IS BOREDOM WITH WRITING BLOCKING YOUR INSPIRATION?
In my last article, I talked about getting started. Some of you need that kick to get going. However, there’s another aspect that seems to be growing with each generation. Maybe it’s been there all along but is just now becoming more recognizable. ADHD or even just AD. More and more people seem to have it. I’m sure many people do, but for some, especially in their thirties and forties, I think in part, it’s helped along by the MTV thirty-second attention span format.
I just wrote an article about amateur astronomy for my The Good Old Days of Amateur Astronomy page where I lament my lifelong passion. I see so many people dive headlong into amateur astronomy, sink thousands of dollars into equipment, know it all in a short time, then get bored and shelve the whole thing in a few years (or even months). Then they move on to something else. All due to a short attention span.
Some of this can be attributed to the increasing numbers of people with AD and ADHD. I haven’t spelled out those acronyms because I’m pretty sure I don’t have to. If by chance you don’t know what they mean, please e-mail me and I’ll be glad to tell you.
I’d also like to include those of you that get bored easily, those of you that simply have that MTV-bred thirty-second attention span mentality about things. Even excluding the MTV thing, there are those of you that just don’t have much (or any) patience. Impatience has been around since the beginning of time, so it has a place right alongside the other issues. It’s not something I’m here to condemn, however, to be a successful writer, or to be serious about it, these issues are something you need to conquer.
For many of you, I’m guessing you go through phases where you have bursts of inspiration and energy, then you reach that cliff, dive over the edge, fall to the bottom and lay there. What to do next?
While you lay at the bottom of that cliff with your inspiration smashed to bits, this is where your progress is blocked, where you can’t move forward because you are bored with writing. You’ve reached that point where you see no point in moving forward. Your ADHD, AD, MTV-bred 30-second attention span, or just plain boredom is keeping you from moving forward. Or, you’re too impatient to wait it out, to wait for the moment to hit again. Instead, you move on to something else.
You’ve started a great detective story, for instance. Your protagonist is hot on the trail of the killer, you’ve reached an exciting cat-and-mouse point halfway through the book, then everything just fizzles. You may have been using the seat-of-the-pants method like me, where you only know the beginning and the end, and everything in the middle is a surprise. Or, you may have already outlined the whole story, so half the work is already done. You’re just filling in the blanks. However, the blanks remain blank. On the other hand, you may be in the outline stage and become stuck at some critical point.
Some of you may throw it all down and walk away, find another passion and forget about
writing altogether. If you’re really serious, you won’t let it go. You’ll take a breather for a day, a week, a month. Let it brew a bit. If impatience wins out, you stab at it, maybe get frustrated and make things worse. You’ll start to doubt your ability, maybe develop a complex. Or, instead, you just give up and never write again instead of trying again with a clear head.
I’ve never suffered from either ADHD, AD, or boredom. Though I liked watching MTV when they actually had music on, I hated their format and what it did to a whole generation of kids. However, they were just pandering to a growing issue in our culture. Attention span.
Writing takes more than a short attention span. I know of plenty of authors that have true ADHD,AD, boredom issues and impatience, yet they still write, and write well. Does it cause them issues? Sure. Can they be successful? Sure they can. Can you? Absolutely!
Don’t let a thing like boredom, whatever the cause, kill your inspiration or stop your writing. If you’re serious about writing, are meant to be a writer, find a way!
I don’t have all the answers. All I know is you started it. Finish it. Take that breather, but don’t walk away altogether. Don’t give up. Don’t let AD, ADHD, the MTV influence, boredom or impatience win. There are too many great writers, published and unpublished that have completed great works because they conquered their issues. You can too!
Happy writing.
YOU’LL NEVER GET ANYWHERE IF YOU DON’T START
I was at the dawg park Saturday when my friend showed up. One of the subjects that comes up often is writing, and he’s been meaning to show up at one of our writer’s group meetings. For one thing, the dawg park is right behind Sam’s Town, where we hold our annual writer’s conference. For another, I just like to talk about writing, so that’s an inevitable topic if anyone’s around me long enough!
He’s had a long-time interest in trying it, ever since doing and enjoying some college papers decades ago. The thing is, he’s just not sure he could ever follow through with the effort. In fact, the last time the subject came up, he asked me when our next meeting would be. I reminded him once again, and he didn’t show up. I haven’t seen him for several weeks until yesterday, so I asked him what happened, knowing full well he couldn’t gather the motivation to get there.
Our discussion came down to the fact that though he has an interest, he doesn’t think he could follow through. He has several issues that might bring the effort to a screeching halt. I told him he’ll never find out if he doesn’t try. At this point, my guess is he’ll never get beyond talking about it. That’s okay. It makes for conversation while our dawgs scamper and play.
I’ve talked time and time again about inspiration, motivation and getting started. Do you have that idea that is brewing but you just can’t get around to developing it? Why? The usual excuse is that you’re too busy with something else. That’s a legitimate reason. However, what if it isn’t? What if you’re simply stalling because you think your idea is going to be too difficult? What if you think you’re going to have to do too much research, or the idea is beyond your expertise? Could be, but until you try it out, how will you know?
Most detective writers aren’t detectives, are they? Most thriller writers aren’t heroes going around saving the world either. Most (pick your genre or literary subject) aren’t whatever, yet they write wonderful stories because they do research, already have a smidgen of knowledge about the subject, or just an idle or more interest in it, pursue it deeper, and turn it into a big lie they can get paid for (or just enjoy writing about).
Every one of my stories contains stuff I know (or knew) nothing about when I started. I use the seat of my pants approach and when a situation comes up and I need something I know nothing about? Research. Do I come to a dead stop because I’ve hit a roadblock? No! Since I’ve already started, I have every incentive to go on.
To get back to the beginning, what if I have an idea for a story, but the subject is something I know nothing about? I don’t have that problem as I have so many ideas I can draw from. I’m always motivated to write. I just don’t have enough time in the day to keep up. As for you, what’s your excuse? Are you like my friend? Afraid to give it a try? My friend isn’t afraid to try as much as he just isn’t sure he wants to. The problem is that if he doesn’t start and find out, he’ll never know.
If you’re afraid to try, or just not sure if you even want to, how will you know if you don’t at least start? You may go two pages and figure that’s it. Or, you may go twenty and think, “This has merit.” If you’re reading this, then you’re probably already a writer. You may be prolific, or stuck in a rut. If you are in a rut, the only way to get out of it is to start. Stop worrying about being in a rut and start doing something. If it means changing direction, or starting something else, just do it. Nothing will ever happen if you don’t do something!
Happy writing!
LITERARY VERSUS ACTION WRITING PART 2
Since this is from my perspective, I’m going to give the official definition right along with my opinion of literary fiction. Literary fiction is considered fiction that holds literary merit, work that is character-driven, that focuses more on the subjects of the story (people) rather than the plot. Where the plot may be the ultimate goal, or the stopping point, the focus is on the development of the characters themselves, rather than how they get there. The subjects are more serious and harder to categorize than genre fiction. In my view, the story moves much slower and dwells too much on the character’s inner thoughts and feelings. Not only that, but the subjects are usually ones I have little interest in and they’re told in more complex language. There’s much less dialogue and more advanced and more complicated sentence structure. I’ve talked before about keeping things simple, writing to a sixth grade level and not trying to dazzle your reader with your language skills. In literary writing, you can throw that out the window. The idea is to go for the brass ring (to borrow a tired cliché): to go for the literary word masterpiece.
Literary fiction is the type of writing likely to win the highbrow writing prizes. However, for the average reader, these tomes aren’t usually something for a quick summer read. They tend to be looked upon as serious works of art, while leaving all other writing as nothing more than pulp trash for the masses. In other words, everything I or probably most of you write, is pure juvenile garbage. You’ll never see us mentioned in any serious literature magazines or at the back of news magazines in the entertainment sections.
I used action writing in the title but what I was really talking about was genre writing. I did this deliberately just to mix things up and to make a point. In literary fiction, there isn’t much action. There’s plenty of description. Page-after-page describing character’s feelings, minute details of their drive to the store, how they walked into the store from the parking lot, introspection of how they felt about that walk, reminiscing about someone they met there six months ago, some product on the shelf that reminded them of their aunt who just recently died, the clerk who reminded them of their best friend who died of something just before they graduated…
This whole scene may take two chapters yet it never moves the plot anywhere.
Genre writing moves much faster. Genre writing is about types of goals and focusing on that goal. The characters follow that goal (the plot) to the conclusion. They’re driven by that plot and they do all they can to achieve that plot (goal).
The key to any story, though I didn’t emphasize it clearly enough in the last article (thanks Tammy), is that despite genre fiction moving faster, using simpler language and being plot driven, it’s still about the characters. Without the characters to care about, there is no story! Action (genre) stories are not all action, not all plot. The stories are still about people and you, as a writer and/or a reader, still have to care about the characters in the story. That means you have to draw interesting and believable characters that people will like and want to follow to the end. The difference between action and literary stories is that you don’t dwell on their feelings and inner turmoil for full chapters and with complex and flowery language in action (genre) fiction. You parse it out in bits and pieces but keep the story moving. Yet, you can’t skimp on the characters. Without them, you have no story!
There’s a huge difference between the two styles. I’m not condemning literary fiction. I just don’t personally prefer to read it. I don’t like the subjects presented (as with many genres also), don’t like the deep characterizations and the slow moving plots. I don’t want to discourage any of you from pursuing that style if it’s for you. You’re more likely to gain respect in the literary world than I ever will. Just don’t expect me to ever buy your book!
There’s another subset of fiction called literary genre fiction, where an author tries to mix it up. I once read a literary horror novel that bored me to tears and left me scratching my head. Two hundred and thirty pages in hard cover and absolutely nothing happened. The only thing I got out of the book was a perfect description of the dusty West Texas countryside and how untrustworthy Chows (a dog breed) can be. There was no horror at all.
As always, I encourage you to follow your muse, no matter which direction it takes you. If literary is your direction, go for it. On the other hand, if you are like me and prefer genre writing, prepare to never win any awards but if successful, probably make more money!
That’s it for now. Happy writing!
LITERARY VERSUS ACTION (GENRE) WRITING PART 1
I’ve mentioned the writer’s group from hell. I’ve also mentioned bad writer’s groups, and not necessarily those that torture the reader. There are groups that are just wrong for the writer. A case in point inspired this week’s article.
Before I go into the subject of today’s title, I want to go off on a rant. Therefore, I’m going to call this part 1. Next week, I’ll talk about the differences between literary and action (in other words, genre) writing.
I was in a discussion with a new friend who just published a book. A very good book, I might add. I loved it. We got to talking about writing, and I mentioned how I get so much out of my writer’s group. Well… that’s not exactly the case with him.
Since he writes genre fiction, in other words, he writes plot-driven stories that actually move… go somewhere… the writer’s group he was in didn’t do him any favors. He got in with a “literary” crowd. They were from the character-driven school and hated his stuff. They tried to bend him to their tastes, which luckily for him and for me, he didn’t follow!
This wasn’t so much a case of a writer’s group from hell as just the wrong group to be in. That crowd had a specific agenda, and wasn’t open to any style of writing. Unlike my group, who doesn’t care what you write, his group leaned toward literary writing only, and tried to steer every writer into their mold.
Folks, that’s no way to run a writer’s group, unless you specifically advertise the group as a Literary Writer’s Group. If that’s the case, you know what you’re dealing with and if you’re a genre writer like me, or a memoir writer, or basically ANY writer that isn’t literary, you can avoid them. It would be the same for a science fiction writer’s group or a mystery writer’s group, I suppose. Now, if this group had advertised and promoted themselves and a literary writer’s group specifically, my friend could’ve avoided them in the first place, but apparently, that wasn’t the case and he found out the hard way.
When and if you use a writer’s group, which despite all, I strongly recommend, shop around! There’s no point in joining a group that doesn’t do you any good. Also, I need to define a writer’s group by saying a critique group. A writer’s group is too vague. If it’s just a group that gathers once a month to discuss writing “stuff,” or to listen to presentations, fine and dandy. However, its’ not going to help you substantially with your actual writing. You need others to read your work, critique it. A second, third, twentieth set of eyes! You need to get up in front of people and read it to them. You need to be under pressure in front of an audience, a gentle audience. Listening to other people talk about writing is no different from reading lots of books. You can go to the library and do that. You can’t take your writing to the library and get it critiqued by an inanimate book or somebody speaking on an unrelated subject at a podium at some meeting!
Critique groups serve a dual purpose. Besides getting multiple eyes and ears looking at and listening to your work, it gets you in front of others. Remember, when you finally get that book published, you’re going to have to speak in public, maybe do readings, interviews. It’s called public speaking. Better get used to it now in small doses!
I talk from long experience. A writer’s (critique) group has helped so many writers I know, many now published. The key is finding a good one. One that isn’t going to judge the genre, or the person, one that isn’t going to judge the story either. They’re going to judge the structure and the technique and the mechanics.
Within my group there are genre writers, literary writers and everything else. With that mix, I get a healthy spread of critiques and suggestions. After being at this for so long, I know what to listen to, what to disregard outright and what to consider carefully before acting upon. That’s what a healthy group is all about.
A true open writer’s critique group, like mine, will take any writer of any genre. Well, except maybe extremely offensive material…
In the next article, we’ll get down to the actual title of this piece and break the differences apart.
Happy writing!
LESTER DENT BROUGHT DOC SAVAGE TO LIFE
While discovering new books to read, there’s nothing I like better than a good series. Back in the early seventies, when I first walked into the Stars and Stripes bookstore in Torrejon, Spain, it didn’t take me long to discover Doc Savage. I didn’t know at the time, but there were a total of one hundred and seventy-nine of them! The series, a pulp collection started in magazines back in the thirties, hadn’t yet all been brought back to life in what was probably their umpteenth reprinting. That was okay. The limited taste presented to me along with my limited budget would already be sorely tested.
When I first spotted them, I already liked the covers. They all had the same basic artwork. Doc, an imposing figure with bronze skin and hair that looked like a metal skull cap, posed below a super-fantastical and sometimes bizarre title that just begged to be read. The book blurb on the back only heightened the mystery. Most tales revolved around a shocking scientific mystery and Doc would go in with his friends, in great jeopardy, of course, and save the world. The formula was the same for each book, yet I never got tired of it. I never missed a book, at least of those the store stocked, and accumulated at last count, seventy-plus books before we left Spain in Christmas of seventy-four.
I sometimes wish I still had all those paperbacks as they go for a nice price on e-bay. Oh well…
All of the novels were written under the pen name, Kenneth Robeson. Lester Dent, along with a few other co-authors, was under contract from the publisher to write these high-adventure pulp shorts for a magazine starting in the thirties. He did so faithfully until the publisher finally stopped production in, I think it was 1949. Lester wrote all 179 of them except for twenty, and those co-authors followed his style and pattern so as not to upset the readership (as far as I know).
The series was wildly popular at the time and Lester made quite a bit of money off them. He used that dough to take classes, obtain trade licenses, and do a lot of travel, all in the name of research to include in the novels. I can say it probably made a difference, especially in a time without access to the Internet or e-mail or with the relatively primitive telephone systems.
His plotting technique was quick and dirty, and is highly-touted by the likes of Michael Moorcock. Seeing as how the novels are so short, Lester had to cram a lot into a short space. He did it well. That pacing is a philosophy I adhere to. I believe in getting to the point. My stories are a lot longer, but I still don’t like to spend endless pages on internal thoughts and rambling about minute detail. Lester never did. That’s one reason I get so bored with writers like Stephen King (sorry King fans). Those two writers are polar opposites.
Lester Dent was a huge influence on me, not only for pacing, but for the adventure /thriller style. I’m not the only one either. Just check out James Rollins sometime. Neither of us knew at the time but when I met him for the first time and we got to talking back in 2005, we discussed favorite authors. One of the first names that came up was Lester Dent! Go to his web site and look at his influences and you’ll see Lester mentioned there somewhere.
I’m sure you’ll find Lester mentioned in other adventure/thriller author bios like Philip Jose Farmer. He started a style that is still in use today.
My hat’s off to you Lester!
Happy writing.
AS – ANOTHER FORM OF PASSIVITY
As is a common word in the English language. We use it often in our speech and often in our writing. The problem is using it too much and in the wrong place. As is another one of those words that can make a sentence or phrase passive.
To put it bluntly, you shouldn’t start a sentence with as. Why? Because it weakens the sentence. It’s a passive way of saying something when there are many active ways it can be said that move your story along much better.
I used to use as a lot because it was easy. We tend to take the easy way, the path of least resistance. We pick a lot of these habits up from our speech. The problem is that the way we talk doesn’t always translate well to the page, especially in narrative.
As she reached the upper landing, Tammy caught her breath.
That is subtly passive.
Tammy reached the upper landing, caught her breath and moved on.
That is active. It shows more positive movement.
As the clock struck one, the crowd began chanting.
This one has a double-whammy with two passive words. As and began.
The clock struck one. Chanting erupted from the crowd.
This is a case where the began could’ve been used, but I found a way around it. As long as it’s not overused, it can work. Notice how I also started the previous sentence with an as? Once in a while, they can be used for effect. That is a perfect example of when that word is proper to use.
Sentences don’t have to start with an as for them to be passive. They can be anywhere within the sentence to still be passive, just like was, ing and ly words etc.
It was time to clock out, as the shift was over.
This could be changed to:
With the shift over, everyone clocked out.
That not only eliminates the as but the two was’s as well: a triple whammy!
I’ve written a lot about passivity because it is a great killer in a story. Though it runs rampant through most best-sellers (because once you’re established, all rules of good writing seen to go out the window), it would be nice if someone championed good writing. One day, maybe this stuff will filter up the chain. Since we struggling-to-get-published writers are held to such severe standards, why not make it for everyone?
I, for one, think they’re great rules. When I read a book that’s written well, it’s such a greater pleasure than slugging through a best-selling piece of crap, poorly written with a great story I can barely follow. Or, I read a story that could be so much better if the author had taken the time to do it right.
One day…
Happy writing.
DAVID LYNN GOLEMON – A LOVE/HATE THING
I have to state right up front that this writer has not influenced me in any way. He isn’t part of my tribute series. However, he’s a writer I need to address as he’s one that’s been a constant pleasure yet huge irritation since I first discovered him through his novel Legend back in 2008.
Mr. Golemon writes high-concept thrillers in the vein of James Rollins, Jack DuBrul and Clive Cussler. His stories center around the Event Group based out of a vast underground complex under Nellis AFB in Las Vegas, Nevada. Funny, that’s almost right under my house! Their main job is to go after and fix events that alter history.
Throughout the books, Mr. Golemon has introduced numerous fantastical plots, icky bugs and lots of bad guys. Some of them, especially in one Mr. Henri Fabreaux, are recurring baddies who may or may not be as bad as they seem. There are plenty of heroes like Jack Collins and Senator Lee and a host of others. These are all characters I’ve come to like and enjoy since first being introduced to them back in Legend.
Now for the bad part. Mr. Golemon is one of the worst writers I’ve ever seen make it to print. I cannot fault all of it on him. A lot of the text is jaw-dropping bad. Any editor worth their salt should’ve caught much of this. They didn’t. Some of his earliest books didn’t even make it through spell check. I’m not kidding. They were that bad.
We, as struggling writers, go to conventions, or submit to agents. We sometimes get rejection letters. Most of them are generic. Once in a while, we get an actual response or a critique. We get tons of advice from those agents, publishers, editors and other writers through books, seminars… you name it. Let me list exactly what they tell us not to do by examples out of Mr. Golemon’s books.
#1. Head-hopping. Though the man at least keeps the stories in solid third person, he holds no boundaries whatsoever for any other point of view. There are no rules at all. Point of view jumps from one character’s head to another at will. Willy nilly, literally, depending on who’s speaking, acting, whatever. If there are twenty characters in a scene, he jumps from one head to the next at will, from paragraph to paragraph, even within the same sentence. Try fixing on the feelings and emotions of twenty characters at once in a single scene!
#2. Foretelling. He loves to tell you what the characters are going to experience before they do. This is a pet peeve of mine. I hate when authors do that. Some agents do also. Let the reader find out when the characters do!
#3. Repeated words. He loves to repeat words within the same paragraph, sometimes within the same sentence. She started the engine then revved the engine several times before the engine warmed up…. (not an actual example).
#4. Loves to start sentences with As. Loves to use as throughout the story. Nuff said about that.
#5. Lots of passive and awkward phrasing. In one book there were so many that some sentences didn’t make any sense.
#6. Lots of incomplete sentences. Jarring examples throughout his books.
#7. Liberal use of started to and began to in some places while a total absence in others.
#8. Lists.
#9. Way too many major characters. Way too many scene changes that have nothing to do with POV changes.
How many of you have received critique letters from agents (yeah, rare, I know) with these same notes? Yet these same things were in a supposedly edited and published book? Several edited and published books? Even in hardback?
I admit to being hypocritical because I keep buying Mr. Golemon’s books. Though terribly written, I still find a great story buried in there. They are interesting, full of drama, humor and great scenes. I love them.
Apparently, his publishers just see numbers and don’t care about quality. The numbers must be enough for them and he must sell well enough that they keep renewing his contract. I wish he’d up his game and write better, but as I’m reading Carpathian, his latest, I can see that’s not the case.
I accept him for what he is, and I either enjoy the stories and ignore the horrid writing, or I drop him and move on. My only irk is that he somehow got a contract where much better writers can’t even get the time of day. There are plenty of other worse writers that struck a chord with the public and made millions. I won’t name names, but some of my readers here have already told me who, and I’ve suffered through the movies that my wife and kids love. Luck of the draw, I guess. My hat’s off to you, Mr. Golemon. You grabbed for the brass ring and caught it.
I’ll keep buying his books. My only wish is that he’d up his game and learn to write well, or that his editors would get off their duff and fix what they should have done from day one. Fat chance.
One more thing. For those of you that read adventure and high-concept thrillers, despite what I might have said above, I still highly recommend David Lynn Golemon. If you can get around his writing quirks, the stories are great. I’d at least try one of them and see if you can tolerate his prose. If so, I don’t think you’ll regret it, even if you get irked at the poor editing. I always look forward to the next one.
Happy writing
R. KARL LARGENT WHO?
During my formative icky bug years in the early 90’s, I was in the midst of finding my muse. There were certain authors that rocked my boat while others (Stephen King, Clive Barker, Robert McGammon) just didn’t do it for me. Obscure authors attracted me, maybe, or just something about the book jackets and back blubs lured me in.
One such “new face” came from R. Karl Largent (also known as Robin Lawrence), an author that started as a mid-list icky bug writer from Indiana. Robin had worked for industry for a long time and after either quitting or retiring from that, took up writing.
I discovered him in Hastings in Altus, Oklahoma with a novel called The Lake. It rocked! Now that was good icky bug. I can’t remember all the details so many years later, but after reading a batch of Dean Koontz, this was a refreshing change. I became obsessed with finding more Largent and haunted the bookstores until I found Ancients, Black Death, Pagoda, and much later on, The Witch of Sixkill. His stories directly added to my muse as I was writing The Greenhouse. Though my story is completely different, Largent’s early novels inspired me with their monsters (icky bugs) and the heroes prevailing in the end.
Between Ancients and The Lake, he started a military thriller series which he continued until his unfortunate death from cancer in the early 2000’s. That first novel, Red Tide, featured T.C. Bogner, his ex-military hero who went around the world, saving mankind. These stories were Tom Clancy-like in nature but a lot less wordy and therefore, more enjoyable. I never finished a Clancy novel, where these books were a pure pleasure, especially since I was already familiar with Largent’s style.
This was a case of real frustration where I tried for years but could never find or get hold of Robin. There was just no info on him, or when I found the little that was out there, no contact e-mail. Finally, after much perseverance, I tracked him down to Tri-state University in Indiana where he once taught. I discovered he’d recently passed. At that time, I was able to contact his widow and had several e-mail exchanges with her. A great lady, she was very generous with her time and information.
Those of you who trolled the bookstores back in the late 80’s and all through the 90’s are sure to have run across some of Robin’s books, possibly without ever realizing it. You may have read a few of them. I’ll always remember him fondly as he was a much bigger influence on me that many of the major players out there at the time.
My hat’s off to you, Mr. Largent!
Happy writing!
DEAN KOONTZ TOPPED KING FOR ICKY BUG
Back in the early to mid nineties, in my mind, there were two major players when it came to icky bug. Though there were, to be fair, plenty of other authors out there plying their trade, the two heaviest hitters were Dean Koontz and Stephen King. I haven’t read every detail on Koontz, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he listed King as an influence. I could be put on a hit list for saying so but there you go.
I’ve already gone over my opinion of Mr. King’s writing, though I’m a great admirer otherwise. As for Dean Koontz, I saw one of his books in the Hastings in Altus, Oklahoma. It was on a shelf with a bunch more that told me he must be rather prolific and popular. The other thing that drew me came from the section where his titles were located. Horror (icky bug). Even back in the early nineties, he had quite a few titles to choose from. Despite other authors such as Robert McGammon and Clive Barker, I was more intrigued with his back cover blurbs and the scans I did inside each book.
It didn’t take long to become hooked on tha’ Koontz. He wrote some mean icky bug! Though he often wrote supernatural rather than out-and-out monster stories, he kept them interesting. I went through a stack of them until things came to a screeching halt with Mr. Murder. That one had nothing supernatural. It was a plain, mean-spirited evil killer, with nothing even vaguely icky or buggish about it. That was the first of Koontz’s novels I didn’t enjoy. From that point on, the novels became hit or miss.
Things took a turn for the worse in the late 2000’s when he started the Odd Thomas series. I forced myself through one of them only because I’d been such a dedicated fan. Unfortunately, he ruined everything by writing first-person. I’ll never read another Odd Thomas book. It sucked! Around that same era, he spit out a few other novels. Some of them were third and others first-person. I avoided the first-person but the third-person choices were nothing like the old Koontz I remember. Some of the quirks I used to enjoy became annoying. He turned sappy and in one glaring case, he drew unrealistic characters.
Despite the recent downturn, Dean Koontz was a big inspiration for me. He used to write some great icky bug. He has his quirks. Like King, he can get wordy, but not as bad as the master. He loves Jacaranda trees, having intelligent dogs in almost every story, and loves to throw the dictionary at the reader. There also isn’t an adverb he hasn’t liberally used. Unfortunately, as his book blurbs usually preach ad-nauseum, each story is full of hopes and dreams and some of his later ones have become almost too sappy to tolerate. That has become a quandary for me. I love his usually positive endings. That was one thing that drew me to his work. On the other hand, he gets a bit heavy-handed with the sap factor, enough to make me cringe.
He’s one of my writing heroes. I still monitor whatever he puts out, though if it’s first-person, I automatically put it down. Though I’ve been disappointed in some of his later novels, I’m not disappointed in the outcomes. The man is a master. I would love to shake his hand one day and thank him for all the reading pleasure he’s given me. His influence on my writing is subtle but came more in inspiration than actual style.
Happy writing!
The Worlds Of Fred Rayworth 