Book Review: "Odd Thomas"

Let me make one thing clear, first and foremost; I love Dean Koontz. I'm not the biggest fan of commercial fiction and, when I read, I generally avoid most contemporary  fiction altogether. But there's something about Dean Koontz and his writing style I adore.

It started when I was younger, the first book I'd read by Mr. Koontz was Door to December, and I was hooked from the beginning. I don't love everything he's written, but I'm generally entertained at the very least, and absolutely ecstatic and breathless at best.

Odd Thomas is a sort of departure from his usual style, but not by much. The hallmark of Dean Koontz has always been his characters, and I think he likes it that way. They're filled with depth, they are interesting and engaging, and they are the kind of characters that can carry a story. Many of his villains, even, could almost have their own volumes, and that's something I can really get behind. He lovingly crafts each character and treats them with the sort of reverence that people usually save for the likes of Frodo Baggins, Luke Skywalker, or Gizmo the Mogwai. And that sort of devotion really comes through as any time a character shows up on the page, you can literally feel the depth and back story dripping through, even if the prose is only giving the vaguest of hints.

Odd Thomas does indeed keep that style of characterization, but takes on a different tone than a "typical" Koontz book. Koontz has crafted a world, the world of Odd Thomas that is, that is filled with an assortment of odd... Er.... Strange characters who all have eccentricities and peculiar habits that really enhance the story instead of serving to its detriment.

Let's focus on the titular character, however, as that is the driving force behind this novel. Odd Thomas, which happens to be his actual name, is a lovable creation. Blessed (or cursed) with the power to see the dead, he has lived something of a purposefully sheltered and anonymous life, while helping those who have died move on to the other world, all the while living the life of a cook at a local diner.

There are very distinct things that I pick up from Odd in the course of this book, and its sequels; he is very much the voice of reason in these books. Many writers have such a character present in the tellings of their stories. JK Rowling very much used Dumbledore in the Harry Potter books for that purpose, Cleante is very much that guy in Moliere's play Tartuffe, and we can't forget Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet (though Skakespeare promptly kills him, but let's be honest; that's ballsy and bad ass.)

In the case of Odd, we have the voice of reason character in the pilot's seat, which is something that many people often don't like, my good friend and comrade in arms Nick Michael being one of them. Heck, I usually am as well. But in this case, I really enjoy it. Koontz gives him enough personal obstacles and a heck an obstacle at the end of the book (no spoilers, I promise) that it doesn't bother me that this character gets a little preachy.

In fact, I often feel like he's doing it as a response to the constant dangers in his life, which I find interesting. As well, it feels like this was Koontz's chance to sort of talk about his philosophy for life, to almost step into a dream world for himself. And I think, as prolific a writer as he's been, he's kind of earned that privilege.

It also almost served as a spiritual successor to the Chris Snow books, a series of books that I need Mr. Koontz to finish. But if you look at the the tone of Odd Thomas after reading Fear Nothing and Seize the Night, you can see a logical bridge there.

(Still, Dean Koontz, I want to know what happens to Chris and his friends!)

You'll notice I've not said much negative about the story. I think the biggest negative people find in Koontz's books is that his stories are a bit basic or generic. I'll agree with that, but the stories have never been the focus. And if you liked movies like Avatar, Super 8, Aliens, Titanic, any super-hero movie, and the vast majority of Hollywood fare, even much of the good stuff, and you're complaining about the simplicity of Koontz's stories, you are a hypocrite. You're entire mentality doesn't make sense. I'm sorry. I know I shouldn't insult readers out there. But come on. Looking at this logically, I would never call The Avengers an amazing plot, but I will call it an amazing movie. I feel the same way about much of Koontz's library.

There is almost nothing else to say about the book. I couldn't nit pick with this one, for good or bad. I loved this book. I still feel Watchers was his best, but this was great. And it looks like the movie version of Odd Thomas will be a lot better than previous films based on his books. Watchers the movie was awful, but if I ever see Phantoms again, I'll need to commit murder. So there you go, go read it. It's great.

And we're getting this guy as Odd!

I love Anton Yelchin! Anyway, I'm out.

WC

For more book reviews, head over to Beauty and the Armageddon! For movie reviews, check out Out of the Void Production and the Void Zone podcast!

And if you want to check out my book, check out The Brimm-Stone Chapter!

Book Review: "2001, A Space Odyssey"

I'm a big fan of hard science fiction. There's something about the honest and serious views of the scientific world that are so fascinating to me, and they capture something that the more popular genres of space opera, science fantasy, and the Michael Crichton-style cautionary tales don't have. It's almost undefinable for me what that thing is. Maybe it's the realism. Maybe it's that these stories often deal more with the reality of how we deal with the changing world.

I love that concept so much. So it's with great shame that I confess I hadn't read Arthur C. Clarke's famous novel until very recently. Awful, I know.

Before I begin reviewing it, one might note (and rather fairly I might add) that this review is pointless. It's a book that was published in 1968, and has run the gamut of reviews, both loving and scathing, and doesn't need yet another one. But I would argue that were in this phase of storytelling where people typically don't take many chances on their fiction. They prefer the tried and true and tested before going to the different, no matter how celebrated or famous. I think, however, that people can be warmed up to newer ideas if there given something of a hint of what to expect. I think younger generations can be shown newer ideas and, in time, warm to them. Heck, as I said, this was the first time I've read the book.

Now, I've seen the movie many times, and am a big fan. I love Stanley Kubrick's style choices in that film and I love that there is nothing on-the-nose about that film. Everything has to be thought of, put through cognizant processes. It's not like a Transformers film where the movie tries to think for you. No, the film 2001 invites you to think for yourself. And I love that.

So, moving on to the book after all this time was a bit of an experience for me. I suspected that there would be differences between the two. And yes, there were, but I think the biggest difference between them wasn't the story changes. They were there, sure, but what set these tellings of the same story apart were the differences in tone.

The film is famous for long stretches of silence. Scenes are laid out before you, pulling you slowly into this universe, increasing both the mood and the constant underlying tension with distinct visuals, sounds, and pacing that results in what is basically perfect filmmaking.

The book did something else; it gave a detailed explanation of everything that was going on. That's not to say that the book thinks for you, because that's certainly not the case. As well, the book could have had a similar tone to the film. But I'm glad that this isn't the case.

I think in some ways, the film almost becomes a thriller. The book really sticks to the sci-fi guns throughout. You're constantly let in on the back story of everything that's going on. In between the sections of story being told, there is the kind of reading that feels almost like a history book, and Clarke brilliantly blends real information with the necessary fictional inventions that were required to fill out the path of man into the further reaches of the solar system.

Like the movie, the story structure is unconventional. Of course, Clarke and Kubrick developed the story together, but I love the way it changes. And in the book, more than the movie, the structure really works well. The movie felt like it had to rush (well, as much as it could rush) to get to the meat of the story. But I feel like prose gets a little more stretching room when it comes to structure, so to my delighted surprise, there were many sequences that were greatly expanded in the novel. The primitive ancestors to man in the beginning of the story are given a great deal of space. And it was fascinating. Clarke's description of the primitive thought processes of these creatures as they stood on the cusp of great change was amazing. 

The lead up to the Discovery mission was also great in its expansion. The political environment was an interesting one, painted very well by Clarke, which adds a different kind of tension in the book than in the movie. You're constantly made aware of the issues on Earth and it adds a layer of great depth to the characters' personalities as you can see the issues that influence their daily life and thoughts.

I think my biggest complaint about the book is HAL, and it's probably unfairly affected by the film. I love HAL in the film. He's terrifying, he's interesting, he's one of the best characters on film ever, and he's only ever shown as a red light and a room with large panels. The scene in the film where Bowman starts disabling HAL haunted me as a child, and it's still one of my favorite scenes of all time.

In the book, however, it felt less powerful. HAL didn't have the same character, the same impact, the same intensity that he does in the film. Again, maybe unfair, but I felt that HAL was less important in the book.

The last third of the book is a little long as well, but I did enjoy seeing how a man, now completely isolated and alone in space, with only little contact with Earth, and no real way home, would react. The very idea of seeing the monolith was what pushed Bowman, and the only thing that held off madness.

If you haven't read this novel yet, I think you should. Yes, there are elements that are dated, not even counting the fact that we haven't sent a man past the moon, and it's now 2012, but all in all, it was still an amazingly prescient novel with a great sense of pacing and tone. Will it be for everybody? I can't answer that. But it's definitely an important novel. And one that has really reignited my love for space exploration.

"The thing's hollow-it goes on forever-and-oh my God, it's full of stars!"

Rating: 9/10

WC

Want more book reviews?! Check out Beauty and the Armageddon! Movie reviews?! Out of the Void Productions here!

And, if you want to read my book, check out The Brimm-Stone Chapter!