/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1136342]

So am I one of the only people who likes Koontz's newer stuff more than his older stuff?

I'm sorry, but most of his 70s/80s really didn't do it for me. I liked Watchers and Phantoms, and Strangers was alright. I know he got really preachy later on, but his writing just got a lot better in the mid-90s. Fear Nothing, The Taking (sans the ending), Life Expectancy, Odd Thomas, etc.

[None !UyhAEqbnp. No.1136355]

I've always wondered abot kootz. He struck me as a hack even worse than King of trolls and with half the talent.

But then again, I really have no idea beyond preconceptions. Enlighten me, OP?

[Anonymous No.1136372]

>>1136355
>half the talent

If you divide zero, it's still zero.

[Anonymous No.1136384]

>>1136355

I don't understand why everyone calls King a hack. I think he's great.

Anyway, Koontz is a lot different than King. His good guys are saints, his villians are fucking psychotic. His plots move a lot quicker and there is usually less detial. Chapters are short.

Most of his early books, in my opinion, are sub-par thrillers full of violence, rape and steamy romance. The protagonists are usually quirky men and women with sordid pasts and incredibly intelligent dogs. The villians are unsympathetic, and are usually rich politicians, government agents or government experiments. Many of his older books rehash the same sorts of plots. His newer books, despite being more preachy, are more original, better-written and genuinely funny.

[Anonymous No.1136397]

>>1136372