What a steaming pile of unfiltered ordure this travesty of a novel is. I am amazed, and rather proud, that I fought my way through nearly 800 pages of this woeful nonsense that has almost zero characterisation, a dubious and scientifically improbable plot, and one of the most frustrating writing styles I have ever encountered.I hated it from the word go, but yeah, I somehow completed it. Part of me wishes I hadn't bothered. Another part is delighted, because I can now legitimately scathe about the awful thing.***Some Minor Spoilers Follow***I hardly know where to begin, so let's begin at the beginning. The first half - perhaps even the first 3/4s - is slow, dull, and eminently frustrating. You wait, fighting through the turgid and annoying prose, to see if it's ever going to make a point. For a long time, it does not. Even where it starts to, it still snaps back all too frequently to the two main protagonists - two people that you *long* for the bad guy to ruin, so vacuous and irritating they are - and you end up wanting to throw the bloody thing at the wall, desperately wanting it to GET TO THE F**KING POINT.The second half/last quarter has more pace, to be fair, but the characterisation is so poor that the only entertainment value comes from the truly psychopathic antagonist. It's a huge indictment on this bilge that you want *him* - a truly evil man - to be the victor in the battle.Linguistically (especially in the first half), Koontz's supremely appalling talent for hyperbolic and tenuous simile and metaphor is surely unsurpassed across the English speaking word. Another hugely annoying aspect of the writing is the fact that it's so dull, so dreadfully written as if his intention is to dumb down everything - yet then, every so often, he uses archaic, literary or otherwise insanely pretentious terminology, and it throws the reader into a confused disarray. Which is it, Mr Koontz? A novel for the masses, or an intended work of literary splendour? It can't be both.At about a quarter of the way in (and fair play to anyone else that forced themselves through the grating, sanctimonious narrative that characterised the writing to that point), the so-called plot reached a juncture at which virtually every future element of the story was more predictable than the very worst of 'Eastenders' episodes. At this point, I almost caved in, my intention being to merely read the Wikipedia article pertaining to the book to prove my estimates correct or otherwise (a pursuit which would almost certainly have been more engaging and worthwhile than reading the book itself). Pure anti-failure, determined masochism was the only thing that prevented me from having the sense to go through with this.Needless to say, the vast majority of my predictions turned out to be accurate. Well, that was a surprise.Perhaps the worst thing about this pathetic drivel is its affront to mental illness and, indeed, the very real phenomenon of repressed memory. At one point, about the middle of the book, one of Koontz's characters claims that repressed memories basically don't exist, that they are all invented through iatrogenic suggestion. There is a movement - the False Memory Syndrome Foundation - that espouse such claims. The concept may even be theoretically possible (see below), but the FMSF are largely discredited and most psychiatric and psychological scholars are agreed that repressed and recovered memories are usually accurate, at least at a general level. It is widely accepted that most claims of false memories are only used in court as a defence against historic abuse. In direct contravention of the allegations made by the aforesaid character, these claims - *not* the recovered memories themselves - are usually what fails in court. (*1, 2, 3)Unfortunately, and the entire novel's premise rests on this, induced false memory syndrome is presented as a perfectly viable practice. Whilst it is certainly arguable (and demonstrable by, for example, the MKULTRA programme) that hypnotic mind control *can* exist, the sad fact is that the book twists and normalises the concept into intertwining psychotherapy, a usually legitimate profession, and the induction of false memories. As noted above, this is a technique frequently employed by abusers who wish to disguise the actions they perpetrated to a victim during his/her childhood. It is usually used as a legal defence and eminent psychiatrists and psychologists the world over agree that it is a unsubstantiated and unlikely claim. Koontz's research, if he ever did any, is poor to say the least; that he doesn't even acknowledge that the idea of false memories is highly controversial, and that the practice of inducing them is unlikely to *ever* be done in the fashion discussed in his novel, does a massive disservice to genuine survivors of abuse who have been through the recovery of very real memories.Although its portrayal of agoraphobia is, to its credit, relatively accurate, the condition is consistently denied to be a real mental health concern, thereby demeaning the very real psychic suffering of those afflicted with this condition. Furthermore, the main female protagonist proclaims about a quarter of the way through that she would rather have a brain tumour than a mental illness; this appears to suggest to the reader that mental illnesses are either incurable or unmanageable, which is a contention that is patently and quite demonstrably false.I do appreciate that the novel, as a supposed thriller, is not intended to be necessarily realistic; however, the sad fact is that mental and trauma-induced illnesses remain highly societally stigmatised, and it strikes me that people who are lay to this arena may not feel that they have sufficient reason to question the dubious nature of the novel's portrayal of these issues.All scientific criticisms aside, it just sucks ram bollocks anyway. It is boring. It is humourless (save for the odd psychopathic fantasy from Ahriman). It is pathetically characterised and hopelessly lacking in substantive plotting.In short, whilst its turgid prose tries, and fails, to be literary and pretentious throughout, all the book succeeds in doing is atrophying and irritating the reader's mind. The very best part of it was closing it for the final time.First and last exposure to Dean Koontz. Sorry.---* A few examples of sources1 http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Taubman...2 http://web.archive.org/web/2008010707365...3 http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/d...
This was my first Dean Koontz read, and it had been recommended to me by several friends. To me, his writing is different, and it is certainly disturbing. I came out of the end of this book wondering if the author himself is more than a little bit twisted. But then, that could be an indicator of extremely clever writing.Following the same lines as Psycho, the story hinges on the convincing of the victims that they are suffering from pshycological problems, and that they need help. Hypnotism is the key, and the keywords and triggers associated with that art or science are the essential ingredients to some very scary plot lines.To go any further might spoil the read for you, but what I have said so far is blatantly apparent very early on in the book.There are parts of this which were too predictable for me, but that complaint is counter-balanced by the fact that there were many events which were not predictable, and which were downright gruesome.This is a great read and I would recommend it to any adult who can cope with the violence and the fear. Enough of it is realistic enough to have one looking over one's shoulder, although there are parts which made me think "that could never happen."I woul dhave been tempted to give this five stars if it had been less than five hundred pages. The size of the volume has often put me off reading Koontz before now. Luckily, I was on vacation, so I had plenty of time to wade through this one in a couple of days. Maybe next year I shall pick up another offering from this author.
Do You like book False Memory (2000)?
It's hard to describe the plot/premise of "False Memory" without spoilers, so I won't try. Both are excellent. Like most of Koontz's books, this one features a likable young couple, a goofy brother, and a few other colorful supporting characters, each fleshed out in wonderfully quirky detail. There's even a golden retriever. However, the most memorable aspect of this work is the villain, an egotistical genius whose passions include mind control, murder, games, and sweets. Koontz writes long passages from the villain's perspective, and the reader gets an in-depth view of this character's fascinatingly twisted mind. Many writers create villains who commit execrable atrocities, but few can concoct a personality as vile as that of False Memory's antagonist. I found myself turning the pages not from a desire to see the heroes save the day, but from a specific, personal loathing of the villain, and a deep desire to see him fall. Koontz allows the reader to know this character well enough to deplore him in a meaningful, personal way that goes far beyond simple condemnation of his actions. There are enough perils and close calls to satisfy those who crave adventure, and enough family issues to please fans of drama. False Memory lacks the strong science fiction or supernatural elements that Koontz sometimes uses, so it falls squarely in the "thriller" genre. However, the book is entertaining enough without ghosts, aliens, or demons. I would recommend "False Memory" to anyone who enjoys reading a good story, and especially to fans of Koontz.
—Eris R.
I enjoyed this book. And to be perfectly honest, it had been quite a while since I read a Dean Koontz novel that I actually liked.The premise is interesting, and even though it may seem far fetched, it is an equally terrifying thought, the notion that one could be so easily brainwashed by a genius psychiatrist and ordered to commit horrific crimes without ever remembering having done so. Additionally, I love the way Koontz gets the reader into the mind of the villain, in some ways allowing you to comprehend his genuinely sick frame of thought. The characters were definitely likable and I felt an attachment to them early on and throughout. Although I will admit a good amount of the events that take place do a great job of reminding you that this is OBVIOUSLY fiction and nothing more. There were times when the story seemed to drag on endlessly, especially during the moments when Dusty Rhodes, one of the main characters, has a meaningless fight with some of his family members that became another story within itself.However, all in all, I can say I just finished a book that I will not forget. It wasn't the best thing I've ever read, and I do feel some parts of the story didn't seem in anyway plausible or even comprehensible, but I was nevertheless entertained and yes, all in all, I enjoyed False Memory.
—Roberto Guerra
My favorite part of Dean Koontz's books is not knowing what to expect. Sometimes, the stories have perfectly logical and scientific explanations. Sometimes, everything is driven by something supernatural. Most times, it's a delightful blend of the two. Part of what keeps me reading is to find out which it will be: logic or supernatural.A portion of my disappointment with this novel was he reveals that mystery so early in the book. There was some nice minor surprises throughout, but I figured out the identity of the bad guy and his methods chapters before the main characters did. Also, I kept waiting for the twist, the science-gone-bad or supernatural-world-collision...and it never happened. What you figure out in the first half of the book is all you get. It was a terrifying idea, don't get me wrong, but once revealed, the book should have ended quickly. And it kept going.I was also disturbed by the graphic images of horrifying things happening to children, but that's a personal preference. If you have problems with children being tortured and killed, you should avoid this book.Of course, a good Koontz novel is like a great novel from just about any other author, and I didn't want to put it down. But I won't reread this one, like I do so many of this others.
—Morgan Ives
