Category: book Nook
Hi there,
I've just finished reading a book by the author mentioned in the topic title - Deeply Odd, in fact - and it has really come home to me of late that I seem to have a full-blown like-loathe relationship with the man's work. I want to offer some of my insights into Koontz and into some of his stories. Spoilers are bound to come up, but I'll try to keep them at least a little vague so as to not upset the squeamish. If you're the truly anti-spoiler type, this is your last warning. Heh.
Still here? Good. Here comes the flood.
1. Dogs. Dogs! Holy god, dogs! They're freaking everywhere in his books, especially golden retrievers, and especially in, say, the last nine years or so. Might have something to do with his dog Trixie dying, which is kind of sweet in its way, but I feel like he's trying to make a point by very laborious means most of the time.
2. Good vs. evil. Same deal. He's overdoing, particularly in the Odd Thomas series but elsewhere as well. Some of his most ravenous fans purport to liken his characters and situations to real life in a lot of ways and I...just don't agree, I'm afraid.
3. What's up with Koontz's child characters? They're always hyper-advanced emotionally, intellectually or both, and his ear for their dialogue is even more tinny than his ear for adult dialogue. I feel almost as if, somewhere in the early nineties, Koontz started having a serious modus operandi, or however the hell you spell that term, and started sacrificing realism in favour of story. Sometimes it works; sometimes it's okay; oftentimes, in my humble view at least, all it does is make a very talented man look silly.
4. I believe Koontz was at his best with books like Strangers, Lightning, Watchers and The Bad Place. Some of these books are downright vicious, some of them are creepy, and some do include dogs, but it doesn't feel nearly as forced. This guy is an excellent storyteller, and sometimes when I'm reading one of his newer books, I wish he'd go back to his roots...or, if not his true roots in the seventies, then at least the decade where he really started catching on as a novelist.
5. Odd Thomas. Oh boy, so much embodied in two words. I read the first book in the series and first thought it was rather good, and on subsequent reads I've lost a little of the admiration every time. The first three in the series, honestly, still aren't bad, but as soon as a certain female character appeared in Odd Hours, and as soon as there started being really overt references to good vs. evil, I've had the urge to just bail. Unfortunately, I'm sad to say that I can't, and it almost makes me angry to know that I'm continuing with a series in which I've lost basically all of my faith. Odd has turned from a fairly quirky fry-cook into the vessel through which Koontz wishes to proscelatize, a means of showing us all what a rotten world we live in and, by extension, just how close God is to it. If I hear Odd call someone "sir" or "ma'am" one more time, particularly after that person has specifically asked him to use their real name, or a nickname...just ugh.
Seriously though. Does anyone have any similar feelings on Koontz? Any feedback on specific books? Any opinions at all to share? If so, I'd like to hear 'em. I figure this may end up being part discussion, part vent session in the end, but that's all right.
I don't have a lot of experience with his writing, but I've actually had to stop reading one of his books because the way he writes is so laborious, preachy, and heavy that I gave up. And I'm a Dickens fan, so that's saying something. It's dense, unrealistic, and downright hard to slog through at times, though I'll admit he does have talent.
Honestly, Dragon Tears is probably one of those under-the-radar decent-going-on-good Koontz books you should have a look at. He's not quite so laborious, he doesn't really preach too much, and his villain is just downright strange.
I've been sort of turned off dragon anything ever since the conclusion of the inheritance series. Is it hard core fantasy? Does it even have dragons in it?
Not a bit, actually. The title is actually very vague, it's something about a Chinese proverb that honestly doesn't have a hell of a lot to do with anything. No dragons, nope. Just a couple of cops in a big city who begin being attacked by something extremely unnerving, the truth of which had me guessing pretty much right up till it became slap-in-the-face obvious. There is a dog in this one too, now that I think about it, but he's kind of goofy and, while not pivotal, he matters a bit. Not necessarily his best, but you could do a lot worse.
Okay first, I loooooooooooooooove Dean Koontz. If it is by him and I can get my hands on it, I will read it. There are far more patterns to his books than what was mentioned, but his writing is just fucking creative and poetic. His descriptions, the imagery, the cruelty of some characters, the hilarity of his hyperbolized and exaggerated situations is fucking amazing. Personally, I have no problem with him making children exceptionally gifted or illustrating dogs as intuitive and having uncanny knowledge and abilities. i appreciate all of the preachy stuff because I love philosophy and thought-provoking texts. Dean Koontz is where it's at!
I guess everyone's entitled to their opinion, by all means.
I find his best work is in the middle of his catalogue (from about 1981-1993 or so). After that, he starts going downhill.
Personally, I have trouble taking a book seriously when the characters are so exaggerated, false or otherwise concocted to serve a purpose. I don't necessarily mind his philosophizing, and some of the points he brings up are excellent (he went on a utilitarian bioethics kick with One Door Away from Heaven and, to a lesser extent, The Face, for instance), but then, sometimes he seems to really get stuck on the idea that a perfect home is upper middle-class mom and dad with few faults, a healthy belief in God, one or two very bright and almost painfully articulate children, and a golden retriever. He does this over and over again. Don't you find that wearing, even a bit? And if not, why not? I'm curious.
I too have noticed a pattern with Koontz's writing which generally runs along these lines. One male lead character and one female lead. Sometimes they know each other right from the start (Dragon Tears comes to mind). One and sometimes both of these characters had an abusive upbringing. Sooner or later, if they didn't know each other from the beginning, they meet in the course of trying to confront the evil. And yes, usually they're aided by at least one dog. That said I'm a huge Koontz fan and have never read a book of his that I actually disliked. As for Odd Thomas I actually really like those books. It helps that David Aaron Baker sounds about like what I'd imagine Odd as sounding like. I also really like the humor found throughout most of Koontz's books.
I love Dean Koontz. I haven't read the Odd Thomas series though. I read the first one and while I thought it was good, it just didn't hold my interest. I think the first one I ever read by him was The Bad Place. Like the original poster, Koontz's early works are my favorites. Twighlight Eyes was one of my all time favorites. Intensity, Shattered, the ones with the guy with that disease where he can't go outside, the one with the computer screen that grows into the guys head, were a few others that I really liked. Sorry, can't remember the names.
Koontz never created a character who couldn't go outside as far as I know. True there's Christopher Snow, but he just can't be exposed to ultraviolet light and so has to limit his activity to the nighttime. We've been waiting on a third book in that particular series for at least the past seven years since Koontz has announced plans to write one.
I read Seize the Night before Fear Nothing, and I actually quite liked both Christopher Snow books. They both suffered from at least a bit of Koontz's bad dialogue - he's trying too hard, it often seems - but the premise is interesting, and I genuinely like Christopher Snow where a lot of his other male leads, especially, I'm not terribly fond of.
Intensity, also, was good. Shattered I haven't read, though since it's one of his oldies I ought to.
I'll say this for him: his explanation can sometimes be downright poetic, and he plays to his strengths. Youv'e got to admire that in a novelist.
Yeah, that's the one I meant. Sorry, it was late and I wasn't thinking or typing clearly. lol
Yeah. LOL. Chris Snow can go outside even in the daytime sometimes if he urgently needs to, but then he has to take some shall we say rather extreme precautions like lathering up with the strongest sunscreens, wear really dark sunglasses and cover up as much skin as possible.
I agree with the topic as a whole, yet I don't find I mind much. Frankly I think Sword of Sapphire put it pretty good. There are paterns, larger than life characters, hyper intelligent and articulate children and holy crap are there ever dogs. But somehow I love most of his books. Fear Nothing and its sequel, the Odd Thomas series, One Door Away from Heaven, and False Memory rank as some of my favorites. And those are just the ones that come to mind. I love his humor, and writing style. Yes, especially with some of his newer stuff there isn't a ton of believability, but if it's done right, I don't necessarily mind that. As for his idealistic family? Well, I like the idea of being an upper-middle class couple with awesome articulate children, and sure, a golden retriever would be okay too.:) I roll my eyes sometimes, but it's usually overshadowed by my enjoyment. Oh yes, and Dragon Tears. I forgot about that one. I really enjoyed it. Ohh, and Intensity. I really liked Intensity a lot. Wow. I really need to read a few of these again.
You've got a point, actually; just because you can identify an author's weaknesses doesn't make him a bad author. I can tell you, just to use my earlier Dickens example, that he uses stereotypical characters too much, plays on the "poverty in misty old London" thing waaaaaaay too much, and goes on. and on. and on. and on. and on. sometimes in a preachy way. Yet I like him. Go figure.
At least Koontz uses Goldens. They do happen to be my favorite dog breed. LOL. I forgot about False Memory. That's definitely one of my favorites. And Steven Lang is excellent as the narrator.
False Memory was a really good idea; I'm not crazy about the execution, though, particularly the dialogue. Still, good story idea.
Bear in mind that I did say my relationship with Koontz as writer to reader is a like/loathe thing. I must like him well enough if I've read more than half of his books published since 1980. I totally agree, and in some ways was trying to represent, the point about liking a novelist while both recognizing and disliking particular quirks. I like Stephen King a lot, but there are certain things he does that I'm not crazy about. Robert Jordan was the same way. If you write enough books, you're going to fall into patterns, consciously or unconsciously.
Steven Lang is a fairly good narrator, yeah, but I actually thought his performance in this one was...not bad, necessarily, but not great. Agreed with Meglet about False Memory...neat idea (though I'm not sure how well it works in practice, and not-so-great execution.
I'd say the book I liked least from Koontz was The Taking. Great idea, and some rather spooky imagery in places, but I only barely managed to finish reading. The execution again, it just fell flat.
The Taking was the first of his that I tried reading, and I couldn't even get through the first third of it. I hated the writing style in that one, to the point where I just couldn't be bothered continuing with it. It's a shame, as I was curious to know how it turned out.
That's probably my least favorite, probably because the trademark Koontz humor is all but absent. But I did like how it turned out not to be aliens like we were led to believe throughout the book.
Actually, as far as that one goes...I think it was a stellar idea, but a really bad way to do it. I thought all the biblical pseudo-religious stuff was way way too heavy, but then I'm not a Christian, so perhaps it's aimed at an audience that doesn't exactly contain people like me. I got my first clue that it wasn't what it appeared when that voice from the space station starts talking in that weird language. It's spelled funny, but it looked too contrived not to be a hidden message, so I pulled it apart.
Pretty much what Molly did, only she waited till after it was over.