Dean Koontz

[Dekarto]

I love his books. His plots. His characters. His settings. His writing style.

What do you think?

[dfloyd]

A mediocre Stephen King.

[_Shannon_]

I don't think Dean Koontz is worth the paper it's printed on--but picking at someone's grammar/ spelling/ etc. online? That's lameness to the extreme. If you don't like an author say so, but no need to make any personal attack or to defy the norms of internet etiquette.

[Haunted]

Dekarto, you're doing fine. Those who criticize are most likely not familiar with writing styles. I happen to like that kind of writing.

People here have a tendency to talk down on popular writers. When others try to discourage you from reading what you enjoy, just remember this: these writers are popular for a good reason. I haven't read Dean Koontz but I had come across his book synopses and found them intriguing, even mind babbling. That's enough creative thinking to satisfy me. I appreciate fresh and unique concepts in storywriting, I would read ANY book that opens my mind.

[Dekarto]

people here have a tendency to talk down on popular writers. When others try to discourage you from reading what you enjoy, just remember this: These writers are popular for a good reason. I haven't read dean koontz but i had come across his book synopses and found them intriguing, even mind babbling. That's enough creative thinking to satisfy me. I appreciate fresh and unique concepts in storywriting, i would read any book that opens my mind.

- qft.

[Haunted]

btw welcome to the forum!

[Dekarto]

Thank you, Haunted :)

[jaredalynch]

Koontz isn't bad if you want something light to read. (Before everyone starts hating, Dostoevsky is my favorite author) I usually read in this order: classic, non-fiction, escapism fiction. Repeat.

I say - read what you enjoy.

[IceM]

Dekarto, you're doing fine. Those who criticize are most likely not familiar with writing styles. I happen to like that kind of writing.

People here have a tendency to talk down on popular writers. When others try to discourage you from reading what you enjoy, just remember this: these writers are popular for a good reason. I haven't read Dean Koontz but I had come across his book synopses and found them intriguing, even mind babbling. That's enough creative thinking to satisfy me. I appreciate fresh and unique concepts in storywriting, I would read ANY book that opens my mind.


Before we consider my post an attack on popular fiction, know I've read enough to understand they pale in comparison to even mediocre novels from times past.

Contemporary fiction probably remains popular because it is more accessible. Twilight's appeal of love between vampires and werewolfes appeal more than Dostoyevsky's psychological evaluations or Dickens' criticisms of London. Modern fiction is viewed as less academic and is less "nerdish" to read than timeless classics. There is, of course, solid popular fiction; not all of it is garbage as we like to assume through attacks on Meyer and Brown. But, to imply that popular fiction nowadays is as high-caliber as fiction decades and centuries ago (which I believe is what you were insinuating--correct me if I'm wrong--) is perhaps out of circumstance and not out of quality.

[Desolation]

Dekarto, you're doing fine. Those who criticize are most likely not familiar with writing styles. I happen to like that kind of writing.

People here have a tendency to talk down on popular writers. When others try to discourage you from reading what you enjoy, just remember this: these writers are popular for a good reason. I haven't read Dean Koontz but I had come across his book synopses and found them intriguing, even mind babbling. That's enough creative thinking to satisfy me. I appreciate fresh and unique concepts in storywriting, I would read ANY book that opens my mind.
I definitely agree. I understand where a lot of people are coming from when they put down certain writers, being that they've put so much money and effort into going to universities to study literature. Given that, I can see why they've got so many hang-ups about authors that fall outside the canon.
Still, it's easy for them to forget that a lot of us aren't studying literature and just love it as a recreational interest.

[_Shannon_]

I definitely agree. I understand where a lot of people are coming from when they put down certain writers, being that they've put so much money and effort into going to universities to study literature. Given that, I can see why they've got so many hang-ups about authors that fall outside the canon.
Still, it's easy for them to forget that a lot of us aren't studying literature and just love it as a recreational interest.

I'm a high school and a college drop out....and I still think Koontz is tripe.

The more one reads, especially if they read from many different genres and time periods, the less tolerance one generally has for things poorly written.

If I want a scary story--I pick up Lovecraft. Why? Its just written and constructed so much better than King or Koontz. I keep trying popular fiction and I keep finding it a waste of time. For others, that might not be true...but having 6 kids my reading time is very limited and I don't feel like that time is wisely spent reading poorly structured and poorly written books.

Am I a book snob because I don't like Danielle Steel or John Grisham? Maybe--but I'm okay with that. There are much better alternatives out there as a good use of my reading time.

[Desolation]

Am I a book snob because I don't like Danielle Steel or John Grisham? Maybe--but I'm okay with that. There are much better alternatives out there as a good use of my reading time.
No, definitely not. I don't like any of that stuff either. You're a book snob if you viciously insult people for liking those kind of authors. There's a difference.

That said, I've viciously insulted many, many Twilight fans...So, I'm no one to talk.

[Dekarto]

There is, of course, solid popular fiction; not all of it is garbage as we like to assume through attacks on Meyer and Brown. But, to imply that popular fiction nowadays is as high-caliber as fiction decades and centuries ago (which I believe is what you were insinuating--correct me if I'm wrong--) is perhaps out of circumstance and not out of quality.

I agree with you that not all popular fiction is garbage. Meyer and Brown both write terrible and rubbish books, but then again, they are not so popular as Dean Koontz (or has at least sold a lot less books than him). I think many people too easily judge popular fiction as garbage because some of it is, while some of it is not -- some of it is actually quite good.

I disagree with you when you imply that modern fiction is not of the same quality as fiction written in the past. Writers of the past often had other intentions than today's writers, and this affected their work. Today, there is not so many books with political intentions, and therefore they may seem less "intelligent", but I do not think so. Novels of today are more philosophical and tell more about the modern human. This makes the novels different, not worse. You cannot compare modern writers with the writers of the past all together. This would be unfair. The centuries have produced a few extraordinarily talented writers, and it would be unjust to compare these few with modern writers and expect the same quality from every one of them.


That said, I've viciously insulted many, many Twilight fans...So, I'm no one to talk.

Twilight is garbage. Toilet paper is more worth than the words Meyer writes. Twilight is only "successful" because of millions of stupid teenage girls that have fell in love with Edward, and therefore reads the books. Twilight is a teenage trap, and it worked. Meyer got rich, that's all.

[Haunted]

Before we consider my post an attack on popular fiction, know I've read enough to understand they pale in comparison to even mediocre novels from times past.

Contemporary fiction probably remains popular because it is more accessible. Twilight's appeal of love between vampires and werewolfes appeal more than Dostoyevsky's psychological evaluations or Dickens' criticisms of London. Modern fiction is viewed as less academic and is less "nerdish" to read than timeless classics. There is, of course, solid popular fiction; not all of it is garbage as we like to assume through attacks on Meyer and Brown. But, to imply that popular fiction nowadays is as high-caliber as fiction decades and centuries ago (which I believe is what you were insinuating--correct me if I'm wrong--) is perhaps out of circumstance and not out of quality.


For me it's not about the writing, it's the thinking.

I don't pick books because they're less nerdy. Or do I want to read a book just because it's academic and makes me look smart holding it. I don't have to prove myself.

The concept and creativity matters to me, long beautiful descriptive and perfectly grammatical sentences don't turn me on. It's got to blow me away. Wuthering Heights did, but so did The Da Vinci Code. I don't discriminate. The concepts behind both are amazing.

Reminder: if popular fiction is so bad, then everyone should stop reading Shakespeare. He was extremely popular in his time.

It's important to read what you enjoy. Don't let others shame you from reading certain books. If it interests you, then it's worth reading.

[Mr.lucifer]

Dickens was also a populist writer.

[Dekarto]

For me it's not about the writing, it's the thinking.

I don't pick books because they're less nerdy. Or do I want to read a book just because it's academic and makes me look smart holding it. I don't have to prove myself.

The concept and creativity matters to me, long beautiful descriptive and perfectly grammatical sentences don't turn me on. It's got to blow me away. Wuthering Heights did, but so did The Da Vinci Code. I don't discriminate. The concepts behind both are amazing.

Reminder: if popular fiction is so bad, then everyone should stop reading Shakespeare. He was extremely popular in his time.

It's important to read what you enjoy. Don't let others shame you from reading certain books. If it interests you, then it's worth reading.

I think you're absolutely right, and I agree with you Haunted. People read 1984 to appear smart, then they read Animal to appear smarter, then they read some Kafka to appear even smarter, and then they read even more of these kinds of books to appear smart. Reading should be fun, you should enjoy it (and to be honest I felt like gouging my eyes out when reading 1984). "Intellectual books" are overrated in my opinion.

[Haunted]

I think you're absolutely right, and I agree with you Haunted. People read 1984 to appear smart, then they read Animal to appear smarter, then they read some Kafka to appear even smarter, and then they read even more of these kinds of books to appear smart. Reading should be fun, you should enjoy it (and to be honest I felt like gouging my eyes out when reading 1984). "Intellectual books" are overrated in my opinion.

I didn't have such a strong reaction to 1984, but I almost broke out in a rash after reading Kafka. So you see I really don't look smart. But at least I get to read stuff I enjoy and having a mighty good time. :D

[IceM]

I agree with you that not all popular fiction is garbage. Meyer and Brown both write terrible and rubbish books, but then again, they are not so popular as Dean Koontz (or has at least sold a lot less books than him). I think many people too easily judge popular fiction as garbage because some of it is, while some of it is not -- some of it is actually quite good.

I disagree with you when you imply that modern fiction is not of the same quality as fiction written in the past. Writers of the past often had other intentions than today's writers, and this affected their work. Today, there is not so many books with political intentions, and therefore they may seem less "intelligent", but I do not think so. Novels of today are more philosophical and tell more about the modern human. This makes the novels different, not worse. You cannot compare modern writers with the writers of the past all together. This would be unfair. The centuries have produced a few extraordinarily talented writers, and it would be unjust to compare these few with modern writers and expect the same quality from every one of them.



I'm not comparing the two different time periods in terms of similarity of topic and corresponding success in elaborating such. Many novels have different intentions, and many have similar; great novels, at least to me, elaborate on these ideas better, make them more tangible and logical, and position them as pertinent to human understanding. Of course, if you view literature differently, then I'm just mentioning my views.

I'm not comparing Koontz to Dostoyevsky or anything of the sort; in terms of developing an idea, regardless of author or intention, and in terms of structure/mechanics/development, the ancient authors reign supreme.


For me it's not about the writing, it's the thinking.

I don't pick books because they're less nerdy. Or do I want to read a book just because it's academic and makes me look smart holding it. I don't have to prove myself.

The concept and creativity matters to me, long beautiful descriptive and perfectly grammatical sentences don't turn me on. It's got to blow me away. Wuthering Heights did, but so did The Da Vinci Code. I don't discriminate. The concepts behind both are amazing.

Reminder: if popular fiction is so bad, then everyone should stop reading Shakespeare. He was extremely popular in his time.

It's important to read what you enjoy. Don't let others shame you from reading certain books. If it interests you, then it's worth reading.

My "nerdish" and "intellectual" metaphors were allusions to how teenagers perceive popular versus classical literature.

I'm not posititing all popular fiction as terrible, just some. Roth isn't terrible; neither are a slew of other authors. But some popular fiction is, as I pointed out in a previous post, so let's not compare our popular fiction to that of Shakespeare's time because Shakespeare is far greater than perhaps our best popular fiction.

And I'm not trying to "shame" people from reading popular fiction, just saying some stuff (mainly the mainstream garbage) isn't worth reading, unless as a reprieve.

[Haunted]

My "nerdish" and "intellectual" metaphors were allusions to how teenagers perceive popular versus classical literature.

I'm not posititing all popular fiction as terrible, just some. Roth isn't terrible; neither are a slew of other authors. But some popular fiction is, as I pointed out in a previous post, so let's not compare our popular fiction to that of Shakespeare's time because Shakespeare is far greater than perhaps our best popular fiction.

And I'm not trying to "shame" people from reading popular fiction, just saying some stuff (mainly the mainstream garbage) isn't worth reading, unless as a reprieve.

Brace yourself, some of the popular stuff will become modern classics. If it captures the imagination of a generation and make all the girls fall for a character, that says a lot about how well the book is written — at least how well the characters are developed. I have Twilight in mind, and no chance in hell would I read the book but I noted how it connects with people. One can't write poorly and can still do that.

[gruntingslime]

I think you're absolutely right, and I agree with you Haunted. People read 1984 to appear smart, then they read Animal to appear smarter, then they read some Kafka to appear even smarter, and then they read even more of these kinds of books to appear smart. Reading should be fun, you should enjoy it (and to be honest I felt like gouging my eyes out when reading 1984). "Intellectual books" are overrated in my opinion.

That's not fair about either Kafka or 1984, I love Kafka... reading him immerses me in an atmosphere I seldom otherwise feel. Ironically enough for this thread, it is an atmosphere that reminds me how how I felt when I was little watching horror movies, which have ceased to scare me or have any effect on me except revulsion...

I don't read to appear in any way. I usually read in quiet and solitude of my own home.

[Dekarto]

That's not fair about either Kafka or 1984, I love Kafka... reading him immerses me in an atmosphere I seldom otherwise feel. Ironically enough for this thread, it is an atmosphere that reminds me how how I felt when I was little watching horror movies, which have ceased to scare me or have any effect on me except revulsion...

I don't read to appear in any way. I usually read in quiet and solitude of my own home.

Oh, don't worry! :)

I was talking about a group of people -- not necessarily including you.

I, too, have read works by Orwell, Hemingway, Huxley and alike. I read it because I thought it would be interesting to see their opinions on the future and society, not to appear smart. I read Hemingway because I enjoy reading His books, not to appear smart. Some people, on the other hand, do read books by those authors to appear smart. And this is what I think is wrong.

[_Shannon_]

Brace yourself, some of the popular stuff will become modern classics. If it captures the imagination of a generation and make all the girls fall for a character, that says a lot about how well the book is written — at least how well the characters are developed. I have Twilight in mind, and no chance in hell would I read the book but I noted how it connects with people. One can't write poorly and can still do that.
Yeah--but most of it won't endure.

Lot's of people regularly view pornography, "it connects with people", that doesn't mean it's quality film.


But apparently, according to this thread, watching quality film is something people do only to look smart, not because there;s actually any tangible difference between Debbie Does Dallas and Citizen Kane.

[Dekarto]

Lot's of people regularly view pornography, "it connects with people", that doesn't mean it's quality film.

Nicely put, Shannon. Actually made me laugh out loud.



But apparently, according to this thread, watching quality film is something people do only to look smart, not because there;s actually any tangible difference between Debbie Does Dallas and Citizen Kane.

Ouch.

[gruntingslime]

My major problem with the mass of popular fiction is not that I feel it is inferior quality (what I mean is, whether I think so or not is beside the point). I sometimes feel like I can't seriously defend people reading only "intelligent literature" (if I allow myself to call it so), and I think everyone has a right to just be entertained, and focus their mind on other things (or even nothing at all if they so choose)... my problem with the mass of popular fiction is, now that the market is dominated by this kind of writing (I could describe it as "quality taught in schools") it becomes very difficult to 1. Find much great literature that has not already been established as a classic (much has already gone out of print) and 2. It's very difficult to be published as a writer of anything other than popular fiction, because your writing is not guaranteed to sell. That's pretty much my stance on Dean Koontz... It's a little unspecified to the writer himself, I will admit, though I loathe to give my opinion on this type of thing, I don't like the prose style of most popular writers. That's more of a personal thing, it reminds me of how I wrote when I first began writing... but I also find most of the popular fiction (again I'm generalizing) to have very typical plotlines... and they just bore me, I'd have to explore for myself further why they bore me.

[IceM]

I don't read to appear in any way.




But apparently, according to this thread, watching quality film is something people do only to look smart, not because there's actually any tangible difference between Debbie Does Dallas and Citizen Kane.


Oh, don't worry! :)

I was talking about a group of people -- not necessarily including you.

I, too, have read works by Orwell, Hemingway, Huxley and alike. I read it because I thought it would be interesting to see their opinions on the future and society, not to appear smart. I read Hemingway because I enjoy reading His books, not to appear smart. Some people, on the other hand, do read books by those authors to appear smart. And this is what I think is wrong.


I feel like this is a backhand towards me. My "nerdish" and intellectual remarks in my first post were directed to, notice, how teenagers regard classical literature towards popular literature. Classical novels are regarded as more "nerdish" and are socially frowned upon, at least in a majority of teenage social networks, because they are more in-depth and complex. Twilight and Dan Brown, however, are easier to understand and are hence more popular within teenage circles. I know this because it circulates in both my social circles and ones in high schools where I've either attended or know people who do.


Do I read to "appear" smart? No. I was making a comment based on what I see and why popular fiction is more enduring now (Dean Koontz included) in regards to classical literature.

[gruntingslime]

I was replying only to Dekarto I assure you. Anyway, it all doesn't matter. Even my own post was a result of defensive ego...

[Haunted]

Yeah--but most of it won't endure.

Lot's of people regularly view pornography, "it connects with people", that doesn't mean it's quality film.


But apparently, according to this thread, watching quality film is something people do only to look smart, not because there;s actually any tangible difference between Debbie Does Dallas and Citizen Kane.


If you go back to the early posts, this thread has nothing to do with reading books to look smart (or by your extension, watching quality film is something people do only to look smart. I don't even know what quality film mean. Some of us watch/read what we enjoy.)

This subject of this thread is about what others think of Dean Koontz. The idea of selecting "less nerdish" books etc, is introduced by another poster in Post #17. We were just reflecting on why we should read intelllectual books to look smart as though we care.

[_Shannon_]

Dude--this thread from post 2 onward has hardly been about Dean Koontz. It's been about poor spelling and grammar and morphed into book snobbery. In fact-before your post--Dean Koontz's name appears only once on this whole page of posts. So don't try to harsh on me for somehow being "off topic".

Perhaps the whole lesson here is that Dean Koontz sucks so bad that he can't even manage to keep a thread topical about his work, despite churning out a book nearly every year.

[Haunted]

Dude--this thread from post 2 onward has hardly been about Dean Koontz. It's been about poor spelling and grammar and morphed into book snobbery. In fact-before your post--Dean Koontz's name appears only once on this whole page of posts. So don't try to harsh on me for somehow being "off topic".

Perhaps the whole lesson here is that Dean Koontz sucks so bad that he can't even manage to keep a thread topical about his work, despite churning out a book nearly every year.

that's the thing with starting a thread in regards to any popular writers. As soon as someone wants to discuss the works of a contemporary writer, the smart ones would jump in and hijack the threads to come down hard on popular culture. It happens all the time here. It's hardly possible to learn more about new works here.

p.s. I'm not a dude.

[_Shannon_]

LOL! Everyone is a dude....

If bestselling, churn 'em out authors are "good" writing, then it shouldn't matter what arguments are made against them. Those who are defending them ought to be able to make cogent arguments against their detractors. The argument that "I like it", is obviously insufficient. The argument of picking at someone's grammar is just dumb and bad form. There is a difference between personal taste and the objective quality of a piece of writing. I personally like Charlotte Bronte better than Jane Austen; however, I know Jane Austen is far more technically proficient. I can like one better than the other, and still see their objective merits from a literary point of view.

It is far too simplistic to say that this is merely an anti-popular culture argument. It's not that people who think 2-3 books a year best selling authors are not well written because they just want to look smart toting around their Tolstoy--it's that those authors really are writing poorly constructed, mindless crap. And if you enjoy it--that's great. Read away. Just don't try to make an argument that it's somehow as well written as David Foster Wallace, or Cormac McCarthy, or Philip Roth, or Thomas Pynchon, or any other serious writer of today.

Or I suppose you can try to make that argument, but you can't be all shocked, surprised, and indignant when your argument gets shot down. Lots of people like meatloaf, that doesn't make it filet mignon. Like meatloaf for what it is and accept it as ground mystery meat substantiated with random fillers--and enjoy it for what it is. Maybe even enjoy it more than a filet. But don't go around being all defensive when people tell you it's lower quality meat than the best cut of organic, grass fed beef.

Read more, read better, read Koontz, et. al interspersed with more highly regarded classic and contemporary authors and I will assure you that a decade from now the popular literature you love now will not hold the same place in your reading life.

[Haunted]

LOL! Everyone is a dude....

nope, I'm not. Me and another writer friend prefer dudee....

My feeling about threads on modern writers is this, there is so much snobbery in this forum, those people would go the distance to insult not only the popular writers but those who read them and in the process insult their friends and neighbors and yes, fellow Litnetters. It's just bad form.

Had this been a thread on Shakespeare, there would never have been any such distractions.



I feel like this is a backhand towards me. My "nerdish" and intellectual remarks in my first post were directed to, notice, how teenagers regard classical literature towards popular literature. Classical novels are regarded as more "nerdish" and are socially frowned upon, at least in a majority of teenage social networks, because they are more in-depth and complex. Twilight and Dan Brown, however, are easier to understand and are hence more popular within teenage circles. I know this because it circulates in both my social circles and ones in high schools where I've either attended or know people who do.


Do I read to "appear" smart? No. I was making a comment based on what I see and why popular fiction is more enduring now (Dean Koontz included) in regards to classical literature.


I got your drift. No offense intended. I was responding to the idea of some people staying away from nerdish books. I have no idea what kinds of chatters go on in social networking circles. I'm not part of any social network so there you go.

From my standpoint — not just as a reader but as a writer — there are very good reasons these popular works are popular. Just for intellectual curiosity it would be worthwhile to take apart these books to see why they are so successful and HOW they connect with readers and learn from them. I never read Twilight nor will I ever, but from reading the posts here, it seems like its character development is incredible, something any aspiring writer can learn from. All I'm saying is, keep an open mind.

[Drkshadow03]

2. It's very difficult to be published as a writer of anything other than popular fiction, because your writing is not guaranteed to sell. That's pretty much my stance on Dean Koontz... It's a little unspecified to the writer himself, I will admit, though I loathe to give my opinion on this type of thing, I don't like the prose style of most popular writers. That's more of a personal thing, it reminds me of how I wrote when I first began writing... but I also find most of the popular fiction (again I'm generalizing) to have very typical plotlines... and they just bore me, I'd have to explore for myself further why they bore me.

I would think it would be very hard to be published in a legitimate venue period. So I'm not sure what you mean by point 2. It sounds like to me that you basically just wrote: "Popular writing is writing that sells." Well, duh. That's the definition of popular writing. If it's popular that means it's selling.

[Haunted]

I would think it would be very hard to be published in a legitimate venue period. So I'm not sure what you mean by point 2. It sounds like to me that you basically just wrote: "Popular writing is writing that sells." Well, duh. That's the definition of popular writing. If it's popular that means it's selling.

I was confused myself too, about the earlier post you quoted that "It's very difficult to be published as a writer of anything other than popular fiction, because your writing is not guaranteed to sell."

I doubt if anyone can just sit down and say, I'll write some popular writing today and it will sell. I just don't think it's that simple. First of all, the writer doesn't decide it's popular. The public do. It's not popular unless the public falls in love with it. And how to make the public like it? Write it well and connect with them. But hell, that defies the law of Litnet logic that popular is bad stuff. hmmm.

Another thing to consider is — not sure how much people here know about the business of publishing — no publisher will ever publish a book that they don't think it sells. It's a business. Next... publishers today publish all sorts of books, INCLUDING literary books, and they do sell, it's just that they don't sell like gangbusters as The Da Vinci Code, for instance, which sold more than 80 million copies worldwide in 50 languages.

I haven't read Dean Koontz (I will put him on my list when I have time) but I followed Dan Brown. Have anyone seen him in interviews? All he talks about is symbols and symbols and symbols. Here's a guy who's passionate about something BUT it's not about writing popular books that sell. He writes what he knows and he spins it into a story so compelling, people can't get enough of it. And that's what defines popular.

[gruntingslime]

But I think there's more to the classification "popular writing" than just writing that is popular. I take it more to indicate "genre fiction" detective novels, horror novels, sci-fi/fantasy etc.
It's like "pop music" or "pop art" it derives from the word "popular" but it's become a genre of its own.
It's definitely hard being published writing anything, but when the idea in most publishers minds is "if it's not popular fiction (I'm using this term more to indicate genre fiction) then it won't sell" it will make it even more difficult to be a writer of anything other than genre fiction.

[Dekarto]

If you go back to the early posts, this thread has nothing to do with reading books to look smart (or by your extension, watching quality film is something people do only to look smart. I don't even know what quality film mean. Some of us watch/read what we enjoy.)

This subject of this thread is about what others think of Dean Koontz. The idea of selecting "less nerdish" books etc, is introduced by another poster in Post #17. We were just reflecting on why we should read intelllectual books to look smart as though we care.


Dude--this thread from post 2 onward has hardly been about Dean Koontz. It's been about poor spelling and grammar and morphed into book snobbery. In fact-before your post--Dean Koontz's name appears only once on this whole page of posts.

Yes, can we please return to the actual topic of this thread: Dean Koontz?



Perhaps the whole lesson here is that Dean Koontz sucks so bad that he can't even manage to keep a thread topical about his work, despite churning out a book nearly every year.

Why are you so hostile?

(Oh, by the way, he publishes about four books a year.)


that's the thing with starting a thread in regards to any popular writers. As soon as someone wants to discuss the works of a contemporary writer, the smart ones would jump in and hijack the threads to come down hard on popular culture. It happens all the time here. It's hardly possible to learn more about new works here.

This whole forum is full of off-topic threads. Hardly anyone stays on the topic for more than the first page. Most threads also get very aggressive. A lot of people tend to get hostile, aggressive and defensive for no reason. Most replies tend to have a common meaning: "Oh yeah? Well f**k you!"

[stlukesguild]

Brace yourself, some of the popular stuff will become modern classics. If it captures the imagination of a generation and make all the girls fall for a character, that says a lot about how well the book is written —

"Some"... very little... will become survive as a "classic". The popularity of any work of art says absolutely nothing about its artistic merits... one way or the other. Popularity is no proof that a work has any real lasting value... or that it doesn't. The popularity of a majority of what we might term popular fiction, popular music, popular film and television, etc... however... often says something about expectations and wants of the audience. One suspects that strong character development, a mastery of language, original narrative, etc... are something the vast majority are experienced enough with to make any judgments upon. The less said upon that art which presents a degree of cognitive difficulty or challenges accepted cliches the better.

[Scheherazade]

The OP of the thread:
I love his books. His plots. His characters. His settings. His writing style.

What do you think?Please relate your arguments to the thread topic.

Off-topic posts or posts containing inflammatory/personal comments have been and will be removed without further warning.


Personally speaking, I have not read any of Koontz's books and I find the idea of dismissing a writer's works without reading them first rather immature.

Anyone who is determined to badmouth a writer or a book should at least give it a try before jumping on the bandwagon.

[Drkshadow03]

But I think there's more to the classification "popular writing" than just writing that is popular. I take it more to indicate "genre fiction" detective novels, horror novels, sci-fi/fantasy etc.
It's like "pop music" or "pop art" it derives from the word "popular" but it's become a genre of its own.
It's definitely hard being published writing anything, but when the idea in most publishers minds is "if it's not popular fiction (I'm using this term more to indicate genre fiction) then it won't sell" it will make it even more difficult to be a writer of anything other than genre fiction.

See, I was wondering if you were confusing popular fiction with genre fiction.

I have no idea why you have this perception that publishers think non-genre fiction doesn't sell. Publishers look at Bookscan statistics and other sales statistics all the time, and the fact is literary fiction sells very well, often better than genre fiction. Genre fiction is really a broad term for a group of niche markets. The audience for thrillers is not the same as the audience for fantasy in most cases, while the audience for Romance isn't necessarily the same as the audience for SF.

The majority of genre fiction writers hardly make any money at all. Tobias Buckell has done a survey of advances of fantasy and SF authors here (http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2005/10/05/author-advance-survey-version-20/). A typical advance for a new writer in the genre is $5000, and the average for "experienced" writers in these genres with multiple books is $12,500 advance.

Now in the context of the entire discussion in which people mentioned this issue of relating to being perceived as a Geek/Nerd, you all have a very strange idea of who the cool kids are and what they're doing. Most the cool kids are playing video games, not reading. I do agree that it is more socially acceptable to be seen reading John Grisham, but anyone who thinks that perception extends to reading Isaac Asimov, Theodore Sturgeon, Philip K. Dick, Robert Jordan, George R. R. Martin, Terry Brooks, and Robert Heinlein has a very poor sense of who the readership of these novels consist of.

Dean Koontz is one of those rare writers who has had popular success and writes for a particular niche market (horror).

[Mr.lucifer]

Fantasy only goes mainstream in the young adult market. Twilight and harry potter are the only contemporary young adult books to be popular among adults.

[Rores28]

This whole forum is full of off-topic threads. Hardly anyone stays on the topic for more than the first page. Most threads also get very aggressive. A lot of people tend to get hostile, aggressive and defensive for no reason. Most replies tend to have a common meaning: "Oh yeah? Well f**k you!"

Welcome to every internet forum ever. Due to the anonymity of the interwebz no one has to mince words giving you free license (insofar as you are usually internally discomforted) to espouse your views in the most dickish manner available. Its the whole charm of these places :):smilewinkgrin:

[stlukesguild]

This whole forum is full of off-topic threads. Hardly anyone stays on the topic for more than the first page. Most threads also get very aggressive. A lot of people tend to get hostile, aggressive and defensive for no reason. Most replies tend to have a common meaning: "Oh yeah? Well f**k you!"

How many conversations stay focused upon the original point of discussion for more than a few minutes without wandering into digressions... that are often far more interesting... especially if the original topic is something as vacuous as the writing of Dean Koontz?:confused:

[Scheherazade]

F i n a l__R e m i n d e r

Please relate your arguments to the thread topic.

Off-topic posts or posts containing inflammatory/personal comments have been and will be removed without further warning.

[Dekarto]

Dean Koontz is one of those rare writers who has had popular success and writes for a particular niche market (horror).

Dean Koontz himself has stated that he doesn't think he's ever done horror novels. And I agree with him, none of his novels are really in the horror genre. Take for example The Good Guy, The Husband, The Darkest Evening of the Year, False Memory, or even The Taking -- none of these are horror novels. One can argue that novels such as The Mask and Hideaway have elements of horror in them, but the novels are still not exactly in the horror genre.

[Haunted]

I thought he writes thrillers....

[The Atheist]

I love his books. His plots. His characters. His settings. His writing style.

What do you think?

Often sloppy, occasionally good, rarely excellent, sometimes appalling.

I think he'd be a lot more consistent if he slowed his output.

[Haunted]

{edit}


But I think there's more to the classification "popular writing" than just writing that is popular. I take it more to indicate "genre fiction" detective novels, horror novels, sci-fi/fantasy etc.

But hasn't genre fiction been around for quite some time? Here's some examples:

"genre fiction" detective novels — Sherlock Holmes

"genre fiction" horror novels — Frankenstein, Dracula, the works of Poe

"genre fiction" sci-fi/fantasy — 1984

Wuthering Heights in today's terms would be some sort of a psychological thriller.... And come to think of it, The Canterbury Tales reads like a tabloid story. Just as yesterday's genre fiction/popular writing (including Shakespeare) is today's literature, today's popular works will become tomorrow's classics.




"Some"... very little... will become survive as a "classic".

There are some 100k titles published in the US each year. Even if only one book makes it into the classics collection each year, "some... very little" is still plenty of books.

[Dekarto]

Often sloppy, occasionally good, rarely excellent, sometimes appalling.

I think he'd be a lot more consistent if he slowed his output.

Dean Koontz himself claims that he usually write 20, 30 or 40 drafts of each page before he moves on to the next one, as to make it as close perfection as he can get. He writes about 10 hours a day, or more.

I don't see how he can slow down the output any. The only way must be to write fewer hours a day, but why would he when he loves writing?

[IceM]

Dean Koontz himself claims that he usually write 20, 30 or 40 drafts of each page before he moves on to the next one, as to make it as close perfection as he can get. He writes about 10 hours a day, or more.

I don't see how he can slow down the output any. The only way must be to write fewer hours a day, but why would he when he loves writing?

I think The Athiest meant Koontz should be more meticulous. I could write 20, 30, or 40 drafts of every essay I submit for grading to a teacher, but that doesn't mean the fundamental structure and idea were any good to start with! I think if Koontz either spent more time stretching his imagination to become more vivid, or considered how to make his writing more engaging (from a merit standpoint), he'd be a better writer.

Hopefully that made sense.

[The Atheist]

Dean Koontz himself claims that he usually write 20, 30 or 40 drafts of each page before he moves on to the next one, as to make it as close perfection as he can get. He writes about 10 hours a day, or more.

I don't see how he can slow down the output any. The only way must be to write fewer hours a day, but why would he when he loves writing?

I don't believe he re-writes every page 20+ times; that sounds like writer's bragging more than reality.

What I meant was that instead of churning out books as fast as he can, he'd be better to wait until he'd got a really good idea before jumping in and starting another.

Many successful writers have the same problem - a compulsion to have a book ready for pre-Xmas sale which means the dollar rather than the imagination rules.

Take The Face. He may well have re-checked every page several times, but it screams of a hastily-contrived plot and is pure rubbish. The book would be far better being not written.

[Drkshadow03]

I don't believe he re-writes every page 20+ times; that sounds like writer's bragging more than reality.

What I meant was that instead of churning out books as fast as he can, he'd be better to wait until he'd got a really good idea before jumping in and starting another.

Many successful writers have the same problem - a compulsion to have a book ready for pre-Xmas sale which means the dollar rather than the imagination rules.

Take The Face. He may well have re-checked every page several times, but it screams of a hastily-contrived plot and is pure rubbish. The book would be far better being not written.

A Lamp Monster!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc7ZaZz4CoU&feature=related) Ooooooooo.

[Paulclem]

I don't believe he re-writes every page 20+ times; that sounds like writer's bragging more than reality.

What I meant was that instead of churning out books as fast as he can, he'd be better to wait until he'd got a really good idea before jumping in and starting another.

Many successful writers have the same problem - a compulsion to have a book ready for pre-Xmas sale which means the dollar rather than the imagination rules.

Take The Face. He may well have re-checked every page several times, but it screams of a hastily-contrived plot and is pure rubbish. The book would be far better being not written.

I was disappointed by The Face. It seems to be from the the "when they are good, they are very, very good, and when they are bad they are horrid" school of characterisation.

I thought Odd Thomas interesting, but Brother Odd was predictable with shallower charcterisation again. That Russian guy - how formulaic was he?

[JuniperWoolf]

A mediocre Stephen King.

Steven King is a mediocre Steven King.

As for Koontz, my mom has read dozens of his books. She loves it, so I'm glad that he exists. I've never read one of his books before though.

[damondarkwalker]

College turned me into a huge book snob where I'm so picky now I have a first-paragraph rule. But, before college...I LOVED Dean Koontz. I read probably ten or fifteen of his books back then. I have a decent memory, I think Midnight was my favorite, then Watchers (the one with the dog), and Phantoms.

Don't let anyone discourage you from reading anything! If you like silly, cheesy novels then love silly, cheesy novels. As long as you're reading something, and you're happy.

For example: my taste in movies is god-awful. LOL! I like Godzilla movies and old horror flicks form the 60s!! My snobby, film friends love to poke at me.


Yeah--but most of it won't endure.

Lot's of people regularly view pornography, "it connects with people", that doesn't mean it's quality film.


It's not? :smilewinkgrin:

Yeah, I have a sneaky suspicion that something like The Green Mile might sneak in some lit classes in 100 years.

[The Atheist]

... then Watchers ... The Green Mile ...

Watchers is saved by the dog.

Clever bloke, Koontz - I don't know many people who read that and didn't find it immensely attractive. Not me luckily, hate dogs - I'd have tamed the other.

Now, The Green Mile I agree with you. Except I'd like to see it sooner than next century.

I'll say it right here:

The Green Mile is a more engaging, and ultimately better, book than To Kill a Mockingbird, despite the supernatural stuff.

That may not be a popular view, but I'll gladly defend it.

[DonovanTalbot]

Watchers is saved by the dog.

Clever bloke, Koontz - I don't know many people who read that and didn't find it immensely attractive. Not me luckily, hate dogs - I'd have tamed the other.

Now, The Green Mile I agree with you. Except I'd like to see it sooner than next century.

I'll say it right here:

The Green Mile is a more engaging, and ultimately better, book than To Kill a Mockingbird, despite the supernatural stuff.

That may not be a popular view, but I'll gladly defend it.

I, too, enjoyed The Green Mile more than TKAM. And not to derail the thread but also recommend The Bottoms by Joe R Lansdale, another book with a similar TKAM scenario, tho it does not involve any courtroom drama. Great book!

As for Koontz, don't much care for him. Often Stephen King is accused of writing the same basic characters over and again, Koontz writes the same basic book (convoluted plot) over and again. I haven't been a Koontz reader since The Bad Place.

[Ms. Bungle]

I've read several of his and have to concur that he does seem to get kind of...formulaic. I think his earlier works were better plot and idea-wise simply because they were so different and off-the-wall. His imagination seems to have suffered with his increased professionalism, or structured ways of writing, I should say.

Still, he's one of my favorite authors for the sake of Phantoms, The Face, Odd Thomas, TickTock, Intensity, and, heck, even Life Expectancy. Oddly enough, I've never been a big fan of Watchers.

[ScribbleScribe]

when i was 18, i made the goal to read all of Dean Koontz's works. Now, i am 23 and i have read 35 of his novels. Even now I am learning new words from him and increasing my vocabulary. Dean Koontz's father was abusive, so was mine. He always writes about sociopathic men. So, i relate to his past. He taught me what Self-Pity was. He teaches to keep going even when things look bad, and people have done bad things to you. That supportive, enduring love is real. He teaches through his writing how not to treat others. To have a sense of humor in order to deal with the bad times.

His writing is not good, but i like his message he gives to his readers.

[PeterL]

I think that I will pick up something by him again. I read a few of his books years ago, but I can't rmember anything of them.