Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RMJ12345]

Oh, God, Koontz is terrible. Don't even get me started on Koontz. Whatever people say about King, let it be known that he never had the sheer unmitigated lack of talent it takes to name characters "Enoch Cain Jr." and "Thomas Vanadium," let alone put those characters in the same goddamn book.

Not that I'm a Koontz fan (I actually haven't read him) but I always think of King when I think of critically reviled but popular writers: maybe the lowest common denominator knows what they're talking about, and college students will be talking about Koontz in 30 years the way my writer/intellectual snob friends talk about King today (we love him.)

[jaydub]

It was like he was deliberately making fun of his readers and writing in general.

The biggest "F U readers" in popular fiction has to be Thomas Harris' Hannibal.  The entire second half of that book is a steaming turd he laid in his readers' laps.  I haven't picked up one of his books since.

[RMJ12345]

The biggest "F U readers" in popular fiction has to be Thomas Harris' Hannibal.  The entire second half of that book is a steaming turd he laid in his readers' laps.  I haven't picked up one of his books since.

Agreed, which is sad waste of a great character. I really really enjoyed Red Dragon and Lambs.

[V-Adore]

Not that I'm a Koontz fan (I actually haven't read him) but I always think of King when I think of critically reviled but popular writers: maybe the lowest common denominator knows what they're talking about, and college students will be talking about Koontz in 30 years the way my writer/intellectual snob friends talk about King today (we love him.)

The difference here is that King has a certain amount of critical success; genre critics have always given him props, and you even notice him getting some mainstream critical success with his more character-oriented novels. Koontz, on the other hand, is just fuck*ng terrible.

Not as terrible as Hannibal, which is a book so bad thinking about it makes me physically ill, but still fuck*ng terrible.

[RMJ12345]

Koontz, on the other hand, is just fuck*ng terrible.

According to who, though? I don't believe King was really well-respected by critics until recent years; I remember reading a respected literary critic saying that "Shakespeare's turning in his grave" after King won the NBA award a few years back. Perhaps genre critics would give more light to the matter.

You might be right, he might suck, I was just trying to say that I don't think that popular support is an insignificant measure of a writer's worth, and Koontz certainly has that. People give the LCD too much shit.

[Arachno-capitalist]

Stephen King - your lie is that you are a good writer. Your two truths are that you are overpaid and have no idea how to end a book.

[pmcd9]

He's no Sue Grafton.

[Nabubrush]

He's certainly no Sue Henry.

[AugustWest]

He's no Sue Grafton.

Fun Fact -- Sue Grafton is from Louisville.  The largest and most prestigious law firm in Louisville was called Wyatt, Grafton and Sloss -- Sue's dad (or uncle, I forget. -- Also, Mapother and Mapother founded by Tom Cruise Mapother's Granddad...)

I read Sue Grafton until about P.  They started out fresh and funny, started drying out somewhere around K and were pretty well tedious by M.

I jumped from Grafton to Janet Evanovich to fill my light female detective fiction needs.  Evanovich's has the same writing resume as Cornelius, so I never expected much more than pulp from her.  Pulp it is, but quality pulp.  Hey, any book that gives me two or three belly laughs is worth the effort; thus far she's always satisfied.  JE is very regular in her production habits (I suppose the Harlequin folks teach you that,) you get a new Stephanie Plum novel every June.  Plus, in the last year or so she started releasing some supplementary works.  Kind of like the MAD special editions.

God knows I can't fault a writer for trying to make a buck.  There does come a point where one wants to shake 'em and say "Have some dignity, dammit!"  I think Evanovich crossed that line some time in 2006.

[Nabubrush]

Sue Henry writes about Alaska, and has dedicated some books to a friend of mine. She's a nice lady.

[wombat]

God knows I can't fault a writer for trying to make a buck.  There does come a point where one wants to shake 'em and say "Have some dignity, dammit!"  I think Evanovich crossed that line some time in 2006.

This is sadly true. And that other series, with the NASCAR theme? It's just so obvious that that's an attempt to appeal to a big market that no one else writes books for, not that car racing had all kinds of fascinating unexplored possibilities for a mystery series.

I try not to blame her too. It's what she's good at and dignity won't put food on the table. But it's too bad.

[Drastic Action]

The funniest thing is that's like one of his best works. "Hey Steve, nice work. Um, you kind of stepped on your dick right there at the end, with it all being a dream, or a giant space spider, or whatever."

I kind of liked The Regulators, and the sister book to it (the name escapes me at the moment and I can't be arsed to look it up).

That's Desperation, I believe.

And I sympathize with the tone expressed in that other thread concerning that shame of toting about a book by some fairly famous author.  Prancing about in public with a Clive Cussler book or something, I feel like such a sellout.  I have to fight this urge, because books such as those still have their place, and I'd still like to believe even a bad dean koontz novel is still better than most of what's on TV.

And as for King, I have almost felt ashamed of my devotion to his works.  But I enjoy his ideas, and there are few authors I've had as much fun discussing their books with others -- dredging up the most perverted or outlandish plot-device, or quoting a particularly sadistic character, and then laughing our heads off.  It's excellent fun, and I'm not too uptight to admit that the majority of the books I read are in this type of light.

[RMJ12345]

I'd still like to believe even a bad dean koontz novel is still better than most of what's on TV.

Exactly. I mean, if the small part of the American public that still reads chooses to read Koontz, shouldn't we trust their judgment to a certain extent?

[littlefallsmets]

Nah.

We as the TOUAMB board are their betters and they should read what we tell them to read.

[Nabubrush]

I'd still like to believe even a bad dean koontz novel is still better than most of what's on TV.

Oh fuck yes. I was considering my audience. I expect more from you folks. TV is the instrument of the devil.