Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.66 AVERAGE
3.66 AVERAGE
tense
I’ve never read any Dean Koontz, nor have I ever read any wildly popular genre fiction bestselling authors at all, except recently in romance, which I only started reading these past two years. I read most of the literary bestsellers, popular fiction, books people are talking about, that kind of thing.
I decided to read Whispers, in particular, because I recently read a writing craft book that used it as an example, and it sounded scary, and that intrigued me because I don’t really get scared by reading books, unless it infects me with ideas that fill me with existential dread, like how our entire mysterious universe is probably one of countless simulations a smarter alien than us created, and how inevitably we’ll build our own simulations, and create countless more universes. That kind of thing scares me. But murder books? No. They don’t really scare me.
So, entering this book, I really didn’t know the precise genre of the book because I was really just that ignorant of Dean Koontz. I knew he was a big author, but I couldn’t remember which section we put his books when I worked at Borders. Mystery? Horror? The horror section was tiny compared with Mystery. Not SciFi, I didn’t think. Same with, say, John Grisham. Where did we put those, Mystery? I know because of movies those are courtroom books so, I don’t know. This Koontz book could have been something with supernatural elements or it might be straight mystery. From my point of view, it was Schrodinger’s book—both things at once. And that really added to my enjoyment, honestly. This is why I try not to watch movie trailers.
Anyway, I loved it, kinda. It was very scary and pretty readable despite being super long. It genuinely surprised me a number of times. To me, it feels distinctly different from the modern style of writing, but it may just be that I’m unaccustomed to the style expectations in genre fiction. To me, a lot of the backstory laid out right on the page should have been relegated to the author’s notes. He should have used them to inform the character, write them with authenticity, but not included it in the finished novel. I’m not sure we needed to know that the woman working in a hotel that our male main character, Tony, a cop, interviewed used to be a band groupie and is looking for a way to get rich, and feels used and spit out, etc. We got elaborate backstory for a number of minor characters! And that lady wasn’t even being interviewed about the case the book is really about, she’s part of the other case that Tony is investigating at the start.
BUT I have to admit it was fun to read it, so it’s fine. I can sit here and be like “This is how I’d edit this book” but I’m some rando person with her own flaws and blind spots. I mean, I’d also remove the little random Boomer bits of political philosophy that comes down to “government is bad except cops and also all the other things that help me but get the government out of my business they’re nothing but trouble.” On one hand, I’m like, “Why does EVERY CHARACTER have this SAME political philosophy?” On the other hand, maybe because yep, that’s the standard Boomer philosophy and this book was published in 1980. So perhaps that was accurate. My sensibilities, though, incline me to want characters’ philosophies in books to vary as much as they do in real life. I suspect they didn’t in this book mostly because it was Koontz’s own personal philosophy and he wasn’t able to allow himself to give the light of day to opposing viewpoints. BELIEVE ME, I know that temptation, as a naturally opinionated person myself, and I forgive it. It’s fine. Authors don’t need to agree with me philosophically on everything if they write a good book.
I must say that the ending of this was not predictable and I literally gasped at parts. Then there was an afterward by the author in the Kindle edition I got from the library. It was a really funny afterward. I mean, I loled at parts. This wasn’t a lol part, but in it, he said he regretted some of the Freudian stuff because he thinks it’s bunk now, but ultimately, he weaved a good yarn. He’s right, IMO. Good yarn. Flaws are forgivable.
My friends on Facebook recommended other favorites by Dean Koontz and, well, I’m gonna read ‘em until I get sick of ‘em.
I decided to read Whispers, in particular, because I recently read a writing craft book that used it as an example, and it sounded scary, and that intrigued me because I don’t really get scared by reading books, unless it infects me with ideas that fill me with existential dread, like how our entire mysterious universe is probably one of countless simulations a smarter alien than us created, and how inevitably we’ll build our own simulations, and create countless more universes. That kind of thing scares me. But murder books? No. They don’t really scare me.
So, entering this book, I really didn’t know the precise genre of the book because I was really just that ignorant of Dean Koontz. I knew he was a big author, but I couldn’t remember which section we put his books when I worked at Borders. Mystery? Horror? The horror section was tiny compared with Mystery. Not SciFi, I didn’t think. Same with, say, John Grisham. Where did we put those, Mystery? I know because of movies those are courtroom books so, I don’t know. This Koontz book could have been something with supernatural elements or it might be straight mystery. From my point of view, it was Schrodinger’s book—both things at once. And that really added to my enjoyment, honestly. This is why I try not to watch movie trailers.
Anyway, I loved it, kinda. It was very scary and pretty readable despite being super long. It genuinely surprised me a number of times. To me, it feels distinctly different from the modern style of writing, but it may just be that I’m unaccustomed to the style expectations in genre fiction. To me, a lot of the backstory laid out right on the page should have been relegated to the author’s notes. He should have used them to inform the character, write them with authenticity, but not included it in the finished novel. I’m not sure we needed to know that the woman working in a hotel that our male main character, Tony, a cop, interviewed used to be a band groupie and is looking for a way to get rich, and feels used and spit out, etc. We got elaborate backstory for a number of minor characters! And that lady wasn’t even being interviewed about the case the book is really about, she’s part of the other case that Tony is investigating at the start.
BUT I have to admit it was fun to read it, so it’s fine. I can sit here and be like “This is how I’d edit this book” but I’m some rando person with her own flaws and blind spots. I mean, I’d also remove the little random Boomer bits of political philosophy that comes down to “government is bad except cops and also all the other things that help me but get the government out of my business they’re nothing but trouble.” On one hand, I’m like, “Why does EVERY CHARACTER have this SAME political philosophy?” On the other hand, maybe because yep, that’s the standard Boomer philosophy and this book was published in 1980. So perhaps that was accurate. My sensibilities, though, incline me to want characters’ philosophies in books to vary as much as they do in real life. I suspect they didn’t in this book mostly because it was Koontz’s own personal philosophy and he wasn’t able to allow himself to give the light of day to opposing viewpoints. BELIEVE ME, I know that temptation, as a naturally opinionated person myself, and I forgive it. It’s fine. Authors don’t need to agree with me philosophically on everything if they write a good book.
I must say that the ending of this was not predictable and I literally gasped at parts. Then there was an afterward by the author in the Kindle edition I got from the library. It was a really funny afterward. I mean, I loled at parts. This wasn’t a lol part, but in it, he said he regretted some of the Freudian stuff because he thinks it’s bunk now, but ultimately, he weaved a good yarn. He’s right, IMO. Good yarn. Flaws are forgivable.
My friends on Facebook recommended other favorites by Dean Koontz and, well, I’m gonna read ‘em until I get sick of ‘em.
Yeah, this one freaked me out too. Never have I felt sorry for the psycho until now.
dark
emotional
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Buna, dar prea lunga. Uneori aveam impresia ca citesc o romanta ieftina destinata femeilor casnice. Remarcabil sfarsitul, cand se explica cum au fost crescuti copiii. In rest...
dark
hopeful
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Diverse cast of characters:
No
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Re-reading for my book club - a book that "scares" me. This is one of Koontz's best, in my opinion.
This was as creepy as the first time I read it 20 years ago. It keeps you on edge till practically the very last page. Kudos, Mr. Koontz.
This was as creepy as the first time I read it 20 years ago. It keeps you on edge till practically the very last page. Kudos, Mr. Koontz.
3.5 stars
I preferred this one over Watchers, surprisingly.
Sometimes it grew a bit stale but the mystery here was hard to solve. I kept thinking twins, twins, twins, but that kept getting shot down. At the end I was wondering if there was actually going to be a supernatural element involved. The characters weren't as cheesy with their interaction and the ending with the unraveling of the villains motives were fascinating. What abuse! I do have an issue with some of the wrap up though. I get it about the abuse but would have liked to know a little more behind the madness the character got in regard to the vampire resurrection thing and the hatred of the mother. Sure any sane person would have hated the mother, but I felt more details could have been given at the end with that. Ending felt a little cut off because of it. Overall good stuff though, purely a suspense/thriller novel. Now the next Koontz book I read I don't want to be another serial killer book, need a break from that.
I preferred this one over Watchers, surprisingly.
Sometimes it grew a bit stale but the mystery here was hard to solve. I kept thinking twins, twins, twins, but that kept getting shot down. At the end I was wondering if there was actually going to be a supernatural element involved. The characters weren't as cheesy with their interaction and the ending with the unraveling of the villains motives were fascinating. What abuse! I do have an issue with some of the wrap up though. I get it about the abuse but would have liked to know a little more behind the madness the character got in regard to the vampire resurrection thing and the hatred of the mother. Sure any sane person would have hated the mother, but I felt more details could have been given at the end with that. Ending felt a little cut off because of it. Overall good stuff though, purely a suspense/thriller novel. Now the next Koontz book I read I don't want to be another serial killer book, need a break from that.