Originally posted June 26, 2008.
By Robert Rosen
I think it’s safe to say that Dean Koontz, who’s already churned out more New York Times bestsellers than most authors could reasonably hope to write in a lifetime, does not need a review on Maiscott & Rosen to further his career. And I think it’s equally safe to suggest that anything I say about him, positive or negative, will have no impact whatsoever on his illustrious track record. In fact, I’d suspect that Koontz is smart enough to ignore all his reviews, and if he needs any reassurance about his talents, such as they are, all he has to do is check his bank account. Koontz, in short, is review-proof; I doubt that even the savagery of Times critic Michiko Kakutani could ruin his day.
So why am I reviewing a Koontz book, particularly one that was originally published in 2004? Because I keep thinking about the book—for all the wrong reasons.
That I read it at all could be called an act of destiny that Koontz himself might build an entire plot around. I was visiting my mother in Florida, and somebody had abandoned a copy of Life Expectancy by the pool. Having never read Koontz, I was curious. Also, I think it’s a good idea to occasionally read enormously successful bestsellers by writers of no known literary merit—like Dan Brown. There’s always something to be learned.
So I picked up Life Expectancy and—unlike Brown’s hackneyed Da Vinci Code, which I tossed aside after a few paragraphs—I was hooked. And I stayed hooked for 200 pages. Like Stephen King, whom Koontz is often compared to (and whose “voice” is virtually indistinguishable from Koontz’s), he knows how to tell a story. Or at least he knows how to get one off the ground, and, in the process, work in an interesting point or two—like why God is not Santa Claus and why people laugh at sitcoms that aren’t funny.
The problem with Life Expectancy, however, is that it’s 496 bloated pages, and it was hard to imagine, after 200 pages, how Koontz would be able to keep it going for another 296. In seeking an answer, I read the book straight through to the end before abandoning it in the seat pocket of an airplane, feeling as if I’d ingested 10,000 calories of the fattiest kind of mental junk food—the equivalent of, say, 200 or so éclairs baked by Jimmy Tock, the quirky yet lovable pastry chef who narrates Life Expectancy, which is supposed to be his autobiography. The story in a nutshell: Tock lives with a prophecy; he will confront unspeakable horror on five days in his life, and he knows the dates.
Standard fare for a book of this kind, to be sure. And Koontz keeps it moving along at a brisk pace by employing every cheap trick and cliché in his bag. Among them are evil clowns; middling sitcomish humor; secret passageways; one-dimensional characters acting improbably in improbable situations; implying a character is dead only to later reveal that he isn’t; and, most important to his modus operandi, withholding vital information till the end of the book that he should have divulged at the beginning. Also in the tradition of such novels, it appears the primary purpose of dialogue is to fill space—there are lots of meaningless exchanges where the characters say one or two words each, and keep it up for the better part of a page.
Yet this was all forgivable because Life Expectancy is intended as nothing more than a routine work of genre fiction, and it’s hardly one of the worst. But there’s one other factor that must be taken into consideration.
Obviously I’m not the first person to wonder if Koontz takes money for product placement in his novels—he denies the charge on his website. Yet, his use of a Ford off-road vehicle at a crucial plot point seemed like blatant product placement, and it broke whatever remained of the spell Koontz had cast.
A Ford Explorer driven by Tock, the pastry-baking narrator, outmaneuvers a Hummer driven by a homicidal clown. And not once in this seemingly endless and unnecessarily detailed scene does Koontz use a synonym for “Ford Explorer,” like “SUV” or “light truck.” Page after page he never lets you forget that it’s a humble Explorer careening impossibly up and down the side of a steep, snow-covered mountain, carrying Tock and his pregnant wife to safety.
And it was here I realized that the true horror of Dean Koontz is that it’s books like his that dominate the publishing industry—at the expense of better, more compelling books by writers who aren’t as formulaic, shallow, or blatantly commercial. Of course, this is old news to anybody who’s been paying attention. But like that Ford Explorer, Life Expectancy rubs this sad reality in your face, and ultimately becomes something far more cynical than the escapist trash it’s supposed to be.
Dean Koontz and his golden retriever, Trixie. Photo © Jerry Bauer
I think it’s safe to say that Dean Koontz, who’s already churned out more New York Times bestsellers than most authors could reasonably hope to write in a lifetime, does not need a review on Maiscott & Rosen to further his career. And I think it’s equally safe to suggest that anything I say about him, positive or negative, will have no impact whatsoever on his illustrious track record. In fact, I’d suspect that Koontz is smart enough to ignore all his reviews, and if he needs any reassurance about his talents, such as they are, all he has to do is check his bank account. Koontz, in short, is review-proof; I doubt that even the savagery of Times critic Michiko Kakutani could ruin his day.
So why am I reviewing a Koontz book, particularly one that was originally published in 2004? Because I keep thinking about the book—for all the wrong reasons.
That I read it at all could be called an act of destiny that Koontz himself might build an entire plot around. I was visiting my mother in Florida, and somebody had abandoned a copy of Life Expectancy by the pool. Having never read Koontz, I was curious. Also, I think it’s a good idea to occasionally read enormously successful bestsellers by writers of no known literary merit—like Dan Brown. There’s always something to be learned.
So I picked up Life Expectancy and—unlike Brown’s hackneyed Da Vinci Code, which I tossed aside after a few paragraphs—I was hooked. And I stayed hooked for 200 pages. Like Stephen King, whom Koontz is often compared to (and whose “voice” is virtually indistinguishable from Koontz’s), he knows how to tell a story. Or at least he knows how to get one off the ground, and, in the process, work in an interesting point or two—like why God is not Santa Claus and why people laugh at sitcoms that aren’t funny.
The problem with Life Expectancy, however, is that it’s 496 bloated pages, and it was hard to imagine, after 200 pages, how Koontz would be able to keep it going for another 296. In seeking an answer, I read the book straight through to the end before abandoning it in the seat pocket of an airplane, feeling as if I’d ingested 10,000 calories of the fattiest kind of mental junk food—the equivalent of, say, 200 or so éclairs baked by Jimmy Tock, the quirky yet lovable pastry chef who narrates Life Expectancy, which is supposed to be his autobiography. The story in a nutshell: Tock lives with a prophecy; he will confront unspeakable horror on five days in his life, and he knows the dates.
Standard fare for a book of this kind, to be sure. And Koontz keeps it moving along at a brisk pace by employing every cheap trick and cliché in his bag. Among them are evil clowns; middling sitcomish humor; secret passageways; one-dimensional characters acting improbably in improbable situations; implying a character is dead only to later reveal that he isn’t; and, most important to his modus operandi, withholding vital information till the end of the book that he should have divulged at the beginning. Also in the tradition of such novels, it appears the primary purpose of dialogue is to fill space—there are lots of meaningless exchanges where the characters say one or two words each, and keep it up for the better part of a page.
Yet this was all forgivable because Life Expectancy is intended as nothing more than a routine work of genre fiction, and it’s hardly one of the worst. But there’s one other factor that must be taken into consideration.
Obviously I’m not the first person to wonder if Koontz takes money for product placement in his novels—he denies the charge on his website. Yet, his use of a Ford off-road vehicle at a crucial plot point seemed like blatant product placement, and it broke whatever remained of the spell Koontz had cast.
A Ford Explorer driven by Tock, the pastry-baking narrator, outmaneuvers a Hummer driven by a homicidal clown. And not once in this seemingly endless and unnecessarily detailed scene does Koontz use a synonym for “Ford Explorer,” like “SUV” or “light truck.” Page after page he never lets you forget that it’s a humble Explorer careening impossibly up and down the side of a steep, snow-covered mountain, carrying Tock and his pregnant wife to safety.
And it was here I realized that the true horror of Dean Koontz is that it’s books like his that dominate the publishing industry—at the expense of better, more compelling books by writers who aren’t as formulaic, shallow, or blatantly commercial. Of course, this is old news to anybody who’s been paying attention. But like that Ford Explorer, Life Expectancy rubs this sad reality in your face, and ultimately becomes something far more cynical than the escapist trash it’s supposed to be.
You've come to a conclusion from reading one Koontz book. Regarding the product placement - Whether he gets cash for it or not, as a reader, if the writer refers to his drink as a "can of pepsi" as opposed to a "can of fizzy pop" it's hardly going to detract from my enjoyment.
ReplyDeleteI'd suggest you maybe read more of Koontz work and then form a more researched opinion. If it remains the same, which it may do as you do makes some valid points regarding formula, then that's fair enough... But off reading one book I don't think it puts you in the position to make a fair judgment making the report a little unuseful to your readers.
(Don't take this the wrong way, just thought you might want some feedback hence posting it on here.)
July 4, 2008 10:07 AM
Dear Mr. Bombs,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting the comment. You are quite right--I came to my conclusion by reading one Koontz book and I don't think it's necessary to read another. I'm not talking about a passing mention of a character drinking Coke or Pepsi. I'm talking about a long, drawn-out scene in which Koontz says over and over that the character is driving a Ford Explorer.
After reading the scene, I Googled "Dean Koontz" "Product Placement." Sure enough, he denies on his website that he does product placement in his novels--indicating that a lot of other readers have the same suspicion.
Koontz even implies that product placement isn't done in novels, only in movies. This isn't true. Product placement is done in novels. (Check out "The Bulgari Connection" by Fay Weldon, for example.)
In short, I think my judgment of Koontz is very fair.
July 4, 2008 10:32 AM
You know, people like you really piss me off. I'm okay with your review of the book; people are entitled to their opinions about what they think makes a good book and what makes a bad one. I personally didn't care much for this book either. I'm even okay with you accusing Koontz of product placement. What I am not okay with is you calling his work, and all genre fiction in fact, escapist trash. Because it doesn't "mean" anything or teach you anything, it's not worth reading? Because it's not Literary Fiction it is classified as trash? Please. The whole point of writing a story is to create well-rounded, relatable characters within a well-structured and interesting plot. Does Koontz succeed at this? More often than not. It is pure entertainment; nothing more, nothing less. And I ask you, what is wrong with that? I suggest you get off your high horse and show some respect to all the writers out there producing quality work, even if it doesn't conform to what you have been taught should be considered worthwhile fiction.
ReplyDeleteJuly 14, 2008 9:34 AM
Thank you for your comment. Actually, I meant “escapist trash” in a positive way. When I picked up “Life Expectancy,” I was looking for some escapist trash, and I enjoyed the book for about 200 pages. Had it not been for the overt product placement, I’d have just tossed it aside and forgotten about it. But the product placement struck me as so cynical and so unnecessary, that I felt compelled to write a review. I have no problem with genre fiction or with a book as “pure entertainment.” I do have a problem with any writer who uses his published work as a vehicle for product placement, thereby turning it into something very different than the pure entertainment it’s supposed to be.
ReplyDeleteJuly 14, 2008 10:03 AM
it's very sad to face but the truth is that product placement is indeed rife within fiction.
ReplyDeleteeven a great horror writer like Scott Nicholson has succumbed to the temptation. in his novel They Hunger he frequently mentions a real life company called ProVentures and the characters use a real life brand called Sealskinz that make wet suits and other outdoor gear. Nicholson always portrays the brand names in a flattering light and although he's a far better writer than Koontz and therefore weaves the product placement in with a lot more subtlty, it's still easy enough to spot for anyone with an ounce of intelligence.
product placement within fiction is the death knell of the artform.
November 29, 2009 10:00 PM
Thanks for the feedback. I agree with everything you said.
ReplyDeleteNovember 30, 2009 2:35 PM