Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.0 AVERAGE
4.0 AVERAGE
I think this was sort of the start of what would be his never ending trend towards have pretty much all of the below in a book, in one form or another:
1. Male hero, kind and caring but still buff!
2. Female hero, can do everything and then some, still cute though
3. Dog
4. Either mentally challenged human or super mentally enhanced something else!
The aliens came later.
Not his worst ever but maybe find one of the better ones to read first?
1. Male hero, kind and caring but still buff!
2. Female hero, can do everything and then some, still cute though
3. Dog
4. Either mentally challenged human or super mentally enhanced something else!
The aliens came later.
Not his worst ever but maybe find one of the better ones to read first?
This...may be the best book I've read in 2020 so far. I'm really debating whether to give it a full 5 stars. The only reason I hesitate is because some of the secondary plot stuff wasn't all that interesting to me. But the main plot with Einstein and Travis and Nora is absolutely 5 stars. I didn't think it was possible to fall in love with a fictional dog. And, let me just tell you,
Spoiler
I spent 500 pages terrified that they were going to kill him in the end, thank God that didn't happen, I would have been destroyed
I've had a string of just alright, or good but not GREAT reads this year. Nothing felt like top 10 worthy material, and I've just been disappointed by that. September has been a complete turn-around of that. I've re-read old favorites, and finished 2 books that are going to end up on my top 10 of the year, and this is one of them. I love a good science fiction book, and I didn't want to put this one down because I was so invested in the characters.
*Spoiler*
There was one point that was off-putting but I was able to get past it pretty quickly because it was better handled than in many other books. I hate when characters are alone for their whole lives, or abused, or just fairly isolated, and then someone saves them, or automatically "fixes them"/draws them out of their shell. THEN those two characters get together. It drives me nuts, BUT I agree it needed to happen in this book and instead of becoming dependent on Travis, Nora truly became her own woman so I was happy with that!
*Spoiler*
There was one point that was off-putting but I was able to get past it pretty quickly because it was better handled than in many other books. I hate when characters are alone for their whole lives, or abused, or just fairly isolated, and then someone saves them, or automatically "fixes them"/draws them out of their shell. THEN those two characters get together. It drives me nuts, BUT I agree it needed to happen in this book and instead of becoming dependent on Travis, Nora truly became her own woman so I was happy with that!
I could have read this much faster, but I was frightened about what seemed.inevitable. I'm glad I was wrong.
adventurous
dark
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Unfortunately I had to add this book to the list of novels I didn’t finish. I usually enjoy Dean Koontz’s books, but I had issues with this book that prevented me from being able to lose myself in the story. I like the idea of the story, and I loved Einstein and The Other, but the human characters never drew me in. I realized about halfway in that I really didn’t care much what happened to the protagonists. As I mentioned, I love the idea of the story, and wish I could have come to care about the characters. After getting 3/4 of the way through, I finally had to put it down. I hope to pick it up again at some point. It’s entirely possible that I just wasn’t in the right headspace to connect with the characters. I will revise my review after a re-read.
This was my first and last Koontz novel. What a disappointment.
My first comment after only a few pages was: "The writing is nothing special. I hope it's a good story." The writing didn't improve, and it was not a very good story. I want to give this 1 star, but for me that means dnf, so it's gotta be 2. Lowest possible 2.
The worst part for me was Koontz's writing. At the most basic level - the words, sentences, paragraphs: not interesting, not good. Koontz over-explains. He tells too much instead of showing. He includes two or three overlapping ideas in a paragraph when one would have been right. And his characters over-explain themselves as well, their thoughts and motivations. And they use bad reasoning; but this is not intended as a character trait - Koontz means it as good reasoning.
The characters are dead boring. The only interesting human character is the murderer, Vince. I sort of enjoyed his sections. The others are bland, one-dimensional stereotypes with no real substance to them. This is especially and most egregiously true of the main man Travis Cornell. Nora, the milquetoast recluse, was at least annoying, but I found her extreme shyness and self-loathing and ignorance caused by years of confinement and emotional abuse by her aunt to be too much to be believed. Koontz wants us to think that she was so ignorant and gullible that she believed there could exist a farm where human girls are bred to be strippers and prostitutes. Come on, I know she was extremely sheltered, but she had access to books and TV, and has average or above average intelligence.
And there's more!
As Travis and Nora's relationship builds they have no conflicts. They are caricatures of "decent people".
Nora is the only female character with any significant 'screen time' in the book.
I know the dog Einstein is supposed to have human level intelligence, but Koontz also gives him knowledge of the human world (and English syntax) that only comes from experience, or maybe a good amount of book learning.
When he tries to make the characters' dialog funny or cute he completely fails.
People constantly 'sense' things and have 'premonitions'. ("Nora felt a wrongness in the air.") Ugh. People have no such capability, no matter how much we think we might.
Bunches of dumb details. For example, at a construction site in a "stretch of flatland" where the partially built homes are just studs and "no fences had been constructed" one character's voice "echoed back and forth". Nope, wouldn't happen.
Koontz likes to use specific names for plants. It's not a tree, or a palm, it's a "Canary Island date palm". They're not flowers or impatiens they're "New Guinea impatiens". It adds nothing for me, and comes across as calculated rather than natural or meaningful.
Nora, who had been an unwilling shut-in for her whole life, is nevertheless somehow extremely fit.
There was nothing surprising in the story. Nothing. Everything was telegraphed.
And then there's the general vibe, the feel of the writing. The attitude. Cheesy, cringe-worthy, amateurish, predictable, and unbelievable in the details and in the broad strokes. Like it was written by, or for, Ned Flanders.
Koontz loves dropping brand names. Maybe he's just going for verisimilitude, but it felt more like brand placement money grubbing. (Or maybe I'm just cynical.)
For fun, here's a partial list of the brands that Koontz stuffed into his novel.
McDonalds
Ford
Coors
Alpo
Remi Martin
Time magazine
Evian
Gatorade
Los Angeles Times newspaper
Bell JetRanger helicopter
Banana Republic
Dodgers
Budweiser
John Deere
Uzi
Big Mac
Coke
Smith & Wesson
Purina Dog Chow
Mickey Mouse
20th Century Fox
Sony
Blue Cross
Milk-Bones
Corona beer
Donald Duck
Disney
Clark Bars
Reese's peanut butter cups
George Lucas's Star Wars
People magazine
American Express
Circus Circus Hotel
Dom Perignon
Airstream trailers
Chivas Regal
Mercedes
National Enquirer
Mastercard
Visa
Scrabble
Reebok
Rockport
Dos Equis
San Miguel
Dodge
Toyota
Hinckley Sou'wester yacht
Mossberg guns
Magnum guns
AT&T
Cheoy Lee yachts
Dog Chow
Tsingtao
Honda
IBM
My first comment after only a few pages was: "The writing is nothing special. I hope it's a good story." The writing didn't improve, and it was not a very good story. I want to give this 1 star, but for me that means dnf, so it's gotta be 2. Lowest possible 2.
The worst part for me was Koontz's writing. At the most basic level - the words, sentences, paragraphs: not interesting, not good. Koontz over-explains. He tells too much instead of showing. He includes two or three overlapping ideas in a paragraph when one would have been right. And his characters over-explain themselves as well, their thoughts and motivations. And they use bad reasoning; but this is not intended as a character trait - Koontz means it as good reasoning.
The characters are dead boring. The only interesting human character is the murderer, Vince. I sort of enjoyed his sections. The others are bland, one-dimensional stereotypes with no real substance to them. This is especially and most egregiously true of the main man Travis Cornell. Nora, the milquetoast recluse, was at least annoying, but I found her extreme shyness and self-loathing and ignorance caused by years of confinement and emotional abuse by her aunt to be too much to be believed. Koontz wants us to think that she was so ignorant and gullible that she believed there could exist a farm where human girls are bred to be strippers and prostitutes. Come on, I know she was extremely sheltered, but she had access to books and TV, and has average or above average intelligence.
And there's more!
As Travis and Nora's relationship builds they have no conflicts. They are caricatures of "decent people".
Nora is the only female character with any significant 'screen time' in the book.
I know the dog Einstein is supposed to have human level intelligence, but Koontz also gives him knowledge of the human world (and English syntax) that only comes from experience, or maybe a good amount of book learning.
When he tries to make the characters' dialog funny or cute he completely fails.
People constantly 'sense' things and have 'premonitions'. ("Nora felt a wrongness in the air.") Ugh. People have no such capability, no matter how much we think we might.
Bunches of dumb details. For example, at a construction site in a "stretch of flatland" where the partially built homes are just studs and "no fences had been constructed" one character's voice "echoed back and forth". Nope, wouldn't happen.
Koontz likes to use specific names for plants. It's not a tree, or a palm, it's a "Canary Island date palm". They're not flowers or impatiens they're "New Guinea impatiens". It adds nothing for me, and comes across as calculated rather than natural or meaningful.
Nora, who had been an unwilling shut-in for her whole life, is nevertheless somehow extremely fit.
There was nothing surprising in the story. Nothing. Everything was telegraphed.
And then there's the general vibe, the feel of the writing. The attitude. Cheesy, cringe-worthy, amateurish, predictable, and unbelievable in the details and in the broad strokes. Like it was written by, or for, Ned Flanders.
Koontz loves dropping brand names. Maybe he's just going for verisimilitude, but it felt more like brand placement money grubbing. (Or maybe I'm just cynical.)
For fun, here's a partial list of the brands that Koontz stuffed into his novel.
McDonalds
Ford
Coors
Alpo
Remi Martin
Time magazine
Evian
Gatorade
Los Angeles Times newspaper
Bell JetRanger helicopter
Banana Republic
Dodgers
Budweiser
John Deere
Uzi
Big Mac
Coke
Smith & Wesson
Purina Dog Chow
Mickey Mouse
20th Century Fox
Sony
Blue Cross
Milk-Bones
Corona beer
Donald Duck
Disney
Clark Bars
Reese's peanut butter cups
George Lucas's Star Wars
People magazine
American Express
Circus Circus Hotel
Dom Perignon
Airstream trailers
Chivas Regal
Mercedes
National Enquirer
Mastercard
Visa
Scrabble
Reebok
Rockport
Dos Equis
San Miguel
Dodge
Toyota
Hinckley Sou'wester yacht
Mossberg guns
Magnum guns
AT&T
Cheoy Lee yachts
Dog Chow
Tsingtao
Honda
IBM
I enjoyed this one, it did not scare me as much as some of his other stories, but it was a nice scary read.
i loved this one. strong emotional connections. excellent plot. and, although published 30 years ago, still feels pretty modern. koontz is a genius that way.
Sometimes when I reread books I read in middle school and high school I go back to find them a bit disappointing or not as good as I remember them to be.
This one definitely is not one of them.
While overall, I find Koontz to be a bit uneven at times Watchers is one of his shining pinnacles of achievement. Excellent characters, suspense (even when you've already read it) and a plot that is tight and moves along at a satisfying pace, Watchers is definitely one of his best. Whether you are a dog lover or not, Einstein will be a pooch you will want to root for and you will fall in love with him.
If you've never read Dean Koontz this is one of the best places to start. He's branched out a bit in recent years from the more pure horror he did in the eighties but this along with Hideaway and Intensity are books that stand up to the test of time.
This one definitely is not one of them.
While overall, I find Koontz to be a bit uneven at times Watchers is one of his shining pinnacles of achievement. Excellent characters, suspense (even when you've already read it) and a plot that is tight and moves along at a satisfying pace, Watchers is definitely one of his best. Whether you are a dog lover or not, Einstein will be a pooch you will want to root for and you will fall in love with him.
If you've never read Dean Koontz this is one of the best places to start. He's branched out a bit in recent years from the more pure horror he did in the eighties but this along with Hideaway and Intensity are books that stand up to the test of time.