I've always liked this book, though I still believe that King has a real problem ending his books. He's like Tolkien--he doesn't want to let go of his...moreI've always liked this book, though I still believe that King has a real problem ending his books. He's like Tolkien--he doesn't want to let go of his characters, so they go on having scenes for pages and pages long after the book is really over. It was a little better this time, as the ending of the book more or less neatly bookended an earlier scene, but the leadup to the ending went on far too long. (less)
I really don't like Koontz. He tells way too much, while at the same time withholding information from the reader to make himself look clever.
The wor...moreI really don't like Koontz. He tells way too much, while at the same time withholding information from the reader to make himself look clever.
The worst thing about this book, however, was that he felt he needed to browbeat the reader with his hatred of utilitarianism throughout. It was pretty clear to me he didn't even have a basic understanding of utilitarian philosophy, and he was classifying some nutcases under the banner as typical examples.
Among philosophical methods, utilitarianism is generally one of the most benign; in order for someone to come to the conclusion that the elderly, handicapped and chronically ill should be euthanized, a crazy number of conditions would first have to be met. There is a long form and a short form that utilitarians employ to make any decision, even one as mundane as choosing a place to have lunch. It's impractical more than anything else.
I will try to avoid Koontz in future. He can't seem to let his reader decide anything for himself. He tells the reader who is "evil" and who is "radiant" in just those terms, he goes on for PAGES about his little hobbyhorses, and honestly? I thought Stephen King couldn't end a book to save his life. Koontz just seems to look at his page count, mutter, "I better wrap this up!" and slam bang it to the finish. (less)