This brings us up to chapter 30.
As a Koontz afficianado, I should have seen this coming. What appears, at first, to be a story about the "supernatural" turns out to be a cautionary tale about runaway technology! Much of his best work runs along those lines, including Watchers, in which a horrible monster is discovered to be a military lab experiment gone wrong. A similar premise is found in my favorite DK book, Fear Nothing and its follow-up, Seize the Night.
There is still much to be explained, though the entity that refers to itself as "One" has already disclosed itself to be an AI (Artificial Intelligence), most likely meaning that it is man-made. The whole "haunted-house-on-steroids" premise (gotta love the ever-present glowing fungus twist that lends a funhouse aura to the setting!) is still a mystery, but will presumeably be explained by the end of the book. I always appreciate that DK doesn't wait until the last 10 pages to explain away the mysteries, but unfolds them gradually throughout the plot.
In this book I am struck, as usual, by the author's ability to make us care about the characters with apparently very little effort. Is it simply through the dialog that we become sympathetic to them? It does seem that quite a few of them throughout his stories seem to have had difficult, even horrible past childhood events from which to recover. However he does it, you have to like Bailey Hawks as a hero; evoking the heroes played by the likes of Nicolas Cage. (Yes, I've given away one of my "castings" which I mentioned in an earlier post!)
What is really different here, for Koontz, is the plot device of time travel, projecting the characters into a hopelessly dystopian future. We've already had hints of a possible rectification, the idea that a character or characters might figure out a way of, not only getting out of the fine mess they've gotten themselves into, but also how to change the "past" (their temporal point of origin) so that the dystopian future never happens. Sort of a reverse version of the premise of The Terminator.
But the characters seem to have accepted the idea of time travel perhaps a little too readily. The residence does seem to be a very run-down version of its former self. Maybe that's enough evidence; but I'm not totally convinced that real people would be quite so comfortable with the conclusion.
Start looking for a copy of Amy Tan's The Hundred Secret Senses - should be pretty easy to find in the libraries or used book stores. (The hardback copy I have cost one dollar at Half Price Books...) We'll start that one in May!
Friday, April 20, 2012
Sunday, April 15, 2012
77 Shadow Street, Week 2
This brings us up to Part Two.
The separate threads of the plot line are coming together as the different characters seek each other out. Was there any other way to write this story? In retrospect, it seems pretty much inevitable, and is handled masterfully - Koontz makes it look easy, as always! The technique of skipping from subplot to subplot within a chapter - each subplot captioned with a character's name - certainly is an improvement over the usual approach of staying with one subplot for an entire chapter, which allows the other subplots to go stale.
The imagery continues to tantalize, moving between the mundane (e.g., bickering elderly sisters) and the bizarre (a paralyzed character watching her hand transform into something alien right in front of her face!). DK's ability to have us vividly visualize the scene is as good here as it gets.
One question that has to have occurred to other readers besides myself: Did this story, this plot, really need the subplot of a murder which occurs at the same time as the main plot? Does the murder subplot add to the main premise of the story, or is it an unnecessary distraction? Will we find later in the story that there is a hidden connection we didn't know about that causes the subplot to be important to the main idea? I'm hoping that's the case; otherwise it sort of looks like the author felt that his main idea wasn't compelling enough (which it certainly is!) to hold the reader's interest without some extra sensationalism to keep the reader hooked.
The Creepiness Factor continues to be ever-present, providing some chilling imagery. I'm reminded of the cover art on some of Clive Barker's books, though I've yet to encounter a strong equivalent in his actual stories. The horror of imagining the human form grotesquely twisted out of its normal shape seems to be an effective way to "entertain" us. Ever slow down at a traffic accident in the "hope" of seeing something...unusual?
We get a lot of background information in this book about the characters that are, at least at present, pretty minor players. How much do we need to know about the influence that the murderer's mother had on his psychological make-up? Again, maybe this information will come in later as something germane to the main plot, but for now it seems like overkill (pun alert). Not that it isn't interesting; DK can make almost anything interesting simply through the strength of his narrative skill. But for those of us that are "staying up all night in the thrall of a real page-turner" it can take some of the momentum out of the driving suspense.
I feel as though I'm being overly critical. Maybe I am, as I hold this author to a very high standard. Also, I don't normally over-analyze a story as I'm doing here, being in it mainly for the fun of it. I would love to hear another's thoughts about this book - especially if you have contrasting or contradictory observations! In case you have decided simply to give this book a pass but might want to chime in on the next one, give me ideas on what the next book should be. The one I'm going with if I get no feedback is The Hundred Secret Senses, by Amy Tan, or possibly The Bonesetter's Daughter by the same author.
Enjoy!
The separate threads of the plot line are coming together as the different characters seek each other out. Was there any other way to write this story? In retrospect, it seems pretty much inevitable, and is handled masterfully - Koontz makes it look easy, as always! The technique of skipping from subplot to subplot within a chapter - each subplot captioned with a character's name - certainly is an improvement over the usual approach of staying with one subplot for an entire chapter, which allows the other subplots to go stale.
The imagery continues to tantalize, moving between the mundane (e.g., bickering elderly sisters) and the bizarre (a paralyzed character watching her hand transform into something alien right in front of her face!). DK's ability to have us vividly visualize the scene is as good here as it gets.
One question that has to have occurred to other readers besides myself: Did this story, this plot, really need the subplot of a murder which occurs at the same time as the main plot? Does the murder subplot add to the main premise of the story, or is it an unnecessary distraction? Will we find later in the story that there is a hidden connection we didn't know about that causes the subplot to be important to the main idea? I'm hoping that's the case; otherwise it sort of looks like the author felt that his main idea wasn't compelling enough (which it certainly is!) to hold the reader's interest without some extra sensationalism to keep the reader hooked.
The Creepiness Factor continues to be ever-present, providing some chilling imagery. I'm reminded of the cover art on some of Clive Barker's books, though I've yet to encounter a strong equivalent in his actual stories. The horror of imagining the human form grotesquely twisted out of its normal shape seems to be an effective way to "entertain" us. Ever slow down at a traffic accident in the "hope" of seeing something...unusual?
We get a lot of background information in this book about the characters that are, at least at present, pretty minor players. How much do we need to know about the influence that the murderer's mother had on his psychological make-up? Again, maybe this information will come in later as something germane to the main plot, but for now it seems like overkill (pun alert). Not that it isn't interesting; DK can make almost anything interesting simply through the strength of his narrative skill. But for those of us that are "staying up all night in the thrall of a real page-turner" it can take some of the momentum out of the driving suspense.
I feel as though I'm being overly critical. Maybe I am, as I hold this author to a very high standard. Also, I don't normally over-analyze a story as I'm doing here, being in it mainly for the fun of it. I would love to hear another's thoughts about this book - especially if you have contrasting or contradictory observations! In case you have decided simply to give this book a pass but might want to chime in on the next one, give me ideas on what the next book should be. The one I'm going with if I get no feedback is The Hundred Secret Senses, by Amy Tan, or possibly The Bonesetter's Daughter by the same author.
Enjoy!
Sunday, April 8, 2012
77 Shadow Street, Week 1
In 77 Shadow Street, Koontz uses a plot technique that he turns to on occasion, but isn't his regular approach. I'm sure there's probably a name for it, and one that a more knowledgeable literature buff would be able to supply, but it consists of skipping around from chapter to chapter between several characters involved in separate story lines, eventually weaving them all together.
Some writers are better at this than others. Frank Herbert's sci-fi novels often drove me nuts with this, diminishing my enjoyment of his otherwise excellent work. A particularly disappointing example for me was R. A. Salvatore's The Spine of the World, which alternated a dark and violent story set in a rough seacoast town with a dreary teenage love story/tragedy that couldn't have ended soon enough.
The Koontz book that succeeds with this technique best in my mind is Strangers, from quite a few years ago, and more recently, the Frankenstein novels. I think he makes it work because he has cultivated a fine sense of how to make almost any character/situation interesting, at least for a short while. And it works - so far, after 25% of the book - better here than in the Frankenstein series.
On the other hand, for those who are just beginning to get familiar with Koontz's writing, it may not work as well, which would help to explain the relatively low rating this book has received on amazon.com.
Also missing here - so far - is the witty banter between two characters that Koontz has used so effectively in recent books; including the detectives in the Frankenstein series, and especially in the Odd Thomas novels. What has rather recently become a trademark of his is noticeably lacking in this story, perhaps to impart a darker aura. After 70-some-odd novels, he may be purposely varying his ouvre. If so, fair enough; the story still works wonderfully.
The Creepiness Factor is another DK technique that comes and goes to some extent, and it is in full swing here. We are treated to some rather grotesque imagery, such as the "baby"-like creature with greenish mottled skin and multiple legs. Here is where DK gives a nod to the "Horror" label with a vengeance, which is usually an over-stated aspect in his writing. Used sparingly (as he always does) this is a spice we Koontz-lovers have become enamoured of, but not at all dependent upon.
I'll stop here. At this point, if anyone is interested in chiming in to add to, disagree with, or refute any of my ramblings about the book, please step forward, don't be shy! The exchange of ideas, especially opposing ideas, is what book club discussions are all about!
Some writers are better at this than others. Frank Herbert's sci-fi novels often drove me nuts with this, diminishing my enjoyment of his otherwise excellent work. A particularly disappointing example for me was R. A. Salvatore's The Spine of the World, which alternated a dark and violent story set in a rough seacoast town with a dreary teenage love story/tragedy that couldn't have ended soon enough.
The Koontz book that succeeds with this technique best in my mind is Strangers, from quite a few years ago, and more recently, the Frankenstein novels. I think he makes it work because he has cultivated a fine sense of how to make almost any character/situation interesting, at least for a short while. And it works - so far, after 25% of the book - better here than in the Frankenstein series.
On the other hand, for those who are just beginning to get familiar with Koontz's writing, it may not work as well, which would help to explain the relatively low rating this book has received on amazon.com.
Also missing here - so far - is the witty banter between two characters that Koontz has used so effectively in recent books; including the detectives in the Frankenstein series, and especially in the Odd Thomas novels. What has rather recently become a trademark of his is noticeably lacking in this story, perhaps to impart a darker aura. After 70-some-odd novels, he may be purposely varying his ouvre. If so, fair enough; the story still works wonderfully.
The Creepiness Factor is another DK technique that comes and goes to some extent, and it is in full swing here. We are treated to some rather grotesque imagery, such as the "baby"-like creature with greenish mottled skin and multiple legs. Here is where DK gives a nod to the "Horror" label with a vengeance, which is usually an over-stated aspect in his writing. Used sparingly (as he always does) this is a spice we Koontz-lovers have become enamoured of, but not at all dependent upon.
I'll stop here. At this point, if anyone is interested in chiming in to add to, disagree with, or refute any of my ramblings about the book, please step forward, don't be shy! The exchange of ideas, especially opposing ideas, is what book club discussions are all about!
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Kick-off!
I had already downloaded 77 Shadow Street onto my Kindle, was reading a different book on the Kindle last night, and watching the clock on my computer. When the clock flipped over to midnight, I switched to "77" and started it. OCD anybody?
I have had a lot of views on the book club site, but no messages yet. Don't know if anyone is actually reading the book with me - wouldn't be surprised if not - but if you are, you can 1) let me know now, 2) wait until week one is over and post then regarding the first 16 chapters [25% of the book], or 3) wait until you finish the book and read other posts before weighing in on April 30.
No rules here, at least until someone proposes one/some. Many of you know my views on dictators, and I don't propose to be one here!
One personal note. Usually when I read a book, I cast it. That means that I try to visualize famous actors and actresses in the rolls of the characters in the book. This adds an intense visual aspect to the book, and I highly recommend it. You should probably pick your own "cast" but if you would like to know mine, message me. (Years ago, when I heard that a Batman movie was coming out that had The Riddler in it, I thought the roll might be filled by Robin Williams or perhaps Steve Martin. That it turned out to be Jim Carey was, in retrospect, a bee-yoo-tiful choice!)
Enjoy!
I have had a lot of views on the book club site, but no messages yet. Don't know if anyone is actually reading the book with me - wouldn't be surprised if not - but if you are, you can 1) let me know now, 2) wait until week one is over and post then regarding the first 16 chapters [25% of the book], or 3) wait until you finish the book and read other posts before weighing in on April 30.
No rules here, at least until someone proposes one/some. Many of you know my views on dictators, and I don't propose to be one here!
One personal note. Usually when I read a book, I cast it. That means that I try to visualize famous actors and actresses in the rolls of the characters in the book. This adds an intense visual aspect to the book, and I highly recommend it. You should probably pick your own "cast" but if you would like to know mine, message me. (Years ago, when I heard that a Batman movie was coming out that had The Riddler in it, I thought the roll might be filled by Robin Williams or perhaps Steve Martin. That it turned out to be Jim Carey was, in retrospect, a bee-yoo-tiful choice!)
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)