Book Review: Michael Koryta's "So Cold the River"

It is a decent book, and once you get caught in it, it can be addictive. It is a book that mostly takes place in the real town of West Baden, Indiana, as well as French Lick, the more famous neighbor town that is best known for being the home of basketball superstar Larry Bird. These towns each have famous and rather grandiose hotels that seem largely out of place in rural Indiana, and delve a bit into the local history, including the origins of the hotels that remain in the towns, less than a mile from one another. It also delves into the springs and the mineral water that, for a time, was sold almost as the miracle product of it's age, until it was deemed to be mostly just a laxative, and a not so powerful one, at that. It was a good book, and an enjoyable read, mostly.

That said, I felt that Michael Koryta was a bit vanilla with his characters, who remained largely stereotypical good and bad. In the comments to promote the book and author, he was compared to Stephen King. However, it seems to me that such comparisons, while not entirely invalid, are perhaps a bit misplaced.

I am not the biggest fan of horror, necessarily. Not that I mind it, and I pretty much enjoy anything that is of a decent quality. It's just that horror is not necessarily my thing, if you will. So it may seem strange that Stephen King would rank among my very favorite authors.

That said, open up a Stephen King book. Read some of it, and you will likely see what I find so appealing about his writing. I enjoy his ideas, sure. Enjoy his horror, or his focus on the supernatural, or death. He makes no bones (bada-boom!0 about it himself – that is clearly a field of interest.

Yet, his writing style offers much more than that.

Do similarities exist between Stephen King and Michael Koryta, specifically with this particular book, "So Cold the River"? Yes, absolutely. The comparisons are not entirely misplaced. At least, not to a certain degree, anyway. The book is about tapping into ghosts and such spirits, if you will. It is about a very grandiose hotel in particular. Not quite as isolated as Stephen King's Overlook Hotel from "The Shining", but there certainly are parallels. Plus, Koryta's style of writing, even , can be quite reminiscent of Stephen King. At times, I could see the resemblances in style, in wording, and such, no doubt about it.

There are similarities. Yet, what struck me, the reader, throughout reading this book were the differences. That was what really stood out for me. You see, Stephen King's specialty would be his character building. That is his real forte, and I'm not sure anybody does it better. King does not shy away from things that make his characters more real. There are times where perhaps he has made cliché characters are well, but they are few and far between. In fact, as I write this (admittedly, not with a Stephen King book in front of me for anything resembling research, or anything), but I cannot think of an example of any clichéd characters of Stephen King. Some strange characters, sure. But every single one of his characters, including men, women, and children (even some animals, such as dogs, every once in a while) seem remarkably believable. He pays attention to detail, in a way that many authors do not. He might talk about a character of his wearing underwear of the pee-stained variety, for example. He may talk about a character completely immersed in his political beliefs, either more liberal or more conservative, and he does so convincingly. Maybe one of his characters is of a certain religious persuasion, or maybe their faith is failing (as in Salem's Lot), or perhaps even entirely absent. His characters are perhaps pigheaded, or too strong, too weak. They are not always entirely successful in life. In fact, most of them are struggling, and not just financially. Many of his characters are stuck in crappy jobs, or crappy relationships.

Koryta opens with a character that, if I describe it right away, would indeed soun like he has many of the same believable elements as a Stephen King character. Yet, let me just say this upfront and directly: something is missing. It is not that his characters are entirely unbelievable, or too perfect, or anything. They are flawed, but they are flawed in a strange kind of way. Almost, too idealistic, or perhaps stereotypical way.  It is not bad writing by any stretch of the imagination (he is a published author of a major work, after all). Yet, somehow, his character building did not quite grab me the way that Stephen King's characters tend to grab me. I did not lose myself in them, or feel, as I often tend to feel with King or other authors, that it almost felt like a vacation from myself. It was hard to completely lose myself in the book like I do with some other authors, and I think I know the reason why.

I think it is because he does not entirely let his characters go free. Yes, they are flawed, but they are flawed, if you will, in very stereotypical ways.

Just before I read this book, I read another that really swept me off my feet. It was not from one author, but from two. A combination, sort of a tag team effort, if you will. It was called "Cell 8", and I even wrote a review on this blog about it. These two men collaborated on a brilliant book that really was a page turner, and had very believable, and flawed, characters, that gave me a more "real" feel, if you will. The characters were imperfect, had their own demons to deal with. But they had their own thoughts, they disagreed with one another, and inevitably, one or two of them disagreed with the reader, no matter what the reader's political or religious persuasion, because some of the characters were on polar opposite ends of the spectrum, in terms of their political thinking in general, and of one issue, the death penalty, in particular.

Now, the death penalty is a divisive issue, at least, in particular, in the United States. People hold strong opinions about the issue, and it often seems that there is little to no arguing with them on it. The authors, Roslund and Hellstrom, were able to capture this stubbornness, as well. They did not shy away from a serious issue that would generate a lot of controversy and possibly arguments, and they did not pull any punches in portraying the United States and many perceptions from the outside that it is an arrogant power, carrying on like they own the world, and can do whatever they wish with relative impunity, even well beyond their national borders. On the flip side, they are very critical of their own Swedish nation and government, and criticize it for seemingly always backing down to greater political pressure. Not absent in their writing was the politics behind everything, for the fictional events that took place in the book were mostly set in motion by politics –specifically, by political ambitions and posturing, and doing whatever it took to say in power, whether in "capitalist" United States or "socialist" Sweden. There is enough in there to generate controversy on both countries, as well as perhaps others outside of the two, as well. That's taking a chance with writing, and although it is fiction, they are also tackling larger truths. It is the essence of art, I think, this level of honesty. Some people would claim that fiction "is not real". But read a book like that one, and then read the newspapers, the headlines, or listen to political speeches, and then come back and tell me what sounds more "real".

Stephen King takes such chances with his writing, as well as in real life. He came out against the Bush Administration time and again, and he even writes about it quite a bit in his books, directly or indirectly. In fact, "Under the Dome", which was one of his longest, and I think one of his best, books, was all about the United States in particular, and the world in general, the way it is going. He attacked what he felt was a closed mindset, and that takes guts. It also takes honesty. It is admirable, and moreover, it is believable. Also, he makes in enjoyable to read. So did Roslund & Hellstrom. So did Larson, in his historically minded works that read like fiction (such as "The Devil in the White City" and "In the Garden of Beasts"), but which he also seems to be able to weave to illuminate their relevance with present day issues and realities. That was the real beauty of the writing, in fact.

Truth be told, I did not get this same sense out of "So Cold the River". Yes, there are questions about ghosts and the supernatural, and these remain controversial. Yes, the characters struggled with their own demons, as well, and their was somewhat of a "real" feel to it.

Yet, the defining trait for me in reading this book was that it was merely meant as a "fun" book, one not to be taken too seriously. There were some elements of history to it, about French Lick and West Baden, Indiana, and about the hotels that sprang up in these two remote, farm country towns. It was not poor writing by any means, and was in fact enjoyable more often than not.

All I am saying is that it did not quite go to the next level. It remained in the "safe" zone, so to speak, and after reading a book like "Cell 8", which was about the superficiality of much of American popular thinking, thinking that rarely scratches the surface on major issues, it just perhaps seemed a little too "safe" for me. That goes for the book itself, and the authors that populate them. Not a bad book, and it did make me want to visit these little towns in Indiana, and their grand hotels, and even the springs. But it did not get me to think about larger issues or allow me to lose myself in great fictional characters made very believable, like I did in "Cell 8", or like I tend to do when reading a Stephen King novel.