Koontzland - Dean Koontz discussion
This topic is about
Lightning
Stand Alone Novels 1986-1990
>
Lightning (Group Read - March 2010)
Maciek wrote: "***SPOILER***I agree with Jason, I think it was meant to be a huge surprise. However, the real twist was the reason of Stefan's care for Laura: I was expecting that her father/mother/granfather/wh..."
I agree, though I wouldn't say it RUINED the book for me. I would probably give it a 3/5 (right now, it's a 3.5/5, but I round up), were it not for the innovative and clever way Koontz dealt with time travel.
I gave it 3/5. Everyone from the book rises to impossibly succesful ends. Laura makes her first million before she is even thirty...and when her husband is killed another adorator literally falls from the sky. It becomes so boring then.Still, I rather enjoyed the first half of the book.
Of course, we hear about millionaires all the time. We read books about them , see shows and movies about them, etc etc etc...If I wanted to read how a woman made her first grand I'd go and read the biography of Jo Rowling ;)If I remember correctly, Laura never had to recover from a single rejection slip and her second novel sold for over a million dollars instantly. Wow yes, it's totally plausible.
Seriosuly after the inheritance in Watchers I though that Dean will avoid doing the same thing but I was wrong...
I understand your point about adorators coming out for widow hunt, but seriously, this concept here is sooo overdrawn that it's ridiculous. He read her book and fall in love, and he's a time travellling ex SS-man, the only hope for the world, but no, he just happens to disregard all the sense and rescue his little dove. And you know what's even more surreal ? He succeeds.
another thing that irritated me was the anti pacifist propaganda. You can either not lift a finger against the enemy, or blow his head off with a gun. Lol what ?
Maciek wrote: "...another thing that irritated me was the anti pacifist propaganda...."Yes, that bothered me a bit too. It was as if Koontz was saying the opinion that one should embrace pacifism is wrong, which disturbed me. There is no such thing as a wrong opinion.
Rachel wrote: "Yes, I think that two people being very surprised should be our standard when judging the intentions of the author... :\..."I don't understand this comment or the sarcasm it implies. I was referring to the two characters from the book, Laura and Chris, being surprised when they discovered that Stephan was a Nazi traitor from the 1940s, rather than some exotic time traveler from the future, which is what they had decided must be the case. I think it is very important to consider the reactions of two main characters from the book in this situation.
Mod
Mee too! Several peoples have recommended Joe Hill to me :-)
Mod
Dean does this in several books - Winter Moon was the most recent Koontz book I've read and... tada out of nowhere here's the money!
Mod
Rachel, you are hilarious! :-)
Dang I missed all the fun! LOL Thanks Rachel, you said all the things I couldn't get out. I agree with you the only reason I gave 6 out of 10, was because all that jumping around made me dizzy.
Dustin wrote: "Dean does this in several books - Winter Moon was the most recent Koontz book I've read and... tada out of nowhere here's the money!"Nooooo....I was looking forward to that one ! :(
Seriously, sometimes I wonder how a writer who's so popular and obviously experienced can put inheritances from nowhere and millionaires under thirty in his books. It adds to the silliness and doesn't really help in suspending disbelief.
Lori wrote: "Dang I missed all the fun! LOL Thanks Rachel, you said all the things I couldn't get out. I agree with you the only reason I gave 6 out of 10, was because all that jumping around made me dizzy."
is 6 outta 10 the same as a GR 3 / 5?
message 63:
by
Dustin the wind Crazy little brown owl, Colorful Colorado
(last edited Feb 24, 2010 03:07PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Tom wrote: "is 6 outta 10 the same as a GR 3 / 5? "
I tried to ask the same thing, Tom. :-) Lori must have missed my question when she missed out on all the fun.
message 64:
by
Dustin the wind Crazy little brown owl, Colorful Colorado
(last edited Feb 24, 2010 04:24PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
(LIGHTNING was the #2 favorite book that readers said originally made them a fan of Dean Koontz. On March 3, 2010, LIGHTNING will be re-issued in trade paperback. The following is from his afterword for the book.)
Dean Koontz on Lightning:
Most publishers are happiest with a successful novelist when he or she writes the same book every time. They don't care if he bathes only on the summer solstice, drinks himself into a stupor every day by 2:00 P.M., lives in sin with a llama, thinks SpongeBob SquarePants is the greatest actor of his generation, and spits on the floor--as long as, at the keyboard, he can slavishly repeat himself manuscript after manuscript. From story to story, if the writer always features lead characters who are lawyers, for example, the publisher will smile and pat him on the head. If each of these lawyers (or cops if the writer is a cop novelist, or boiler repairmen if the writer spins boiler-repairman tales) is like all the others, in terms of his world view, psychological makeup, and narrative voice, then the publisher will beam with delight at the mention of the writer's name. If in fact the lawyer (or cop, or boiler repairman) is the same lawyer (or cop, or boiler repairman) by name--in other words, a "series character"--the publisher will not only swoon at the mere mention of the author, but will pretend, with convincing earnestness, to like the author as an artist and as a human being, no matter how thick his disgust and how poisonous his hatred for the author may actually be.
(To be fair to all publishers, it is an undeniable truth that a great many successful writers are so egomaniacal, so temperamental, so consumed by envy of other writers who earn even two dollars more per book, so stubborn, so humorless about themselves, and so mean-spirited that if they were elephants, their fellow pachyderms would turn them over to criminal poachers with instructions to make knickknacks from their tusks and umbrella stands from their feet.)
Most publishers--not all--believe that a successful writer must produce always in precisely the same genre, delivering characters and plots and themes that are comfortably familiar to his readers, working reliably in a narrative voice that strikes the same note in story after story. This desire for sameness springs partly from the publisher's need to develop and sustain a market niche for the writer, "branding" him in the same sense that Campbell's Soup or Log Cabin Syrup is a brand. In truth, however, it also springs from most publishers' conviction that the reading public is composed of well-defined herds of sheep, each of which can--and must--be driven to the same pasture from which it has grazed previously.
(To be fair to publishers, there is evidence that a portion of the reading public does indeed enjoy being herded to the same pasture day after day, to graze upon a single flavor of grass. Consequently, the forty-ninth installment of Author X's series about a vegetarian homicide detective with two thumbs on his right hand is a reliable bestseller.
Except in recent years, I have been at odds with publishers throughout my career because I find it too dreary to deliver the same book over and over (being easily bored, I must first keep myself entertained); furthermore, my average novel does not fall entirely into any single genre. I write cross-genre books--suspense mixed with love story, with humor, sometimes with two tablespoons of science fiction, sometimes with a pinch of horror, sometimes with a sprinkle of paprika.... Until I delivered a novel titled WATCHERS (my original and preferred title had been GUARDIAN, but that's another story), my publisher was frustrated with me and ceaselessly lectured me to the effect that my failure to embrace a single genre and to write within its narrowest confines would ultimately--and soon--destroy my career. (There is no exaggeration in the use of the word "ceaselessly," for these lectures barely allowed me time to eat.) WATCHERS was a cross-genre novel that broke many of the publisher's own rules, but she liked it so much that she put aside her usual objections.
After WATCHERS, I delivered LIGHTNING, and the proverbial dung hit the radiating blades of the air-circulation device. LIGHTNING not only broke most of the publisher's rules: It pulverized them. I was told that the book was unpublishable because (1) it was a suspense novel unfolding over more than thirty years of the lead character's life, though common publishing wisdom (henceforth CPW) insists that taut suspense cannot be sustained in a story with such a long time arc; (2) the first quarter to a third the novel took place during the lead's childhood, though CPW insists that this makes it a young-adult novel of no interest to the adult reading audience; (3) the book contained more than a little humor, though CPW insists that readers will not abide the combination of suspense and humor; (4) the themes, according to my publisher, were "too complex and profound for popular fiction, and most readers will be unable to understand them." I was told that LIGHTNING could not be published after WATCHERS because it would chase away the steadily growing readership that I had developed with WHISPERS, PHANTOMS, STRANGERS, (none of them my original and preferred titles, but that's another story), WATCHERS, and other books. For my own good, I was told to put it on the shelf and write another novel. My publisher said, "In seven years, after you've built a bigger and more loyal audience, we can risk publishing LIGHTNING without doing too much damage."
Seven years. I didn't understand why seven instead of six or eight--or four hundred. All I knew was that I had worked hard on LIGHTNING (not my original and preferred title, but that's another story) and that even though it was a very different book from those I'd done previously, I believed it would please readers who enjoyed WATCHERS. I insisted that it be published after WATCHERS, and this insistence led to an exhausting and depressing four-month wrangle with the publisher before at last my point of view prevailed.
In addition to all the aforementioned aspects of the novel that displeased my publisher and therefore also greatly dismayed my agent, there was one other "flaw" that at times seemed to be the one that most concerned them: LIGHTNING did not include a dog as one of the major characters. You, being an innocent reader searching patiently for fresh storytelling with unexpected qualities, will not understand why CPW would insist that lacking a dog in a lead role, a novel must inevitably fail. You might point to GONE WITH THE WIND and ask me to remind you which of its colorful cast was a canine, and I could say only that Scarlett O'Hara, while not a dog, was something of a bitch.
You might observe that Dostoevsky, Dickens, Hemingway, and Jackie Collins wrote numerous bestselling books without including dogs as major characters, and I could not argue. With some success, my novel WATCHERS included a dog as one of its three lead characters, however, and my publisher felt strongly that I should henceforth incorporate this element in each of my stories. I didn't write cop novels, doctor novels, or lawyer novels, but I was advised to write dog novels if I were to have any hope of a continuing career as a bestseller.
LIGHTNING was published without enthusiasm--and at once became my biggest success to date. Frequently during LIGHTNING's run on the bestseller lists, booksellers and wholesalers were out of stock and could not fill reader demand until one reprinting or another dribbled into stores. I followed LIGHTNING with MIDNIGHT (not my original or preferred title, but that is another story), in which a dog played a secondary role. CPW held that this book was too different from LIGHTNING to be a success, but it included a dog in a secondary role, which pleased my publisher, and it became my first #1 bestseller in hardcover. In my next book, THE BAD PLACE (not my original or preferred title, but that's another story), I brought a dog into the story again--but on the last page. This little inside joke was noted but not appreciated by my publisher.
Although I greatly enjoy writing about dogs and, in the judgment of some critics, have a knack for it, and though I would have enjoyed including them in certain subsequent books, I featured four-footed furries only in secondary roles and only in two of my next seven novels. When it suits me, I can be as stubborn and as temperamental as anyone, and if you try to make an umbrella stand out of one of my feet, you're in for one hell of a fight.
To date, the four of my books that generated the most reader mail on publication are also the four that continue to bring the most mail year after year: WATCHERS, FEAR NOTHING (and its sequel SEIZE THE NIGHT), FROM THE CORNER OF HIS EYE, and LIGHTNING. If I had accepted the common publishing wisdom that readers are sheep who prefer to graze on the same flavor of grass, I would have written far different novels from those I delivered. Had I written those stories instead of what I chose to write, sales of my books might not now be nearly 300 million copies worldwide--and without doubt, I would not have been as happy at the keyboard as I have been these many years.
Readers are not sheep. They are wolves, filled with curiosity, adventurous, always hungry for a tasty treat with at least a little substance to it. The readers I know and love, the kind of readers to whom I owe my career, are more likely to say "woof" than "baa," and not just because I sometimes write stories with dogs in them. Thank God you're out there. If my writing career had failed, I would have made a lousy plumber; if I'd taken up carpentry, I'd now have six instead of ten fingers, and everyone would call me "Stubs."
Source: http://www.deankoontz.com/books/light...
Maciek wrote: "Nooooo....I was looking forward to that one !..."It's not want you think. In this case, the inheritance turns out to be more of a curse than a gift. The inheritance in no way helps the protagonists in their struggles against the antagonist. So, calm yourself and read the book immediately! :-)
Dustin wrote: "*All I knew was that I had worked hard on LIGHTNING (not my original and preferred title, but that's another story) and that even though it was a very different book from those I'd done previously, I believed it would please readers who enjoyed WATCHERS."This is an interesting thought. Certainly readers who enjoyed Watchers also enjoyed Lightning. However, had I only read those two I propably wouldn't bother reading the rest of Dean's enormous output, because they definitely aren't my favorites ;)
Jason "plasborgma" wrote: "It's not want you think. In this case, the inheritance turns out to be more of a curse than a gift. The inheritance in no way helps the protagonists in their struggles against the antagonist. So, calm yourself and read the book immediately! :-)"
This sounds interesting. You made me curious. I'll have to check it out then. :)
Don't know...I'm moving and all my Koontz books are packed. Hopefully we'll be moved by around the 15th, if I get the book out before the end of March, maybe. i read Lightening some years ago and wasn't that taken with it...but maybe. Thanks
Yaaayyyy, my copy of Lightning is at the library now so I can go right from work to pick it up...I'm only 4 days late in getting started. I was too busy reading the other 3 Odd Thomas books...the premise of Lightning doesn't pique my interest that much, but what the heck, I'll give it a try. I can usually get into a Koontz novel and enjoy it fairly early on...I'll let you know later if it holds my interest.
Mod
That's the spirit! Hopefully, you'll end up liking it a lot :-)
I didn't want to join in til I finished it. I read it when it first came out and loved it. This time around, I wasn't quite sure why I had held it in such high esteem. I'd forgotten just about everything, so it was almost like reading it for the first time. Almost. I gave it 3 out of 5 stars.The gripes above are some that I share as well. I don't know why Laura and Chris were so sure Stefan had to be from the future. Who wants to go into the past, it happened, we know about it. I think someone coming from the past to see the future makes more sense; there's a veritable wealth of reasons to travel into the future. An SS officer with an attack of conscience, I guess it's possible...but not very plausible. Stefan's reason for saving Laura was dull and banal. I kept waiting for him to say she was going to do something extraordinary, change the world for the better or something. And everyone happy in the end, just doesn't work for me either. I would have liked it better if Chris or Stefan died, or at the very least Stefan and Laura go their separate ways. Destiny stuggles to reassert itself...except in numerous ways for Laura. Not very believable, or desirable from my reading perspective. Maybe if one thing didn't reassert itself I could go with it.
Apparently my tastes have changed in the twenty-odd years since first reading Lightning. It was still entertaining and I did like it...just not as much as I once did. It makes me feel sad, like I've lost something.
Jackie said: It makes me feel sad, like I've lost something. I know what you mean, Jackie, I feel the same way about 'Watchers'...and perhaps that's why I was dragging my feet and so slow to read it in January that I didn't make much of an effort to catch up...fear of losing that thrill of first-time Koontz and seeing it as something a lot less than my memory has sustained all these years. Kinda like when you go back to see your childhood home...and everything is so small! And ordinary.
Well, I got the book (Lightning) and have read through about 50 pages already, then started skimming until it got so late (Yipes!) I had to quit. I remember someone talking about being confused with all the 'back and forth' stuff, and knowing the story is eventually about time travel I kind of expected it so wasn't maybe as confused as I would have been, but still...for me to be confused at all is something, as I usually can track intent and plot lines pretty well. But even with skimming, I'm only half-way through...had to put it down at midnight. I don't think they're gonna get much out of me today (yawn!)
message 72:
by
Dustin the wind Crazy little brown owl, Colorful Colorado
(last edited Apr 04, 2010 01:17PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
I just got the book from the library and am about 100 pages in so I guess I'll just lurk as far as the discussion.
Here goes. Obvious SPOILERS!**********************************************************
Lightning starts out with a bang, and fades out like a diminishing thunder: A snowstorm rages, in a lone house a drunken doctor is stopped by a mysterios stranger from going to deliver a baby - Laura Shane, who is instead delivered by another physician and ends up perfectly healthy. Her mother dies though, and Laura's father is shattered.
Laura stays with her father, and helps him in his grocery shop, where the mysterious stranger saves them both from a dangerous robber. The stranger reveals his name - Stefan.
Long story short, Laura's father dies and she goes into an orphanage - obviously. Here she meets the two sisters, Thelma and Ruth, who are strong candidates for the most unrealistic twelve year olds ever created in fiction. They are the worst flaw of the book: the reader starts seeing them as scripted, not real.
"Holidays are fine because the do-gooders start feeling guilty about having so much
when we poor, drab, homeless waifs have to wear newspaper coats, cardboard shoes, and eat last year's gruel. So they send us baskets of goodies, take us on shopping sprees and to the movies, though never the good movies"
"The lack of parental guidance has taken a toll on her, I'm afraid. She hasn't adapted well to being an orphan"
"Listen, Shane, the Dazzling Ackerson
Duo—Ruth and moi—cannot abide false modesty any more than we can tolerate bragging. We're
straight-from-the-shoulder types. We know what our strengths are, and we're proud of them. God knows, neither of us will win the Miss America contest, but we're intelligent, very intelligent, and we're not reluctant to admit to brains. And you are gorgeous, so stop being coy"
Not bad for 12 years olds who were orphaned at 9, eh ?
Apparently both sisters went to acting school at 3. Oh wait, they would propably put their professors to shame with their sophisticated vocabulary and similes. Apparently all orphanages are stuffed with dictionaires for the young - so they can satisfy their hunger for knowledge. ;)
Willy Sheener, nicknamed the "Eel" is stalking poor Laura, so of course Stefan comes and beats the s*it out of him. Sheener has a small cameo later but eventually dies...as do all obstacles in this novel. Wait, there are no obstacles in this novel.
Shortly after his death the book takes a 180 degree turn - as Laura was abused to no end it's time to make it up for the poor lad. She meets and ideal husband, Danny, becomes a writer, sells her book for over a million dollars without one rejection, has a beautiful kid, discovers a new planet...or wait...
Obviously inspired by Cinderella, Laura rises from awful childhood to an impossibly succesful end. The road towards this unbelieveable success is well...unbelieveable, and that's all about it. Of course Thelma also becomes incredibly succesful, marries a rich man etc etc etc. Since it's not intended to be a comedy, and I believe was written in utmoust seriousness, it's not a good thing.
What's the point of showing the striving towards success when there's no striving ?
At one point one of the characters gets hurt, so Laura has to drive him to a doctor. Of course she finds the doctor immediately, and he's obviously a good and helpful doctor.
Here's a quotation to illustrate how good and helpful he is.
"He went to the tall, white, metal cabinets along the far wall and poured capsules from a large jar into a pill bottle, then from another large jar into a second small bottle. “I keep some basic drugs here, sell them to poorer patients at cost so they don't have to go broke at the pharmacy."
...honestly, it's so bad it's not even funny.
But that's not the end. Since there's time-travel involved, ole Stefan turns out to be an ex-nazi, and he finally reveals why he's stalking Laura. The reader is on the edge of his seat, expecting a brilliant plot twist - maybe Laura's grandfather had something to do with the time-travel project, maybe it was her father, her dog, whoever...maybe she is an angel who was foretold to go back in time and destroy the nazis ? No, no, but the last one would actually be quite funny and propably better than what's coming. Stefan simply fell in love with Laura and her books. Now I can understand and sometimes even pardon sentimentality, but didn't Danny fell in love wih Laura for the exact same reason ? Come on, the same stretched to the point of hilarity thing happens TWICE ? That's the sort of sentimentality that touches not my heart, but my gut.
BURP.
The book falls gradually from here, Laura becomes a gun trotting American mama who saves her child from the evil Germans. All backed up with the mighty second ammendment and a ridiculous number of product placement (all American, of course): Indiana Jones, McDonalds, Smith n Wesson etc etc etc.
The gun propaganda in the novel is one of the most bothering points. At one point the following conversation takes place:
"Some people believe the best way to solve a problem is with violence: they beat up or kill anyone who
disagrees with them." "Like these guys who're after us." ("she shoved the muzzle of the .38 against the man's belly. "I'll blow your guts out if you call for help." hahaha, there's nothing like a good example.)
"Pacifism," she said. "That's just the opposite of the firstkind " of bad thinking. Pacifists believe you
should never lift a hand against another human being, no matter what he has done or what you know he's
going to do. If a pacifist was standing beside his brother, and if he saw a man coming to kill his brother, he'd urge his brother to run, but he wouldn't pick up a gun and stop the killer."
"He'd let the guy go after his brother?" Chris asked, astonished. "Yes. If worse came to worst, he'd let his brother be murdered rather than violate his own principles and become a killer himself. "That's whacko."
Yes, let's just terrorize all people with guns and kill them preventionally before they might think of killing us. And after that eat a hamburger while watching E.T. That wouldn't be whacko at all.
The book also contains descriptions of historical figures, the ever-helping uncle Winston Churhill, who's a literal reincarnation of Winnie The Pooh, and Adolf Hitler, a dumbass blinded by greed and lust for power. The black-and-white division is more than visible - it's iritating. Oh, and apparently every aspiring female novelist is able to contact gun dealers highly sought after by the Police, and get just about any weapon, including an atom bomb - all of this while doing a "research for a novel". Quite a way to hide a plot hole.
Speaking of plot holes:
"We can only sleep in motels if I pay cash. A credit card record might be all they need to find us. Then
they'd come back in time to the night I used the credit card, and they'd kill us at the motel."
How can people from 1944 Germany who time-traveled into the 80's USA, without and documents or identity, have access to restricted data like credit card operations of a specific person ?
PEW PEW PEW and we have the end of the book. I could go on, but I don't want to.
THE GOOD
-The first part
-Willie Shearn
-Time travelling nazis in ray-bans
-No superdog
THE BAD
-Way, way, WAY to overtly sentimental
-Stefan and Danny
-The second part
-No monkeys
I was torn between 2 and three stars, but decided on 3/5, because I liked the cover.
Oh yes, that reminds me, The Eel. How implausible is it that Stefan didn't just kill the creep? No, he opts for an ass-kicking. ??? I don't think so, ex-Nazi who don't want to kill anymore aside, I can't see the asskicking taking place. Unless it's followed by a bullet to the head.Maciek wrote: How can people from 1944 Germany who time-traveled into the 80's USA, without and documents or identity, have access to restricted data like credit card operations of a specific person?
Maybe the ray-ban nazis were doing research for a novel and got themselves some contacts LOL
Oh yes, that reminds me, The Eel. How implausible is it that Stefan didn't just kill the creep? No, he opts for an ass-kicking. ??? I don't think so, ex-Nazi who don't want to kill anymore aside, I can't see the asskicking taking place. Unless it's followed by a bullet to the head. "He's one of those ugly PACIFISTS !
Maciek wrote: "Here goes. Obvious SPOILERS!**********************************************************
Lightning starts out with a bang, and fades out like a diminishing thunder: A snowstorm rages, in a lone ho..."
So you liked it then? ;-)
Around to page 100, later it became much too Rambo meets Back to The Future to be taken seriously by me.
Maciek wrote: He's one of those ugly PACIFISTS!LMAO
Maciek wrote: "Here goes. Obvious SPOILERS!**********************************************************
Lightning starts out with a bang, and fades out like a diminishing thunder: A snowstorm rages, in a lone ho..."
Thankfully, the book was far less boring and drawn out than your critique.
Ouch. Be careful coming down on someones favorite reads...:)I like Koontz, but wasn't that fond of Lightening either. I read it several years ago. Certainly not the worst thing he's written, but far from his best also.
Tom wrote: "Thankfully, the book was far less boring and drawn out than your critique."Bazinga! Good one, Tom. :-D
Mike wrote: "...Certainly not the worst thing he's written, but far from his best also."That's how I feel about it too, Mike. It barely received 4 out of 5 stars from me and that is only because I rounded up from a 3.5.
Tom wrote: "Thankfully, the book was far less boring and drawn out than your critique. "Glad you enjoyed it. Overtly sentimental and cheesy fiction has its fans too, I guess. :)
And how can my criticism be boring ? I highlighted the things you propably liked most.
Maciek wrote: "And how can my criticism be boring ?..."Your self-righteousness is blindingly (only to you) astounding, your condescension trite. :)
b'bye
Tom wrote: "Maciek wrote: "And how can my criticism be boring ?..."Your self-righteousness is blindingly (only to you) astounding, your condescension trite. :)
b'bye"
Self-righteousness ? condescension ? Only one of us boasted about his university education, even named the university where he got it - and it sure as hell wasn't me. :)
Good day kind sir.
Apparently not. The only things you post here are random ramblings of a man who has nothing to say on the topic, and posts some crap concerning the poster. Glad you liked the book, but I'm afraid you're not the only member of the group. Don't troll, it's not nice:)
I wish I could pinch both of your cheeks. You two always get each other riled up. :-)
I'm not riled up. I just post reviews. :)
Favorite quote from Lightning -"Destiny struggles to reassert the pattern that was meant to be"
Sheila wrote: "Favorite quote from Lightning -"Destiny struggles to reassert the pattern that was meant to be""
I got so sick of hearing that.
ah come on Jason, it is a keeper!
Sheila wrote: "ah come on Jason, it is a keeper!"I would get sick of hearing any phrase if it were repeated as many times as that phrase was repeated in Lightning. I felt like Koontz was trying to shove it into my brain.
How do we know he wasn't Jason. Maybe it is a sinister plot to obtain access to our brains for some unknown future sinister horror. That would be a great plot wouldn't it?
Jason "plasborgma" wrote: "Sheila wrote: "ah come on Jason, it is a keeper!"I would get sick of hearing any phrase if it were repeated as many times as that phrase was repeated in Lightning. I felt like Koontz was trying to shove it into my brain."
I'm telling you Jason, by reading this book we're being indoctrinated.
Maciek wrote: "Jason "plasborgma" wrote: "Sheila wrote: "ah come on Jason, it is a keeper!"I would get sick of hearing any phrase if it were repeated as many times as that phrase was repeated in Lightning. I fe..."
I think you might be right, Mac, and you too, Sheila. :-)
It wouldn't have been bad if destiny actually did reassert the pattern, but it didn't, making the phrase pointless and unnecessary. If Chris died and Laura was paralyzed, then it would have meant something.
Jackie wrote: "It wouldn't have been bad if destiny actually did reassert the pattern, but it didn't, making the phrase pointless and unnecessary. If Chris died and Laura was paralyzed, then it would have meant ..."Well, it says it always struggles to reassert itself, not that it always succeeds. I guess even destiny (and thereby God, according to Koontz) gets frustrated and gives up after a while. :-D
Jackie wrote: "If Chris died and Laura was paralyzed, then it would have meant something. "If that happened I would actually be impressed !
Or possibly DE-pressed... And the sales would have suffered. I didn't really care for this one all that much (I mean, it's not his worst by far, but not near his best either. It's defiantly a bit on the negative side.) I'm not sure I could have taken an "unhappy ending" on top of that. :)
Koontzland - Dean Koontz
Books mentioned in this topic
Lightning (other topics)Authors mentioned in this topic
Dean Koontz (other topics)Joe Hill (other topics)
I agree with Jason, I think it was meant to be a huge surprise. However, the real twist was the reason of Stefan's care for Laura: I was expecting that her father/mother/granfather/whatever was related to the time-travel project or something but noooo....he just saw her in a store and fell in love with her, thereby putting a big risk on his whole operation. I know some people might interpret this as a parabole of universal power of love or something but it was just dumb and unnecessary, ruined the book for me.
***SPOILER***