Horus, your comment suggested intentonal screw-ups. I don't want bad grammar in my story, and it does not impress me that the author made a mistake. No work of art can be "perfect" to everyone, and a work with only technical perfection can be boring. But a story can be good and have good grammar, too--here defined as "grammar that doesn't make me go 'wtf was this idiot thinking'", as opposed to grammar that follows all the rules of "good English". ETA: That's figure of speech used comparitively. It is not a literal synonym. Dogs aren't perfect, but you don't see them listed, do you?
Haha, no. My point was more along the line of: then perfection would be inhuman. Which I think says alot about this whole topic.
I somewhat agree. Everybody makes mistakes, and no matter how many times you check something over, there will be issues. In that sense, a single mistake as noted by the OP really has little relevance in the grand scheme of things.
exactly!... it was only that unfortunate choice of expression that i objected to and disagreed with...
"Quirks" might have been a better choice of word. Both for the DK sentence and the classic masterpieces.
Don't be so quick to judge my friends. It's possible that this writer is bad, but it's also possible he's included it for a reason. I haven't read the book, so I wouldn't know, but to whoever does read it I recommend you keep an open mind and think about it in the context of the event; perhaps Vince means less to the protagonist than their father? Maybe they ended with a deliberate diminuendo because they want what happens next to be more effective? Perhaps throughout the book there's references to people dying with 'and ______'. And if you go through it and find there is absolutely nothing to be found, then you could probably just say that they can't write. But consider all the reasons first.
I haven't read this book, so it's hard to put it in the proper context I think. However, as it it typed out on this forum I can't safely say it reads weird. It makes no sense to me why DK would write like that.
Dean Koontz actually has a tendency to do this in all his novels for some unexplainable reason that seems to be known only to him. Therefore, I cannot say entirely why he chooses to do so. Personally however, he is a rather good author. One of my favorites actually.
I've read enough Dean Koontz to say with experience that it's probably because he's not great at what he does. Is "the other" one of his quirks as well? I remember some author I used to read put in the phrase "the other" (as in when two people were talking. "I see," Max said, turning to face the other) far too many times.
i beg to differ... imo, he is great at what he does...i've read most of koontz's work and consider him one of the best contemporary writers... he's one of the few current authors i recommend beginners read, to see what good fiction writing looks/reads/feels like... and even shakespeare had his 'quirks'...
When I read the sentence what I notice is that she heard her father screaming. The "and Vince Hoyt" after a pause (comma) comes across as an aside to me. After all he is a nobody and her father is in the other hand of the ET. If your father was screaming while being crushed would you even notice what Vince Hoyt was doing? So okay she doesn't like her father but I take he is a much bigger part of her life (love or hate) and the novel than Vince Hoyt, so she would notice him more. To me it doesn't come across as an error but a purposeful way to put the emphasis on a main character while still keeping a clear image of the setting (ET crushing two figures simultaneously) To a casual reader, with correct grammar aside I think works well in achieving this. Sometimes rules need to be broken.
I agree that DK is one of the best modern writers. In fact, he is my favorite author. Because the pacing of his stories are fantastic, I rarely find myself reading faster to get past a boring part. I find myself doing this often in the novels of China Mieville, Stephen King, or Orson Scott Card. Original sentence in question: If Koontz wanted to make Hoyt as an after thought, why not write: The ET closed its enormous hands, and from within its clinched fingers, she heard her father screaming in agony. Oh, and Vince Hoyt screamed too. Maybe that's too comedic for this scene. So perhaps this: The ET closed its enormous hands, and from within its clinched fingers, she heard her father screaming in agony, and heard Vince Hoyt too. Now at least it is clear what the add on means. There is no ambiguity. I would not have paused and thought about the sentence if it were written like this. Sometimes it's good to repeat the verb.
Given the sheer amount of work this man spits out, it's no wonder that sentences slip through being edited to their optimal flow, occasionally.
