|
Anotherealm Forum
http://anotherealm.net/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl General Category >> General Board >> Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? http://anotherealm.net/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1331720773 Message started by Gary A. Markette on Mar 14th, 2012, 1:26am |
|
Title: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Gary A. Markette on Mar 14th, 2012, 1:26am Well, we discussed Steven (or Stephen--I'm not sure which) King so let's turn our attention to his running mate: Dean Koontz. Mr. Koontz is every bit as prolific as the Kingster--some would say more so and some would say too much so. I've read (and mostly enjoyed) many of this titan's tales. I don't think ANYONE could read ALL of his stuff. And perhaps no one should. Occasionally, I find a clunker among the gems this writer produces. I'm thinking that such clunkers thud because Mr. Koontz may be producing too much. For example: I loved Watchers--I think it's his best story--but I just finished Relentless and was (mildly) disapointed by it. His first two Odd Thomas books enthralled me, but I found the third tome--Odd Hours--a bit lacking. I had the same sort of "first two great; third, eh" reaction to his Frankenstein series. Now, none of Mr. Koontz stuff is bad. He's probably one of the best of the popular writers and can easily hold his own with King, Grisham, and Kellerman. I do think, though, he would serve his readers well by slowing down a bit and paying more attention to fewer stories. Agree or not? Waiting for your replies, 'realmers. |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Adrienne_Ray on Mar 26th, 2012, 5:18pm Dean Koontz is one of my favorite authors. Unfortunately, there are some books of his that I just couldn't finish. I loved the Watchers. I loved Dragons Tears. Lordy! How many books has he written? I tried to find the book I couldn't finish because I couldn't remember the title. I can't find it. All I can remember was the hero's brother was mentally handicapped and they could travel interdimensionally. I think Dean Koontz likes to write about other dimensions but I don't like to read about them. It's too easy. If you've written yourself into a corner- perhaps there is no way for the hero to escape or everybody finds themselves inside a looked room- no problem! Just go into another dimension! Does the plot you've written seem unbelievable? No problem! In this dimension your heroine CAN outwrestle a polar bear, or any other unbelievable thing you want to do. I also liked Mr.Murder. How many books has this guy written? I agree. He should slow down and aim for quality, not quantity. And stay in this dimension. |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by C.N.Pitts on Mar 26th, 2012, 7:33pm Dean Koontz's problem was he "found god" halfway through his career. Watchers and Phantoms are two of the best books I ever read in my entire life. I have been in love with the Koontz since the 80s. Did he go whacky? Oh yeah. I find myself incapable of reading a single word he's written since 1991. Is the problem being prolific? No. The problem is he stopped writing stuff everone could get into, and started trying to be "meaningful." Note to self, if I ever realize this dream... don't do THAT. |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Gary A. Markette on Mar 27th, 2012, 1:13am "Dean Koontz's problem was he "found god" halfway through his career. " That's an interesting perspective. He does, sometimes, get a bit "preachy." Since he continues to top best sellers lists with virtually every book he writes, though, I doubt if he considers it a "problem." Still, that's an interesting path for this thread to take. When a popular writer--one whose work has vast readership--invests his work with his political or religious views, does that change the nature of the work from fiction to preaching? And do you believe that Koontz has done so? How about Orson Scott Card? I don't think there's any doubt about L. Ron Hubbard. Others? |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Webbie on Mar 27th, 2012, 6:38am Gary A. Markette wrote on Mar 27th, 2012, 1:13am:
Just to be a name dropper here, how about C. S. Lewis. |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Gary A. Markette on Mar 27th, 2012, 8:50am Forgot about C.S. Certainly the Narnia books contain Christian symbolism. Most of his direct religious writings, though, were essays weren't they? His fellow "Inkling," G. K. Chesterton, also did Christian essays. Tolkien (another "Inkling") apparently avoided direct religious symbolism in his work--unless you count his seeming love affair with naturalism. Most critics do find political references in LOTR. (Tolkien denied those to his dying day.) |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Webbie on Mar 27th, 2012, 1:16pm Quote:
With a work the sheer size of LOTD I'm sure anybody could find reference to just about anything. Yes I'd have to agree from what little I know the rest were essays. Of course my knowledge is hardly encyclopedic on the subject. Anyway back on topic, Koontz. I liked what I read from him, didn't get the "preachy" angle, but then again haven't read very many of his works. |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Adrienne_Ray on Mar 27th, 2012, 4:06pm When I said I don't like to read about other dimensions, I meant the books Dean Koontz writes about other dimensions. There are other books about other dimensions that I have thoroughly enjoyed, such as Sh'aa D'aa books. I didn't know that Dean Koontz 'got religion'. But I don't think that's the problem. I don't mind if people get a little 'preachy' as long as they continue to tell a good story. I think he saw how Stephen King got involved in his Gunfighter series and tried to do the same. Some of Koontz's later stuff seems to go on and on and you wonder if we're ever going to come to a point. I've never read King's Gunfighter series but, from hearing people talk about it, I wonder if he doesn't also do that. Maybe they've learned bad habits from each other. Maybe we should separate those two. |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Adrienne_Ray on Mar 27th, 2012, 4:08pm As a matter of fact, I think both of them need some "Occupational Therapy", don't you think? |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by monsoonster on Apr 17th, 2012, 9:09am Maybe it's not that King and Koontz are too prolific... maybe it's just the fact that they are dinosaurs, waiting for the crash of the meteroite. I mean, many of the authors cited on here (many of whom I have never heard of) are thirty to fifty years past their prime, if not dead for that long... or longer. What about Clive Barker? He is a much better writer of horror and fantasy than either King or Koontz could ever hope or dream to be. And how about China Miéville? I'm surprised no one has mentioned him as a viable fantacist, who is, at the very least, the equal of Clive Barker, if not better. |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by C.N.Pitts on Apr 27th, 2012, 8:02pm Fantasist. And I believe the problem with every single author mentioned in this discussion, with the exception of Tolkien, is that all of them, without exception, reached a point in their writing where they stopped trying to tell stories for fun and started trying to tell their own story. With Koontz, it was finding religion. (Anne Rice flushed herself the same way). With King, it was getting run over by the guy in the mini van. With Barker, it was coming out of the closet as a gay man at a time in America where being gay was still a major stigmata. Barker - The Great and Secret Show stands tall as one of the greatest horror novels of the last century. He was still in the closet then. The sequel, Everville, is utterly forgettable apart from the fact that it was one of the first mainstream novels to feature an entirely explicit gay sex scene. Koontz - Watchers, Phantoms, you name it, everything he wrote in the 80's was an absolute clinic on grabbing a reader, sucking them into an incredibly tight story, and milking them dry. Everything from "Survivor" onwards has been like watching an infomercial on a Sunday morning. King - EVERYTHING the man ever wrote, even in the darkest periods of his addictions and alcoholism, was un-put-downable. Then he got run down by that stupid guy in the minivan. Everything since has been about getting hit by a car, as he tries to deal with it. Don't get me wrong, I still think he's the greatest writer of our generation. But... I think the lesson is - there is no such thing as too prolific. There is, however, such a thing as too personal. :-? |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Jeangoldstrom on Apr 28th, 2012, 7:27am "I mean, many of the authors cited on here (many of whom I have never heard of) are thirty to fifty years past their prime, if not dead for that long... or longer." What an interesting approach to lit crit -- that works age, fade and die right alongside their creators. Then we had best close the door -- or nail down the coffin-lid -- on Shakespeare and Keats, as well as on Hemingway, Steinbeck and Cordwainer Smith... What an interesting approach to lit crit. |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by monsoonster on Apr 28th, 2012, 10:35pm C.N.Pitts wrote on Apr 27th, 2012, 8:02pm:
Barker has been "out" of the closet since The Books of Blood. Ever read "From The Hills, The Cities"? Can't get any more gay or gay sex than the majority of that story; other than a blow-by-blow, and a story of Twinks, this wasn't. The story was... what? Written and published in England in '84? '85? Then published in the US around'86? Something like that. "Everville" came out in '94 ( I don't remember any gay sex in Everville. I recall the black guy and the white married woman, but no gay sex. Not arguing the point. I haven't read it since '94. Hard to believe it's been that long, 18 years). His first book on explicit gay relationships was "Sacrament", pubbed in '96. If you mean in first explicit gay sex in novels, as far as gay relationship/sex, an argument could be made that Pie-oh-pah and Gentle copulating in "Imajica" could be construed as gay sex. Imajica was published in '91. He was pretty open from the beginning, it's just that American audiences weren't noticing. He's been writing young adult books for a time now. A link to From The Hills, The Cities: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28687292/Barker-Clive-In-the-Hills-The-Cities King: His major strength has always been the depth he puts in characters. Whether short or longer stories, the characters are what people come back to, time and time again, no matter how bad the story, overall, happens to be. That's the biggest problem with the majority of his books that have been attempted to be made into films; the screenwriters/directors/producers... whoever, whittles down the book to just basic story, with only minimal characterization inserted. The book that comes to mind that is as good of an example as any, is "IT". So-so story (some would say the whole book sucked), but for me, the most memorable parts of the book isn't "horror", in the strictest sense, but the back stories of the characters. For me, that was a bigger draw than the "present" story that was being told in the book. They tried adapting it with a series instead of a movie (a TV movie, at that), but it just fell short. "E" for effort. And before King was in his accident, I think a good argument could be made that the majority of his stories dealt with his mother and her death at the hands of cancer. I could cite many, many short to long stories, if interested, but if you've read any of his works, I'm sure you'll know what I mean. For example, I believe "Salem's Lot" was an allegory of his short story "Woman in the Room"; where someone killed a loved one instead of seeing the disease eat them up beyond recognition. In "Salem's Lot", Ben was to be the one who staked the woman he was in love with; in "Woman in the Room", the son fed sleeping pills to his slowly dying, cancerous mother. There were stories where a back story dealt with another disease debilitated a loved one beyond recognition; Pet Sematery and Lisey's Story, to name two. "Too personal" and "meaningful"; you've used these words to describe that as a no-no for writing books. All books are personal, whether allegorically or explicitly. Koontz's books, the three I read years ago, struck me as too antiseptic. Sterile. Passionless. Maybe King's later books were more overt than his earlier books. And Barker's gayness has been there from the beginning. |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by monsoonster on Apr 28th, 2012, 11:50pm Jeangoldstrom wrote on Apr 28th, 2012, 7:27am:
My mistake: for not saying that I was including the characters in the polls, and the books they were in, as well as the comment section. And since we're discussing genre fiction on this site versus hard literature, then you couldn't possibly have read between lines that weren't there. I am entirely cognizant of the works of: Shakespeare and Keats, as well as on Hemingway, Steinbeck and Cordwainer Smith, and James Joyce and Sam Beckett and Jorge Louis Borges and Umberto Eco and Franz Kafka and Thomas Pynchon and Herman Melville and John Barth and Victor Hugo and Charles Dickens and Fyodor Dostoevsky and Cormac McCarthy and John Crowly and Vladimir Nabokov and J.M. Coetzee and Michael Chabon and William Burroughs and John Milton and Dante and Chaucer and Mary Shelly, and on and on. How would you classify HG Wells and Jules Verne and Doris Lessing and Salman Rushdie and Sir Arthur Canon Doyle and Iris Murdoch and John Le Clarre' and Virginia Wolfe and Shirley Jackson and Philip K Dick (And so many others): are they literature or genre writers? Since we're talking popular genre fiction here, on this site, how many of the younger audience remembers Andre Norton and Diane Duane and Carl Sherrell and James Blish and Ira Levine and David Morrell and Richard Laymon and Ramsey Campbell and Skipp & Spector and Robert McCammon and Clifford D Simak; Even Peter Straub, and on and on. Very few, nowadays. And as the years tramp by, even fewer. I've read some of the past posts on here and you, Jean, have been one of the loudest pointing out the decline of readership through the years to the present. And on this site, and others dealing in speculative fiction, the name that is said over and over and over and over, is Stephan King. So, yes. I say why not talk of other writers of popular speculative genre from somewhere in the last decade or two instead of a quarter to a half a century ago. People like Jacquline Carey: Books: http://jacquelinecarey.com/books.htm Fans: http://jacquelinecarey.com/gallery_tats.htm China Meiville: Books: http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/m/china-mieville/ Awards: Bram Stoker First Novel nominee (2000) : King Rat Arthur C. Clarke Award Best Novel winner (2001) : Perdido Street Station British Fantasy Society Best Novel winner (2001) : Perdido Street Station World Fantasy Best Novel nominee (2001) : Perdido Street Station Philip K Dick Award Best Novel nominee (2002) : The Scar Hugo Best Novel nominee (2002) : Perdido Street Station Arthur C. Clarke Award Best Novel nominee (2003) : The Scar World Fantasy Best Novel nominee (2003) : The Scar Hugo Best Novel nominee (2003) : The Scar British Fantasy Society Best Novel winner (2003) : The Scar Nebula Best Novel nominee (2003) : Perdido Street Station Arthur C. Clarke Award Best Novel winner (2005) : Iron Council World Fantasy Best Novel nominee (2005) : Iron Council Hugo Best Novel nominee (2005) : Iron Council Arthur C. Clarke Award Best Novel winner (2010) : The City & the City |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by monsoonster on Apr 29th, 2012, 12:07am C.N.Pitts wrote on Apr 27th, 2012, 8:02pm:
Thank you for the correction. I do miss a word, now and then. Your lexicon powers are enormous. ENORMOUS!! You are truly King's homie, praise Bangor. |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by balero on Apr 29th, 2012, 12:08pm Re Koonzt, genre etc. discuss with fellow respondents. Adrienne Ray some time back wanted to know a book by Koonzt which involved a hero with mental problems. I have it here. It is called Odd Hours. She also mentioned quite rightly that he tended to be rather long winded and took some time to get to the point of the story. This is the style of the author in the fw boks I have read. Example - 2 thugs are chasing down our hero, guarding the promenade and all the vast wooden beams down |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Jeangoldstrom on Apr 29th, 2012, 9:16pm Uncalled-for snark? Oh dear. I apologize.Really, did not mean to offend. Lucky for me you are one to take the high road, and merely hit me with 51 (approximately) authors in riposte. |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Gary A. Markette on Apr 30th, 2012, 1:06am What's a snark? And how do you call one? I've tried googling a snark or two--can't find a cell number. Anyway, I--like most--have a set of writers I enjoy. I look for their work and pray for something new when I take my sheckles to Half Price Books. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy other writers; only means I'm comfortable with my literary friends. Now, I haven't heard of China Melville, but I'll pick up one of the author's books as soon as I can do so. At 62 (63 in June), I wail the excuse of many: so much to read, so little time. |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Webbie on May 2nd, 2012, 1:40pm Quote:
I do! Oh, you said "younger audience", sigh... |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by C.N.Pitts on May 2nd, 2012, 6:32pm Is it just me, or are some of my late night posts getting dissappeared? |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by C.N.Pitts on May 2nd, 2012, 7:08pm Testing - To write "popular fiction," one must be a true politician. "Of the people, for the people." This is an absolute truth. Every single writer EVER who has enjoyed success springs from that truth. In other words, to be a success, a writer needs to not only be grounded in the human experience, but also reflect the human experience. This goes for all of us, from the extreme lunacy of an L. Ron Hubbard to the gentle whimsy of E. B. White. A reader needs to feel a connection to the story. All of these authors, from the ones mentioned previously to the ones I just mentioned, have enjoyed tremendous success. And at their heights, they were not only in tune with their audience, but their audience was in tune with them. E. B. White became one of the most beloved authors who ever lived... because he touched people by being one of them and never stopped. L. Ron Hubbard became a punchline, because he gave up writing incredible science fiction stories for the masses and decided to make a push to be the messiah he believed himself to be. Of the people, for the people. Once it becomes "Of the me, for the me," it all goes to hell. Anne Rice was a goddess, (who, in the wake of the turd that is the Twilight series must be kicking herself), found God and went on to write several unreadable books. S. King wasted a decade and a million words on a load of books that were PTSD therapy for him and agony for his readers. Barker came out of the closet at a time (the 80s) when that just wasn't done, and proceeded to crank out a zillion useless words to cope with it. (For the record, The Great and Secret Show is one of my favorite novels of all time. I've reread it a dozen times. Everville was pathetic. The gay sex scene was in the watchtower during the parade, and the book was so bad that it's all I remember from the one time I read it). And the less said about Dean Koontz since 1992 the better. Writing absolutely must be personal... up to a point. The goal is to pour yourself into every word and feel it. BUT - There's a line... you can't be pushing an agenda. If you want to write popular fiction, don't cross THAT line. Once you stop talking to us and start talking to yourself... it's over. And just for fun Moonbeam - when I was a kid, I was at the hospital once and E. B. White held the elevator for me and my kid sister. Later on in life I got a job as a carpenter and I got to work on his house. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Patrick on May 3rd, 2012, 7:32am Since I am new, and haven't posted on King or Koontz, I'll tackle both here. I will disclose some bias for King, as he is my favorite author. He has his flaws (some of you mentioned the getting-hit-by-a-van novels) and does sometimes tend to be a bit too folky in his delivery. But, he tells a darn good story, and at the end of the day that's what I want. Koontz has his own flaws too, the worst of which is preachiness. I try to turn the other cheek when this happens, but it can be difficult. I really enjoy Koontz stories (he too can tell a hell of story), but I do find Koontz to be a bit more formulaic than King: the uberconspiracy with an every man caught in the middle. It's not a terrible thing (King has his own crutches...alcoholics and writers to name two), but I find that Koontz stories overall are more similar than King's. That is my biggest complaint for Dean Koontz. I think if we tried, we could find major flaws in the best of writers. I do all the time (as an editor, it comes with the territory), but I try to look past it. After all, I'm reading their book...they are certainly not reading mine (of course...I'd have to write more than 3000 words to accomplish that). The 1 thing that I look for the most is the ability to tell a good story, and on top of that, the ability to write an original story. So, on that score, King wins by a couple horse lengths. |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Jeangoldstrom on May 3rd, 2012, 7:33pm Hello Patrick! Welcome to the Anotherealm clubhouse. Hope you enjoy it here as much as the rest of us denizens do. -- Jean |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Webbie on May 4th, 2012, 9:35pm C.N.Pitts wrote on May 2nd, 2012, 6:32pm:
No they are not getting dissapeared, must be you, somehow.. I do not do that unless you piss me off. In that case you will know why and how you offended me. I will make a point of telling you why. In your case, I have nothing to say, now that you ask. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Jeangoldstrom on May 4th, 2012, 9:51pm Belated but sincere -- Happy Star Wars Day! Yeah, I didn't know it either until I read it in LOLcats, but May 4 is Star Wars Day. So...Happy! -- Jean |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by C.N.Pitts on May 5th, 2012, 9:55pm I have a sneaky feeling I just keep clicking 'reset' instead of 'post,' lol. And Happy Star Wars day back atcha! |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Webbie on May 6th, 2012, 8:17am C.N.Pitts wrote on May 5th, 2012, 9:55pm:
That would do it. <chuckle> I've done it myself on occasion. |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Jeangoldstrom on May 6th, 2012, 8:56pm I just finished watching Joss Whedon's feature-length film, "Serenity." This is the film that continues, and concludes, the "Firefly" narrative. Am I alone in thinking Joss Whedon is enormously overrated? I haven't seen his "Avengers" yet, but I am sure it abounds with explosions, crashes and fasterfasterfaster CGI work. Sigh. IMO, Serenity-Firefly was incredibly annoying. Ordinarily, one would expect to find at least _one_ sympathetic character in a series. Not in this one -- again, IMO. And the stilted, fake-sounding dialog, patched together from 19th century constructions and created-for-the-occasion words plus Chinese expletives -- each an audience-repeller in its own right. Put them all together and...well, I can see why "Firefly" was cancelled. I know, Whedon created "Buffy" and some other things. Buffy was pretty okay -- at least not annoying -- but why this guy gets a standing ovation at ComiCon, I just can't see. It seems some people think he is the 21st century's answer to Heinlein-Bradbury-Sturgeon etc. If so, I can see why s-f is seen -- again by some people -- as a fading genre. Oh well, sorry if I have offended any major Joss Whedon fans. I just had to get this off my chest after spending two hours with him and Serenity this evening. On the brighter side -- Max Headroom tomorrow! (Yes, I am a devoted Netflix fan.) -- Jean |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Jeangoldstrom on May 10th, 2012, 9:23pm And furthermore... here's an additional thought on s-f film/video. Today we watched (from Netflix of course) a film called "The Darkest Hour." It was billed as s-f, so of course we had to try it. I thought it was pretty good. It was about some American young people who happened to be in Moscow when the space aliens invaded Earth. It turned out the aliens were not visible on our visual band, and they had some stunning weapons that turned humans into dust. Of course that resulted in a lot of running and hiding in Moscow, an extremely visually interesting place. Well, I thought the film was pretty good, and looked to see if there were any sequels or other works by the same group. I looked on the "IMDB" review site and -- Some online gamer spam! I have rarely seen a film so savaged by reviewers! I mean all but two of them totally hated it, 'worst film ever made,' etc etc. I still thought it was pretty good! (I've recently been watching 'StarGate,' which I would nominate as one of the 'worst s-f series ever made,' with cliche stories, trite dialog, etc., compared to which "The Darkest Hour" was "Dr. Zhivago.") So, my question is, has anyone else seen "The Darkest Hour?" What did you think of it? -- Jean |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Gary A. Markette on May 11th, 2012, 1:00am Haven't seen the film you mention but I do agree that critics seem to be increasingly out of touch. For example, one of my guilty pleasures is The Fifth Element--a movie universally panned by the critics. I rarely look at the critics take on any movie I haven't seen. Sometimes, I'll glance at their opinion after I've seen the film just to see if their rating is close to mine. Most times, it's not. As the old man said when he kissed the cow, "I know what I like." (And please don't take my opinion too seriously. I liked Battlefield Earth for heaven's sake.) |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by C.N.Pitts on May 11th, 2012, 5:34pm I'll chime in for the Joss Whedon fans - I found Firefly in general and Serenity in particular to be brilliant. He set out to give the world a show based on the original dictate that Star Trek was supposed to be based upon, ie a Western in space. He stuck his heroes as members of the losing side, postulated a scenario where the two major cultures of our time became predominant (English and the Chinese) and intermingled, and blended the two visions into an absolutely fantastic and amazing universe. He has got to be the single greatest master of character and dialogue working today. He is amazing at representing every facet of the human experience in his characters, and his dialogue skills are brilliant. Love him or hate him, you could shave your legs with his writing. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by monsoonster on Jan 14th, 2013, 10:14pm C.N.Pitts wrote on May 11th, 2012, 5:34pm:
Agree totally with everything CN Pitts says concerning Joss Whedon. To enjoy Joss, you have to have something called "a sense of humor". Every episode of Firefly had me laughing, from start to finish. The episode where Jane is immortalized in song? Pure genius. I am currently going through Buffy now. Didn't catch but a couple episodes here and there when it was on TV. And that was towards the last season, as I am finding out. Doll House was another stroke of Genius. Another show that had me laughing from beginning to end. If you haven't watched it, get through the first four or five episodes that the network made him film. When things kick in, they really kick in. And "The Avengers"....? F'ING brilliant. But you knew Joss would do something special if you have ever read any of his comic work: specifically, "The Astonishing X-Men". I know. After Grant Morrison, where can you go? Well, Joss takes it to another level and even made me cry, it was so good. None of the so-called novelists has ever made me feel that way. I foresee him doing some other comic movies. Right now, S.H.I.E.L.D. discussions are underway to be a network show. Joss helming it, of course. |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by Webbie on Jan 17th, 2013, 7:50pm Love this thread! |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by monsoonster on Jan 17th, 2013, 8:49pm C.N.Pitts wrote on May 2nd, 2012, 7:08pm:
Congrats on having a hand in building the White house. |
|
Title: Re: Dean Koontz: Is he too prolific? Post by monsoonster on Jan 21st, 2013, 2:55am Gary A. Markette wrote on Apr 30th, 2012, 1:06am:
I seemed to have previously missed this. Next time you do a search, think etymology of a word. Let me know if you need more help in your search for Snark ( Lewis Carrol trapped a Snark within a story, but that's a tale for another time): sarcastic: sarcastically critical or mocking and malicious ( informal ) "a snarky remark" Origin: 1910–15; dial. snark to nag, find fault with (apparently identical with snark, snork to snort, snore, probably < Dutch, Low German snorken to snore) + -y1 snarky (adj.) Look up snarky at Dictionary.com "irritable, short-tempered," 1906, from snark (v.) "to snort" (1866), from an imitative source akin to Low German snarken, North Frisian snarke, Swedish snarka. Main Entry: snarky Pronunciation: \ˈsnär-kē\ Function: adjective Etymology: dialect snark to annoy, perhaps alteration of nark to irritate Date: 1906 1 : crotchety , snappish 2 : sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner <snarky lyrics> — snark·i·ly \-kə-lē\ adverb |
|
Anotherealm Forum Powered by YaBB 2.2.2! Anotherealm © 1995-2015. All Rights Reserved. The comments on this forum are owned by whomever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. |