Dean Koontz Gone Fundy

[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.

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.

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. .

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. 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