Dean Koontz's Public Praise for Ayn Rand!

[Stuart K. Hayashi]

I began taking special interest in the books of horror author Dean R. Koontz after reading Barbara Branden's review of Watchers (back when it was on Mr. Brown's Daily Objectivist).

As someone who has read many of Mr. Koontz's books, I have to say that his older ones from the 1970s and 1980s are much better than those he wrote from the late 1990s onward.

Back in the 1980s, he came up with interesting explanations for why his villains were so bad. And although Midnight's plot was extreeeeeemely cliched, what with it revolving around the evil scientist-entrepreneur (who is the villain of every single sci-fi and action movie ever made) using his corporation to create a monster that turns on him and everyone else (the cliche Michael Crichton uses over and over again in Westworld, Jurassic Park, and Prey), it still had a really vivid narrative style that is superior to the narratives of anything Koontz wrote after 1999.

I'm kind of sad to read comments of Koontz's that denigrate his earlier works. He says that he regrets providing explanations for his villains' motivations in the 1980s because that's "Freudian." He thinks it was "Freudian" of him to explain how much of the villains' behavior is the result of what happened to them during their childhoods.

Koontz now says he knows better -- that evil people are just inherently bad and that's all there is to it. His new outlook has had a horrible effect on his writings -- his villains are now just one-dimensional, cookie-cutter "utter bad guys." They're evil because they're evil -- period. So all his villains are now like Dr. Evil except they're supposed to be taken seriously.

Weirdly, I find that Mr. Koontz's writing style went downwill around the same time that his politics became more like mine. His "villains are just evil and have no complex psychology" kick was happening around the same time that he became more of an explicitly semi-libertarian, "Religious Right" quasi-pro-militia type.

I didn't fully realize how adversely Koontz's newfound religious-rightism began to affect his art until I read The Taking. I have read books that relied on a deus ex machina before, but The Taking was the first story in which deus ex machina was not only a metaphor! (If you don't want to suffer through the incredibly lame conclusion like I did, you can check out the synopsis of it at TheBookSpoiler.Com).

Reading The Taking was a horrifying experience for me, but not for the reasons Koontz had in mind.

Koontz's criticism of socialism is wholly anti-Objectivist -- he says humans are too depraved and stinky for it:

All the horrors of the last century, from Hitler to Stalin to Mao were the result of utopians imposing their vision of the perfect world on others by force, with the result that more than 150 million people were murdered by those three men alone. Most organized religions, for all their faults, view mankind as imperfect, as fallen, and therefore recognize that any utopian scheme created by the mind of man or woman will fail, and usually at a terrible price. But in the political realm, there are many who believe in the perfectibility of humanity, against all evidence to the contrary, and therefore will pursue any oppression or violence in the name of their ideals.

Oh, so those "utopian schemes" would work if only humans weren't "imperfect" and "fallen"? What saves mankind from communism is that mankind is too rotten for it? He sounds exactly like Thomas Sowell in The Vision of the Anointed.

I want the "Freudian" Koontz back! He was a better writer.

Anyhow, I found that the "Freudian" Koontz made the most remarkable comments about Ayn Rand in his 1981 book How to Write Best Selling Fiction, pages 296-297. Of course, I doubt Miss Rand would appreciate his description of her with a certain political label:

AYN RAND. Rand is not just a popular mainstream writer; she is a major figure in American literature, a fact which will probably not be fully recognized for at least another twenty years. Her two most famous novels are Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, which can be best described as "fiction of ideas," although that does not mean they are dull. Far from it! Rand's books read like thrillers, but they are crammed full of philosophy. This is an author to read if you have doubts about how to integrate thematic content into your story line. American critics have treated Rand with indifference and even hostility because her political assumptions are alien to them; her philosophy is libertarian, and her books stress the need for freedom at virtually any cost. But if current trends in politics and philosophy continue, Rand may eventually be seen as a prophet. In any event, she is a superior storyteller.

Right on!

Dean Koontz as we know him today might not agree with that anymore. But at least he had good taste back in 1981.

One writer who still likes Ayn Rand is "John Norman"/philosophy professor John Frederick Lange, Jr., author of the controversial "Gor" series of sci-fi novels. In a 2001 letter to a science-fiction magazine, he wrote:

I made it clear in my correspondence with the "committee" that I was perfectly willing, incidentally, in public debate, or in an independent lecture, to explain and defend my views, my position, on a large number of topics. . . . I would have been happy to talk about social dynamics, statism, collectivism, authoritarianism, the altruist-collectivistic morality, to talk about the incentive problem, the totalitarian problem, the information problem, the values of a free market, the utility of invisible-hand processes, and such. Similarly I made it clear that I was ready to explain and defend the right of consenting human beings to apply to sexual relationships the delights of fantasy and the joys of the liberated imagination. Sex, as Ayn Rand tried to convince the prudes and bigots of her day, and seemingly failed, is not low, degrading, evil, and such. There are more possibilities for sex than five minutes in the dark twice a week.

I'm jealous of Joshua Zader. He always identifies a celebrity as an Ayn Rand fan before I do. But not this time, baby!

[Dragonfly]

Koontz now says he knows better -- that evil people are just inherently bad and that's all there is to it. His new outlook has had a horrible effect on his writings -- his villains are now just one-dimensional, cookie-cutter "utter bad guys." They're evil because they're evil -- period. So all his villains are now like Dr. Evil except they're supposed to be taken seriously.

You mean that his evil people are now just like the evil people in Atlas Shrugged or like Toohey in the Fountainhead? Because your description would fit them equally well.

Weirdly, I find that Mr. Koontz's writing style went downwill around the same time that his politics became more like mine. His "villains are just evil and have no complex psychology" kick was happening around the same time that he became more of an explicitly semi-libertarian, "Religious Right" quasi-pro-militia type.

Interesting... would there be some correlation between writing style and political viewpoint?

[Stuart K. Hayashi]

Koontz's late '90s bad guys are "just evil" in the sense that Snidely Whiplash is "just evil." The only thing missing in Koontz's later works is the twirling of the mustache.

The behavior of the Koontz's villains from the early 1980s is actually just as bad (sometimes even worse) than those from his late '90s writings. The major difference is that Koontz now thinks there's something morally wrong about authors delving into the villains' past and describing incidents that put the villains onto the path of immorality.

I don't think that the bad guys in Ayn Rand's books are "evil and that's all there is to it."

James Taggart isn't aware of what a bad person he is; he isn't proud of his immorality the way certain late '90s Koontz villains are. You know that he's motivated by pettiness.

Ellsworth Toohey, the most consistently evil character in Ayn Rand's books, is more psychologically complex than Koontz's late '90s villains. Since childhood, Toohey has had a kind of inferiority complex and, in his envy, has wanted to tear down those he perceived as being stronger than he.

The '90s Koontz might not approve of The Fountainhead explaining how much positive reinforcement Toohey's pro-collectivist antics received when he was a small child. He might call that "Freudian."

The fundamental difference between the attitudes of Koontz and Rand toward literary villains is this: the "new" Koontz of the late '90s assumes that badness is inborn. The guy is born evil and there is no changing it. He's bad because that's the way God made him.

Ayn Rand says that immoral behavior is the consequence of bad philosophy. Bad behavior is not congenital; a person still has the option of being good when he chooses to live rationally.

The current literary universe of Koontz, for example, wouldn't have much room for a "Wet Nurse" character. Nor would Guy Francon have any reason to stand by Dominique at the end.

I don't know if there is a correlation between writing style and political viewpoint. It's just that I noticed that Koontz's writings went downhill around the same time he became more explicitly "anti-government" and "religious right."

Edited August 3, 2006 by Stuart K. Hayashi

[Barbara Branden]

Stuart, I just saw this thread and, sadly, I must agree with you about Dean Koontz. A number of years ago, I wrote him to say how much I admired his work, and why; I was tremendously pleased when he responded that he had read and admired my biography of Rand. We corresponded for a while, and we were to meet. I probably will, one day, take him up on his invitation to visit him, although with much less enthusiasm than before. His more recent books lack both the literary quality and the complexity of characterization that was evident in his earlier work. At one time, I hurried to buy every new book he wrote; today, I either don't buy them at all, or buy one of them because its description seems somewhat promising -- only to find that the promise is unfulfilled.

I also agree with you that the decline in the literary value of his books seems to have coincided with his acceptance of religion. What saddens me most of all is that the wonderful benevolence and optimism of his work, his former conviction that man is capable of grandeur, has melted away.

But I'll never forget Einstein, the heroic dog in "Watchers," nor the exalted ending of "Strangers."

Barbara

[reason.on]

But I'll never forget Einstein, the heroic dog in "Watchers," nor the exalted ending of "Strangers."

Barbara

Interestingly enough, I was a avid fan of Dean Koontz (my mother introduced me to his books) as a teenager, long before I had ever heard of Rand or Objectivism. "Watchers" was one of my favorites...in fact, it may have been one of the first I read, I can't recall. I also remember another of Koontz's books fondly, distinctly for its portrayal of "evil" (in fact, I wrote a poem about it, also as a teenager), although I can't recall the title, but I think that there was an ancient fog involved.

RCR

[Barbara Branden]

Christian" "'Watchers' was one of my favorites." If you haven't read "Strangers," I strongly recommend it. It's a fascinating and wonderfully written book.

Barbara

[Victor Pross]

Hi Stewart,

I really like your post. I'm curious to read these books you mention.

You said: "Ayn Rand says that immoral behavior is the consequence of bad philosophy. Bad behavior is not congenital; a person still has the option of being good when he chooses to live rationally."

Now your talking my language. This statement has relevance to a current discussion here at OL that you might find interesting.

Cheers,

Victor

[John Dailey]

~ I used to like Koontz' early stuff, but, after 1 or 2 post-Watcher, I lost interest and couldn't put my finger on why, beyond that the stories got farther out than X-files and...something lacking re where the 'evil' ones were coming from; ie: what made them tick, (as opposed to how they were 'molded.')

~ I think that his Watchers was his best (leastways my fave what I've read of his works), not just for Einstein (oh-h-h, for a dog like that!), but also for how 'the Outsider' was handled. Even in the movie, they were adequately done (though a plot focus or two was changed.) I gather there are sequels. I shan't catch them.

~ One of his websites shows a pic of him and damn if he doesn't look like Stephen King's brother!

LLAP

J:D