1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars
Koontz needs to read up on political theory, May 6 2004
This review is from: The Face (Hardcover)
I suppose my problem with The Face isn't one most people share- I found his writing enjoyable and the plot line to be interesting (albeit a bit predictable). The thing is that Koontz chose to write about something he doesn't know anything about- anarchism. Before you go on, I must warn you, I'm a former student of political science that spent a long time studying and writing about anarchism as a political theory, so this might bore alot of you. Clearly, instead of reading anything about a complex political theory, Koontz went with the tired old equation that anarchism=violence and chaos. True anarchist theory is actually more about cooperation and human connection than chaos and destruction. Anyway, I won't go on and on about it- if you want to read more I suggest Post-Scarcity Anarchism by Murray Bookchin or Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman. My point is that I found it disappointing that Koontz decided to write about a political theory without researching it and consequently portrayed it in a misleading fashion. I'm not saying anarchism is what I believe in or necesarrily what is right for society, but it is not the destructive force Koontz makes it out to be. His portrayal is inaccurate and disingenuous at best. Anyway, that's my rant on the subject.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3.0 out of 5 stars
How can he have such an excellent vocabulary but not know the meaning of the words "anarchist" and "Marxist"?, April 15 2012
This review is from: The Face (Hardcover)
I have not finished reading this book yet, but I would like to comment on some features I've noticed so far that make it unusual.
One is the language; I find the language in this book very interesting and rich. The way he uses words shows a familiarity with a much wider range of vocabulary than most authors exhibit today, which was much appreciated by this somewhat jaded reader. At the same time the proverbial "ten cent" words were not used in such a way as to obscure the meaning of the sentences or action which I also appreciated.
Editing: I think this book, like many of Stephen King's recent works could do with some more strenuous editing. As much as I love words, there is no need to describe a single noun with three similes when a single word would do.
Politics: One of the most frustrating things is the fact that the author doesn't seem to understand or care about the true meanings of some of the political belief systems represented in the book. Any cursery look in a dictionary could show you that his characterization of Corky Laputa chiefly as an "anarchist" is completely wrong. I don't believe this is because Koontz is not intelligent or well read, but because he wishes to forward a conservative political agenda.
The definition of Anarchism is "a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations.[3 Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical[3][9][10] voluntary associations." Anarchists simply believe that government is unnecessary and serves only to benefit those in charge, rather than the people at large. They believe in non-heirarchical forms of political decision making. Anarchists do not believe in "chaos." While popluarly we thing anarchy=chaos, in a political systems viewpoint, anarchists believe the chaos and harm in our society are actually caused by oppressive controlling governments and that to remove government will bring about less suffering and oppression.
The ideas Corky espouses in the book about creating chaos, suffering in other humans and sowing hatred and distrust among people until all society is razed to the ground and then a new order can be established (though this is lightly touched on and Corky focuses more on the "making the world burn" efforts than the designing of a new society) is more characteristic of extreme right Christian fundamentalists who want to "bring the rapture" than anarchists.
A typical anarchist political action is more likely to be along the lines of the activities of Wikileaks or Anonymous hackers who operate under the belief system that "information should be free" and that the government has no right to keep things from the governed. If an anarchist engages in violence, it is typically against targets perceived to be related to oppressive government or corporations they don't like. This usually involves vandalism of public property or violence. They don't seem to delight in sadism or torture of other human beings as seen in the book or just harming random people. Anarchism, although not a practical political system to aspire to in my opinion, still does not = Molloch.
Also the political system Corky's mother supposedly espoused is supposed to be "Marxism" it is not described as Marxism, but rather as something closer to "Objectivism." Basically, that human beings are completely motivated by envy, hate and aquisition and that there is no room for human cooperation in that equation. His mother does exhibit some traits similar to Anne Rand, but as Objectivism is considered a far-right theory of politics, perhaps it serves his purpose better to make the character a Marxist.
Angels: What is up with the angels? As soon as we find out a certain character is a "guardian angel" it feels like a cheat and it makes the story cheesy, as if it is a horrored-up "It's a Wonderful Life." Up until then I was totally with the story, afterward this revelation I separated somewhat. Angels, heaven, hell, all these things seem too contrived for a writer with such obvious intelligence and depth of understanding of the human condition to expect an intelligent reader to take at face value in what is ostensibly a story about a cop, the son of a movie star and an "anarchist." Not to mention the *69 phone connection to hell which is just stupid.
STill, he is a master of suspense and I can't put the book down!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No