Dean Koontz Gone Fundy

[wolfgirl]

Has anyone noticed the very definite trend in Dean Koontz books to preach at you?

I used to love love love his books. I've been reading his books for about 20 years now. I couldn't wait for each new one to come out and devoured it as soon as it did.

But the last several have been so blatantly xian in nature that I just don't even want to bother anymore. While I still enjoy his descriptive style, I can't bear to be preached at while I'm trying to read a "horror" novel. The bad guy is invariably a scientist of some sort. The true evil is always some type of scientific advance. He makes claims about these things that are so far out of whack it isn't even funny. Everyone who believes in genetic research, for example, automatically believes in killing those who are "genetically inferior." Whole books seem to be written just to make some sort of point about the evils of science and the greatness of belief in a higher power.

I've been reading his new Frankenstein series, but I'm not sure I'll even finish, as it seems pretty obvious where it's going to be heading, too.

Ick!

[Segnosaur]

Has anyone noticed the very definite trend in Dean Koontz books to preach at you?


I'm reminded of an episode of Family Guy, where Brian is driving a car and accidentally runs over somebody:

Brian: Oh, my God! Are you Stephen King?!
Dean Koontz: No, I'm Dean Koontz.
Brian: Oh.

(Brian then gets back in his car and runs over Dean Koontz again)

[pgwenthold]

(Segnosaur beat me to it)

[T'ai Chi]

The true evil is always some type of scientific advance.


Well sometimes that does happen; abombs, eugenics gone crazy, etc.


He makes claims about these things that are so far out of whack it isn't even funny.


Is he writing that stuff in his fiction or non-fiction works? If the fictional, I don't see the issue.

[kevin]

Well sometimes that does happen; abombs, eugenics gone crazy, etc.

Scientific advances didn't bring about additional evil or even make evil worse (Hitler never had an atomic bomb and pretty much is at the top of the evil scale to most people), the advances are just tools and knowledge, evil is the abuse of those tools and knowledge.

Genocide still occurs, but at least some of our technologies make it so the word can get out more effiectively and maybe they aren't as long as previous ones.

I'm not sure mass murderers really need science to do their evil.

[Morrigan]

Is he writing that stuff in his fiction or non-fiction works? If the fictional, I don't see the issue.
Agreed with kevin, and I'll add this question: do you not think that an author can insert ideology, or even propaganda, into fiction? Ever read Ayn Rand or Terry Goodkind?

[kevin]

Agreed with kevin, and I'll add this question: do you not think that an author can insert ideology, or even propaganda, into fiction? Ever read Ayn Rand or Terry Goodkind?

Personally I have no problem with authors doing this, I've actually enjoyed Terry Goodkind's stuff (only read the first 5 or 6 books though) and even C.S. Lewis's Narnia stuff (didn't keep me from becoming atheist in my later years, and I still think they're kind of entertaining).

However I didn't read the OP as suggesting Koontz should be prevented from doing it -- just that this made his stuff unreadable to them and checking to see if anyone agrees.

[CFLarsen]

Well sometimes that does happen; abombs, eugenics gone crazy, etc.

Ah, this old circus horse... :rolleyes:

You mistake science with how some people apply scientific discoveries. Science is neither good or bad, it just is. It's what we do with the discoveries that matters.

Anything can be misapplied. Your body needs water, but if you get too much of it, you'll drown.

It is both foolish, dangerous and ignorant to paint science as a destructive force. It gives people a poor excuse for shunning scientific discoveries, instead of what they should do: Embrace them, and put them to good work.

It's inherently an anti-science attitude.

[Skeptic]

Well, it depends. Generally speaking, ideology hurts a work of literature, but on the other hand there are excellent authors whose motivation for writing in the first place was ideological.

One can certainly enjoy G. K. Chesterton or C. S. Lewis--or, for that matter, Milton and Dante--despite their Christian ideology.

[porch]

If the main purpose of your horror story is to elicit horror, I think science is an excellent topic. There are a lot of angles you can work there. In that sense, I think it's fair game to exploit any fears people have, rational or irrational.

Having ideology in a story, to one degree or another, isn't inherently good or bad. It's how you use the ideology. And, of course, what ideology you have counts, depending on the reader.

I haven't read Koontz (maybe some short stories, years and years ago?), but if there's an ending involving the threats presented by The Science, or whatever The Evil is, being prevented/cured/redeemed/vanquished by Belief in the Power of Goodness, that's generally what I would call a 'hokey ending'.

[athon]

The 'well, it's fiction, so it's ok' line is overused sometimes, I think.

The issue comes down to the subtlty of language. I'll give a really blatant and obvious example (and risk going Godwin here); the old Nazi propaganda films with the Jew as the bad guy. I mean, it's just a film, right? And the bad guy, well, he's a Jew, but he's made up, so...

The truth is, fiction makes a statement that goes beyond being a mere tale. Hollywood has runs of villifying a particular stereotype, be it the German, then the Russian, then aliens (well, the cold war ended, so it had to be something), and now the Arab. I think the Australian has been pretty standard throughout (and for good reason, too!).

Reading too deep into some things can be met with 'it's only fiction'. But do you think the impact 'Jaws' had on people's perceptions of sharks could be considered positive? Hell, it was only fiction.

Athon

[The_Serpent]

This is a very interesting topic to me for two reasons:

I am a writer, working toward my first novel length publications

I had the exact same perception about one of my Favorite writers: Orson Scott Card.

I expect that anything I write will in some way reflect my world view through the character, setting, and story choices I make. That is inescapable and is really the only thing that separates a love story written by me from the same type of story written by writer X. What bothers me though, is when a writer purposely constructs a story to be a morality play. In essence that author turns the novel into a teaching book, to teach his/her reader the value of the author's point of view. This, as in all teaching scenarios assumes that the teacher has the better position on the issue at hand, which can easily come off as arrogant and patronizing.

This is what happened with me and Orson Scott Card. I read Ender's game and loved it. I read the Speaker from the dead and thought it was good to ok, but that novel was structured more as a mystery and I have never been partial to mysteries, even when couched as Sci fi. But as I read more of his novels I started to feel like he was creating little morality plays designed specifically to influence the thinking of his readers. I noticed this the most in the Sci fi series written by him called the 'homecoming saga', which as it turns out is a retelling of the Book of mormon. This was disturbing to me. I wanted to tell him that if he wanted to get on a soapbox to convert the rest of us to his religion there was a section in the bookstore for that. So I did. I went to his website forum and posted passages from many of his books. I asked the author whether his intent, as he had progressed in age, was moving toward subtle and not so subtle proselytizing. I also asked for comments from other Card readers on the same subject. I did all this in what I thought was a VERY nice calm manner. I was banned.

Ok, so the point of that anecdote? I'm not sure, maybe these: 1) I wont be reading any more Card. 2) I learned that what I really value in novels is not ideas that agree with mine, but ideas that are represented fairly and discussed objectively or at least where multiple sides are presented. I learned that I value intellectual honesty. Unfortunately that is a relatively scarce commodity these days. And like wolfgirl, I have had it up to here with authors attacking scientists.

Also, I'd like to note that I remember reading Dean Koontz's "Lightning" And loving it, but that was a long time ago. These days I get to read so few books because I have a fulltime software job while trying to get a writing career off the ground (which is not so easy as I had been led to believe).

[BlackCat]

But the last several have been so blatantly xian in nature that I just don't even want to bother anymore.
That's a shame. I used to read him a long time ago, but I haven't in many years now. I guess I won't ever again.

Agreed with kevin, and I'll add this question: do you not think that an author can insert ideology, or even propaganda, into fiction? Ever read Ayn Rand or Terry Goodkind?
I don't have a problem with Koontz including Xian mythology in his books, although I may not like it. However, the difference between him and Rand is that you know (at least, I did) that Rand has an agenda, while this may not necessarily be known about Koontz.

BlackCat

[wolfgirl]

Personally I have no problem with authors doing this, I've actually enjoyed Terry Goodkind's stuff (only read the first 5 or 6 books though) and even C.S. Lewis's Narnia stuff (didn't keep me from becoming atheist in my later years, and I still think they're kind of entertaining).

However I didn't read the OP as suggesting Koontz should be prevented from doing it -- just that this made his stuff unreadable to them and checking to see if anyone agrees.Yes, Kevin, exactly. I wasn't trying to say that an author shouldn't do this, if that's what he wants to do. But it's just disappointing when it's one of your favorite authors and suddenly he goes all fundy on you and his books are no longer enjoyable. I used to look forward to each new Koontz book. Now...(shrug).

[kevin]

I had the exact same perception about one of my Favorite writers: Orson Scott Card.


I can't read Card anymore, pretty much since the homecoming saga (btw, his Alvin Maker series is also a mormon re-telling, although better done imo), and for the same reasons. His diatribes against evolution haven't helped.

I still recommend Ender's Game to anyone though.

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, it depends. Generally speaking, ideology hurts a work of literature, but on the other hand there are excellent authors whose motivation for writing in the first place was ideological.

One can certainly enjoy G. K. Chesterton or C. S. Lewis--or, for that matter, Milton and Dante--despite their Christian ideology.

Not to nitpick too much about Dante there, but his entire vision of hell, purgatory and heaven were not in line with Christian ideas at the time. He took an extremely immaginative view of Christian concepts and themes. For Peet's sake, what enobles him and leads him to Heaven is the love of a beuatiful woman. That's not contrary to Christanity, but it certainly is unusual.

[slingblade]

I quit reading Koontz when I realized he's a lazy plotter. The last book of his I read was the just-released "The Bad Place," and I had been on a bit of a streak just before that; I had just "discovered" him, see, and so I was reading him exclusively for a time, devouring his books.

I think I was reading "Watchers," "Whispers," and "Bad Place" when it dawned on me: no matter who they are or what else is going on, Koontz's main characters always can somehow manage to finance whatever they need to. They always have plenty of money, some way, some how. If they need to run from the bad guy (and they always need to run from the bad guy) the main char and/or an associate has a house to sell, bonds to cash in, a valuable antique he can sell....something.

I haven't read him since then, so I don't know if that's changed. It might have. I just know that once I became aware of it, I saw it in each and every book, and it ruined my suspension of disbelief.

[Zbu]

Dean Koontz has always been a weak writer. I remember one of his books dealt with subliminal imagery and mind control so he was always on a bit of the woo. Now, he's just go xtian on us. It's not that big of a shock, and in my opinion his books weren't that interesting.

And what about that one where some insane cult goes after a kid, thinking he's the second coming of their messiah? How would that fit to his conversion?

[Diamond]

Not to nitpick too much about Dante there, but his entire vision of hell, purgatory and heaven were not in line with Christian ideas at the time. He took an extremely immaginative view of Christian concepts and themes. For Peet's sake, what enobles him and leads him to Heaven is the love of a beuatiful woman. That's not contrary to Christanity, but it certainly is unusual.

Even more amazing, he puts several popes in Hell. I've no idea how he got away with it...

[Carnivore]

I just read "The Taking". I'd read a couple of his earlier books and liked them. I really wasnt ready for a novel apparently about an alien invasion but which turned out to be the Rapture.

[thaiboxerken]

He's mentioned Randi's million dollar challenge in his novels, but for some reason, the superbeings in his books never take the challenge. I wonder why.

[RSLancastr]

I recently read Koontz's Life Expectancy (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0553804146/sr=8-10/qid=1148110040/ref=pd_bbs_10/103-1337136-5465450?%5Fencoding=UTF8).

It was a fun, quick read.

[ImaginalDisc]

Even more amazing, he puts several popes in Hell. I've no idea how he got away with it...

He was White and they were Black (the political parties, not the races.) It would be the equivilent of John Kerry in exile writing a book about Hell, and putting current and past Republicans in Hell.

[Morrigan]

Personally I have no problem with authors doing this, I've actually enjoyed Terry Goodkind's stuff (only read the first 5 or 6 books though)
Oh, same here... but if you read beyond that, you will find his diatribe absolutely unbearable. It's all a bunch of republican, anti-Iraq, anti-tax propaganda. And worse yet, it actually detracts from the story majorly. I haven't read the latest one, but Naked Empire is one of the worst books I've read. It's nothing but Richard droning on and on pompously. Quite disgusting.

If authors express their ideology in their fiction, that's fine by me, but do it intelligently, do it subtly, and don't let it detract from the story. Otherwise, just write a bloody essay... Argh. (Sorry, I hate Goodkind now.)



I am a writer, working toward my first novel length publications

I had the exact same perception about one of my Favorite writers: Orson Scott Card.

[...] I read Ender's game and loved it.
No offense, but I hope you don't use him as inspiration, because otherwise I can already tell your novel is gonna suck ass. :p

I still recommend Ender's Game to anyone though.
Eww, why? It's an horribly stupid book, it insults the reader's intelligence, there are so many things wrong with it that I could rant for hours about it. *spits* I despise Ender's Game and its author copiously.

[ImaginalDisc]

Eww, why? It's an horribly stupid book, it insults the reader's intelligence, there are so many things wrong with it that I could rant for hours about it. *spits* I despise Ender's Game and its author copiously.

What exactly is wrong with it?

[The_Serpent]

No offense, but I hope you don't use him as inspiration, because otherwise I can already tell your novel is gonna suck ass. :p.

Depends on what you mean by inspiration. I think he knows how to spin a yarn without loads of wasteful tacked on description or flashbacks that simply detract from the story, which these days is NOT a skill one can take for granted. However, I tend to be much more science minded than Card, being someone who has a science degree and works professionally as an engineer. That doesn't make me an expert by any means, but I do think it helps me as a science fiction writer (not that that is the only genre I write in). Basically, I've rarely worried about my ability to do the science part right, I want to do the story and the characters right, which is where so many science fiction writers fail IMO (Red Mars comes to mind).


Eww, why? It's an horribly stupid book, it insults the reader's intelligence, there are so many things wrong with it that I could rant for hours about it. *spits* I despise Ender's Game and its author copiously.

Well, I liked the book, but I will say this: I recommend it for middle school aged readers which is when I read it. Why do you dislike it so? You don't have to list all the things you 'despise' about it, but I wouldn't mind an example or two.

If it's about his understanding of science, well.. duh.. I've always felt Science fiction as a genre suffers from split personality disorder. On one hand you have the writers who are or have been scientists. These people really do their homework and design workable alien species and ecosystems, but couldn't write a character or a compelling human story to save their life, often the characters are just vehicles for showing off their really neat aliens/ideas. Prime example here: Pretty much anything by A.C. Clarke

Then there's the other camp, the english and drama majors who love the idea of science fiction, but only as a backdrop for a human story. Their characters tend to be better thought out and the story is compelling, but the science blows and is insulting to anyone with any real scientific knowledge or understanding (increasingly fewer folks it seems). Prime example here: Star wars, Star trek, Independence day, et cetera ad nauseum.

I've always strived to have both. And I am planning on submitting my second manuscript query package soon. (my first novel sucked, and I will be rewriting it before I ever send it out again, but hey: live and learn.) I'll let the readers determine which part of the personality I split I'll fit in.. I actually have the potential to go either way I think, but my goal is solid story telling with solid science and engineering.

[Morrigan]

Are you serious?

This book's premise is that a gifted child who's done silly wargame training will succeed in military intervention to save the Earth from evil invaders where all the Earth's military geniuses will have failed. And when you consider the training he's had (of which the description is horribly repetitive, tedious, and lasts for the better part of the book)... where Ender realizes that in zero-gravity, there are multiple directions, and that an overly tight formation is not always practical... GENIUS! (Okay for a little boy it's not bad, but come on, as if the adults hadn't figured that out a long time ago)

Not to mention the thinly veiled message of using violence to solve problems (Ender's fight with the boys), the ridiculous notion that Ender's brother and sister control the entire world media by posting anonymously on blogs, the absurd portrayal of the minds of gifted children, the childish prose and dialogue (buggers, "farteater", "fartface", etc. - even the adult characters talk like that!), the awful science and the fact that it's basically a "us vs them" plot -- no, really, you want to ask again what's wrong with it?

It's a completely juvenile book, and it's too full of idiocy and bad messages ("believe in your intellectual superiority, kid!" and "mindless aggression with no responsibilities makes you a good leader!") to even recommend to children themselves. Frankly, I'm not surprised Card's a fundy. I read the "definitive edition" or something, and his whole defense against criticism (mostly at his laughable handling of child psychology) reeked of intellectual dishonesty.

Edit: this was supposed to be a reply to ImaginalDisc, but can apply to whoever wanted to know my feelings on Ender's Game. ;)

[ImaginalDisc]

Are you serious?

This book's premise is that a gifted child who's done silly wargame training will succeed in military intervention to save the Earth from evil invaders where all the Earth's military geniuses will have failed. And when you consider the training he's had (of which the description is horribly repetitive, tedious, and lasts for the better part of the book)... where Ender realizes that in zero-gravity, there are multiple directions, and that an overly tight formation is not always practical... GENIUS! (Okay for a little boy it's not bad, but come on, as if the adults hadn't figured that out a long time ago)

Not to mention the thinly veiled message of using violence to solve problems (Ender's fight with the boys), the ridiculous notion that Ender's brother and sister control the entire world media by posting anonymously on blogs, the absurd portrayal of the minds of gifted children, the childish prose and dialogue (buggers, "farteater", "fartface", etc. - even the adult characters talk like that!), the awful science and the fact that it's basically a "us vs them" plot -- no, really, you want to ask again what's wrong with it?

It's a completely juvenile book, and it's too full of idiocy and bad messages ("believe in your intellectual superiority, kid!" and "mindless aggression with no responsibilities makes you a good leader!") to even recommend to children themselves. Frankly, I'm not surprised Card's a fundy. I read the "definitive edition" or something, and his whole defense against criticism (mostly at his laughable handling of child psychology) reeked of intellectual dishonesty.

Edit: this was supposed to be a reply to ImaginalDisc, but can apply to whoever wanted to know my feelings on Ender's Game. ;)


Ender outwits much older boys in a tactical computer game on his first day at the school. Valentine and Peter outsmart their teachers, history professors, politicians and everyone else, by spending years honing their already impressive wiriting skills. The Wiggins family was selected to be allowed to have a third child because the government had found that their children would be exceptionally intelligent. Exceptional, for a world of billions. Ender's later phase training involves ceaseless drills and debriefings under the only commander to ever defeat the buggers. Ender's internal conflict between a ruthless, often violent solution to his problems and Valentine's empathy drive the plot. The adults in control are constantly trying to make Ender more and more ruthless, while maintaining his ability to empathize with his subordinates, and his enemies. He spends a decade being honed into the best commander humanity has to offer, but you find it implausible?

[ZirconBlue]

Oh, same here... but if you read beyond that, you will find his diatribe absolutely unbearable. It's all a bunch of republican, anti-Iraq, anti-tax propaganda. And worse yet, it actually detracts from the story majorly. I haven't read the latest one, but Naked Empire is one of the worst books I've read. It's nothing but Richard droning on and on pompously. Quite disgusting.

If authors express their ideology in their fiction, that's fine by me, but do it intelligently, do it subtly, and don't let it detract from the story. Otherwise, just write a bloody essay... Argh. (Sorry, I hate Goodkind now.)



There was a lot of preachiness in Goodkind's later books, but it's much more Objectivist than "Republican." And I think you give him entirely too much credit if you think he was commenting on current events; I think he's still raging against Communism.

The latest book in the series', Chainfire, is a vast improvement, though, and contains very little of his Rand-like sermonizing.

[Morrigan]

Ender outwits much older boys in a tactical computer game on his first day at the school. Valentine and Peter outsmart their teachers, history professors, politicians and everyone else, by spending years honing their already impressive wiriting skills. The Wiggins family was selected to be allowed to have a third child because the government had found that their children would be exceptionally intelligent. Exceptional, for a world of billions. Ender's later phase training involves ceaseless drills and debriefings under the only commander to ever defeat the buggers. Ender's internal conflict between a ruthless, often violent solution to his problems and Valentine's empathy drive the plot. The adults in control are constantly trying to make Ender more and more ruthless, while maintaining his ability to empathize with his subordinates, and his enemies. He spends a decade being honed into the best commander humanity has to offer, but you find it implausible?
I repeat: Are you serious?
His "brutal training" is a complete joke (not to mention a total bore to read through), the psychology behind it is laughable... and you don't think two kids (gifted or not) outsmarting the entire world is "implausible"?
And you think a decade of this idiotic training would somehow allow someone to single-handedly defeat the army of invaders where every military genius before him has failed (and look at how he won, too.... wow!)?
I mean no offense, but, are you 12?

[Morrigan]

There was a lot of preachiness in Goodkind's later books, but it's much more Objectivist than "Republican." And I think you give him entirely too much credit if you think he was commenting on current events; I think he's still raging against Communism.

Have you read Naked Empire? With the pacifist hippie folks (I forgot their name) who refused violence, and who congregated together to say "Give peace a chance"? If it wasn't actually an allegory (and a bad one at that) with the Iraq war, the parallels were still way too stricking.
But yeah, he does whine about communism and collectivism, mostly in Faith of the Fallen. But at least that book had the benefit of having a decent story behind all that, instead of being pages of sermon mixed with a stupid villain and a predictable "let's kidnap Kahlan! again!" twist. -_-

The latest book in the series', Chainfire, is a vast improvement, though, and contains very little of his Rand-like sermonizing.
I'm glad to hear it, but that's not what I heard. Personally, I'm through with this idiot.

[ImaginalDisc]

I mean no offense, but, are you 12?

Yes. I am twelve.

Or, maybe I just happen to enjoy reading the book, which you have failed to make a critique of without resorting to insult. You might say "I found the plot unconvincing and farfeched" and I'd say, "Oh, I can understand that." but instead you resort to innane and childish denouncements of it, while claiming that the characters are childish.

[RSLancastr]

I mean no offense, but, are you 12?I mean no offense, but are you a (rule8)?

I enjoyed the book when I first read it (in my 30s), and reading it aloud to my kids when they were growing up is a memory we all treasure.

Your mileage obviously varied.

[The_Serpent]

This book's premise is that a gifted child who's done silly wargame training will succeed in military intervention to save the Earth from evil invaders where all the Earth's military geniuses will have failed.

Just a suggestion here, but if you want realism, you might try the non-fiction or historical novel section. More to point though: What do you consider a good science fiction novel? (Besides Heinlen, we all know Heinlen is a god)

Edited to remove pointless snark.

[Morrigan]

Yes. I am twelve.

Or, maybe I just happen to enjoy reading the book, which you have failed to make a critique of without resorting to insult. You might say "I found the plot unconvincing and farfeched" and I'd say, "Oh, I can understand that." but instead you resort to innane and childish denouncements of it, while claiming that the characters are childish.
Well, in my sincere opinion, someone who enjoys that kind of poorly written, juvenile tripe either has appallingly low standards, or has the mindset of a spoiled child with a big ego and thus it appeals to him.
Sorry, that's my opinion. Call it childish if you want. ;)
Just a suggestion here, but if you want realism, you might try the non-fiction or historical novel section. More to point though: What do you consider a good science fiction novel? (Besides Heinlen, we all know Heinlen is a god)

Edited to remove pointless snark.
Yes, because we all know having credible plot is the same as having a realistic plot. :rolleyes: There is nothing realistic about the TV show 24, it's not the lack of realism that bothers me. FFS, I read almost exclusively fantasy these days. But see, A Song of Ice and Fire has mystery and dragons and unrealistic stuff, but it's... credible! That's the difference.

My favourite sci-fi novels are the Dune series, by the way.

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, in my sincere opinion, someone who enjoys that kind of poorly written, juvenile tripe either has appallingly low standards, or has the mindset of a spoiled child with a big ego and thus it appeals to him.
Sorry, that's my opinion. Call it childish if you want. ;)


And now you're resorting to personal insults at those who disagree with you over the merits of a novel?

[CFLarsen]

And now you're resorting to personal insults at those who disagree with you over the merits of a novel?
That's not a novel approach.

[Morrigan]

And now you're resorting to personal insults at those who disagree with you over the merits of a novel?
I expressed an opinion, and made a facetious comment. I didn't think anyone would get offended or insulted over that, nor ignore everything else I've written in addition to said comment, but since it's going to be like that, at this point I don't care.

[The_Serpent]

But see, A Song of Ice and Fire has mystery and dragons and unrealistic stuff, but it's... credible! That's the difference.

Realism one can possibly think of as an objective measure. Credibility IMO is firmly in the eye of the beholder. The fact that you find R.R. Martin credible says more about you than it does the book. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with Martin's violent, depressing, cynical style, it's just not my cup of tea. The only fantasy series I can stand remains The lord of the Rings.

My favourite sci-fi novels are the Dune series, by the way.

Which I found boring. But hey, to each their own. On a related note, I have decided to recommend Song of ice and fire to my friend because of this discussion. He too loved Dune, romanticises war and finds convoluted political machinations compelling somehow. Whatever floats your boat =):

[Charlie Monoxide]

I repeat: Are you serious?
His "brutal training" is a complete joke (not to mention a total bore to read through), the psychology behind it is laughable... and you don't think two kids (gifted or not) outsmarting the entire world is "implausible"?
And you think a decade of this idiotic training would somehow allow someone to single-handedly defeat the army of invaders where every military genius before him has failed (and look at how he won, too.... wow!)?
I mean no offense, but, are you 12?I have to agree with Morrigan's take on "Ender's Game". I read it a number of years back solely on the fact it had won a SciFi award(s), I think a Hugo. It was a slog to read. The characters were shallow and the plot cliched and trite.

I tried another book (forget name) by the author but found the same unentertaining emptiness and quit after about 100 pages.

BTW I was in my 20's when I read it ...

Charlie (Orson Scott Tard!) Monoxide

[The_Serpent]

BTW I was in my 20's when I read it ...


See and I was 11. World of difference. I don't think I could read it now without seeing all the flaws inherent in what was Card's first significant novel. But I don't begrudge him that really. I would say that as his career went on, the quality of his writing and characters has improved while the stories and ideas behind them have not is my general impression of his work, especially given the proselytizing (sp?). However I still have a positive impression of Ender's game as a fun romp about a smart kid who is picked on.. which in many ways mirrors my own young life at the time I read it.

[Morrigan]

Realism one can possibly think of as an objective measure. Credibility IMO is firmly in the eye of the beholder. The fact that you find R.R. Martin credible says more about you than it does the book. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with Martin's violent, depressing, cynical style, it's just not my cup of tea. The only fantasy series I can stand remains The lord of the Rings.

Not really, you could argue that both are subjective, but that both can based judged on objective standards.
Martin's world is violent, depressing and cynical because that is what a feudal world ravaged by war and poverty IS. You could argue that the degree is too extreme, or not extreme enough, and that would be subjective. But we can all agree that pretty princess and pretty princes and happy flowers in La-la land do not accurately reflect a medieval world, yes?

Here's one small example of a thing that is not realistic about Martin's world: the heraldry. Even while I found the sheer number of banners and blazons and symbols semi-confusing at first, even now I realize that real-world medieval heraldry was far more complicated. The noble houses and their vassals and heraldry is kept at a minimum: it looks high to maintain a semblance of credibility, but when compared to the real history of Europe, in England alone it was already far more complex.
But Martin wants to tell a story, not just build a world, so he kept it straightforward enough to allow us to sort through the families and follow their story. Is the heraldry realistic? Not much, though compared to most fantasy, it is. Is it credible enough to make me think of actual historical knights and houses, rather than imaginary fairy tale knights? Yes.

Credibility is important because it allows the reader (not counting children) to empathise, and sympathise, with the characters and the events. It's very hard to take Feist seriously when his wizard (Pug) and warrior (Tomas) are all invincible munchkins who travel through various dimensions to kick everyone's ass. If at least he had a mythological dimension to his writing, it could redeem him, but no... it's just a very insipid story about very one-dimensional characters. Like Ender's Game as well.

Which I found boring. But hey, to each their own. On a related note, I have decided to recommend Song of ice and fire to my friend because of this discussion. He too loved Dune, romanticises war and finds convoluted political machinations compelling somehow. Whatever floats your boat =):
You like Ender's Game but dislike Dune...? I'm afraid there is no hope for you. :( Let me guess, you like Dude Where's My Car but don't like One Flew Over a Cuckoo's Nest because it's "boring"? :P
Dune is a work of art. It's not just the plots, but all the thematics and the cultural awareness... I hate novels that philosophise endlessly, and I didn't like God-Emperor much because it detracted from the story. But the first two, and the last two, are epic journeys of humanity.

[supercorgi]

Realism one can possibly think of as an objective measure. Credibility IMO is firmly in the eye of the beholder. The fact that you find R.R. Martin credible says more about you than it does the book. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with Martin's violent, depressing, cynical style, it's just not my cup of tea.
I think Martin is quite a good writer. His Fire and Ice series is excellent medivalesque fantasy. It's not your standard fantasy which usually involves some sort of quest. His world is patterned after medieval Europe with political intrigues, power plays, and conflict. Is is rather grim but so was life in the middle ages. The characters are very well developed and believable. I also admire that he's not afraid to kill off main characters.

The only fantasy series I can stand remains The lord of the Rings.

So you like traditional quest fantasies. I do too. But I find Martin's work refreshing because it's not traditional. It's more like reading a good historical fiction but has elements of fantasy with mythical creatures thrown in. It's not your standard human, dwarf, elf quest fantasy.

[The_Serpent]

Martin's world is violent, depressing and cynical because that is what a feudal world ravaged by war and poverty IS.

The author chooses the characters, setting and plot. That he would consistently chose deliberately overly violent, depressing, cynical stories simply shows what kind of person he is. I didn't enjoy it. I don't really enjoy any fantasy any more, I tried reading Robert Jordan and Mr. Martin on recommendations and found both to be virtually unreadable.



You like Ender's Game but dislike Dune...? I'm afraid there is no hope for you. :( Let me guess, you like Dude Where's My Car but don't like One Flew Over a Cuckoo's Nest because it's "boring"? :P

I hope you understand this style of argument is known as 'ad hominem' and is more properly used at a playground than a forum. I never said I like Dude where is my car or anything like it. That you would imply that if I don't like what you like then I must like garbage says more about your level of emotional development than my taste eh?

[The_Serpent]

I think Martin is quite a good writer.

I don't think he is a bad writer. I just dont like his stuff.

So you like traditional quest fantasies. I do too. But I find Martin's work refreshing because it's not traditional. It's more like reading a good historical fiction but has elements of fantasy with mythical creatures thrown in. It's not your standard human, dwarf, elf quest fantasy.

Once I did. Like Ender's game I read the Lord of the rings in middle school in Venezuela. It was a really neat epic with a very fully imagined world, if filled with somewhat shallow characters and few women of consequence. But hey, I was a boy at the time and didn't know better. Do I still like it despite its flaws just like I like Ender's game? Absolutely! Do I find any modern fantasy I have read compelling, even though I have tried many times to read it over the past decade? Nope. Heck, even most of the Scifi I've read has been bad. I still can't understand what was up with Vernor Vinge's Fire upon the Deep.. That book was terrible!

[Morrigan]

The author chooses the characters, setting and plot. That he would consistently chose deliberately overly violent, depressing, cynical stories simply shows what kind of person he is.

I'm sorry, but that's unbelievably stupid.

I didn't enjoy it. I don't really enjoy any fantasy any more, I tried reading Robert Jordan and Mr. Martin on recommendations and found both to be virtually unreadable.

Jordan and Martin have little in common, actually, and I'm a Jordan hater myself. But, whatever, it's too bad you don't like it, but I stand by the fact that your initial comment in this post is unbelievably stupid.
It also seems you completely glossed over my entire post about believable settings. Oh, well.

I hope you understand this style of argument is known as 'ad hominem' and is more properly used at a playground than a forum. I never said I like Dude where is my car or anything like it. That you would imply that if I don't like what you like then I must like garbage says more about your level of emotional development than my taste eh?
No, it simply means you need to grow a sense of humour (or invest in a new irony detector maybe), and maybe some thick skin. Like your friend Ender, maybe.

[Floyt]

Originally Posted by The_Serpent:
The author chooses the characters, setting and plot. That he would consistently chose deliberately overly violent, depressing, cynical stories simply shows what kind of person he is.
I'm sorry, but that's unbelievably stupid.

Care to elaborate on that?
I guess this at least shows you've never tried your hand at writing a story of any length (say, above novella size). To KEEP UP the complex, dark tone Martin has chosen over the course of a multi-thousand page story requires immense tuning and dedication. It doesn't "just happen" because it's realistic for the chosen setting (which is debatable - a benevolent faerie-tale atmosphere would suit the setting just as well). It might not actually show what kind of person Martin is, but it DOES show a conscious choice in style.

[Floyt]

Dune is a work of art. It's not just the plots, but all the thematics and the cultural awareness... I hate novels that philosophise endlessly, and I didn't like God-Emperor much because it detracted from the story. But the first two, and the last two, are epic journeys of humanity.

...told using a 2000 word vocabulary. Which is why I went straight back to Iain Banks for space opera ;)

[Morrigan]

Care to elaborate on that?
I guess this at least shows you've never tried your hand at writing a story of any length (say, above novella size). To KEEP UP the complex, dark tone Martin has chosen over the course of a multi-thousand page story requires immense tuning and dedication. It doesn't "just happen" because it's realistic for the chosen setting (which is debatable - a benevolent faerie-tale atmosphere would suit the setting just as well). It might not actually show what kind of person Martin is, but it DOES show a conscious choice in style.
I fail to see what Martin's dedication to his work has to do with what kind of person he is, which IS what The_Serpent says.

I suppose every musician who plays dark and evil and violent music are also dark, angry and violent and evil. :boggled:

[The_Serpent]

It might not actually show what kind of person Martin is, but it DOES show a conscious choice in style.

Fair enough, I agree that the ability to choose a voice for a novel that is distinct from your own is much of the art of writing (though not always recommended). I would also say that when I mentioned before that Martin's morbid style is consistent I didn't just mean within a single novel or even across the Song series. See any of his works, but his first novel The dying of the light is an excellent example.

I want to mention again that I don't think Martin is a bad writer or even a mediocre one. He certainly sells well and he has many ardent fans. I can only hope to sell as well with the Military Sci fi novel I am currently working on. The same could of course be said for the sales and accolades earned by Ender's Game. Martin's stuff just isn't my cup of tea.

[antihippy]

I see I am not the only person who sees problems with Martin's writing.

For the record I like his fire and ice books.

The problem I have with them is that they are going a bit "wheel of time". It seems that the books are being extended out for no good reason (money? infamy? fame?). Personally I believe he could have edited the last two books together and made one cracking read; instead of the 2 overlong books we have instead. As it is it appears that Martin has been killing off characters for no good reason other than "shock value".
Read enough medieval-esque writing and you come to realise that Martin's work is not even all-that groundbreaking.

And I do believe that there are better fantasy novels out there.

Then again debating taste has always struck me as slightly pointless - and so cynical me realises [too late] that he's just wasted the last 2 minutes of typing.

[Floyt]

Fair enough, I agree that the ability to choose a voice for a novel that is distinct from your own is much of the art of writing (though not always recommended). I would also say that when I mentioned before that Martin's morbid style is consistent I didn't just mean within a single novel or even across the Song series. See any of his works, but his first novel The dying of the light is an excellent example.

Dunno, I found the "Tuf Voyaging" stories downright fluffy :D
Well, some of them at any rate. "Plague Star" is just rollicking good fun.

Since we are well off the rails anyway... what's your specific objection to "A Fire upon the Deep"? I'm usually recommending that book just for the lovely "Tines" idea, let alone Zones of Thought and interstellar email logs! (gosh, got to re-read that sometime soon I notice...)

[Morrigan]

I would also say that when I mentioned before that Martin's morbid style is consistent I didn't just mean within a single novel or even across the Song series. See any of his works, but his first novel The dying of the light is an excellent example.

There was nothing morbid about this novel. I'd agree with Fevre Dream, it's morbid, but it IS an horror story for crying out loud. And what about Windhaven?

I suppose Lovecraft, writing morbid tales of horror, nightmares and supernatural stuff as he does, was probably deeply into dark occult stuff... oh wait, he was an atheist. Oops.


I want to mention again that I don't think Martin is a bad writer or even a mediocre one. He certainly sells well and he has many ardent fans. I can only hope to sell as well with the Military Sci fi novel I am currently working on. The same could of course be said for the sales and accolades earned by Ender's Game. Martin's stuff just isn't my cup of tea.
I'm not sure why you try to associate quality with sales or praises from plebians.

[Morrigan]

The problem I have with them is that they are going a bit "wheel of time". It seems that the books are being extended out for no good reason (money? infamy? fame?). Personally I believe he could have edited the last two books together and made one cracking read; instead of the 2 overlong books we have instead.

What "two overlong books"? Feast was rather short, yet so much happened in it. Your comparison to WoT is ridiculous. Martin's pacing has hardly suffered, and each chapter actually has important events happening, unlike WoT which has dragged on and on and on and on from books 7-10. Even if Feast's pacing was not as good as A Storm of Swords, it was still wayyyyyyyy upbar Jordan's crap.

As it is it appears that Martin has been killing off characters for no good reason other than "shock value".

Not really. Why would you say it's only shock value? Every death so far has been integral to the plot. The most shocking deaths were Ned's and Robb's, and they surrounded very important events. Sure they were shocking... it's always so when we lose characters we love. But Martin simply reminds us that no one is safe, and also, every death of major characters (Ned, Robb, Drogo, Renly, Jeor Mormont, Oberyn) have played very important roles and changed everything that had been happening. He doesn't kill them off for no reason.

Read enough medieval-esque writing and you come to realise that Martin's work is not even all-that groundbreaking.
You fail to provide examples, but no one claimed anything about Martin being "groundbreaking". In any case, as far as modern fantasy goes he certainly is far above the rest.

And I do believe that there are better fantasy novels out there.
You said so in the "fantasy with female leads" thread. I asked for examples, and you failed to provide any. Surprise, surprise.

[Floyt]

Aaahhh, nothing like being confrontational in matters of taste...

[antihippy]

You said so in the "fantasy with female leads" thread. I asked for examples, and you failed to provide any. Surprise, surprise.

You are obviously a Martin Fan-Person (let's not get specific about gender until I know for sure), I see little point in entering into a bun-fight with someone who appears to have an agenda.

You fail to provide examples, but no one claimed anything about Martin being "groundbreaking". In any case, as far as modern fantasy goes he certainly is far above the rest.

But if you insist ...

If you are not interested in something 'different' (although perhaps I did make a poor choice in my use of 'groundbreaking') then why should anyone bother trying to offer up different authors to read? My contention is that Martin is not the great fantasy author that people like you seem to assert he is. There is nothing inherently wrong with what he writes, but is written in a style that's been done lots of times before.

How about China Meiville?

Or if it is only medieval-esque settings you prefer:

Or KJ Parker?
Or Paul Kearney? Even if I thought that the last Monarchies of God was too short...
Or even Robin Hobb?

There are probably a few others I've forgotten about - I'm at work with no access to my bookshelves.

I suppose it could also depend on how you define "fantasy". There are some Space Operas which cross over into the realms of 'fantasy'. Olympos springs to mind.

As even I pointed out above; I have read and enjoyed Martin's books I just see what all the fuss is about.

[antihippy]

IN any case it's a matter of taste...

[Floyt]

... therefore it behooves a Person of Quality to discuss said Matters with Dignity and Measure (as you and The_Serpent do). We ain't on the bloody Isle of Dogs here, whut? ;)

I must say that to me, Martin actually seemed to do a pretty groundbreaking thing with his gritty, no-holds-barred treatment of protagonists. Didn't see that one before - usually if a viewpoint character snuffs it, it's a traumatic twist at the end or a prologue device. Differently inventive than what Mieville does with the use of language, certainly.

(edited to clarify)

[The_Serpent]

Since we are well off the rails anyway... what's your specific objection to "A Fire upon the Deep"?

That book has been mostly lost from my memory unfortunately other than a generalized dislike so you won't get any truly specific objections. The only thing I remember that I liked was the doglike aliens and their group/pack consciousness. I remember that I felt the human characters were tacked on. I also remember feeling like I was slogging through mountains of text waiting to get back to the portion of the storyline I felt was interesting.

[Morrigan]

You are obviously a Martin Fan-Person (let's not get specific about gender until I know for sure), I see little point in entering into a bun-fight with someone who appears to have an agenda.

Um, what? In the other thread, I asked for examples because I said I was "genuinely curious".
Yes, I'm a Martin fan, that doesn't mean I only like him, that I'm blind, irrational or narrow-minded. I just happen to think he's the best fantasy author out there right now. I guess that gives me an agenda. :rolleyes:


But if you insist ...

If you are not interested in something 'different' (although perhaps I did make a poor choice in my use of 'groundbreaking') then why should anyone bother trying to offer up different authors to read?

Where did I say that?? Why are you making things up?

My contention is that Martin is not the great fantasy author that people like you seem to assert he is. There is nothing inherently wrong with what he writes, but is written in a style that's been done lots of times before.

How about China Meiville?

Never heard. What does he write? Can you describe his works a little, or do you still think I'm having an agenda?


Or if it is only medieval-esque settings you prefer:

Or KJ Parker?
Or Paul Kearney? Even if I thought that the last Monarchies of God was too short...
Or even Robin Hobb?

I only know of Hobb among those. She's definitely great, one of my favourites. I would not say she's better than Martin, but... maybe second, really. Good stuff. If the other two authors are as good as her, I'm interested.


As even I pointed out above; I have read and enjoyed Martin's books I just see what all the fuss is about.
I'm assuming you meant to write that you DON'T see what the fuss is about... and as for myself, I have yet to read fantasy that is as cynical, bleak, realistic and believable as Martin's, plus his plots have really incredible and unpredictable twists. Also his attention to details is amazing. And I don't mean the description of chairs or low-cut dresses à la Jordan here, but rather details in the story and backstory. For a few examples: his subtle allusion to the Hound in Feast, the Alchemist and Jaqen H'ghar, Lyanna/Rhaegar/Jon, Loras/Renly, Lysa Arryn's abortion, Sarella == Alleras, Brienne's shield being Dunk's sigil, the dwarf "Nimble Dick" ending up as a victim of Cersei's dwarf hunt, Varys and Illyrio conspiring in the tunnels of the Red Keep, Jeyne Poole posing as Arya, all the references to Robert's rebellion coming in pieces from various POVs, references to Catelyn's "resurrection" in dreams and prophecies, and so on.
Also, I like how the prophecies come to pass in subtle or unexpected ways. In most fantasy, including Jordan, prophecies are almost always self-fulfilling (Aviendah, who hates Rand, sleeps with him because she foresaw she would; Tuon marries Mat because it was prophecy that they would; Min falls in love with Rand because she foresaw she would, etc etc.) or predictable, and it's irritating.

[ZirconBlue]

What "two overlong books"? Feast was rather short, yet so much happened in it. Your comparison to WoT is ridiculous. Martin's pacing has hardly suffered, and each chapter actually has important events happening, unlike WoT which has dragged on and on and on and on from books 7-10. Even if Feast's pacing was not as good as A Storm of Swords, it was still wayyyyyyyy upbar Jordan's crap.[snip]

As a big fan of GRRM's A Song of Ice and Fire series, I just wanted to point out that you just posted some major spoilers for anyone who hasn't yet read the books. Is it possible to edit your few most recent posts on this topic to use the spoiler tags?

[Morrigan]

Oh! I am very sorry. I was addressing antihippy, which I assumed had read them all so far. :(

And because of this board's strange "no late edit" policies, I cannot edit it anymore. :boggled: I really wish they'd change that, it's kind of annoying. I know some people abuse the edit function, but surely they are fewer than those with actual need...

So um... best I can do is:
BEWARE, SPOILERS FOR A SONG OF ICE AND FIRE IN MY PREVIOUS POST!