Two things stand out for me about the Eyes of Darkness apart from the story itself. Firstly, that Koontz cannot be said to always pick great titles for his books, although, there is nothing much wrong with many of them. The Eyes of Darkness hardly seems to sum this one up, however, and while it's perfectly ok for a novel title generally, perhaps one anticipates a book with some eyes and some darkness in it. Does anybody agree about this?
Secondly, his endings. In this particular novel, which is a rattling good yarn as ever, full of suspense and mystery and a light coating of the supernatural, it more or less finishes with the `then they all caught a taxi and went home' motif. Never mind how many exploded gas mains and dead bodies are lying around and what happened next and how they got home... sometimes, I think Koontz has a predetermined idea that the plot (like the buck) stops here. In this case, I think he probably got off a stop too soon. There was quite a lot of meat left on the joint.
Anyhow, the book is short, and as usual, it sticks to your palms glued firmly there until you've read it at a rattle, and it involves a very strong woman, a restrained romance, a supernatural mystery and a brink-of-disaster pursuit. That's pretty good going. It's fast paced and action-led, with some darkly comic moments. In essence, where's the movie? It's these shorter, less multi-stranded novels that one imagines make easier adaptations for movie-makers, not Koontz's multi-part psychologically complex ones, but both styles make for good reading. The Eyes of Darkness is an enjoyable and typically strong, well-written novel that keeps you turning pages even after the book has finished (yes, try it and see for yourself).
A slightly more detailed ending would nevertheless be justified and I still haven't worked out why he called it this, but these are hardly killer criticisms and don't let them deter you from enjoying the action.