Koontzland - Dean Koontz discussion
This topic is about
The Bad Place
Stand Alone Novels 1986-1990
>
The Bad Place (Group Read - May 2010)
Sound advice, Maciek.
************Spoiler through page 70ish(?)************So, I just read about Thomas, and I found myself getting angry. Perhaps irrationally angry, but still angry. It seems to me, that while Dean is/was trying to sound very progressive in his thinking about mentally handicapped people, he came off sounding condescending and insulting towards them instead.
I mean, using the word "moron" is insulting - even in the 80s/90s. I know that it used to have a different meaning in regards to mental retardation, but for many, many years now, the term has been used as a popular word for an idiot, someone who is just stupid or ignorant and meant, to my understanding, to BE insulting.
And the way that things are worded... Like saying that people who have sufficient mental capacity to clean up after themselves are allowed to have a refrigerator for snacks. This just struck me as so condescending. He could have said abilities, and it would have struck me differently, as if he was saying it as a positive rather than insinuating something like "Awww... aren't they pathetic? We give the bright ones 'normal people' priveleges and that makes them feel human sometimes."
I just felt like Dean was (again) trying to be progressive, but really came off sounding like he was born in the 1800s with his attitudes towards mental deficiency... =\
Maybe it wasn't meant to be insulting, and I just saw it that way.
Did anyone else feel like this, or think I'm just reading too much into this?
I just finished this last night and it's among my favorite DK books now.
Mod
Becky wrote: "...Did anyone else feel like this, or think I'm just reading too much into this?"I didn't feel like he was trying to be insulting. If it seemed that way to you, then it was likely unintentional.
Jason "plasborgma" wrote: "Becky wrote: "...Did anyone else feel like this, or think I'm just reading too much into this?"I didn't feel like he was trying to be insulting. If it seemed that way to you, then it was likely unintentional."
Oh I'm not saying that it was intentional, just that the way it was written bothered me. It felt almost like he thinks of mentally handicapped people as "morons" - probably in the original use sense - but that's outdated, and is no longer an accepted usage, so reading the word "moron" in that context initially strikes me as insulting. Maybe this just comes back to him writing too much and being out of touch with people. *shrug*
Either way, it bothers me. Even more so because I don't think that he intentionally wrote it to feel that way.
Mod
No problem, Dustin... I'm just throwing it out there! :)
Mod
Dustin wrote: "I'm picking up my audio CD of The Bad Place from the library today - the library patron finally returned the item, over 1 week late :-)"Naughty library patron! X-( ;-)
I think part of what Koontz is doing is (trying) to shine a light on attitudes toward the "mentally challenged" (the phrase didn't exist when this book was written). Later he did far better and with more sensitivity. ********************SPOILER ALERT******************
I think that possibly Thomas was included to raise questions about the source of the "mental abilities" and also to simply to give us a sympathetic character to kill off. He was mostly a (I think) a plot device.
By the way as I and others have said, Koontz explored some of these ideas and character types later and better. Remember "Senseamia" in One Door Away From Heaven" trying to produce "magic" children by taking mixtures of hallucinogens etc. while pregnant? There is a Downs Syndrome boy in that book also. I think Koontz attempts to place his works in a single "world" or "universe" and he tries to grow or improve some of the same character types as he goes.
Yes I know there will be disagreement on how well he succeeds... But I (just me in other words)think that's where he's going.
Mike wrote: " I think Koontz attempts to place his works in a single "world" or "universe" and he tries to grow or improve some of the same character types as he goes. "That's called recycling. ;)
Mike wrote: "...Remember "Senseamia" in One Door Away From Heaven" trying to produce "magic" children by taking mixtures of hallucinogens etc. while pregnant? There is a Downs Syndrome boy in that book also...."I don't recall there being a DS boy in ODafH.
Dustin wrote: "Yay!!!! Cold Fire is next right? :-)"I may read The Kult first (depending on when I get it in the mail).
But yes, Cold Fire will definitely be my next DK book :)
Update: Just checked my mail and no The Kult, so I'm officially starting Cold Fire.
Maybe I should have said young man. Rickster is a young man who lives at the "home" where Noah's sister is. They "take him in" as part of their "group" in the end.Anymore would be a big spoiler for anyone who hasn't read it.
Mike wrote: "Maybe I should have said young man. Rickster is a young man who lives at the "home" where Noah's sister is. They "take him in" as part of their "group" in the end...."Oh, yes, I forgot about the detective's personal story. Thanks for reminding me. :-)
I'm not really loving this one. I don't really like any of the characters, or the writing, or the story. =\ Nothing is grabbing me and making me want to read it, and I don't care enough about the "good guys" to even really want them to not get killed.
*sigh* I'm not even compelled to find out what's going on. Blah.
Mod
:'-( Tears
I haven't started yet, but will soon.
I'm sorry Dustin! I wanted to like it, I really did. It's just not grabbing my interest. I'll give it until the mid-way point, because I think someone says that it picks up later, maybe it will. That's 60 pages or so...
Becky wrote: "I don't really like any of the characters, or the writing, or the story. =\ Nothing is grabbing me and making me want to read it, and I don't care enough about the "good guys" to even really want them to not get killed. *sigh* I'm not even compelled to find out what's going on. Blah...."I too am suffering from such a detachment from the characters. However, I am intrigued enough by the plot to be enjoying it at this point.
I'm glad that I'm not the only one ambivalent about this one, Jason.
*********************Possible Spoiler below*****************I posted my review of this book and that's the basic conclusion I came to about this one and why I end up so ambivalent about it. I gave it 3 stars and noted that in the end I just couldn't care that much about the characters. (And that says something as the "evil" is way up on the "twisted" scale).
Mod
Becky wrote: "I'm not really loving this one. I don't really like any of the characters, or the writing, or the story. =\ Nothing is grabbing me and making me want to read it, and I don't care enough about the "good guys" to even really want them to not get killed.
*sigh* I'm not even compelled to find out what's going on. Blah. "
Jason "plasborgma" wrote: "I too am suffering from such a detachment from the characters. However, I am intrigued enough by the plot to be enjoying it at this point. "
That's surprising. I thought you two would enjoy it. I consider it one of his best efforts.
Maciek wrote: "That's surprising. I thought you two would enjoy it. I consider it one of his best efforts."Make sure to post your review here at some point.
Maciek, there's still time - I'm giving it to the 1/2 way point to grab me. If it hasn't, then I think I'm just going to move on to something else. Too many books, too little time.
I wanted to finish it....but it's not one of my favorites.
I'm pretty much at the half-way point, and I'm still undecided whether I want to finish it or not. It has picked up a little, but I'm not compelled to pick it back up when I've put it down. ***Spoilery stuff***
I'm also really annoyed at the sections which are from Thomas's POV. I mentioned how I felt that Dean was condescending toward mental handicaps (at least I felt that he was here), but now that Thomas is narrating his own sections, I feel that even more. Barely a sentence goes by without Thomas calling himself dumb. And then he pops in the World's Sweetest and Most Caring Nurse with the token line "You're not dumb." Like he's trying to take back all the condescension and "normal" vs "Thomas" stuff he'd been going on about for pages and pages.
Granted, I haven't read a lot of stuff from the POV of a person with Down Syndrome, or even know much about DS myself, but the self-loathing strikes me as wrong and over the top and fake. I'm not saying that it's impossible for someone with DS to feel that way, but here it feels off somehow.
I don't know. I'm blabbing on. I'm still really not feeling this one. I'll sleep on it and see if I want to pick it up tomorrow or not.
********************Spoiler Material***********************Becky, I'm not real thrilled with this book (I don't hate it like I have a couple, but neither do I love it as I have a couple). But, to be fair, I think Koontz is trying to show us what's been done TO Thomas. That he and his sister "had it rough" (a lot of Koontz's protagonists seem to have had it rough). I just think that Koontz was farther back along his learning curve when he wrote this book. I couldn't get into the characters either and skimmed the Thomas parts mostly. Still (again to be fair to Mr. Koontz) I have read his better books so this one and others don't come off well in comparison, that may be part of the problem.
Becky, notice that the word "dumb" comes out only from Thomas. I think it's not insulting when he calls himself this way - sort of like black men calling themselves "nigger".I feel your pain though; his characters annoyed me in many of his books, most notably Watchers and Lighning and all the recent stuff. Especially his females - they're either idealized (like the nurse you mentioned) or commando like. I always thought that his characters were just plot devices - most of the time he can't create a realistic character so just goes with a team of dummies that wear badges like "BAD GUY", "GOOD GUY", "WITTY WOMAN", "DISABLED KID" etc.
I don't want to force you to finish a book you don't like but this story takes some surprising turns which I didn't predict, and that's why I like it. Koontz does know how to put together an exciting plot - it's his greatest strenght - and The Bad Place is a great example. The story itself overshadowed his inability to create compelling characters (though I really liked the disabled boys), his bad dialogue and the notorious political agenda - which I'm sure is here somewhere, lol.
Plus it's definitely one of his darkest books.
*****Maybe spoilery stuff below - up to 1/2 way mark*****Maciek wrote: "Becky, notice that the word "dumb" comes out only from Thomas. I think it's not insulting when he calls himself this way - sort of like black men calling themselves "nigger"."
I did notice that he is the only one who's called himself dumb, (Except the "High Functioning Moron" Mary, anyway - which comes back to Koontz's old-fashioned word usage/ideas) however I disagree with you that it's not insulting /he's not insulting himself by doing it. I don't feel like the word "dumb" is used in the same manner as black people using the N word. That's taking someone else's derogatory word and changing it's meaning among themselves to be something different and not insulting when used between them.
Thomas is not doing that. When he uses the word "dumb" he uses it in the derogatory sense in regards to himself. He knows that he is different, and not able to understand many things that others would, and because of this understanding of his own lack, he considers himself dumb. Really dumb. It's like it's a part of his identity. Thomas = Dumb.
Worst is that he knows enough of perception to be afraid of letting other people see him the same way. It felt to me that he was trained from an early age to see himself that way and it became part of who he is. And that is incredibly sad.
Add that to my earlier opinions of the way that Thomas was described by Koontz via the narration, and it's insulting because I feel like Koontz sees disabled people that way. A ways down on the totem pole from him but unable to change their status, so they loathe themselves in envy. And that makes me angry.
*************************Possible Spoiler Discussion Continued *********************Well, I can't agree on your take of Koontz's attitude. I do believe that he learned to discuss this and illustrate it much better later.
I think you hit it on the head however that Thomas had been taught to see himself this way. i think that was the point. Thomas had been oppressed in his life. Part of his sister's dream was to have Thomas with her in a home.
Koontz manages his characters better in later books. While they tend to still fall into some familiar categories they do get developed better. The females in One Door Away From Heaven or By The Light of The Moon while not being award winning (and still having their annoying moments as do the male characters) they do develop.
By the way in By The Light of the Moon the autistic brother Shep almost drives me up the wall. I skim a lot of that book....but....what Koontz is trying to show is the frustration of living with and caring for Shep. He may not be the best at these things but he does well enough.
Of course I don't expect everyone to agree. I listed 2 of my favorite Koontz books above and I'm sure others will disagree.
I confused Thomas with Mary, my earlier comment was meant to state that she doesn't find the word "moron" insulting.As much as I dislike his characters I honestly don't think that was his point. He's very sympathetic towards disabled people and often features them (or words that are supposed to resemble them) in his work. Here he tried to create a disabled boy who is aware of his disability and all the bounds it imposes of him. Hence Thomas = Dumb. That's just depression.
******Further spoilery stuff*******I can understand both of you, but I think that its the way it's written that makes me feel this way. It's not... distant enough from the author, if that makes sense.
For instance, Stephen King has written many disabled characters, and I've never once felt that the way that they were described was the way that KING felt about them. Not once. Every character that King writes feels like a real person that King is channeling rather than someone that he created and molded and shaped into what he wanted them to be.
I think that's the real issue that I have with Koontz. His characters are just not REAL to me, and so they come across as extensions of the author, and when I see things like the kind of thing we've been discussing in that kind of situation, I get all pissy about it. LOL
Becky wrote: "...I think that's the real issue that I have with Koontz. His characters are just not REAL to me, and so they come across as extensions of the author..."That is often true, unfortunately, but not always.
Yeah, I didn't feel that way with Intensity, and not so much with House of Thunder either, but I definitely feel that way with this one.
Becky wrote: " Every character that King writes feels like a real person that King is channeling rather than someone that he created and molded and shaped into what he wanted them to be. ."Agree 15000%.
Becky wrote: "I think that's the real issue that I have with Koontz. His characters are just not REAL to me, and so they come across as extensions of the author, and when I see things like the kind of thing we've been discussing in that kind of situation, I get all pissy about it. LOL"
I propably said this before, but Koontz never writes actual characters, only his impressions of them. You can easily see where he channels his propaganda through the mouth of his creation. Basically he's bad, sometimes even extremely bad at creeating characters. However, there are occasions when he gets the job done right - examples being books like The Voice of The Night or The Face.
Basically, he's a writer of popular fiction, bordering on pulp. I don't expect him to create a realistic character because it requires a certain amount of skill - I want his characters only not to bother me. And sometimes he succeeds...sometimes not.
Becky wrote: "Yeah, I didn't feel that way with Intensity, and not so much with House of Thunder either, but I definitely feel that way with this one."Yes, certainly not always. I could list some examples of his books that contain very realistic characters, but I don't think it is necessary to list them here. I'm just saying that unrealistic characters are not an uncommon feature of Koontz novels.
Yes, Maciek, that's exactly it.
Jason "plasborgma" wrote: "I could list some examples of his books that contain very realistic characters, but I don't think it is necessary to list them here."Please do ! I'm curious.
We are going a bit off-topic here, I hope that the future will forgive us.
Jason, I would be interested to know which ones you enjoyed for the characters. You can message me with the list if you don't want to post it here, if you don't mind. :)I haven't read nearly as much Koontz as you guys have... I know that some of the ones I read during my teenage years (and can't specifically remember so don't count as read) I enjoyed very much, and they may have had the same issues as this one. I think I am a different reader now than I used to be, and that makes a big difference in interpretation.
Maciek wrote: "Please do ! I'm curious.We are going a bit off-topic here, I hope that the future will forgive us."
Nah, you already have. :-P Let's get back on topic.
Becky wrote: "Jason, I would be interested to know which ones you enjoyed for the characters. You can message me with the list if you don't want to post it here, if you don't mind. :)..."I'd be happy to, Becky. I'm glad you're not giving up on Koontz just yet. You know the two I want you to read most are Winter Moon and Phantoms. ;-)
Becky wrote: "I haven't read nearly as much Koontz as you guys have... I know that some of the ones I read during my teenage years (and can't specifically remember so don't count as read) I enjoyed very much, and they may have had the same issues as this one. I think I am a different reader now than I used to be, and that makes a big difference in interpretation. "I've read roughly the same number of titles by both authors, and while I still consider old Steve to be more gifted in the talent department I've come to a conlusion.
King novels are character driven; Koontz novels are plot driven. King can create realistic and compelling characters so he bases his stories around them, while in Koontz's case characters serve as devices to move the story along.
I agree with you about the change of taste - if I'd read Watchers or Lighning when I was 13 or 15 I propably wouldn't notice the obvious flaws of these works,meaning the simplistic and stereotypical characterization.
That is all. Serious cat is serious.
Maciek wrote: "Becky wrote: "I haven't read nearly as much Koontz as you guys have... I know that some of the ones I read during my teenage years (and can't specifically remember so don't count as read) I enjoyed..."Funny, I made that exact comment in the SK group over a year ago (maybe Becky will recall). By the way, Sirius is a dog, not a cat. ;-)
Hehe, you guys are crack ups. :)But you're right. And that's why I love King the way I do.
I've decided that I will finish this one and see where it goes and how I feel about the story as a whole. :)
*************************************Still Spoiler Stuff*******************************I don't know, it seems to me that possibly a lot of this is taste and impression. There are very few King novels that I can say I actually "like". There are a few. Some I admit are well written, but I just don't care for them.
To step back let me note that often I prefer a plot driven book if it's done well, that in itself isn't a negative.
As to Koontz characters, looking at the sheer volume of his work it is almost impossible that he won't write in a "range", and as we've all observed, he does. Some of his books I find I never want to see again, but some I like a great deal. In the Taking the characters are sketched out, but work. In the face we get a little closer, mostly based on little details we find out about each player.
Back when I wasn't what would be called Koontz fan, my wife was. She got me to read Watchers and I like it pretty well, but then I love dogs, I think most dog lovers would like that one. Then I read Twilight Eyes, it's one of those "might have been" books. I like the idea and wish he'd tried to develop it more, maybe done a later book expanding the idea. I read quite a few of his books and wasn't all that impressed, good, "okay" books. Then he wrote a series of books (not books in a series, but several books that were published in a row) all of which I liked. They started to show up in about '99, False Memory, From the Corner of His Eye, One Door Away from Heaven, By the Light of the Moon, The Face, (skip Odd Thomas, not bad, but not a favorite)The Taking .....all these I liked greatly. An insight for me was that soon it became apparent that while I liked these greatly and they turned me into a Koontz fan, others were disappointed in them and started talking about the "new Koontz". Of course as time went on, there was even a "new, new" Koontz.
This book, from 1990 is actually sort of "mid-carrier" or "late early carrier" for him and it shows in the characters which are in some ways lightly drawn almost pencil sketches of characters that will show up later.
However, the characters that started showing up later did not stay consistent and we still (especially in a few of the most recent books) get cookie cutter sort of "punch-out" versions of characters.
All that is from my point of view. If nothing else being a Koontz fan means picking out the novels you really like and accepting that there will others that just don't appeal to you.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with plot driven novels, if they are done well, but I prefer character driven ones. I love closing a book and feeling like I've just visited people that I know and have experienced what has happened in the story along with them, whereas with plot driven books, I can say, "What a ride!" but it still lacks something for me because I relate to the story through the people I'm able to piggy-back with. If I don't know who that is, it makes it hard for me to see the events through their eyes and experience them. That's why I read, to experience the thrill, or the terror or the love or the adventure or whatever with the characters. An exciting book is exciting to me when I care about the characters and worry for their well-being and want them to succeed.
Coming back to the King comparison - King is comparatively prolific, but each of his stories and the characters who inhabit them is unique. I've never thought of his characters in terms of recyclable labels. I don't think it's fair to say that prolific writers will repeat characters/types because it's impossible (or almost impossible) to do otherwise.
I think this comes back to something that Maciek said earlier - that Koontz should write less and observe more. If all you have to write is what is in your head, it has to go stale at some point. The details may change, and the scenario may change, but the story doesn't.
Again, I'm speaking on the basis of the few books I've read AND REMEMBER. I'll read more of Koontz, but he just doesn't compare to King for me.
Koontzland - Dean Koontz
Books mentioned in this topic
Carrie (other topics)House of Reckoning (other topics)
The Kult (other topics)
The Bad Place (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Shel Silverstein (other topics)Dean Koontz (other topics)
I don't think he'll listen to you. He's been doing that for decades now. That's why I think he should stop writing for 17 hours a day and go out to see how real people interact.