Scan barcode
cocahina's review
3.0
this one started out really slow. i didn't find the characters particularly well-drawn. i struggled to connect with them in any meaningful way, with one exception. the pace picked up a little when bess was introduced, though it was still a little slow-moving until the last 15-20%.
the aforementioned character exceptiom was rocky. having a rescue dog myself, who came with a history of abuse, I found rocky to be a fully realized, believable chatacter (throughout most of the book, anyhow).
the aforementioned character exceptiom was rocky. having a rescue dog myself, who came with a history of abuse, I found rocky to be a fully realized, believable chatacter (throughout most of the book, anyhow).
pjmurphy3's review against another edition
4.0
It's very interesting book with lots of great twists and turns and Redevelopment of characters. The characters are well fleshed out and make for interesting storylines. Although I do feel that some of the switching of POV left me vaguely disoriented so I I think it would have been better to have single chapters that I can head towards the POV at the time.
jenniferbbookdragon's review
5.0
Another great novel from Dean Koontz: personal tragedy, organized evil, vague supernatural occurrences, with great, authentic characters and complex relationships. Plus a great dog!
redsg's review against another edition
2.0
No direct spoilers, but in general terms, I do talk about, events throughout the narrative that reveal small plot elements. Avoid reading this review if you want to go in with a completely blind eye, but tl;dr I don’t recommend this book either way.
Dean Koontz is a name that, like James Patterson and Danielle Steel, has come to be synonymous with hackery in the literary world. But like all hacks, he had to have had good beginnings, and so I decided to look at one of his more popular novels. Admittedly, I should have begun with his earlier horror works that garnered him his initial fame, but "Dark Rivers of the Heart" was the first one I could get my hands on.
Alas, I ultimately have to say that the popular criticisms of Koontz hold mostly true. He is, without a doubt, a talented writer, able to use a wide variety of diction to form some of the most vivid imagery I have ever had the privilege to read. In particular, I enjoyed his exploration of character thoughts, treating his cast like an entourage out of a Shakespeare play, each with their own deep, intertwining inner feelings and turmoil about the world around them. Of course, there will no doubt be people who chastise this as "unrealistic," and they may be right (humans are simple animals after all). But, to continue the Shakespearean analogy, if we are expected to praise the melancholic power of Hamlet's "To Be or Not to Be" soliloquy, or Romeo's extended metaphor of Juliet being the sun, as examples of great writing, then why should Koontz's own take be thrown under the bus?
That being said, this is the only glowing praise I can offer Koontz (based off of my reading of Dark Rivers) as he falters significantly when it comes to character development, dialogue, sociopolitical commentary, and plotting.
Let’s begin with the first-Koontz’s protagonists of Spencer Grant, Valerie Keene, Mr. Rocky Dog, and Descoteaux undergo very hackneyed transformations that are rushed and consequently feel forced. Koontz definitely had clear intentions about what arcs he wanted everyone to experience: Grant would get over his tortured past, Valerie would learn to love and trust again, Descoteaux would lose his naivety about the state of society, and Rocky would gain courage like the Cowardly Lion from The Wizard of Oz. Yet each one of these fails for a variety of reasons. Let's start with Grant- Grant mopes and mopes about how he doesn’t deserve a good life because of the sins of his father, yet at the same time he has no problem essentially stalking Valerie due to a fairy tale-esque hope that he can live a happy life with her. This is made all the more worse when he meets her and instantly flirts with her, but more on that later.
Having conflicting thoughts and actions is something that happens in real life, particularly among people with depression and neuroticism- we take a small spark of potential happiness and, in our minds, turn it into a blazing fire, only for everything to freeze over like Hell in the 9th Circle of Dante's Inferno once we realize that things aren’t what we thought they initially were. The issue with Grant in Dark Rivers is that these shifts aren’t naturally done, coming across more as the weird mood swings of a creep and less like the emotional turmoil of a hurt man. This is a guy who has given up everything for this woman, yet wants to act like he doesn't want it. It was too bizarre at times, a facet not helped by Koontz’s amateur romance writing.
Valerie Keene (or whatever other name she goes by) is handled worse since we don’t get much insight into who she was before the events of the book took place. Oh sure, Koontz devotes an entire self-exposition to her, and his aforementioned knack for internal dramatic musings makes for an engaging read. But one small chapter out of an entire 500+ page novel doesn't do her many favors. Why did she want to go into computer security? How does she deal with the stress of avoiding this evil government agency 24/7? Is there any sexual frustration from her loss of a normal life? What is her end goal with regards to this affair? We get little snippets answering these questions but nothing ever concrete. For all intents and purposes she exists as a sexy nerd MacGuffin. Even by the end of the book I couldn't understand what it was about her that drew Spencer to her in the beginning and jumpstarted this whole journey.
Descoteaux is done a bit better since we can get an in-depth exploration of the traumatizing action that hits him and his very human reaction to it all, but like with Valerie there isn't much given as to the kind of person he was before all of this outside of being a generic, do-it-by-the-books cop. It honestly feels like Koontz saw a few episodes of Homicide: Life on the Street and decided to put in his own Frank Pembleton. And much like Jason in Far Cry 3, because I don't know enough about him before his life is turned upside-down, I can't invest in his future. Someone's life being destroyed by an evil force is a common trope in fiction, and Koontz executes it well-enough here to the point that I understood why Descoteaux does what he does. I just wish I knew more about who he used to be outside of an archetypal template.
And as for Rocky the dog, well, to go into details about his change would spoil the climax, so all I'll say here is that it's predictable and sloppy.
For all my criticisms above, though, I will say that everyone was likable, and that made things go a long way. But when you're writing a story with arcs, it is very important in an ensemble to have at least one main character change well. It's what made the first Incredibles work so well. Unfortunately for every protagonist in Dark Rivers, past events from their personal histories have rendered them static and world-weary to the point of having a myopic view of their situations. This lead to the story not being as engaging as it could have been, and I often found myself putting it down over continuing to pick it up day after day.
This isn't the only problem. That dialogue I praised earlier has a double-edged trait to it. On the one hand, it was nice to read something that sounded reminiscent of an epic poem or a tragedy from the Bard of Avon, but an issue with Shakespeare's works in general is that his characters don't sound human. His language was brilliant and revolutionary, however the vast majority of individuals do not speak or think like his characters do. Koontz may be telling a fictitious story, but he was aiming for a level of realism that just seems at odds with how his characters think and talk. These "deeper inklings" that often span multiple pages don't realistically reflect how people actually are.
This issue isn't helped by the fact that Koontz also spends so much damn time wasting paragraph upon paragraph on pointless details that don't affect the story in any significant manner. A great example that perfectly captures these two problems in unison is the introduction of Eve Jammer. Jammer is a character who serves no other purpose in 'Dark Rivers' other than to be main antagonist Roy Miro's f*ck buddy (and I'll get into the glaring errors with Roy later). Yet, for some reason, Koontz decided to devote an entire section of a chapter to her backstory, motivations, and schemes. Why? She honestly gets more attention than Valerie in spite of being an annoying barbie doll and one of the most embarrassing characters I've ever had the misfortune of reading.
I know there are a lot of unjustified comparisons frequently done between Koontz and Stephen King, but credit where credit is due- when King puts in a detail, it feels necessary to the plotline or character development. I can't say the same for Koontz, again based solely on 'Dark Rivers'.
Not helping any of the above is Koontz's poor integration of his political views. Koontz is an outspoken libertarian, and there's nothing wrong with that or incorporating those beliefs into a work of his creation. But like with all things politics, it has to be done well and subtle enough that it isn't preachy and that simply isn't the case here. Koontz's main gripe is asset forfeiture laws that allow the federal government to essentially seize any citizens' property based on allegations. It's a genuinely concerning legal issue that has been used to destroy people's lives, and Koontz was wise to incorporate it into 'Dark Rivers.' The problem is he's so blatant about it's negativities that its incorporation feels contrived and one-note. Like, there is a literal mini-history lesson thrown into the book delivered by a lawyer character. I sincerely wish Koontz had been subtler about the whole thing as it is, as I said, a very serious issue in the U.S. Making matters worse is that Koontz treats it as a substantial tool of the shadowy government organization, making it seem like some fictitious, Jason Bourne prop over the true reality that it is.
I also wasn't a fan of Koontz's treatment of federal officers as passively-evil individuals. I get that this is ultimately chalked-up to differing political views, but twice in the book Koontz associates pedophilia with law enforcement officers. He also acts like faking LEO credentials isn't a serious crime, and that ALL public/civil servants (whether they be officers or politicians) are either mustache-twirling corrupt, evil, or just plain stupid. To throw the entirety of D.C. under the bus like that is stereotyping at its finest.
All of this is a great transition to Roy Miro. I mentioned him above, but now is the time to delve deep into him as he is the main villain of the story. Koontz devotes a lot of time and energy to explaining to us who this guy is, what his motivations are, what is goals are, and what he ultimately hopes to achieve. He's someone who considers himself enlightened, killing innocent people in order to "release them" from their in this current world. He craves perfection, yet knows deep down that there is no such thing because humans are flawed critters.
Despite all of this effort, I just wasn't able to accept Miro as a character. I didn't think Koontz was in touch with this guy at all, and I've been spending a lot of time trying to figure out why this was the case. Then it hit me- it's because Miro is a hypocrite. Look, all evil beings have flaws in their ideologies; it's what theoretically gives the good guys the upper morale hand. But there were so many glaring flaws with Miro's take on society that he crumbles apart upon even the simplest analysis. What caused him to see himself as the harbringer of this utopia? What schema is he using to determine whether someone is miserable enough to warrant a quick death? He's seen killing working class individuals and the disabled in the book- does this mean that he supports a Gattaca-type society? Is he an ableist? Does this mean he believes the rich elites and the wealthy, the very people that Koontz targets in his book, are the only ones worthy of living because they have no financial stress on them? Why does he care so much about perfection when he openly admits that he is ugly outside of his smile? Why doesn't he off himself or at least use plastic surgery or something to visibly change his visage to match his inner vision?
This is what I mean when I say Miro is a ridiculous construct. I'll give Koontz credit for at least trying to give this guy depth, but somewhere in the conception he failed miserably to make Miro believable as a smart enemy. He's not even a caricature- he's a walking idiot.
Finally, we get to the plotting. I'll acknowledge that the pacing is well done and that this is a work that I personally felt never dragged or rushed, which is the best complement I can give to a thriller. But it all builds up to such a contrived, hackneyed climax involving Spencer's dad, who is even worse written than Miro if one can believe that. It's too coincidental and too silly, but alas I will avoid going into further detail for fear of spoilers.
In conclusion, if Goodreads allowed half-stars I would've given "Dark Rivers of the Heart" a 2.5/5 as I don't think it's a bad book, just misguided and under-written, primarily from a character POV. However, per their rating scale, I did round down as the bad aspects outweighed the good, and I don't think I can quite recommend this novel to fans of crime or mystery literature.
Postscript- I mentioned that Koontz falters when it comes to the paramour between Grant and Keene. To give a little more detail, what I meant was I hated how instantly flirty the two became as soon as they met, as though they were old pals or ex-lovers. It was a forced relationship that lacked chemistry.
Also, the ending is so blatantly reminiscent of The Matrix that I’m surprised Koontz didn’t sue the Wachowskis, though to be fair both have taken influence from other prior works.
Dean Koontz is a name that, like James Patterson and Danielle Steel, has come to be synonymous with hackery in the literary world. But like all hacks, he had to have had good beginnings, and so I decided to look at one of his more popular novels. Admittedly, I should have begun with his earlier horror works that garnered him his initial fame, but "Dark Rivers of the Heart" was the first one I could get my hands on.
Alas, I ultimately have to say that the popular criticisms of Koontz hold mostly true. He is, without a doubt, a talented writer, able to use a wide variety of diction to form some of the most vivid imagery I have ever had the privilege to read. In particular, I enjoyed his exploration of character thoughts, treating his cast like an entourage out of a Shakespeare play, each with their own deep, intertwining inner feelings and turmoil about the world around them. Of course, there will no doubt be people who chastise this as "unrealistic," and they may be right (humans are simple animals after all). But, to continue the Shakespearean analogy, if we are expected to praise the melancholic power of Hamlet's "To Be or Not to Be" soliloquy, or Romeo's extended metaphor of Juliet being the sun, as examples of great writing, then why should Koontz's own take be thrown under the bus?
That being said, this is the only glowing praise I can offer Koontz (based off of my reading of Dark Rivers) as he falters significantly when it comes to character development, dialogue, sociopolitical commentary, and plotting.
Let’s begin with the first-Koontz’s protagonists of Spencer Grant, Valerie Keene, Mr. Rocky Dog, and Descoteaux undergo very hackneyed transformations that are rushed and consequently feel forced. Koontz definitely had clear intentions about what arcs he wanted everyone to experience: Grant would get over his tortured past, Valerie would learn to love and trust again, Descoteaux would lose his naivety about the state of society, and Rocky would gain courage like the Cowardly Lion from The Wizard of Oz. Yet each one of these fails for a variety of reasons. Let's start with Grant- Grant mopes and mopes about how he doesn’t deserve a good life because of the sins of his father, yet at the same time he has no problem essentially stalking Valerie due to a fairy tale-esque hope that he can live a happy life with her. This is made all the more worse when he meets her and instantly flirts with her, but more on that later.
Having conflicting thoughts and actions is something that happens in real life, particularly among people with depression and neuroticism- we take a small spark of potential happiness and, in our minds, turn it into a blazing fire, only for everything to freeze over like Hell in the 9th Circle of Dante's Inferno once we realize that things aren’t what we thought they initially were. The issue with Grant in Dark Rivers is that these shifts aren’t naturally done, coming across more as the weird mood swings of a creep and less like the emotional turmoil of a hurt man. This is a guy who has given up everything for this woman, yet wants to act like he doesn't want it. It was too bizarre at times, a facet not helped by Koontz’s amateur romance writing.
Valerie Keene (or whatever other name she goes by) is handled worse since we don’t get much insight into who she was before the events of the book took place. Oh sure, Koontz devotes an entire self-exposition to her, and his aforementioned knack for internal dramatic musings makes for an engaging read. But one small chapter out of an entire 500+ page novel doesn't do her many favors. Why did she want to go into computer security? How does she deal with the stress of avoiding this evil government agency 24/7? Is there any sexual frustration from her loss of a normal life? What is her end goal with regards to this affair? We get little snippets answering these questions but nothing ever concrete. For all intents and purposes she exists as a sexy nerd MacGuffin. Even by the end of the book I couldn't understand what it was about her that drew Spencer to her in the beginning and jumpstarted this whole journey.
Descoteaux is done a bit better since we can get an in-depth exploration of the traumatizing action that hits him and his very human reaction to it all, but like with Valerie there isn't much given as to the kind of person he was before all of this outside of being a generic, do-it-by-the-books cop. It honestly feels like Koontz saw a few episodes of Homicide: Life on the Street and decided to put in his own Frank Pembleton. And much like Jason in Far Cry 3, because I don't know enough about him before his life is turned upside-down, I can't invest in his future. Someone's life being destroyed by an evil force is a common trope in fiction, and Koontz executes it well-enough here to the point that I understood why Descoteaux does what he does. I just wish I knew more about who he used to be outside of an archetypal template.
And as for Rocky the dog, well, to go into details about his change would spoil the climax, so all I'll say here is that it's predictable and sloppy.
For all my criticisms above, though, I will say that everyone was likable, and that made things go a long way. But when you're writing a story with arcs, it is very important in an ensemble to have at least one main character change well. It's what made the first Incredibles work so well. Unfortunately for every protagonist in Dark Rivers, past events from their personal histories have rendered them static and world-weary to the point of having a myopic view of their situations. This lead to the story not being as engaging as it could have been, and I often found myself putting it down over continuing to pick it up day after day.
This isn't the only problem. That dialogue I praised earlier has a double-edged trait to it. On the one hand, it was nice to read something that sounded reminiscent of an epic poem or a tragedy from the Bard of Avon, but an issue with Shakespeare's works in general is that his characters don't sound human. His language was brilliant and revolutionary, however the vast majority of individuals do not speak or think like his characters do. Koontz may be telling a fictitious story, but he was aiming for a level of realism that just seems at odds with how his characters think and talk. These "deeper inklings" that often span multiple pages don't realistically reflect how people actually are.
This issue isn't helped by the fact that Koontz also spends so much damn time wasting paragraph upon paragraph on pointless details that don't affect the story in any significant manner. A great example that perfectly captures these two problems in unison is the introduction of Eve Jammer. Jammer is a character who serves no other purpose in 'Dark Rivers' other than to be main antagonist Roy Miro's f*ck buddy (and I'll get into the glaring errors with Roy later). Yet, for some reason, Koontz decided to devote an entire section of a chapter to her backstory, motivations, and schemes. Why? She honestly gets more attention than Valerie in spite of being an annoying barbie doll and one of the most embarrassing characters I've ever had the misfortune of reading.
I know there are a lot of unjustified comparisons frequently done between Koontz and Stephen King, but credit where credit is due- when King puts in a detail, it feels necessary to the plotline or character development. I can't say the same for Koontz, again based solely on 'Dark Rivers'.
Not helping any of the above is Koontz's poor integration of his political views. Koontz is an outspoken libertarian, and there's nothing wrong with that or incorporating those beliefs into a work of his creation. But like with all things politics, it has to be done well and subtle enough that it isn't preachy and that simply isn't the case here. Koontz's main gripe is asset forfeiture laws that allow the federal government to essentially seize any citizens' property based on allegations. It's a genuinely concerning legal issue that has been used to destroy people's lives, and Koontz was wise to incorporate it into 'Dark Rivers.' The problem is he's so blatant about it's negativities that its incorporation feels contrived and one-note. Like, there is a literal mini-history lesson thrown into the book delivered by a lawyer character. I sincerely wish Koontz had been subtler about the whole thing as it is, as I said, a very serious issue in the U.S. Making matters worse is that Koontz treats it as a substantial tool of the shadowy government organization, making it seem like some fictitious, Jason Bourne prop over the true reality that it is.
I also wasn't a fan of Koontz's treatment of federal officers as passively-evil individuals. I get that this is ultimately chalked-up to differing political views, but twice in the book Koontz associates pedophilia with law enforcement officers. He also acts like faking LEO credentials isn't a serious crime, and that ALL public/civil servants (whether they be officers or politicians) are either mustache-twirling corrupt, evil, or just plain stupid. To throw the entirety of D.C. under the bus like that is stereotyping at its finest.
All of this is a great transition to Roy Miro. I mentioned him above, but now is the time to delve deep into him as he is the main villain of the story. Koontz devotes a lot of time and energy to explaining to us who this guy is, what his motivations are, what is goals are, and what he ultimately hopes to achieve. He's someone who considers himself enlightened, killing innocent people in order to "release them" from their in this current world. He craves perfection, yet knows deep down that there is no such thing because humans are flawed critters.
Despite all of this effort, I just wasn't able to accept Miro as a character. I didn't think Koontz was in touch with this guy at all, and I've been spending a lot of time trying to figure out why this was the case. Then it hit me- it's because Miro is a hypocrite. Look, all evil beings have flaws in their ideologies; it's what theoretically gives the good guys the upper morale hand. But there were so many glaring flaws with Miro's take on society that he crumbles apart upon even the simplest analysis. What caused him to see himself as the harbringer of this utopia? What schema is he using to determine whether someone is miserable enough to warrant a quick death? He's seen killing working class individuals and the disabled in the book- does this mean that he supports a Gattaca-type society? Is he an ableist? Does this mean he believes the rich elites and the wealthy, the very people that Koontz targets in his book, are the only ones worthy of living because they have no financial stress on them? Why does he care so much about perfection when he openly admits that he is ugly outside of his smile? Why doesn't he off himself or at least use plastic surgery or something to visibly change his visage to match his inner vision?
This is what I mean when I say Miro is a ridiculous construct. I'll give Koontz credit for at least trying to give this guy depth, but somewhere in the conception he failed miserably to make Miro believable as a smart enemy. He's not even a caricature- he's a walking idiot.
Finally, we get to the plotting. I'll acknowledge that the pacing is well done and that this is a work that I personally felt never dragged or rushed, which is the best complement I can give to a thriller. But it all builds up to such a contrived, hackneyed climax involving Spencer's dad, who is even worse written than Miro if one can believe that. It's too coincidental and too silly, but alas I will avoid going into further detail for fear of spoilers.
In conclusion, if Goodreads allowed half-stars I would've given "Dark Rivers of the Heart" a 2.5/5 as I don't think it's a bad book, just misguided and under-written, primarily from a character POV. However, per their rating scale, I did round down as the bad aspects outweighed the good, and I don't think I can quite recommend this novel to fans of crime or mystery literature.
Postscript- I mentioned that Koontz falters when it comes to the paramour between Grant and Keene. To give a little more detail, what I meant was I hated how instantly flirty the two became as soon as they met, as though they were old pals or ex-lovers. It was a forced relationship that lacked chemistry.
Also, the ending is so blatantly reminiscent of The Matrix that I’m surprised Koontz didn’t sue the Wachowskis, though to be fair both have taken influence from other prior works.
si0bhan's review against another edition
4.0
I’m a massive Koontz fan, I love pretty much every book I have read by him, yet I am of the firm belief that his older work is much better than his more recent work. I admit that the Odd Thomas series is my favourite, but collectively his older work scores higher ratings than his more recent work – for me, that is.
So, that means you’re going to hear a number of the same comments about this one as with his other work.
As always, Koontz creates a collection of great characters (yep, even those with mysterious pasts) and throws them into a truly gripping story. I confess that this one started slower than some of his other books, but once the ball is rolling it does not stop. A faced paced suspenseful read, it has everything that Koontz has to offer: his usual charms of pulling at our emotions, leaving us second guessing, questions arising only to be answered at the right moments… basically the old school Koontz package.
Overall, another great old school Koontz. Whilst not my favourite by the author it is a great way to remind me of what he is truly capable of.
So, that means you’re going to hear a number of the same comments about this one as with his other work.
As always, Koontz creates a collection of great characters (yep, even those with mysterious pasts) and throws them into a truly gripping story. I confess that this one started slower than some of his other books, but once the ball is rolling it does not stop. A faced paced suspenseful read, it has everything that Koontz has to offer: his usual charms of pulling at our emotions, leaving us second guessing, questions arising only to be answered at the right moments… basically the old school Koontz package.
Overall, another great old school Koontz. Whilst not my favourite by the author it is a great way to remind me of what he is truly capable of.
monnie1976's review
1.0
Couldn't finish it. Just too much of a chore. Underneath all the extreme verbosity and excessive attempts at being intellectual and poetic there was a great story idea. Unfortunately, I really couldn't find it. When Koontz is good, he's good. When he's bad he's really bad. I got to chapter six but just found myself finding excuses not to keep going. Thankfully, I am finding that Phantoms is as good as I remembered. I also love Watchers and Intensity. This book is definitely one of his worst though so avoid it unless you're a die hard fan.
kymisan's review against another edition
4.0
One of my favourite reads of 2019!
Full review over on my blog @ https://kymisanreads.blogspot.com/2019/09/book-review-dark-rivers-of-heart.html
Full review over on my blog @ https://kymisanreads.blogspot.com/2019/09/book-review-dark-rivers-of-heart.html
12grace4's review against another edition
dark
tense
fast-paced
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0