Koko by Peter Straub

Hello, Stranger.

Let's talk about Peter Straub's Koko.

The Short of It

Plot: A series of murders over many decades point to only one person: Koko. But his former squad mates could have sworn he was dead...

Page Count: 562

Award: 1989 World Fantasy Award

Worth a read: No
Primary Driver: (Plot, World, or Character)
Bechdel Test: Fail
Technobabble: Doesn't really apply.
Review: Turns out that the Vietnam war was pretty much not a good thing. Superb use of atmosphere and mood coupled with generally good writing. Plot is not great, heavy flashbacks break flow of present-day story. Scenes of gratuitous gore and violence are at first shocking and then become dull. Most characters are flat, making it hard to stay invested in what is a heavily people-driven story. Ends up feeling more like an experience than a story. And gets relentlessly depressing.

The Medium of It

Spoiler Free!

If one were to read this is a fantasy story, it is sorely wanting. It is a gritty Vietnam horror story, more than anything else. It is not bad, exactly - but there are plenty of books that fall in the same genre which are more enjoyable. To be more accurate, it is not even a Vietnam story, so much as a post-Vietnam story; what happens to those who come back?

While we are given four major characters from the start, the protagonist, Michael Poole, is as dull as drywall. Across the board characters are flat - the hothead is a hothead, the rational one is rational, the drunk is drunk. In a story intended to show the complexity of people, the ones we interact with most are shallow. To rectify this, Straub shovels some totally superfluous humanizing scenes in: Poole's marriage is falling apart, and we spend a fair bit of page space on this. This is not a plot that goes anywhere; it feels as if an editor noted that Poole had no characteristics, and Straub decided that we should pity him.

In general, I do like Straub's writing. Other than the Blue Rose Trilogy, of which this is the first book, my only Straub reads had been those cowritten with Stephen King. Those scenes in Koko which are the closest to horror truly shine. Gore is visceral, descriptions are vivid, and tension ratchets up superbly. However... at some point in each of these scenes, it is impossible to escape how little I care about the outcome. None of the characters had me invested. 

The same applies to flashbacks, of which there are many. A well-executed flashback shows us how our characters became who they are in the present, filling in gaps or fleshing out something. Station Eleven is an exemplar case study of flashbacks; both the TV show and the book. This is a digression, but it is also one of the few pieces of media that come to mind where the adaptation surpasses the original. In Koko, flashbacks are used more as a hammer than a scalpel. We are not shown the first hints in the past of something that comes out in the present. We are shown that something happened, and informed that if x, then y. 

There are significant portions of this story that involve hallucinations, the mind playing tricks, and so on. For some these may make it more engaging - what, after all, is real? - but they felt more like an attempt to muddy the waters on what is otherwise pretty clear.

At its core, this is a book about violence, and cycles of violence. This is not a theme that can be easily condemned; it is just that it is done here so aggressively that it is almost comical.

There is not a lot to say about this one, honestly. It was fine. Just not very good. And given the sheer number of things out there to read, that is just not good enough.

The Long of It

Spoilers Ahead!

Does it count as a twist if it has no resonance at all?

There are a few scenes here that are truly superb. Easily my favorite is where everyone admits to having been Koko at one point or another. Effectively, Koko is an inside joke: no one real, an outlet to release some aggression in Vietnam. Everyone realizing that they are part of it is well done - suddenly, the real monster is violence itself, not one person. The problem is a system that dehumanizes people and unleashes their basest instincts. 

Then it turns out that the present day Koko was actually a bully from the Midwest. 

Then it turns out it was a kid from the same town who was molested.

This is not intended to make light of molestation; rather, it is irksome that this is writers' shorthand for: "And that's why he's a bad person."

As I see it, that is the point at which so much of the broader message of this story crumbles. Who cares what exactly is real or not, or if violence is a contagious disease? We got him. It's this guy. Who had childhood trauma, and is therefore evil.

Also, don't know how to fit this in, but the end suggests that this whole story was made up by one of the characters in the book, who is an author. That's a bit of a middle finger to those who just read it. We know it's fictional... but somehow it's much worse to suggest that even in-universe it's fictional.

Don't lose it on me, Stranger.

And don't forget to read a book!