never happen with a Realms novel today.
In part because mistakes/situations like this happened, lessons were learned, standards were set, and by definition everyone became more professional.
|
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2011 : 04:58:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
I didn't insult anyone.
You may not have intended to insult anyone, but if someone feels insulted by something you said, then it is an insult. Intent is one thing, perception is another.
Yes, they are. But I have very little control over the perceptions of another and I am rarely willing to accept blame for their perceptions. I can't stop people from taking umbrage at things they should not take umbrage at.
I'm not doctrinaire about that, I recognize that I could say something so obviously insulting that my intent would be irrelevant, but I do not believe that is the case here. I think I made a reasonable statement that others chose to take offense at.
Getting back on topic...
I really appreciate the long commentary on Spellfire. I was pretty much aware of all of it, is was covered on Realms-L long ago and much of the article I quoted from Candlekeep covered it. But still, thank you for taking the time to post it.
Unfortunately, from my POV it illustrates why I didn't want to mention Ed in the original post. I find it odd to be pleading for a more general discussion, I am normally in the position of those asking that things get nailed down to specifics. But in this case I'm just more interested in the general.
Ed's Spellfire situation was unique in many ways. But we still often were told "It wasn't the author's choice to kill so & so" or otherwise blaming 'editors' for different aspects of a book (I have yet to see a post where someone says, "That was totally my editor's idea!"  ).
And in discussions about the books the fans seem to reach for 'blame the editor' pretty regularly. I'm more and more convinced the editors have gotten a bum rap by the FR fan base, at least. Whether I insulted them or not, seeing the current FR authors defend their editors was nice.
I wonder, based on the post above, if we are going to shift to 'blame marketing.' 
|
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2011 : 05:36:58
|
| I would agree with that, Woolly. I for one would never resort to calling FR fiction "cheap setting fiction" or "dime novels". For one thing, those days are long gone, though I hear that pulps are coming back, which is not necessarily a bad thing, IMO. I've read many a "cheap dime novel" which I thoroughly enjoyed for what it was rather than as high literature, which quite frankly often bores me to tears. (Anyone who had been FORCED to read through some of the so-called "classics" in high school English lit classes will understand this.) But I don't see how the perception of authors "blaming the editors" helps anyone. It's neither constructive, not especially accurate, for all the reasons given. Granted, I can certainly understand the gripe about certain editorial changes causing problems with the story. (Truth be told, I cringe at the thought of what an editor might do to my own tales if they should ever be published!) |
The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot.
"Where Science ends, Magic begins" -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491
"You idiots! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -Spaceballs
Lothir's character background/stats: http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=5469
My stories:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Mickeys_Comic_Tavern/index.php?showforum=188
Lothir, courtesy of Sylinde (Deviant Art)/Luaxena (Chosen of Eilistraee)
http://sylinde.deviantart.com/#/d2z6e4u |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2011 : 15:11:24
|
As I mentioned previously, blaming anyone is a pointless exercise.
As far as the question of the books being accessible, they should be. That's just good writing.
It's also a tactic to make sure that there still are FR novels five, ten, or fifteen years from now. Every series loses readers. People's interests change. So unless you attract new readers, a series will eventually reach a point where it's no longer commercially viable. And you can't attract new readers with stories that are only hardcore fans can easily understand. |
|
|
|
ElaineCunningham
Forgotten Realms Author
2396 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2011 : 16:54:48
|
I don't get insulted by much anymore. Pulp fiction, dime novels, pot boilers--most of the time, people who use these terms are shooting for an adjective, not an insult. Also, it's my observation that people who use these and similar terms frequently have only a vague idea of their definition. I've heard "pulp fiction" used to describe any sort of adventure-focused genre fiction. When you and I say "pulp fiction," on the other hand, we refer to fantasy, science fiction, and detective stories published in the first half of the 20th century. Every field has its own vocabulary. It's not always practical to assume that everyone's definition of a term matches yours.
Another point: When "shared-world fiction" is widely used as a perjorative, it's not always immediately apparent what's intended as an insult and what isn't.
I've come to the conclusion that "constructive criticism" is a silly concept. When a book is published, it's finished. That's it. No more changes. I'm not sure what sort of positive impact the reviewer hopes to have.
Well then, what about future books? Suggesting directions for a continuing series to take is NOT helpful. We who frequented the old WotC message boards saw the pitfalls in that approach. Readers were encouraged to offer "constructive criticism" to the point where forum moderators were earnestly recruiting comments that would "help the authors write better books." This led to an expectation that books would be a participatory process, and actually INCREASED the flaming as readers whose suggestions were NOT followed felt ignored and slighted. (Even when suggestions were made about upcoming books that were, in fact, already finished and in production. Or for that matter, already published.) This led to a general outcry of "The writers don't care about their readers!" It was ugly and stupid and unnecessary.
Suggestions made by editors and early readers can be constructive. Once a book is published, however, "constructive criticism" is the starting point of a road that goes nowhere good. Why not just say, "Please be civil," and have done?
Reader reviews can be courteous without being glowing or even positive. The reader states what he likes and didn't like about a book, preferably in language that does not include phrases such as "teh suxors." The writer considers the merits of these observations and decides how (and if) to incorporate these insights into future projects. But when things get down to the level of "constructive suggestions," you're creating unworkable expectations and setting the stage for discontent.
As for FR editing, well. Since editors seldom talk about the more awkward aspects of early drafts, it's only fair that writers act with similar discretion. The only editorial horror story I've made public is THORNHOLD, and only because readers were puzzled by the inconclusive "ending" to the Harper series.
Quick recap: I was told to write a novel that introduced two characters who would become shared-author characters, and create several story threads that could be explored in several novels and game products that would culminate in the trial of Khelben Arunsun and the shattering of the Harper Order. This editorial direction changed while I was writing the story, but for some reason no one told me. As a result, THORNHOLD, which was written as a "pivot novel," instead became an unsatisfying ending to a long-running series.
The Forgotten Realms is a big place. A lot of people are involved. Sometimes things fall between the cracks. You can acknowledge these occasional situations without deploying a flame-thrower.
I've worked with...hmmm... about 10 TSR/WotC editors. Editorial suggestions have almost always focused on improving the story I was writing, not imposing a different story. Only on one occasion was a WIP significantly changed. Ed Greenwood and I proposed a "historical novel" of Waterdeep that revolved around a central character (Khelben Arunsun), in the same vein as the novels CORMYR and EVERMEET. That was our understanding when we signed the contracts. After the fact, the project editor requested that we do something different entirely; a novel set entirely in the present with new, low-level characters. Well, okay. We wrote CITY OF SPLENDORS instead. Sometimes you just have to roll with it.
|
Edited by - ElaineCunningham on 02 Mar 2011 18:02:43 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2011 : 21:32:01
|
Been skimming through the posts, and one thing that struck me as odd was the statement that TSR had to invent shared-world-whatever. That is not true. I admit it has been decades since I touched a Perry Rhodan "dime-novel" (they do cost way more now) but for all intents and purposes the biggest selling SciFi series has been around for 50 years now, as a shared world. The dime-novels (mere 60 pages each or thereabouts) have seen a weekly publication since 1961, and from the beginning the creators/editors have prepared a "season" outline (they call is Zyklus). Each Zyklus is a 50-100 novel story arc with definite beginning, middle and end. Zyklus-writers, for the most part, had to write what stood in the outline with very few episodes being "free". Since almost everything was plotted out beforehand there were close to none discreptancies.
Later they introduced paperback novels in which the author could tell a story before the backdrop of whatever Zyklus that did not interfere with the main storyline. Most of those novels were written long after the arcs had been published so the info was already out there.
This approach does hamper an author's creativity, but it also insures continuity.
I'm not saying WotC should adopt this style of heavyhandedness, but each Zyklus (even if it was just handled for internal discussions and handing out a "bible" to authors) is a foundation every author can rely on. That, in its essence, is something that WotC should adapt. Start something after a lengthy development, AND stick to it, so that authors can produce their best work before a tapestry that will not change.
The reason why the old-time Realms are (at least to me) more appealing is that this tapestry is in place and allows to tell stories that cannot be interfered with by an edition's change.
And Elaine, I would LOVE to read the "historical" Waterdeep novel! |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2011 : 21:35:01
|
Been skimming through the posts, and one thing that struck me as odd was the statement that TSR had to invent shared-world-whatever. That is not true. I admit it has been decades since I touched a Perry Rhodan "dime-novel" (they do cost way more now) but for all intents and purposes the biggest selling SciFi series has been around for 50 years now, as a shared world. The dime-novels (mere 60 pages each or thereabouts) have seen a weekly publication since 1961, and from the beginning the creators/editors have prepared a "season" outline (they call is Zyklus). Each Zyklus is a 50-100 novel story arc with definite beginning, middle and end. Zyklus-writers, for the most part, had to write what stood in the outline with very few episodes being "free". Since almost everything was plotted out beforehand there were close to none discreptancies.
Later they introduced paperback novels in which the author could tell a story before the backdrop of whatever Zyklus that did not interfere with the main storyline. Most of those novels were written long after the arcs had been published so the info was already out there.
This approach does hamper an author's creativity, but it also insures continuity.
I'm not saying WotC should adopt this style of heavyhandedness, but each Zyklus (even if it was just handled for internal discussions and handing out a "bible" to authors) is a foundation every author can rely on. That, in its essence, is something that WotC should adapt. Start something after a lengthy development, AND stick to it, so that authors can produce their best work before a tapestry that will not change.
The reason why the old-time Realms are (at least to me) more appealing is that this tapestry is in place and allows to tell stories that cannot be interfered with by an edition's change.
And Elaine, I would LOVE to read the "historical" Waterdeep novel! |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Editor's get a bum rap?
