The rich and successful private eye Alex Hunter, who doesn't yet know what love is, visits a night club in Kyoto, starts to fall for the Anglo proprietor/singer Joanne Reed, and then realizes she is the daughter of a U.S. Senator, abducted 12 years ago, whom he was unable to locate back then.
Reed is really someone quite different, as far as she knows. But then why does she have creepy nightmares every night about a guy with metal fingers and a hypodermic needle? And why is Kyoto all of a sudden the site of the world burglars, sneaks, and thugs convention, all of whom are practicing on Alex?
We learn two things about the senator very quickly: (a) while serving in Viet Nam he was held prisoner by the Reds and then miraculously escaped, and (b) Alex doesn't like him. This will start off some trains of thought if you are like me, and the words "Manchurian Candidate" may even come to mind. I should point out, though, that Koontz (as he points out in an afterword) has extensively rewritten this book for the post-Soviet era, so it's not going to be quite that simple. If "House of Thunder" is an example of what his old Cold War pseudonymous novels were like before he rewrote them, it's probably good he did.
On the con side, the writing tends to be a big clunky and non-atmospheric, and some of the action sequences read like they are verbal descriptions of what he was hoping the movie would be like, which is not the same as good writing even if it would be a good movie. Also, some of the plot devices are implausible, while the motives of some of the characters are hard to explain: in particular there are several people who have every chance to just kill off Alex before he causes any trouble, and I don't know why they don't. And there is some "talking villain" stuff.
Back on the pro side, there are enough plot twists to keep you somewhat fooled until pretty late in the game. The love story is a lot like 15 other Koontz love stories, but it has its sweet side. And he writes about Kyoto as if he knew the place, at least from the viewpoint of someone like me who doesn't.
When all is said and done, despite its flaws, and despite the fact that I hate Koontz's politics as much as he hates mine, I have to give it three stars, which is not a bad rating coming from me. Actually it's a better 3-star volume than Darkfall. I won't reread it, and I'm glad I didn't pay money for it, but I don't feel as if reading it was an unenjoyable waste.