Koontz (1 Viewer)

[chelseafagan]

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]

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]

Nah, I think Whispers is better.

(Bangin' sex scene, too.)

 

[Talia_Brie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Was it scary?

 

[Manx]

'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]

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]

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.

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

 

[C. William Russette]

Well thanks.

 

[Bad Craziness]

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]

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]

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]

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