# Koontz



## chelseafagan (Feb 10, 2005)

Dean Koontz is amazing. He gets panned so much as a trash writer and it kills me. His writing is, in my opinion, much more interesting and diverse than King's, yet Steve always gets the respect. 

What does everyone else think of him?


----------



## MattGJordan (Feb 12, 2005)

chelseafagan said:
			
		

> Dean Koontz is amazing. He gets panned so much as a trash writer and it kills me. His writing is, in my opinion, much more interesting and diverse than King's, yet Steve always gets the respect.
> 
> What does everyone else think of him?



I think his books are interesting.  The stories move along quickly and you don't get bored.  If you want a fairly quick read, they are worth looking into.  "Watchers" is his best work.


----------



## chelseafagan (Feb 12, 2005)

Nah, I think Whispers is better.

(Bangin' sex scene, too.)


----------



## Talia_Brie (Feb 13, 2005)

Dean Koontz isn't the craftsman Stephen King is. His stories are exciting, but he doesn't provide the emotional impact you get from Stephen King, even at his best.

I went through a phase where I couldn't get enough Koontz, but I've gone off him recently. I thought _Strangers_ was great, and so was _Lightning_ and _Whispers_. I also liked _Twilight Eyes_. I didn't like _Watchers_ at all, because the middle third was boring as sh*t.

I recently read _The Taking_ which for 90% of the book was excellent, but the end was very disappointing. I don't want to spoil it for anyone though, but I was very disappointed.


----------



## chelseafagan (Feb 14, 2005)

Oh, man...I HATED Strangers... 

I love that man to death but I thought he bombed on Strangers. It was so tedious and I thought the ending was just dumb.


----------



## demonic_harmonic (Mar 20, 2005)

i tried to read koontz once. i just didnt like it.


the problem was i was raised to like stephen king. and im not kidding. my family actually raises children on his books. (sick, sick people...)

its really hard to be a hardcore stevo fan and try to read koontz. i do think king seriously lost his 'stuff' over the years, but theres just something there that koontz doesnt seem to have.


and yet, hes not a trash writer. a trash writer pushes out those romance novels about pregnant woman falling in love with firefighters and crap. his are actually creative and well written.


----------



## Talia_Brie (Mar 20, 2005)

I agree with all three of these points.

My family raised me on King as well, and they were also sick.

Koontz doesn't have the impact that King has.

King has had periods were he's produced low quality stuff, but I think it was still better than Koontz at his best.

And Koontz is not a trash writer.

ok, four points.


----------



## gohn67 (Mar 21, 2005)

Everytime I think of Koontz I think back to an episode of Family Guy where Brian is drving in the county and he runs over Koontz.  Brian then gets out of the car and says Stephen King? and the Koontz says No Dean Koontz"  Then Brian gets back in the car and runs him over 3 more times and leaves.

Anyways I think(although I am probably wrong) that Stephan King got the Horror genre to where it is and people look at Koontz as just another Copycat.


----------



## Succubus (Apr 8, 2005)

I've read a lot of Koontz, and while I've enjoyed his stories, I think I've worn his writing style out. Someone compared him to King and while King is a great author, I find some of his work is a bit too waffly or detailed than it needs to be. However, that is his style and it's been effective.


----------



## C. William Russette (Apr 21, 2005)

Wow, bunch of Koontz haters here.

I was reading King before Koontz but I think Koontz generally has a faster paced story while King has the methodology of thought and character development nailed.

Fewer of Koontz's books have bored me as opposed to King's. I would also say Koontz's books have had more thrills / scares / feelings of dread than King's as well.

Koontz always has dogs and cops, King's are full of writer's as the protagonist.

At the same time though, The Stand is like the third fav book I ever read.

Phantoms and Whispers by Koontz were the 'scariest'.

From the Corner of His Eye was simply amazing. Koontz's high water mark IMO.


----------



## Manx (Apr 21, 2005)

Koontz is OK. I can and have read some of his books ('The Funhouse', 'Strangers', 'Watchers', 'The Face'). I can't read King - he bores me (I've got 'Misery' because I love the film but haven't ever read it). There's Richard Layman, also, who I don't like all that much but have read some of.

For me, though, in the horror genre you can't beat Shaun Hutson. The first 'adult' book I ever read (as oppose to reading Malory Towers!) was 'Purity' by Shaun Hutson. Amazing book.


----------



## C. William Russette (Apr 21, 2005)

Was it scary?


----------



## Manx (Apr 21, 2005)

'Purity' is more of a thriller - scary in parts but not as much as some of his others. Scariest of Shaun Hutson's, I think, is 'Nemesis', but it's a bit sick.


----------



## Pengwynn11 (Apr 21, 2005)

I was actually raised on Koontz because my parents thought King was a little too erotic for a 12 year old...and I must say I really like his stuff.  

There is a major difference between King and Koontz....  Koontz has an amazing ability to develope a story so fully the reader is left with no questions and no "alternate" explanations.  The only problem with this is sometimes it takes a very commited reader to stay focused and have faith that the story will be gripping by the third chapter.  

Whereas King grips the reader by the belly button from the first sentence with openings like "Jack Torrance thought:  _Officious little prick_."  He has the reader compelled to read the next page to see how the chapter will end, and once you're at the end you can't stop.  King's stories are not as well-developed, and you can find A LOT of errors that he could have easily researched and fixed (like in one novel his character is sporting a rifle which morphs into a shotgun and then a rifle again...but maybe this is something his EDITOR should have caught).  It hurts the credibility and therefor hurts the effect of realism (but how much realism can you have when you're reading horror anyway???).  

Anywho...I liked Winter Moon by Koontz.  I would also suggest John Saul...I think there's one called Two Face or Evil Twin...I can't remember the exact title...but it's out there.  It's about a girl who kills her parents so she can be adopted by her aunt and uncle.  Good book.


----------



## Succubus (Apr 21, 2005)

C. William Russette said:
			
		

> Wow, bunch of Koontz haters here.
> 
> I was reading King before Koontz but I think Koontz generally has a faster paced story while King has the methodology of thought and character development nailed.
> 
> ...



You've pretty much summed up how I feel about Koontz and King - quite eloquently, I might add.


----------



## C. William Russette (Apr 22, 2005)

Well thanks.


----------



## Bad Craziness (Apr 22, 2005)

I think you'll find that most of the people that pan Koontz as a trash writer also do the same with Stephen King...

I do anyway.


----------



## C. William Russette (Apr 23, 2005)

I don't find either to be trash. Most of their stories are entertaining. If I was moved and lost within them then the book is a success. If I was bored during the read then it's trash.

IMO

CW


----------



## Saponification (Apr 23, 2005)

Bad Craziness said:
			
		

> I think you'll find that most of the people that pan Koontz as a trash writer also do the same with Stephen King...
> 
> I do anyway.



Yep.

Pulp.

They might be "entertaining", but that doesn't stop them being trash. Same deal with Dan Brown and Tom Clancy.


----------



## C. William Russette (Apr 23, 2005)

I'm not tryin to start anything more than a conversation here but why do you consider them trash? King, Koontz or Clancy?


----------



## Saponification (Apr 23, 2005)

Mass-market books pumped out as quickly as possible with horribly cliched plots. Afraid to try anything new, different or totally out there.


----------



## Kane (Apr 23, 2005)

King afraid to try anything new?  I don't think that's true.  Just what constitutes either of their works as trash anyway?  What are authors but story tellers?  When I think of why I want to be a writer, or how I see myself, I have a mental image of an old man sitting around a campfire, telling stories.  The average person doesn't get to experience adventures of epic sword battles and arcane magic.  When they turn out the lights, ghouls and goblins don't appear to devour their souls.  The only way the average Joe would know what it's like to stand trial for murder is to actually go through it, though I think he'd be to preoccupied to enjoy it.  Fiction, be it Sci-Fi, Fantasy or Horror, allows us to experience things that we normally wouldn't be able to.  Writing allows an author to use his creativity to convey a story and, in so doing, is able to entertain those who read his stories.  To call his work trash because he is able to write alot in a short amount of time is the kind of attitude that the whole art world could do without.  It rears it's ugly head in music, art and writing and for what reason?  If you don't like a particular author's style, you probably wont read his work any more than you have to.  But is it really fair to call King's work trash?  I'm sure he works his ass off to write his stories and though he is successful now, this wasn't always the case.  

Now, I've always been one who shoots for originality.  In my music, and my writing, I have the tendency to throw away an idea if I think there is the slightest chance it will be called unoriginal.  The result is that I sit here every night trying to come up with an original idea for a story, trashing one idea after another because I detect hints of other stories in it.  But how could I not?  What do any of us know besides that which we have learned?  And if we are the sum of all we have learned, can anything we do be original?  Sure, we can give it a new name, scramble it around a bit and add juicy details here or there, but there is a point where there is nothing really knew to write about.  I think we passed that point years ago.  So what do we do now, call it quits and stop writing all together?  Or do we just write a story that we enjoy writing and hope others will like it as well?


----------



## Succubus (Apr 23, 2005)

Awesome response, Kane. I've heard the literary circles can be murderous in terms of criticism. 



> Just what constitutes either of their work as trash anyway?



Good question. Their work continues to sell, not only because they're popular, but because people like their writing style and the tales they spin. If it doesn't take them long to write a book, then great! They're able to support themselves with a career they love. Isn't that everybody's dream?


----------



## Manx (Apr 23, 2005)

I wouldn't call anyone's work trash. It's all just a matter of taste - some people love their work and some hate it. That doesn't make it trash. If it was trash no publisher would bother to publish it in the first place, would they?

Authors like King and Koontz have a lot to live up to (King especially), following work they did previously. This standard can't always be achieved - they've had their highs and lows and have probably dealt with a fair bit of criticism from the media and the reading public, but they continue to write and sell. While I'm not a big fan of either of these authors' books, you can't ever fault them for their abilities to make a career out of writing. Who has the right to label them trash when they can achieve sales and best selling novels?


----------



## Saponification (Apr 23, 2005)

Trash isn't nessecarily "bad." Trash is like a Hollywood movie - it can be fun, but it has no depth or artistic value.


----------



## Bad Craziness (Apr 25, 2005)

Saponification said:
			
		

> Trash isn't nessecarily "bad." Trash is like a Hollywood movie - it can be fun, but it has no depth or artistic value.



I think we're on the same page here Sap, the term trash is very similiar to the word pulp in this context.

Kane, in terms of what you think makes something trash or worthless or even original is based solely on how you look at yourself as a writer. You obviously view yourself as a story-teller. I like to think a lot more broadly about how writing works and how I can control what I am expressing more effectively.

King and Koontz use direct, mostly chronological narrative to tell stories that have a beginning middle and end and usually a theme or underlying message.

I like pieces of writing that don't necessarily always abide by these rules. Today, success as a writer is measured by a dollar sign. We live in a capitalist world, that's the way it is. BUT, I find that often it's smaller, more extreme writers that push the boundaries of how language works and what writing is capable of that capture my attention and earn my praise. Sure, if I want an easy read I'll pick up some of this genre fiction, but if I want something that pushes boundaries and provides something new, I'll look elsewhere.


----------



## Saponification (Apr 25, 2005)

Yep, I'll back up all that.


----------

