Just listened to the Darkest Evening of the Year. Didn't get why he's a bestselling novelist after that, I must say. Must be the lazy sounding propositions and descriptions. He's one of those writers whom I feel I can easily thump any day, and I was completely honest when I said that.

The problem I have with Dean Koontz is that I always think "Oh, this sounds interesting" and then I start reading and after about a hundred pages I put the book aside and forget about it. It just never grips me, you know? I just don't care what happens next.
After I bought and did not finish 3 of his books I gave up on Dean Koontz. I still sometimes think (in a bookshop) that maybe I ought to give one of his novels a try because it sounds good, but then I remember these three accumulating dust on my shelves and move on.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Quoth,

Yes, exactly! His books always start very well but ends up getting boring towards the middle/end because of the poor execution. It's very annoying.

That book has the honor of being the worst book I read last year. Well, the 76 pages I got through anyway, I gave up there.

I read Demon Seed when I was younger. It's pretty dull, tbh.

He's an interesting study in how one can make a pretty good career by having the good fortune to share an initial with Stephen King, thereby guaranteeing one's books will be noticed on the shelf.

Sure, Dean Koontz is a hack and sometimes the writing is painfully mediocre, but for light nonintellectual reading it's sometimes okay. I liked somewhat enjoyed killing time with Fear Nothing and Odd Thomas when my brain couldn't handle anything too heavy.

I read the Odd Thomas series and that is the only books of his that have really gave me any entertainment. I tried reading one of his books about some psychic lady (I didn't even care enough about it to remember the title.) I read the first two chapters and threw it at the wall.

(Welcome, Michael Alan! Those are some hardcore bangs you've got there.)

I couldnt agree more. Dean koontz style emotion and drama set by his words is laughable i read The Taking about a month ago after never reading any of his material before and i swiftly filed it in my cylindrical filing unit aka THE BIN the guy has some imagination but seems to fail to get onto the page in any detail. The guy also need a wider vocabluary because everything seems to be described as malevolent someone get him a thesaurus for christmas

I read Ticktock by him. It started strong enough, but in the end, it was leaning far towards mediocre. It is about Tommy Phan, a Vietnamese American writer who has less and less regard for "the old ways" (as his stereotypically Asian mother calls them). One day, he gets a doll which turns out to be holding a monster in it. He runs from his home, chased by the monster, and eventually runs into a supernaturally intuitive and loopy waitress named Del Payne, who accepts his crazy story at once. The ending was a rediculous deus ex machina. I still enjoyed a good bit of it, despite the yeah right feeling I got at every new twist. I can take a far amount of surrealism, but I can't take the "coincidences" that seemed to be happening at every new page.
The highest points were the characters, who were likable. Del was probably my the most likable of all of them, but she presented the ma lot of problems: in the deus ex machima factor.
On a lesser note, there was a minor continuity mistake. Twice, Tommy is said to have muttered his first Korean word in ten years or so. And he misspelled Hells Angels. There's no apostrophe. No big deal really, but I'd recently watched something about it on the History Channel, so I was apt to find it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mw/NNrules,

Mostly, he's pretty mediocre at best - though not quite as bad as James Herbert - I do recall Lightning with fondness, though I read it at about 16, when I was going though my voracious consumption of horror novels phase. Mostly, though, his work comes across as second rate psychological thrillers, where the 'monster' is often the result of a traumatic childhood. Ian McEwan is immeasurably more adept at addressing this subject matter - and a much, much better writer.

PS - remember, Jeffrey Archer is a best-selling author.

Odd Thomas was worth the read-through, getting a taste of another author, ye ken? but I've got better and more important people to waste my reading time on.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy Cai:
He's one of those writers whom I feel I can easily thump any day, and I was completely honest when I said that.

I know what you mean when you say that, but in what context: do you feel that you're a better writer then he? Or are you saying you could pick up better to read on a boring afternoon?

Just a figure of speech. Not that I'm THAT good. Well, maybe I am, because I do have some writing experience.

I'd be jealous of peole like Koontz, but they also give me hope. Well-off writers who write merely decently making it big. All you gotta do is shit out twenty or so books and people will have to read what you've got to say eventually.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy Cai:
Just a figure of speech. Not that I'm THAT good. Well, maybe I am, because I do have some writing experience.

I get you. Also I wouldn't be too surprised if you are better. I'm guessing that people with more experience see through the mostly mediocre writing. I'd pick up anything that's better than Ticktock, so go for it (if you are a good writer).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mw/NNrules,

Darkest Evening is better after reading The Watchers because Koontz is so into Golden Retrievers. He has a good "dog perspective" in general. And The Watchers is actually pretty good. I felt sorry for both Einstein and the creature in that book, because they didn't ask for their genetic modifications.

Most of Dean Koontz's books are better on CD than in book form. For me, anyway. Also keep in mind that Koontz is brain candy. His supernatural take on things is entertaining, and that's about all.