Koontz: Life Expectancy - what a disappointment (SPOILERS)

Let's see if anyone actually reads this forum...

I have quite liked Dean Koontz for some time, mainly for two reasons. First, he writes pretty deeply and complexily about Good and Evil (capitalization intentional, as it fits his style), and also God. Second, the books are quite scary and exciting. A nice combination. But his latest book, suddenly, well, sucked beyond measure. Unlike John Grisham, whose decline in quality has been a long process, this one was a sudden flop.

Here's the plot as summarized at the official web site: "On the night that Jimmy Tock is born, his paternal grandfather, Josef, is in the same hospital, dying of a stroke. A storm rages outside as Jimmy's father, Rudy, moves between the expectant father's waiting room and his dying father's bedside. At the peak of the storm, Josef suddenly sits up in bed and, though aphasic since his stroke, regains his ability to speak. He describes in very particular detail his baby grandson—Jimmy—who is at that moment being born in another ward. Then, with great urgency, he imparts five dates to Rudy, five dates in the life of Jimmy. Although Josef is not entirely coherent, he makes it clear as he dies that each of these dates will be a dark one in the life of his grandson, a day of terrible events for which Jimmy must prepare himself.

All the particulars Josef has provided about his infant grandson prove to be precisely accurate, solidly establishing Josef's bona fides as a deathbed clairvoyant. What terrifying events await Jimmy Tock on those five days in his life? The first is to occur in his 20th year; the second in his 23rd year; the third in his 28th; the fourth in his 29th; the fifth in his 30th. LIFE EXPECTANCY unfolds over the course of these five shattering days, as the breathtaking narrative picks up Jimmy at each of these crisis points in his life and carries the reader along on a thrilling journey that defies all expectation, along a twisting, terrifying, and ultimately triumphant course that only Dean Koontz could devise. "

A first letdown was that two of the three villains were beyond silly. They were crotesque and ultra-evil to the point of not appearing human but demonic, yet rendeded ridiculous and farcical by their idiocyncracies and circus background (another one is an insane, murderous clown, while the other one is, well, and insane, murderous aerialist). The third villain is a son of the clown, who later, not a bit surprisingly, is revealed to be the hero Jimmy's twin brother. He is supposed to be our proof that being evil is always our choice, but he mostly appears utterly insane and tortured, and arouses pity and repulsion instead of sense of threat or moral outrage. Contrary to what the perfect hero's perfect wife remarks, he certainly appears like a person who *doesn't* know right from wrong. Believing, as I do, that these things have to be reinforced and cultivated in a child by some positive and gentle influence, in the best case parental guidance, it is hard indeed to see where this boy would even have begun to have a clue being raised by those hateful maniacs and not attended normal school or anything. Knowing what is illegal or disapproved of is different from knowing right from wrong.

Then there is the insufferable narrator voice. It does seem to work better for Koontz when his main character is in third person, and first person voice, if employed at all, is a supporting character or the villain. In some of his books the villains written in this manner have been extremely impressive - evil without any tragedy or symphatetic features, yet logical and believable, someone who could be a real person. Now our hero is supposed to be the proof that good people choose good, so therefore they are good. But this theory is certainly not put to test at any time in the story. Jimmy, by his own narration, has never experienced anything but true, warm and unconditional love, close family relationships, loyalty, meaningful life, happiness. Not a single adversity in his life that is not the fault of those insane (literal) clowns. The first time he falls in love the girl is just perfect and responds to his feelings. They pop out three perfect children, and we are supposed to be all shocked when one of the great tragedies is that they can't have any more. Boo hoo. Especially, when in the end they get two more miracle babies after all since they originally wanted five. Oh, and the family are bakers. They never exercise and stuff 7 course meals complete with quality alcohol to themselves every day, but still 'are incredibly lucky that none of them is overweight'. Not even one. I guess we couldn't sympathize with fat people. It just doesn't come out very convincing when this person preaches us about how evil never comes to you unless you invite it by your own choice, and it doesn't matter whether you are insane or not. It's not like he would know anything about it.

Oh, he babbles a lot about their 'imperfection'. It is just that it doesn't seem to be there. Jimmy, it says, is physically clumsy. Except when it matters. He is the best baker in whole the state, and for a clumsy person manages to physically fight insane maniacs pretty well, too. Ironically, he also brags a lot about how much humility he has learned in the course of his life. The humor and occasional profanity also apparently employed to the purpose of demonstrating imperfection and warmts appears very convoluted.

There are also these numerous incredibly annoying aside remarks that have nothing to do with the plot, but which apparently just have to be there.
"...This explains the success of most TV sitcoms and movie comedies. These shows can be entirely humorless, but scads of people will laugyh uproariously at them because they come with a label that says FUNNY. The congenitally humor-challenged audience knows it's safe to laugh... [after which he goes on a tirade about how his family *really* has sense of humor]"
"...They [his family] find meaning in their quiet faith, and in the little miracles of their daily lives. They don't need idelogies or philosophies to define themselves. They are defined by living, with all senses engaged, with hope, and with laugh ever ready. [...and yadda, yadda, yadda for a page about what good people they are]"
"...Even in this sentimental season [Christmas], I was unable to work up any sympathy for the lonely men in those drab cellblocks [in state penitentiary], their hearts heavy and their eyes turned longingly towards
birds...[blah blah blah description snipped]...I've never understood the weird Hollywood mindset that romaticizes convicts and prison life. Besides, most of these guys had TVs, subscriptions to Hustlers, and access to whatever drugs they needed. [Don't feel compassion for murderers, disregard that even they are human and have a story of their own, and that some of the inmates really are innocent. Fine. Sneer at those who can feel that sort of compassion, disapprove of what kind of stories Hollywood tells (besides, in spite of the Old Good Times theme in many of these remarks, prison picks is an *old* genre). Your prerogative. But don't come to tell me that anyone would exchange their freedom for TV and a subscription of Hustler.]"
"Irrational fears, however, are the most persistent kind. Not just in children, either. In a world where rogue states ruled by madmen are seeking nuclear weapons, look at how many people fear a tad too much fat in their diets and one part per ten million of pesticide in their applce juice to a greater degree than they fear suitcase bombs. [Uh, Mr.Koontz/Jimmy... ever checked statistics on which is more likely: die because of your unhealthy eating habits of because of a suitcase bomb? Also, on which do you have more control? Strike the 'irrational' to improve this statement. Come to think of it, strike all.]"
In other words - boring, irrelevant and rambling at best, insufferably smug and preachy at worst. Not especially humble either.

There are problematic moral issues on top of the ones already mentioned. Violence against evil ones is glorified in several places, something Koontz has not been prone to before that I noticed.
" [blah blah the guy is evil, and Jimmy has just castrated him with a shiv in self-defence]
My gratification at the sight of his suffering might have been unwholesome, corrupting, but I don't believe that it was itself a small evil. At the time it felt - and even now feels - like righteous satisfaction prompted by this proof that evil has a price to extract from those who embrace it and that resistance to it, while costly, might have a lower cost than acquience. [uh... you acted in self-defence, and you are entitled to be happy for surviving, and to enjoy releasing your hatred - but do not think it has anything to do with justice or righteousness. Evil does not always pay a price. Frequently good people live in a living hell, and bad people skip along with no consequences. Enjoying others hurting is just that. The Evil ones think that *you* deserve it, too.]"
"[The wife's first person narrative in one chapter:]
Screaming like a Valkyrie, possessed of fury that only the righteous sane can know; that never can be matched by madmen in their moral confusion, I shot him three more times, this thing who raped his own daughter, this monster who bought children, this demon who would make me widow. [There's another extremely dangerous thought. If you feel enough fury, it proves that you are both righteous and sane. If you don't *feel* moral confusion or question your beliefs, you must have a good cause for murderous fury.]
Now I understand that these are matters of opinion, but what puzzles me is that Koontz seems to have changed his so abruptly. If this kind of attitudes would have been prevalent in his previous books, I would never have read or at least bought them.

The last point I make is that the book simply isn't very exciting. Very predictable, found myself skipping the action pages. And nothing tragic or scary actually happened. No touch of real evil that has before been so chilling in his books was there to be felt. Only those silly unbelievable villains and the pathetic madman I almost hoped would be put out of his misery for his own sake.

If you like gritty, suspenseful novels with profound take on Good, Evil, the difficulty of choosing the former and the importance of redemption, forget Koontz for now. It's Michael Connelly's Harry Bosch novels all the way (they don't have the supernatural element, though). But I wonder what happened to mr. Koontz.

Let's see if anyone actually reads this forum...

At least one..



the basic plot sounds like one either a good writer or a very poor one would come up with, a good writer could cover all the bases and make it seam plausable, at least within the confines of the fiction, while the poor writer would use these plot devices to give shock value to a tale..


A great man once said, "Everyone has a good book in them, they also have a hundred crap books in them, it's knowing the diffrence that's the trouble"

Though I'm sure I've just mashed two or three diffrent people's words together and in the confussion thought it was one but nevermind..

Let's see if anyone actually reads this forum...

At least one..

Seems you were about the only one So I linked this to Water cooler. I like book talk, let's hope that the forum will be revived.

the basic plot sounds like one either a good writer or a very poor one would come up with, a good writer could cover all the bases and make it seam plausable, at least within the confines of the fiction, while the poor writer would use these plot devices to give shock value to a tale..

The idea of predestined dates, five of them no less, seems much like shooting yourself in leg in advance. But a good writer could make it work. Less awkward plot device, but also to do with predestination is employed in John Irving's A Prayer For Owen Meany. There it works perfectly.