Co-authored SF works
Anthony Nance
true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
So two questions:
1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of enjoying
co-authored works than you do single author works?
2) What are some co-authored works you enjoyed? Here are a few
kthat come to mind quickly for me:
- Much of Pohl & Kornbluth
- Most of Moore & Kuttner
- Niven & Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_
Just a data point:
In Peter Sykes' long-running online poll, roughly 5 of the top 200
science fiction books are co-authored, roughly 2 of the top 200
science fiction short stories are co-authored. and roughly 5 of
the top 200 fantasy books are co-authored[1][2].
Tony
[1] "roughly" = I didn't look too closely for any anthologies that
made the top 200 or so; I also didn't look too closely to see
if there are single author names that represent collaborations.
[2] I don't know how he distinguishes between science fiction and
fantasy for the polls, but I also don't think it's relevant
in this case.
Mike Schilling
>
> 2) What are some co-authored works you enjoyed? Here are a few
> kthat come to mind quickly for me:
> - Much of Pohl & Kornbluth
> - Most of Moore & Kuttner
> - Niven & Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_
WarDay, by Streiber and Kunetka. I vaguely recall enjoying When Worlds
Colide and its sequel, both by Wylie and Ballmer. I'm not a big fan of
Pratt and DeCamp's Harold Shea stories, but I think they're generally liked.
By the way, I think Terry meant specifically when a series that has been
single-authored adds a co-author, it's a sign that the original one has lost
interest in the series but not in the money it produces.
Kurt Busiek
> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to be
> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
For me, it's when a co-author joins an established author in continuing
something the established author used to write solo that my wariness
kicks in.
Writing teams, like "Emma Lathen," Kuttner & Moore, Pratt & deCamp and
others are fine by me. They set the tone and the vision together, they
realize the work together. It's when a new co-writer comes in on
something where the tone and vision is already established that I see a
tendency to miss the mark more often than to hit it.
I think it's "farming it out" that carries more danger than "working in
collaboration."
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu:
> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to be
> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
I will clarify that: co-authors in series that started off with a
single author . . .
>
> So two questions:
> 1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of enjoying
> co-authored works than you do single author works?
In many cases, yes. Bunch and Cole, Niven and Pournelle (or Pournelle
and Stirling, for that matter, and that's an exception to the general
rule above - IMO both are better together than either is alone).
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Andrew Plotkin
> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to be
> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>
> So two questions:
> 1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of enjoying
> co-authored works than you do single author works?
No.
> 2) What are some co-authored works you enjoyed? Here are a few
> kthat come to mind quickly for me:
> - Much of Pohl & Kornbluth
> - Most of Moore & Kuttner
> - Niven & Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_
_Good Omens_. _Illuminatus_.
I enjoyed Niven's 70s-era collaborations a lot. (With both Pournelle and
Barnes. _Fallen Angels_ was an anomaly.)
Doyle&MacDonald have written some stuff I liked.
Wrede&Stevermer, _Sorcery and Cecelia_ etc.
Kushner&Sherman, _The Fall of the Kings_.
I don't know whether you count Foglio&Foglio (I don't actually know
how they divide up, or don't divide up, the writing and drawing); they
produce fine work.
I am not a Liaden fan but plenty of folks around here are.
Some of the Sime/Gen books from back in the day were
Lichtenberg&Lorrah. I was mildly obsessed with those books Back In The
Day.
Speaking of back in the day, there was "Stardance"
(Robinson&Robinson). I'm not making excuses for the last two books of
the trilogy -- some people would say "last two and a half books of the
trilogy" -- but the original story is a hell of a thing.
Barnett&Scott wrote _Point of Hopes_ and _Point of Dreams_, two very
impressive fantasy novels. Lisa Barnett's death has unfortunately left
the series stranded.
> Just a data point:
> In Peter Sykes' long-running online poll, roughly 5 of the top 200
> science fiction books are co-authored, roughly 2 of the top 200
> science fiction short stories are co-authored. and roughly 5 of
> the top 200 fantasy books are co-authored[1][2].
And is that higher or lower than the overall average?
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:hqnlcg$cv3$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Yes.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to be
> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>
> So two questions:
> 1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of enjoying
> co-authored works than you do single author works?
Not really. Of course, as someone who is part of a co-author team, I
may be prejudiced.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:hqnles$d77$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
In a lot of cases, adding a co-author to an established series is,
in fact, farming it out. As in, the original (and often far more
well known and established) jots a few notes on a napkin over
lunch, and the co-author (who is often a relative newb of little
professional experience or talent) pretends to write a book based
on said notes. Yeah, Arthur C. Clark and Gentry Lee, I'm looking at
*you*.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:hqnm5f$mkr$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Anthony Nance wrote:
>> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to be
>> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
>> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>>
>> So two questions:
>> 1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of enjoying
>> co-authored works than you do single author works?
>
> Not really. Of course, as someone who is part of a
> co-author team, I
> may be prejudiced.
>
But your shared world started out that way, and, let's be honest
here, you're hardly a no-talent hack who can't complete a sentence
without multiple grammatical errors.
(In fact, IMO, you've got more actual talent than Flint, but I
might be in a minority on that, and I haven't actually read
anything he's written alone, so maybe you just have more talent
than whoever writes the back cover blurbs for his books.)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote in news:hqnjn9$59s$1
> @charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu:
>
>> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to be
>> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
>> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>
> I will clarify that: co-authors in series that started off with a
> single author . . .
There you have a much stronger case. For me, though, it's often more
that the new author is "branching out" from the original -- probably to
keep from stepping on the main author's toes in his own universe -- and
I am only interested in the central plotline, and the new books are
slowing that down. Or even starting to have an effect ON the central
plotline and thus getting into the "Comics Mega Event Series" effect
which was part of what got me out of American comics years ago.
It's also a bad sign when the new author joins VERY late in the game.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> news:hqnm5f$mkr$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Anthony Nance wrote:
>>> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to be
>>> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
>>> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>>>
>>> So two questions:
>>> 1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of enjoying
>>> co-authored works than you do single author works?
>> Not really. Of course, as someone who is part of a
>> co-author team, I
>> may be prejudiced.
>>
> But your shared world started out that way, and, let's be honest
> here, you're hardly a no-talent hack who can't complete a sentence
> without multiple grammatical errors.
THank yuh kindly, sur! :)
>
> (In fact, IMO, you've got more actual talent than Flint, but I
> might be in a minority on that, and I haven't actually read
> anything he's written alone, so maybe you just have more talent
> than whoever writes the back cover blurbs for his books.)
>
I don't think I'm more talented than Eric; we have different foci in
our writing, though. I enjoyed the hell out of 1632, which was purely
his work.
Szymon Sokół
Not always so. The "Empire" trilogy by Raymond E. Feist and Janny Wurts is a
sidequel to the Feist's Riftwar, and it is good. The Honor Harrington books
written by Weber and Flint are actually better than those written by Weber
alone. And I have quite liked "Good Omens" by Gaiman and Pratchett, even
though I am not a big fan of Pratchett.
If you added "little-known" before "co-author", that would have made your
statement much closer to truth, IMHO.
--
Szymon Sokół (SS316-RIPE) -- Network Manager B
Computer Center, AGH - University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland O
http://home.agh.edu.pl/szymon/ PGP key id: RSA: 0x2ABE016B, DSS: 0xF9289982 F
Free speech includes the right not to listen, if not interested -- Heinlein H
Kurt Busiek
<szy...@bastard.operator.from.hell.pl> said:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:58:01 -0700, Mike Schilling wrote:
>
>> Anthony Nance wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 2) What are some co-authored works you enjoyed? Here are a few
>>> kthat come to mind quickly for me:
>>> - Much of Pohl & Kornbluth
>>> - Most of Moore & Kuttner
>>> - Niven & Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_
>>
>> WarDay, by Streiber and Kunetka. I vaguely recall enjoying When Worlds
>> Colide and its sequel, both by Wylie and Ballmer. I'm not a big fan of
>> Pratt and DeCamp's Harold Shea stories, but I think they're generally liked.
>>
>> By the way, I think Terry meant specifically when a series that has been
>> single-authored adds a co-author, it's a sign that the original one has lost
>> interest in the series but not in the money it produces.
>
> Not always so. The "Empire" trilogy by Raymond E. Feist and Janny Wurts is a
> sidequel to the Feist's Riftwar, and it is good. The Honor Harrington books
> written by Weber and Flint are actually better than those written by Weber
> alone. And I have quite liked "Good Omens" by Gaiman and Pratchett, even
> though I am not a big fan of Pratchett.
GOOD OMENS, of course, is not from a series that was single-authored
and then added a co-author.
Dorothy J Heydt
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>
>I don't know whether you count Foglio&Foglio (I don't actually know
>how they divide up, or don't divide up, the writing and drawing); they
>produce fine work.
From what I've read/heard, they brainstorm the plot together and
then Kaja writes it; Phil draws it, Cheyenne Wright has been
coloring it for the last several volumes.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Mike Schilling
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:58:01 -0700, Mike Schilling wrote:
>
>> Anthony Nance wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 2) What are some co-authored works you enjoyed? Here are a few
>>> kthat come to mind quickly for me:
>>> - Much of Pohl & Kornbluth
>>> - Most of Moore & Kuttner
>>> - Niven & Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_
>>
>> WarDay, by Streiber and Kunetka. I vaguely recall enjoying When
>> Worlds Colide and its sequel, both by Wylie and Ballmer. I'm not a
>> big fan of Pratt and DeCamp's Harold Shea stories, but I think
>> they're generally liked.
>>
>> By the way, I think Terry meant specifically when a series that has
>> been single-authored adds a co-author, it's a sign that the original
>> one has lost interest in the series but not in the money it produces.
>
> Not always so. The "Empire" trilogy by Raymond E. Feist and Janny
> Wurts is a sidequel to the Feist's Riftwar, and it is good. The Honor
> Harrington books written by Weber and Flint are actually better than
> those written by Weber alone. And I have quite liked "Good Omens" by
> Gaiman and Pratchett, even though I am not a big fan of Pratchett.
Would that be the Good Omens set on the Discworld? I've only read the
other, which seems to be a standalone.
Anyway, Gentry Lee/
Robert Bannister
> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to be
> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>
> So two questions:
> 1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of enjoying
> co-authored works than you do single author works?
>
> 2) What are some co-authored works you enjoyed? Here are a few
> kthat come to mind quickly for me:
> - Much of Pohl & Kornbluth
> - Most of Moore & Kuttner
> - Niven & Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_
>
The above were genuinely co-authored. What passes for collaboration
these days is when the Great Man (or Woman) finds some old notes for a
story which He/She had been unable to convert into anything readable.
He/She then passes these dregs onto writer-who's-been-published-but-
hasn't-made-bigtime who does the actual writing. Eventually, Mr. or Ms.
Big gives up writing entirely, but maintains the Image by passing scraps
from the table to the "co-writers".
--
Rob Bannister
Howard Brazee
Household Gods by Judith Tarr & Harry Turtledove
Dream Park By Larry Niven & Steven Barnes
Judith & Garfield Reeves-Stevens
L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt
Freedom & Necessity by Steven Brust & Emma Bull
Poul Anderson & Gordon Dickson collaberated in a few comedies.
Patricia Wrede & Caroline Stevermer have some books writen in the
epistle style, with one author writing from one character's POV, and
the othe author writing from another character's POV, taking turns
without telling each other what they were doing.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
art...@yahoo.com
> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to be
> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>
> So two questions:
> 1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of enjoying
> co-authored works than you do single author works?
>
> 2) What are some co-authored works you enjoyed? Here are a few
> kthat come to mind quickly for me:
> - Much of Pohl & Kornbluth
> - Most of Moore & Kuttner
> - Niven & Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_
Interface by Stephen Bury
Johnny Tindalos
@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu:
> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to be
> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>
> So two questions:
> 1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of enjoying
> co-authored works than you do single author works?
>
> 2) What are some co-authored works you enjoyed? Here are a few
> kthat come to mind quickly for me:
> - Much of Pohl & Kornbluth
> - Most of Moore & Kuttner
> - Niven & Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_
The latter, plus _The Difference Engine_ by Gibson & Sterling, all Gibson's
co-authored short stories from _Burning Chrome_, Weis & Hickman doing
_Dragonlance_ when I was ten (six books; one good line plus one good
paragraph), _Good Omens_, and......hmmm, once I got really high and thought
a Man-Kzin Wars tale was very exciting; does that count?
Bill Snyder
Likewise _The Cobweb_ by the same team.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Johnny Tindalos
news:gq8vs5pco5i8qj0bg...@4ax.com:
Oh, Economic Roadkill! There's been another one and I missed it! Frosty-
haired coupon snippers!
Splicer
<szy...@bastard.operator.from.hell.pl> wrote on 21 Apr 2010:
> Not always so. The "Empire" trilogy by Raymond E. Feist and Janny
> Wurts is a sidequel to the Feist's Riftwar, and it is good.
It is different enough in style to tell me it was mostly written by Wurts.
Johnny Tindalos
news:Xns9D621633EFACJa...@216.196.109.145:
And of course the Jirel of Joiry and Northwest Smith stories.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote in
>> news:hqnjn9$59s$1 @charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu:
>>
>>> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to be
>>> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
>>> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>>
>> I will clarify that: co-authors in series that started off with
>> a single author . . .
>
>
> There you have a much stronger case. For me, though, it's
> often more
> that the new author is "branching out" from the original --
> probably to keep from stepping on the main author's toes in his
> own universe
If the original author was actually involved in writing the new
story, that wouldn't be a problem. The problem is, normally, it's
written by the new author, but they put the original author's name
on it because it will sell better.
> -- and I am only interested in the central
> plotline, and the new books are slowing that down. Or even
> starting to have an effect ON the central plotline and thus
> getting into the "Comics Mega Event Series" effect which was
> part of what got me out of American comics years ago.
Plus, the co-author's writing usually sucks throbbing purple donkey
dick.
>
> It's also a bad sign when the new author joins VERY late in
> the game.
>
Yeah, usually.
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. -
David Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
>> news:hqnm5f$mkr$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> Anthony Nance wrote:
>>>> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to
>>>> be true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors
>>>> are virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>>>>
>>>> So two questions:
>>>> 1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of
>>>> enjoying
>>>> co-authored works than you do single author works?
>>> Not really. Of course, as someone who is part of a
>>> co-author team, I
>>> may be prejudiced.
>>>
>> But your shared world started out that way, and, let's be
>> honest here, you're hardly a no-talent hack who can't complete
>> a sentence without multiple grammatical errors.
>
> THank yuh kindly, sur! :)
I see the next book will be shipping in a few more weeks, finally.
Might be time to reread the first one.
>
>>
>> (In fact, IMO, you've got more actual talent than Flint, but I
>> might be in a minority on that, and I haven't actually read
>> anything he's written alone, so maybe you just have more talent
>> than whoever writes the back cover blurbs for his books.)
>>
>
> I don't think I'm more talented than Eric; we have
> different foci in
> our writing, though. I enjoyed the hell out of 1632, which was
> purely his work.
>
Like I said, I haven't actually read anything he's written alone,
mostly due to not seeing one that caught my attention. Come to
think of it, the blurb writers at SFBC never made me want to read
him either, and they used to be dead on - for me.
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. -
David Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Bill Snyder
I'm more of a Post-Confederate Gravy Eater, myself.
Spider Jerusalem
Better than a Stone-Faced Urban Homeboy.
(Or a Pasty-Faced Winnebago Jockey, naturally....)
Spider Jerusalem
news:Xns9D621B33A3D04Sp...@216.196.109.145:
Dammit, I forgot the squirrels! Nix the paste!
I am *such* a Mall-Hopping Corporate Concubine... :-(
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
> news:hqnmi6$pd7$3...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
>>> news:hqnm5f$mkr$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> Anthony Nance wrote:
>>>>> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to
>>>>> be true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors
>>>>> are virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>>>>>
>>>>> So two questions:
>>>>> 1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of
>>>>> enjoying
>>>>> co-authored works than you do single author works?
>>>> Not really. Of course, as someone who is part of a
>>>> co-author team, I
>>>> may be prejudiced.
>>>>
>>> But your shared world started out that way, and, let's be
>>> honest here, you're hardly a no-talent hack who can't complete
>>> a sentence without multiple grammatical errors.
>> THank yuh kindly, sur! :)
>
> I see the next book will be shipping in a few more weeks, finally.
> Might be time to reread the first one.
Grand Central Arena (my new solo novel) ships next week, I think. There
may even be some places that have it already.
Threshold, the sequel to Boundary, ships in late May.
>>> (In fact, IMO, you've got more actual talent than Flint, but I
>>> might be in a minority on that, and I haven't actually read
>>> anything he's written alone, so maybe you just have more talent
>>> than whoever writes the back cover blurbs for his books.)
>>>
>> I don't think I'm more talented than Eric; we have
>> different foci in
>> our writing, though. I enjoyed the hell out of 1632, which was
>> purely his work.
>>
> Like I said, I haven't actually read anything he's written alone,
> mostly due to not seeing one that caught my attention. Come to
> think of it, the blurb writers at SFBC never made me want to read
> him either, and they used to be dead on - for me.
If you don't like Alt-Hist, you wouldn't like 1632, I don't think. If
you enjoyed Stirling's Island in the Sea of Time, you might like 1632 --
might even like it better, as Stirling's trilogy was pretty darn dark in
places, and while 1632 certainly isn't happy-shiny everywhere, it's not
nearly as grim overall.
Anthony Nance
> Anthony Nance wrote:
>
>>
>> 2) What are some co-authored works you enjoyed? Here are a few
>> kthat come to mind quickly for me:
>> - Much of Pohl & Kornbluth
>> - Most of Moore & Kuttner
>> - Niven & Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_
>
> Colide and its sequel, both by Wylie and Ballmer. I'm not a big fan of
> Pratt and DeCamp's Harold Shea stories, but I think they're generally liked.
>
> By the way, I think Terry meant specifically when a series that has been
> single-authored adds a co-author, it's a sign that the original one has lost
> interest in the series but not in the money it produces.
Yes, my bad. The context wasn't needed for my thoughts, but you're
right that I left it open for incorrect interpretations. Thanks.
Tony
Anthony Nance
> na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote in news:hqnjn9$59s$1
> @charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu:
>
>> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
>> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>
> single author . . .
Yeah, sorry about that. My thoughts were spurred without that context,
but I should have left it in so folks knew where you were speaking from.
>> So two questions:
>> 1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of enjoying
>> co-authored works than you do single author works?
>
> In many cases, yes. Bunch and Cole, Niven and Pournelle (or Pournelle
> and Stirling, for that matter, and that's an exception to the general
> rule above - IMO both are better together than either is alone).
I'd whipped this off rather quickly, and with a little thought I now
think it's a bit of an unfair question if you don't have a decent
idea of what portion of releases are co-authored in the first place.
Tony
Mike Schilling
My impression was that those were pure Moore.
Anthony Nance
>
>> Just a data point:
>> In Peter Sykes' long-running online poll, roughly 5 of the top 200
>> science fiction books are co-authored, roughly 2 of the top 200
>> science fiction short stories are co-authored. and roughly 5 of
>> the top 200 fantasy books are co-authored[1][2].
>
> And is that higher or lower than the overall average?
Yeah, that didn't hit me until later. Interesting data (potentially),
but without a decent idea of how much co-authoring is going on it's
not too meaningful.
Tony
Anthony Nance
I also like those. Were those co-authored, or were they Moore alone?
- Tony
Anthony Nance
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:58:01 -0700, Mike Schilling wrote:
>
>> Anthony Nance wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 2) What are some co-authored works you enjoyed? Here are a few
>>> kthat come to mind quickly for me:
>>> - Much of Pohl & Kornbluth
>>> - Most of Moore & Kuttner
>>> - Niven & Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_
>>
>> WarDay, by Streiber and Kunetka. I vaguely recall enjoying When Worlds
>> Colide and its sequel, both by Wylie and Ballmer. I'm not a big fan of
>> Pratt and DeCamp's Harold Shea stories, but I think they're generally liked.
>>
>> By the way, I think Terry meant specifically when a series that has been
>> single-authored adds a co-author, it's a sign that the original one has lost
>> interest in the series but not in the money it produces.
>
> Not always so. The "Empire" trilogy by Raymond E. Feist and Janny Wurts is a
> sidequel to the Feist's Riftwar, and it is good. The Honor Harrington books
> written by Weber and Flint are actually better than those written by Weber
> alone. And I have quite liked "Good Omens" by Gaiman and Pratchett, even
> though I am not a big fan of Pratchett.
Just for balance, I love Bester, and Zelazny, but not Bester-and-Zelazny.
Zelazny-and-Dick was rather mediocre, too. In fact, though I've not
read them all, Zelazny-and-foo have all been mediocre thus far.
Tony
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
That'a the one I've got on order.
>
>>>> (In fact, IMO, you've got more actual talent than Flint, but
>>>> I might be in a minority on that, and I haven't actually read
>>>> anything he's written alone, so maybe you just have more
>>>> talent than whoever writes the back cover blurbs for his
>>>> books.)
>>>>
>>> I don't think I'm more talented than Eric; we have
>>> different foci in
>>> our writing, though. I enjoyed the hell out of 1632, which was
>>> purely his work.
>>>
>> Like I said, I haven't actually read anything he's written
>> alone, mostly due to not seeing one that caught my attention.
>> Come to think of it, the blurb writers at SFBC never made me
>> want to read him either, and they used to be dead on - for me.
>
> If you don't like Alt-Hist, you wouldn't like 1632, I don't
> think. If
> you enjoyed Stirling's Island in the Sea of Time, you might like
> 1632 -- might even like it better, as Stirling's trilogy was
> pretty darn dark in places, and while 1632 certainly isn't
> happy-shiny everywhere, it's not nearly as grim overall.
>
Not a big fan of alt-hist in general, and the only stuff of
Stirling's I've ever liked at all was the Falkenberg's Legion stuff
he wrote with Pournelle. Just not my sort of characterization, I
guess.
Mike Schilling
>
> Just for balance, I love Bester, and Zelazny, but not
> Bester-and-Zelazny. Zelazny-and-Dick was rather mediocre, too. In
> fact, though I've not read them all, Zelazny-and-foo have all been
> mediocre thus far.
WJW as Zelazny (both Elegy for Angels and Dogs and Knight Moves) seems
substandard to me too.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote in
>> news:hqnjn9$59s$1 @charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu:
>>
>>> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to be
>>> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
>>> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>>
>> I will clarify that: co-authors in series that started off with
>> a single author . . .
>
> Yeah, sorry about that. My thoughts were spurred without that
> context, but I should have left it in so folks knew where you
> were speaking from.
S'Okay. You were, in fact, correct about what I actually *said*.
>
>
>>> So two questions:
>>> 1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of
>>> enjoying
>>> co-authored works than you do single author works?
>>
>> In many cases, yes. Bunch and Cole, Niven and Pournelle (or
>> Pournelle and Stirling, for that matter, and that's an
>> exception to the general rule above - IMO both are better
>> together than either is alone).
>
> I'd whipped this off rather quickly, and with a little thought I
> now think it's a bit of an unfair question if you don't have a
> decent idea of what portion of releases are co-authored in the
> first place.
>
Unfair questions usually produce the most coherent discussion. At
least until the name calling and poo throwing start.
Joy Beeson
wrote:
> What are some co-authored works you enjoyed?
_Killer_ by David Drake and Karl Edward Wagner.
Joy Beeson
--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
I'm amused at how often this is presented as The Way It's Done These
Days.
In fact, there are dozens of different models for collaboration in
use, and the one you describe isn't particularly common; it's just one
that gets noticed because it pisses people off.
(It isn't new, either; well over a hundred years ago Alexandre Dumas
pére handed his notes over to his son, Alexandre Dumas fils, to write,
and the younger Dumas was somewhere between Gentry Lee and Kevin J.
Anderson in ability -- well short of his father's level.)
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>Lewis Padget
Lewis Padgett wasn't always a collaboration; Henry Kuttner wrote a
couple of stories under that name before he ever MET Catherine Moore,
and they both may have used it independently later. Moore said, after
Kuttner's death, that they didn't keep any records, but she's pretty
sure she didn't write a word of the Gallegher stories, and I think
those were first published as by Padgett.
Anthony Nance
Agreed, and (as you know) I generally really enjoy WJW[1].
"The Graveyard Heart" was fair-to-middlin Zelazny in the first place
(to me), so WJW's choice to build on it didn't have much of a chance
right out of the chute.
Tony
[1] Primary exception is _Days of Atonement_ . I stalled hard and
doubt I'll get back to it.
Brian M. Scott
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
<news:hqoesa$kr1$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
>> news:hqnmi6$pd7$3...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
[...]
> Grand Central Arena (my new solo novel) ships next week, I
> think. There may even be some places that have it
> already.
Amazon says 24 April; Borders, 27 April.
> Threshold, the sequel to Boundary, ships in late May.
>>>> (In fact, IMO, you've got more actual talent than Flint, but I
>>>> might be in a minority on that, and I haven't actually read
>>>> anything he's written alone, so maybe you just have more talent
>>>> than whoever writes the back cover blurbs for his books.)
I can think of only four solo novels by him. There's
_1632_, already mentioned, which I liked. His first was
_Mother of Demons_, which I also liked. And there are two
alt-hist novels set in early 19th century America that I'll
not be reading: I like alt-hist, but that period doesn't
interest me.
>>> I don't think I'm more talented than Eric; we have
>>> different foci in our writing, though. I enjoyed the
>>> hell out of 1632, which was purely his work.
>> Like I said, I haven't actually read anything he's
>> written alone, mostly due to not seeing one that caught
>> my attention. Come to think of it, the blurb writers at
>> SFBC never made me want to read him either, and they
>> used to be dead on - for me.
> If you don't like Alt-Hist, you wouldn't like 1632, I
> don't think. If you enjoyed Stirling's Island in the Sea
> of Time, you might like 1632 -- might even like it
> better, as Stirling's trilogy was pretty darn dark in
> places, and while 1632 certainly isn't happy-shiny
> everywhere, it's not nearly as grim overall.
Very true. But then, it's a pretty safe bet that Steve
Stirling's treatment of almost anything is likely to be a
bit darker than Eric Flint's.
Brian
Anthony Nance
> na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote in
>> I'd whipped this off rather quickly, and with a little thought I
>> now think it's a bit of an unfair question if you don't have a
>> decent idea of what portion of releases are co-authored in the
>> first place.
>>
> Unfair questions usually produce the most coherent discussion. At
> least until the name calling and poo throwing start.
So...what happens if one asks unfair questions about name calling
and poo throwing?
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Have you read her solo work, e.g. _Sorcerer's Legacy_, for comparison?
I haven't read the Feist/Wurts collaborations, but I've been a partner
in writing collaborations, and the result sometimes comes out not
sounding much like either of the authors, regardless of who did most
of the writing.
Mike Schilling
Goes to show how YMMV. I liked it a lot as a realistic novel about a
small-town sheriff in the Southwest, and some as a gadget-driven SF story.
(Why he also made it an alt-hist via the invented religion escapes me.)
Lee K. Gleason
"Anthony Nance" <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:hqnjn9$59s$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to be
> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>
Keith Laumer & Rosel George Brown, Earthblood
--
Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants
lee.g...@comcast.net
Anthony Nance
>
> "Anthony Nance" <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> news:hqnjn9$59s$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to be
>> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
>> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>>
> Keith Laumer & Gordon R. Dickson, Planet Run
> Keith Laumer & Rosel George Brown, Earthblood
Examples, or counterexamples?
Anthony Nance
> and the younger Dumas was somewhere between Gentry Lee and Kevin J.
> Anderson in ability -- well short of his father's level.)
Waitaminute...if there's room between Lee and KJA, then they're not
equal, and so at least one of them is not "zero" no matter how you
measure. I'm...um...yeah, I'm gonna go ponder my navel 'til this
fleeting thought passes.
Dorothy J Heydt
Mine, too. Does anyone have anything resembling real data
(considering everything that's been said, upthread and elsewhere,
about how Kuttner and Moore didn't really keep much track of who
had written what part of what)? I can only say that to me, those
stories read absolutely like stories written by a woman, with
little or no help from her male counterpart.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Robert A. Woodward
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
With one exception. Several years before their marriage, Moore and
Kuttner wrote a story where Jirel met Northwest Smith (time travel
was involved, of course).
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Moriarty
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:30:47 -0500, Splicer <nom...@nomail.com> wrote:
> >Szymon =?utf-8?Q?Sok=C3=B3=C5=82?=
> ><szy...@bastard.operator.from.hell.pl> wrote on 21 Apr 2010:
>
> >> Not always so. The "Empire" trilogy by Raymond E. Feist and Janny
> >> Wurts is a sidequel to the Feist's Riftwar, and it is good.
>
> >It is different enough in style to tell me it was mostly written by Wurts.
>
> Have you read her solo work, e.g. _Sorcerer's Legacy_, for comparison?
I have. I think they're different in style to the Wurts/Feist
collaborations also. For the record I've read almost all Feist
(except ironically the collaborations he did, Legends of the Riftwar
or somesuch). I've read _Sorcerer's Legacy_, _Master of Whitestorm_
and the Cycle of Fire trilogy from Wurts, all of which I really liked.
Then I read _The Curse of the Mistwraith_ and bounced off it hard. I
think everthing she's written since has been a sequel to CotM so I've
read none of it.
> I haven't read the Feist/Wurts collaborations, but I've been a partner
> in writing collaborations, and the result sometimes comes out not
> sounding much like either of the authors, regardless of who did most
> of the writing.
I think that's the case in this instance.
-Moriarty
William F. Adams
> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>
> So two questions:
> 1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of enjoying
> co-authored works than you do single author works?
>
> 2) What are some co-authored works you enjoyed? Here are a few
> kthat come to mind quickly for me:
> - Much of Pohl & Kornbluth
> - Most of Moore & Kuttner
> - Niven & Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_
>
> In Peter Sykes' long-running online poll, roughly 5 of the top 200
> science fiction books are co-authored, roughly 2 of the top 200
> science fiction short stories are co-authored. and roughly 5 of
> the top 200 fantasy books are co-authored[1][2].
>
> [1] "roughly" = I didn't look too closely for any anthologies that
> made the top 200 or so; I also didn't look too closely to see
> if there are single author names that represent collaborations.
>
> [2] I don't know how he distinguishes between science fiction and
> fantasy for the polls, but I also don't think it's relevant
> in this case.
Harlan Ellison's short story collection _Partners in Wonder_ is
collaborations w/ other authors and notes on how the interchange
happened / played out.
William
rochrist
> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to be
> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>
> So two questions:
> 1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of enjoying
> co-authored works than you do single author works?
>
> 2) What are some co-authored works you enjoyed? Here are a few
> kthat come to mind quickly for me:
> - Much of Pohl & Kornbluth
> - Most of Moore & Kuttner
> - Niven & Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_
>
> Just a data point:
> In Peter Sykes' long-running online poll, roughly 5 of the top 200
> science fiction books are co-authored, roughly 2 of the top 200
> science fiction short stories are co-authored. and roughly 5 of
> the top 200 fantasy books are co-authored[1][2].
>
> Tony
> [1] "roughly" = I didn't look too closely for any anthologies that
> made the top 200 or so; I also didn't look too closely to see
> if there are single author names that represent collaborations.
>
> [2] I don't know how he distinguishes between science fiction and
> fantasy for the polls, but I also don't think it's relevant
> in this case.
Not strictly SF, but I enjoy the books by Douglas Preston and Lincoln
Child immensely. They've each done multiple books solo that I don't
enjoy nearly as much.
Default User
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hqnlcg$cv3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Anthony Nance wrote:
>
>>
>> 2) What are some co-authored works you enjoyed?
> By the way, I think Terry meant specifically when a series that has been
> single-authored adds a co-author, it's a sign that the original one has
> lost interest in the series but not in the money it produces.
Right, this came up in another thread where we briefly discussed Phule's
Company.
I am currently reading the Niven/Lerner series of books that are set in the
Known Space universe. I'm having mixed reaction. On the whole, it's
reasonably competently written. The biggest problem is that it has to be
plotted such that it entertwines with the previous work without breaking
things too badly. It would probably be better if the reader were unfamiliar
with the previous books, because those often serve as ongoing spoilers. This
was especially true in the second book (Juggler of Worlds) where a good bit
of it was recounting stories that had been in Neutron Star and Tales of
Known Space.
Brian
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
In this group, most likely, somebody will reference a classic
science fiction novel in which the day is saved by unfair
questions about namecalling and poo throwing.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Michael Stemper
>Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in news:gq8vs5pco5i8qj0bg...@4ax.com:
>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:10:31 -0700 (PDT), "art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Interface by Stephen Bury
>>
>> Likewise _The Cobweb_ by the same team.
>
>Oh, Economic Roadkill! There's been another one and I missed it! Frosty-
>haired coupon snippers!
Dang! Anybody know anything about it?
According to the ISFDB, "Bury" wrote two books with this title: an SF
novel in 1996, and a non-genre novel in 2006.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.
David DeLaney
>So two questions:
>1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of enjoying
> co-authored works than you do single author works?
Doesn't _seem_ to be. On the other hand, some of the most egegrious failures
of a series are "hey, let's bring in this co-author".
>2) What are some co-authored works you enjoyed? Here are a few
> kthat come to mind quickly for me:
> - Much of Pohl & Kornbluth
> - Most of Moore & Kuttner
> - Niven & Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_
Lee & Miller, Liaden series. Anderson (no, not that one) & Dickson, Hoka!
books. Do we count multiple-authors-using-a-single-name works, like Eddings,
or Ilona Andrews? Jody Lynn Nye seems to work pretty well mixed with nearly
any other author... The "Jefferson Bass" Body Farm mysteries aren't bad, though
a bit fluffy (and Not SF). McKinney was actually Luceno & Daley. Ellery Queen.
I'm not remembering that I _disliked_ the Bradley & Ross recent Darkover books
- but I'm not remembering too much about them either. Do we count "posthumous
coauthorship" in a separate category from "both/all participants were alive
and kicking and could yell at each other"? And what about good _editing_
teams - Datlow & Windling, Dozois & Williams, Greenberg & anyone else at all?
Brust & Bull, _Freedom & Necessity_, was good. Looking down my list, there
really aren't a lot of multiple-author works on it, comparatively. Cole &
Bunch, de Camp & de Camp (do "they were married to each other" also get a
separate subcategory?), de Vet & MacLean, Doyle & MacDonald, Eric Flint and
several other people including David Drake or Freer, Garrett & Heydron, Gibson
& Sterling, Kurtz & Harris, Lackey & several other people, Lisle & several
other people, [for Sea Wasp] Marshak & Culbreath, Niven & Pournelle / & Barnes
/ & Gerrold / & Lerner, Andre Norton and quite a lot of people, Pratt & de
Camp, Robinson & Robinson, Smith & Trowbridge, Stirling & Meier, Weis & Hickman
(earlier stuff), Williams & Abrashkin, Williams (different one) & Dix, and
Zelazny & several others. ... ... Not really a big list there.
(I have been assured that Asimov was only one person, despite his output, and
that the same is true for Moorcock, Gaiman, or Stasheff.)
Do we have, perhaps via ISDB, a count for who the author has been who has
coauthored SF/fantasy with the MOST other authors, serially or simultaneously?
And I'm sure I'm missing some because I'm looking at books, not at short
stories or novellas...
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
>na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote in
>> calling and poo throwing?
>
>In this group, most likely, somebody will reference a classic
>science fiction novel in which the day is saved by unfair
>questions about namecalling and poo throwing.
...that almost HAS to have been a Retief story.
Szymon Sokół
> Szymon Sokól wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:58:01 -0700, Mike Schilling wrote:
[----]
>>> By the way, I think Terry meant specifically when a series that has
>>> been single-authored adds a co-author, it's a sign that the original
>>> one has lost interest in the series but not in the money it produces.
>>
>> Not always so. The "Empire" trilogy by Raymond E. Feist and Janny
>> Wurts is a sidequel to the Feist's Riftwar, and it is good. The Honor
>> Harrington books written by Weber and Flint are actually better than
>> those written by Weber alone. And I have quite liked "Good Omens" by
>> Gaiman and Pratchett, even though I am not a big fan of Pratchett.
>
> Would that be the Good Omens set on the Discworld? I've only read the
> other, which seems to be a standalone.
No, of course it is a standalone, as Kurt Busiek already pointed out. I am
not sure why exactly I mentioned it in this thread. Probably because I
drifted from "books written as a part of a series, with a new co-author" to
"books written by two guys, one of whom I do not value too much"...
> Anyway, Gentry Lee/
You mean the books by Clarke & Lee? Then I disagree.
--
Szymon Sokół (SS316-RIPE) -- Network Manager B
Computer Center, AGH - University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland O
http://home.agh.edu.pl/szymon/ PGP key id: RSA: 0x2ABE016B, DSS: 0xF9289982 F
Free speech includes the right not to listen, if not interested -- Heinlein H
Szymon Sokół
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
[----]
>> (It isn't new, either; well over a hundred years ago Alexandre Dumas
>> perehanded his notes over to his son, Alexandre Dumas fils, to write,
>> and the younger Dumas was somewhere between Gentry Lee and Kevin J.
>> Anderson in ability -- well short of his father's level.)
>
> Waitaminute...if there's room between Lee and KJA, then they're not
> equal, and so at least one of them is not "zero" no matter how you
> measure.
Yes, one of them is *below* zero.
Mike Schilling
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:09:11 -0700, Mike Schilling wrote:
>
>
>> Anyway, Gentry Lee/
>
> You mean the books by Clarke & Lee? Then I disagree.
Disagree with what?
David DeLaney
>> Waitaminute...if there's room between Lee and KJA, then they're not
>> equal, and so at least one of them is not "zero" no matter how you
>> measure.
>
>Yes, one of them is *below* zero.
Can we maybe get one of them to be imaginary instead?
Dave "Bosley on the Number Line" DeLaney
Bill Snyder
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>In article <Xns9D62185A6D0E7Ja...@216.196.109.145>, Johnny Tindalos <Jama...@UnrealEmail.arg> writes:
>>Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in news:gq8vs5pco5i8qj0bg...@4ax.com:
>>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:10:31 -0700 (PDT), "art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Interface by Stephen Bury
>>>
>>> Likewise _The Cobweb_ by the same team.
>>
>>Oh, Economic Roadkill! There's been another one and I missed it! Frosty-
>>haired coupon snippers!
>
>Dang! Anybody know anything about it?
>
>According to the ISFDB, "Bury" wrote two books with this title: an SF
>novel in 1996, and a non-genre novel in 2006.
Sure. I suppose it might be classified as very borderline SF,
although techno-thriller is a much better fit. Set just before
the 1991 Gulf war; deals with a covert Iraqi program to develop a
biotech weapon (anything more, and we'd be talking serious
spoilers, and even that may be a little iffy).
It has the interesting property of reading very differently now
from when it was new, inasmuch as a key feature is the efforts of
various people to overcome biased intelligence data at the time of
Gulf War I.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Robert Bannister
Well, it may well be the case that Great Writer who was still writing at
death at the age 112 had, in fact, been using ghost writers or their
wife/husband/child for decades, but we, the readers, didn't know. Today,
I see more and more of my favourite authors who, having made their
millions and reached a handy old age, suddenly appear with another
writer's name below their own. At first, Other Writer is in a much
smaller font, but if the books sell, he or she may reach equal font size
in time. Such ambition! My name appeared in the same-size gold leaf font
as the famous X.
There are, of course, other writers who write in a team almost from the
outset and others who collaborate with a variety of other writers. There
are yet others who create readable books from the notes left behind by
dead writers, but this idea that Great Writer's name is all it takes to
sell a book is scary and, I think, fairly new. If e-publishing results
in the demise of even more publishing houses, the situation could get worse.
--
Rob Bannister
Greg Goss
>About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to be
>true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
>virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>
>So two questions:
>1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of enjoying
> co-authored works than you do single author works?
>
>2) What are some co-authored works you enjoyed? Here are a few
> kthat come to mind quickly for me:
> - Much of Pohl & Kornbluth
> - Most of Moore & Kuttner
> - Niven & Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_
For a long time, my favourite author was Niven and ...
... and anybody. Gerrold. Pournelle. Barnes.
I don't read much fiction anymore, so I give Niven/Pournelle as a
default answer for my fave authors, even though that answer is based
on what they did in the seventies.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
j...@xmission.com
> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to be
> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>
> So two questions:
> 1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of enjoying
> co-authored works than you do single author works?
>
> 2) What are some co-authored works you enjoyed? Here are a few
> kthat come to mind quickly for me:
> - Much of Pohl & Kornbluth
> - Most of Moore & Kuttner
> - Niven & Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_
Quite a few of the Niven/Pournelle collarobations are good. It seems
that in general, they write together better than either writes alone.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Hmm. I don't think it's new, but I admit I'm not coming up with any
very old examples.
Mike Schilling
Not that writing better than Niven has for the past 20 years or Pournelle
ever did is a high bar.
Dorothy J Heydt
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:00:49 +0800, Robert Bannister
><rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>There are, of course, other writers who write in a team almost from the
>>outset and others who collaborate with a variety of other writers. There
>>are yet others who create readable books from the notes left behind by
>>dead writers, but this idea that Great Writer's name is all it takes to
>>sell a book is scary and, I think, fairly new.
>
>Hmm. I don't think it's new, but I admit I'm not coming up with any
>very old examples.
It's been around a while. E.g., the _Sword of Knowledge_ trilogy
by C. J. Cherryh and three other people. Leslie Fish co-wrote
the first volume, _A Dirge for Sabis,_ 1995. (It was pretty
good. The other two were terrible; they were by Cherryh and
Nancy Asire and Cherryh and Misty Lackey, respectively.)
And when Baen was in the process of publishing _The Interior
Life_ (1990), Jim Baen called me at one point and asked if I'd be
interested in being the junior half of such a collaboration, and
I said, "Sure, under the right circumstances," and he said,
"Great, talk to you later," and I never heard from him again.
(This was consonant with my entire dealing with Baen.)
And it had been going on for several years before that, though I
can't remember any earlier titles.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
To me, those are all "new" -- they happened during my lifetime. I'm
trying to think of 19th-century examples, or earlier.
Dumas had a couple of assistants, in addition to his son, I believe;
it was his name that sold the books, regardless of who actually wrote
them.
Dorothy J Heydt
Ohhhh. I did not catch your subtle nuance. Sorry.
Szymon Sokół
I have thought you were claiming that Clarke/Lee books were exception from
the general rule, too. If that's not what you meant, please disregard my
disagreement.
Mike Schilling
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:01:28 -0700, Mike Schilling wrote:
>
>> Szymon Sokól wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:09:11 -0700, Mike Schilling wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Anyway, Gentry Lee/
>>>
>>> You mean the books by Clarke & Lee? Then I disagree.
>>
>> Disagree with what?
>
> I have thought you were claiming that Clarke/Lee books were exception
> from the general rule, too. If that's not what you meant, please
> disregard my disagreement.
Oh, no, I invoked Lee to make an unanswerable argument that co-authors are
evil.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
For values of "evil" that include "no talent hacks who should be
locked in small, dark rooms forever."
William George Ferguson
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in
>news:hqnles$d77$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> On 2010-04-21 12:29:45 -0700, na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony
>> Nance) said:
>>
>>> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to be
>>> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
>>> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>>
>> For me, it's when a co-author joins an established author in
>> continuing something the established author used to write solo
>> that my wariness kicks in.
>>
>> Writing teams, like "Emma Lathen," Kuttner & Moore, Pratt &
>> deCamp and others are fine by me. They set the tone and the
>> vision together, they realize the work together. It's when a
>> new co-writer comes in on something where the tone and vision is
>> already established that I see a tendency to miss the mark more
>> often than to hit it.
>>
>> I think it's "farming it out" that carries more danger than
>> "working in collaboration."
>>
>In a lot of cases, adding a co-author to an established series is,
>in fact, farming it out. As in, the original (and often far more
>well known and established) jots a few notes on a napkin over
>lunch, and the co-author (who is often a relative newb of little
>professional experience or talent) pretends to write a book based
>on said notes. Yeah, Arthur C. Clark and Gentry Lee, I'm looking at
>*you*.
I think you're being too kind. (hmm, is there something wrong with the
preceding statement?) In most of those cases, there's no real evidence
that any notes were jotted down. My assumption for most of them is the
LittleName author actually came up with everything except the world the
BigName author is letting them play in. (on the other hand, if what you
meant was 'BigName author jotted down the note 'will you write a book in my
world?'...)
Marion Zimmer Bradley is one of the more egregious examples, but had the
grace to be up-front about it. All the MZB (and MZB &...) books published
in the last 5 or so years of her life were written entirely by her
'collaboraters'. Her name was on them because the publisher insisted (for
sales reasons), and she was using the payments to defray her (considerable)
medical expenses.
That's far from an original reason. Beethoven's 'final work' was completed
by a colleague, to put it into publishable form so that Beethoven's widow
could receive the commission for it.
--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:qcr3t51jp7o6hfdf0...@4ax.com:
There does have to be a contract somewhere, written on actual paper
and shit.
>
> Marion Zimmer Bradley is one of the more egregious examples, but
> had the grace to be up-front about it. All the MZB (and MZB
> &...) books published in the last 5 or so years of her life were
> written entirely by her 'collaboraters'. Her name was on them
> because the publisher insisted (for sales reasons), and she was
> using the payments to defray her (considerable) medical
> expenses.
>
> That's far from an original reason. Beethoven's 'final work'
> was completed by a colleague, to put it into publishable form so
> that Beethoven's widow could receive the commission for it.
>
It wouldn't be so bad if the collaborators were chosen for their
talent, but most seem to be chosen for their willingness to work
for very little, or perhaps actual malice on the part of the
publisher towards the original work.
Doug Wickström
<wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>That's far from an original reason. Beethoven's 'final work' was completed
>by a colleague, to put it into publishable form so that Beethoven's widow
>could receive the commission for it.
Beethoven didn't have a widow. He never married.
--
Doug Wickström
Robert Bannister
Hmm... 1990 is like yesterday. I think something happened in the
publishing industry around the 60s or perhaps a bit later, and most of
the "good" publishers disappeared, leaving a lot of Hollywood style
sales people who think big names are more important than a good story.
--
Rob Bannister
Mike Schilling
I'll bet he had a lot of widows while he was still alive.
Robert Carnegie
> About 30 minutes ago, Terry made a comment I've observed to be
> true for myself - something to the effect that "co-authors are
> virtually always a sign of excessive crappage".
>
> 1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of enjoying
> co-authored works than you do single author works?
>
> 2) What are some co-authored works you enjoyed? Here are a few
> kthat come to mind quickly for me:
> - Much of Pohl & Kornbluth
> - Most of Moore & Kuttner
> - Niven & Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_
>
> In Peter Sykes' long-running online poll, roughly 5 of the top 200
> science fiction books are co-authored, roughly 2 of the top 200
> science fiction short stories are co-authored. and roughly 5 of
> the top 200 fantasy books are co-authored[1][2].
>
> Tony
> [1] "roughly" = I didn't look too closely for any anthologies that
> made the top 200 or so; I also didn't look too closely to see
> if there are single author names that represent collaborations.
>
> [2] I don't know how he distinguishes between science fiction and
> fantasy for the polls, but I also don't think it's relevant
> in this case.
There are some people who just co-write as a matter of course, and
there are good writers who collaborate on one or more works besides
their individual achievements, and then there's
VERY FAMOUS AUTHOR
with
(never head of them)
with the contribution of each in opposite proportion to the size of
the title.
I can't say that I mind that when VERY FAMOUS AUTHOR is William
Shatner, but then I think I actually have heard of some of his co-
authors.
"Grant Naylor" was(?) British close friends Rob Grant and Doug Naylor,
who worked on some nice little radio comedy sketch scripts and the TV
show and novels RED DWARF, but one of them quit the project.
Wikipedia seems to credit RED DWARF: BACK TO EARTH to Doug Naylor.
BBC Radio 7, broadcasting readings of some(?) of the novels, or
perhaps the radio guide, made some comments about Grant Naylor that
I've forgotten but that did suggest incomplete research.
Not SF and not actually read but Nicci French is "bestselling crime
writing duo Nicci Gerrard and Sean French", according to him/her/them/
it, on hir website.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>Szymon Sokol<szy...@bastard.operator.from.hell.pl> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:58:01 -0700, Mike Schilling wrote:
>>
>>> Anthony Nance wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) What are some co-authored works you enjoyed? Here are a few
>>>> kthat come to mind quickly for me:
>>>> - Much of Pohl & Kornbluth
>>>> - Most of Moore & Kuttner
>>>> - Niven & Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_
>>>
>>> WarDay, by Streiber and Kunetka. I vaguely recall enjoying When Worlds
>>> Colide and its sequel, both by Wylie and Ballmer. I'm not a big fan of
>>> Pratt and DeCamp's Harold Shea stories, but I think they're generally liked.
>>>
>>> By the way, I think Terry meant specifically when a series that has been
>>> single-authored adds a co-author, it's a sign that the original one has lost
>>> interest in the series but not in the money it produces.
>>
>> Not always so. The "Empire" trilogy by Raymond E. Feist and Janny Wurts is a
>> sidequel to the Feist's Riftwar, and it is good. The Honor Harrington books
>> written by Weber and Flint are actually better than those written by Weber
>> alone. And I have quite liked "Good Omens" by Gaiman and Pratchett, even
>> though I am not a big fan of Pratchett.
>
>Just for balance, I love Bester, and Zelazny, but not Bester-and-Zelazny.
>Zelazny-and-Dick was rather mediocre, too. In fact, though I've not
>read them all, Zelazny-and-foo have all been mediocre thus far.
>
That seems unlikely to change now.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
Howard Brazee
<nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>That's far from an original reason. Beethoven's 'final work' was completed
>>by a colleague, to put it into publishable form so that Beethoven's widow
>>could receive the commission for it.
>
>Beethoven didn't have a widow. He never married.
No he didn't, although there are various stories about his Immortal
Beloved.
But nobody has widows. I speak of my brother's widow sometimes, but
he's dead and doesn't have anyone.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
David DeLaney
>But nobody has widows. I speak of my brother's widow sometimes, but
>he's dead and doesn't have anyone.
Though in SF, that's not an absolute; various re-in-clone-ation methods, for
example, could have one alive again after spending a year dead for tax
purposes. This complicates the definition of "widow" as well, of course...
[cue thread on whether you're still you after coming back to life, which itself
is oddly recurrent, for some value of 'itself']
Dave
Peter Huebner
na...@math.ohio-state.edu says...
>
> So two questions:
> 1) In your experience, do you have a smaller chance of enjoying
> co-authored works than you do single author works?
>
> kthat come to mind quickly for me:
> - Much of Pohl & Kornbluth
> - Most of Moore & Kuttner
> - Niven & Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_
For some reason I've never really liked any of the 5 Janny Wurts' solo
works on my shelf, and I think almost everything Feist has done since
'Magician1,2&3' has been mostly mediocre at best, but the 3 books that
they wrote together stand out above anything either has/had done i.m.o.
I'm kinda thinking the same about Cole&Bunch writing the Sten series,
although they're definitely not in the same quality bracket, but they're
entertaining after a fashion and I like them better than anything I've
read by either author soloing.
And I agree with the 3 quoted pairings, with the clause that 'Mote' is
the only Niven/Pournelle that I will go near. The others I tried had me
holding my nose and running for cover. (Lucifer's Hammer, Footfall,
Gripping Hand i.i.r.c.)
I have vague memories of a Joan Vinge book that I really liked having
been started as a Vinge/Vinge collaboration but ended up being credited
(to Joan) because of a difference of opinion of the couple. Pretty sure
I read about that here, at a much later date.
And was it CL Moore who collaborated some with Ted Sturgeon? Damned if I
can remember, but I really enjoyed those stories that I read in a
collection attributed to [her, who].
-P.
Butch Malahide
wrote:
> In article <hqogq9$s0...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Johnny Tindalos wrote:
> > > And of course the Jirel of Joiry and Northwest Smith stories.
>
> > My impression was that those were pure Moore.
>
> With one exception. Several years before their marriage, Moore and
> Kuttner wrote a story where Jirel met Northwest Smith (time travel
> was involved, of course).
The NW Smith story "Nymph of Darkness" was written by Moore and
Ackerman:
<http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?56926>
John F. Eldredge
The Liaden Universe series seem well-written, and they have all been
created by the husband-and-wife team of Steve Miller and Sharon Lee.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Mike Voss
> I am currently reading the Niven/Lerner series of books that are set in the
> Known Space universe. I'm having mixed reaction. On the whole, it's
> reasonably competently written. The biggest problem is that it has to be
> plotted such that it entertwines with the previous work without breaking
> things too badly. It would probably be better if the reader were unfamiliar
> with the previous books, because those often serve as ongoing spoilers. This
> was especially true in the second book (Juggler of Worlds) where a good bit
> of it was recounting stories that had been in Neutron Star and Tales of
> Known Space.
Your feelings might be less mixed if you read Lerner's solo Fools'
Experiments,
in which the characters and dialogue are far more wooden, and the
plotting
far less interesting, than in Fleet and Juggler, where I think the
characters
are at least somewhat Nivenesque (hopefully moving a bit past the
potential
bias that I *know* some of them as Niven characters already). Hard to
say
for certain, but in a void without Known Space I think I'd still like
those
two collaborations a lot more than either solo Lerner I've read
(Moonstruck,
I think, was the other). I used to think Lerner was doing all the work
from
Niven's outlines. I'm a lot less sure of that now. And regardless, I'm
anxious
to read later this year their novel featuring a pre-Ringworld Louis
Wu!
With Niven at least involved, that's got a lot of potential.
Mike
Brian M. Scott
<news:MPG.263e5a4e8...@news.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> For some reason I've never really liked any of the 5 Janny
> Wurts' solo works on my shelf,
_To Ride Hell's Chasm_ isn't bad, but I don't much care for
any of the others that I've read.
> and I think almost everything Feist has done since
> 'Magician1,2&3' has been mostly mediocre at best, but the
> 3 books that they wrote together stand out above
> anything either has/had done i.m.o.
I think that I agree with this.
> I'm kinda thinking the same about Cole&Bunch writing the
> Sten series, although they're definitely not in the same
> quality bracket, but they're entertaining after a
> fashion and I like them better than anything I've read
> by either author soloing.
Though the theme of the Sten Chronicles is nicely handled, I
think that the Anteros trilogy, also by the two of them, is
better written. I might give both a slight edge, but I also
found most of Bunch's solo novels quite enjoyable.
[...]
Brian
David DeLaney
>> Wurts' solo works on my shelf,
>
>_To Ride Hell's Chasm_ isn't bad, but I don't much care for
>any of the others that I've read.
Hmmm. I have 15 by her. But eight of them comprise a single series, [... oh!
Wikipedia thinks there'll be THREE MORE YAY! ...anyway - ] and I think (haven't
read W in a while) that three of the others also do. ...yes, they do. Leaving
a collection and three standalones.
I agree that the Feist/Wurts trilogy was Very Very Good. But I like Wurts
herself in a somewhat different direction.
Robert A. Woodward
<53ae3df4-1fb3-410b...@r28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
,
Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh, there were TWO exceptions (and I seem to have forgotten it
completely because it doesn't look familiar).
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
William December Starr
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> said:
> Anthony Nance wrote:
>
>> [1] Primary exception is _Days of Atonement_ . I stalled hard and
>> doubt I'll get back to it.
>
> Goes to show how YMMV. I liked it a lot as a realistic novel
> about a small-town sheriff in the Southwest, and some as a
> gadget-driven SF story. (Why he also made it an alt-hist via the
> invented religion escapes me.)
I can barely remember... was the fictional religion widespread or
was it just local, i.e., merely another manifestation of the area's
"all the locals around here are crazy (must be something in the
water)" problem?
-- wds
William December Starr
Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> said:
> Writing teams, like "Emma Lathen," Kuttner & Moore, Pratt & deCamp
> and others are fine by me. They set the tone and the vision
> together, they realize the work together.
"Emma Lathen" rings no bells at all for me. Is this a collaboration
from a different field, like mystery?
-- wds
W. Citoan
>
> "Emma Lathen" rings no bells at all for me. Is this a collaboration
> from a different field, like mystery?
Yes, mystery. The same pair also wrote as "R. B. Dominic".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Lathen
- W. Citoan
--
To know that we know what we know, and that we do not know what we do not
know, that is true knowledge.
-- Confucius
Mike Schilling
Good question. I don't recall, nor am I sure whether that was made clear.
Michael Grosberg
> In article <hqojrv$t3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> > Anthony Nance wrote:
>
> >> [1] Primary exception is _Days of Atonement_ . I stalled hard and
> >> doubt I'll get back to it.
>
> > Goes to show how YMMV. I liked it a lot as a realistic novel
> > about a small-town sheriff in the Southwest, and some as a
> > gadget-driven SF story. (Why he also made it an alt-hist via the
> > invented religion escapes me.)
>
> I can barely remember... was the fictional religion widespread or
> was it just local, i.e., merely another manifestation of the area's
> "all the locals around here are crazy (must be something in the
> water)" problem?
>
> -- wds
As I remember it (it has been a while, I should reread it - next Yom
Kippur maybe?), the fictional religion was an offshoot of Mormonism,
restricted to that town. IIRC they had other prophet(s) after Joseph
Smith that the LDS church didn't endorse.
Howard Brazee
like.
Kurt Busiek
> I can't imagine what a Barnes and Barnes collaboration would look
> like.
It would have fish heads in it.
Roly poly fish heads.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Anthony Nance
> On 2010-04-25 10:32:45 -0700, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> said:
>
>> I can't imagine what a Barnes and Barnes collaboration would look
>> like.
>
> It would have fish heads in it.
>
> Roly poly fish heads.
Eat them up, yum.
ObSFbutNotNecessarilyWritten: As many (but not all) know, one of the
"Barnes" is Bill Mumy.
Tony
Mike Schilling
Danger! Danger!