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...

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]

horror for horror's sake?

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.