Do you all find comfort in a morally righteous character or does it have its limits? I would say for a fictional character like captain america, I basically expect him to be righteous, which does make the films less interesting to me, but I see what they are going for. For books about regular people I usually hope for more complex characters.
I’m hitting some plot elements that are bothering me enough that its making the book a little harder to continue, but let me start with the good.
I’d say so far I actually do find Koontz righting style fairly enjoyable for a lighthearted read of a darker tale, which is what I was going for after reading some heavier books. He uses analogies, humor, and the book has its morbid moments (an upside for a horror fan), also the chapters are fairly quick which is kind of nice for something easy to pick up and put down.
The main character likes to redeem the fallen, which is great, but some elements push the envelope too far. His abilities allow him to gamble for example and read people so well he can win easily, but he doesn’t want to do it because its “stealing”. It’s a bit of an eye rolling moment hearing of a somewhat poor person to take it that far, but I guess it’s just so important he’s a good guy, and yes I find “Rain Man” to be a really good movie.
But the last chapter, there was a corpse he was having to dispose of, and the dude had over 2 grand in his pockets, there is no one around to judge him, and he puts the money back in the corpses pockets before disposing of him, and it was like holy shit taking this black and white portrayal of good is going way too far. It just seems like a swing and a miss on understanding human nature.
This may be nit-picking, but the main character also has an overly neat relationship with his girlfriend, where they hitch up after high school and everything just goes perfect. I say nit-picking because hitching up early and sticking together can be a great thing, for example King and Hawking did this and it seems like it gave them to peace of mind to focus on producing a lot of impactful work, but it does just add to the overly neat and lack of complexity in relationships.
Anyway, that’s my gripe, I actually still plan to finish the book and watch the movie, I wouldn’t say someone shouldn’t read Koontz or anything, but I have heard critics say he writes characters pretty similar between books, so I doubt I will read a lot of him.
What writers do you all feel do a good job of capturing the complexity of human nature? I have my eye on crime and punishment by Dostoevsky soon after this.
​
​
​
by sillywanderer22
3 Comments
You know, some people like to do good things even when other people aren’t watching, just because they’re good
There are many people who wouldn’t steal from a corpse. It’s kinda expected not to in polite society and the suggestion that it’s human nature to just take things off a corpse when no one is watching is rather a morbid view of your fellow man.
For what it’s worth there’s perfectly moral characters who can provide a good internal struggle. I personally find perfectly moral characters who never have to struggle on decisions to be a bit of a bore to read, but that’s for reading fiction.
Koontz’ writing isn’t where I would go for character depth or subtlety. He’s going to club you in the face repeatedly with how good a person is before thrusting them into a moral dilemma, or he’s going to go on and on about how bad they are before they suddenly behave out of character for redemption. Try not to overthink his books and you’ll be a lot happier with them. I’m not knocking his writing, just… manage your expectations for maximum satisfaction.