posted
"At two-thirty Saturday morning, in Los Angeles, Joe Carpenter woke, clutching a pillow to his chest, calling his wife's name in the darkness. The anguished and haunted quality of his own voice had shaken him from sleep. Dreams fell from him not all at once but in trembling veils, as attic dust falls of rafters when a house rolls with an earthquake."
This is one of many analogies Dean Koontz uses in the first couple pages. For some reason, this guy really likes imagery, which is good. The problem I have with it, though, is that as a reader I feel like it takes away from my reading experience. Okay, hear me out. I think the goal of every writer is to provide the required descriptions in your stories that will give the reader the experience of being right there in the room with your characters, feeling what they feel. The problem I have with Koontz' use of copious amounts of imagery is that it detracts from my being able to maintain the mental pictures I've created through his descriptions in his story. At one point he's describing the character's room, what he's doing, his feelings, and then all of the sudden he gives me a random analogy about attic dust falling from the rafters. Then I have to revert back to my original mental picture...I don't know. It just gets confusing as a reader. Personally I think a lot of imagery adn analogies like that should be left out of descriptions in stories and left in poems.
Wow...that was a much longer rant than I intended. Anyone else have and ideas? Please feel free to comment.
[This message has been edited by Natosis (edited November 17, 2005).]
posted
I think analogies are important in description, however, they need to fit the scene, otherwise they feel awkward and draw you out of the story. The analogy above is a bit of a stretch, only because you're in bed one minute and then in an attic the next. I like the feeling of it. But too much of this kind of thing and the whole ms will seem forced. In the above I think that:
quote:Dreams fell from him not all at once but in trembling veils,
is enough.
This is the kind of analogy that I like:
quote:The trees stood in a circle around the clearing, guarding the boys camp like tall sentinals.
[This message has been edited by pixydust (edited November 18, 2005).]
posted
I agree, Koontz likes imagery. I don't know that I find it all that jarring when I'm forming a mental image of the action. It DOES make his stories seem surreal, though, which is probably the effect he's going for. I usually read his stories quickly, kinda skimming through the action and getting to the end as soon as possible. Maybe that's why it doesn't bother me so much. Posts: 97 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read that book in two days. I was so obsessed with the questions Koontz placed EVERYWHERE that I hardly noticed his love affiar with analogies. That was the first and only book I liked from him.
I did notice it when I read "Dark Rivers of the Heart" (not sure of the title). I also got lost (or bored) by the constant need to explain and sugar-coat everything with a metaphor. Never finished it. There were so many pointless scenes...ah.
I think metaphors, similis and analogies should enhance the most important, significant details, not *every* detail.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
