Dean Koontz vs Stephen King

roversania22

Dean Koontz vs Stephen King. Any thoughts ? I would prefer Koontz myself .

LoLth

any particular reason why ?

roversania22

The suspense he brings to a book is unbelievable i think. Once you pick up one of his novels, Its extremely hard to put down. He has the 'What will happen next factor' . A sense of mystery is always there throughout his books and you can always rely on him putting in a few surprises here and there. His characters are also very well brought to life that leaves sentimental values throughout a suspense/thriller/horror novel. King i think fails to get the most out of his characters.

Dades

I've read buckets of King (all the classics), but not a single Koontz. Am I missing out?

What would be a good one for starters?

11811

ah yeah Koontz all the way! yeah dades you're missing out big time.
not too sure where to start with him tho, Hideaway is one of my favorites

macrubicon

Phantoms, Lightning and Tick Tock are good ones to pop in and out of the style.

I never really considered them to be competing - they both have a different style.

Koontz is more Punchy in the suspence and sneaks things up on you.

King tends to be that bit longer so you can have a bit more scene setting and a larger cast.

I read both and enjoy. Although Richard Laymon is a guilty pleasure in the horror side - sadly missed now as I used to line one of his books up in between a Koontz, King or Clancy ( mixing the genre's there I know! )

sxt

Its been a while since i read it but "Intensity" was pretty darn good and shocking read.It well definitely set your heart racing:)Thats the only one that i have read of his so far

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intensity-Dean-Koontz/dp/0747248400/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224012939&sr=8-1

Honey-ec

I really don't think you can compare them. Koontz's style is far more formulaic, a bit schlocky and can be entertaining if you want something for a rainy afternoon.

King, on the other hand, is much subtler, and I think his characterisations are far, far superior to Koontz. I've read absolutley reams of both, and to my mind, the same characters keep popping up in Koontz again and again. He can be very cliched and stereotypical - I'm thinking specifically of "From the Corner of His Eye" here. This is the amazon.com review I wrote for this book:

"I had heard so much about this book that I was probably expecting a little too much from it. After all, when does anything ever live up to its hype? However, even if I had picked this book off a shelf without ever having heard of it before, I would have been sorely disappointed, especially when the last Koontz novel I read was the excellent "False Memory".

The characters in this book, particularly Agnes Lampion, are not remotely believable. Even with my voluminous imagination, I could not envision a pie-baking, all-forgiving paragon of virtue such as this woman. The protagonaist of the story, her son Barty, reminds me of every precocious child actor I've ever seen and I dread to think of who would play him were a film to be made of the book. Sisters Celestina and Seraphim White also seem to come from the "too good to be true" stable, as do their parents. However, the most ludicrous and at times laughable character in the book has to be the ridiculously named Enoch Cain. The book is already far too heavy handed on the morality lesson without adding this glaringly obvious biblical reference. The book opens with Cain thinking about how much he loves his wife and then inexplicably throwing her off a fire tower. His justification of his rape of Seraphim White is breathtakingly baffling, as Koontz no doubt meant it to be, however, his constant paranoia just becomes irritating and detracts further from an already less than mediocre story. Definitely the worst Koontz novel I have ever had the misfortune to read."

Eoin

I don't think they're anywhere near in the same class. When Koontz gets it right, it's a pretty good book. When King gets it right, it's a classic. I've read many, if not most of the novels from both authors, so I know full well that King has produced some turkeys.

Honey-ec, I agree completely with your review, his characters are just too perfect, and the cheesy sentiment has gotten worse as he goes on - I've read Hallmark cards that are less sickly sweet. Not too different from James Patterson's efforts for the deification of Alex Cross.

False Memory was pretty good, which I think was clearly influenced by his earlier book Night Chills and I have enjoyed a good few of his other novels, but very few of them stand out for me.

PS - I would suggest spoiler tags though?

Honey-ec

eoin_s wrote: »

PS - I would suggest spoiler tags though?

I knew the spoiler tags would come up, and I thought long and hard about whether they were required, but decided no. Neither episode mentioned is either a pivotal plot point in the book, nor a big twist, so I don't think anything is going to be compromised for someone who hasn't read the book yet.

BroomBurner

I like them both! Tbh, while both are good, I prefer James Herbert of all the suspense/horror writers.

Legend_DIT

Personally, I think Watchers and Odd Thomas are great books and the rest of Koontz's stuff is hit and miss.

Some of his recent stuff have read like great concepts that didn't transfer past the start of the book - i'm thinking of "The Husband and Velocity in particular where the premise of the book is on the front cover of the book)

False Memory was my first Koontz book and it's a pretty good place to start.

Ann22

I've read most of Koontz and King books. I agree with Eoin in that King's best are a real treat to get stuck into, although some he's written aren't great while Koontz's best is pretty good but not a classic. Another thing I've noticed, I can pick from a list of Koontz book titles which ones I've read but can scarcely remember what they were about, however I can clearly remember what every one of King's I've read are about. The reason I feel is that there are some very similar evil characters and stories in Koontz books. Either 'Ticktock' or 'Dragontears' was my first of his, I can't remember which, I know I did enjoy it. 'From the Corner of his Eye'-I have to say, I did enjoy.

Raced through it to find out how the child got his sight back. Reread it a few years later at my leisure and enjoyed it more

In my opinion not many authors have the imagination Stephen King has. His storyines are so dramatically different, although a few pages into a book you do recognise his style of writing, and I feel at times he does ramble a bit.
James Herbert is well worth a read too. I like his style. Straight into the action, no auld bullsh*t. Good creepy stories.

Heckler

Koontz and King are in a different league. I've read and enjoyed both but King is leagues ahead in terms of imagination, story-telling, dialogue and so much more. Don't get me wrong I like Koontz. Especially in his earlier days, books like the Watchers and the Strangers.

These days I find Koontz very moralistic and preachy. His books tend to follow the same trend: Lonely man/woman meets same, one has a secret, throw in a pet and a nasty government agent. Cue lots of good fun and a happy outcome. Good reads but no comparison to King. And I reckon Kings superego exploded when he introduced himself as a character in the last of his Dark Tower series so I see his faults but Koontz is to King what Patterson (James) is to Koontz.

ixoy

A lot of this reminds me of an old Family Guy episode ("Brian in Love") where Brian's driving down the road and runs a guy over. He races out of the car to the stricken man and asks "Oh my God are you Stephen King?" The injured man replies "No I'm Dean Koontz". Brian goes "Oh", gets back in his car, and repeatedly drives backwards over Koontz..

insinkerator

the last stephen king book i read was cell, and it certainly didnt compare to any book i have read by Dean Koontz. I reckon i should read more King, before i can make a proper judgement though

Caros

I've read everything by Koontz and King, but whilst i get King's the minute they are released in hardback I wait till Koontz's turn up in paperback.
Like another poster I can remember every single King plot but very few of Koontz's.

Some of King's books of late have not been his greatest but ones likes The Stand, Cujo, Christine and It were classics imo.

Another vote for James Herbert here too

Eoin

insinkerator wrote: »

the last stephen king book i read was cell, and it certainly didnt compare to any book i have read by Dean Koontz. I reckon i should read more King, before i can make a proper judgement though

I don't think Cell would be a good example to use for comparison; I don't think any King fan would rate it too highly.

I would also recommend James Herbert by the way.

Ann22

No horror author that I've read can touch King's best for imagination and variety.'Cujo' was about a mad dog. 'Christine'-a possessed car. 'Carrie' a telekinetic girl. 'Gerald's Game'-

the whole story is about a woman handcuffed to a bed in a cabin in the middle of nowhere.

'Misery'-a man kept prisoner by a mad woman in a house out in the wilds. 'From a buick 8' a car that's

a some kind of portal to another dimension

. 'Pet Semetary'-an ancient buriel ground which has the power to bring the dead back to life. 'Rose Madder' about a woman escaping an abusive husband with

a magical painting thrown in for good measure

.Clive Barker is another with a mad imagination, very gory reading tho, I've just read some of his 'Books of Blood'.
Nearly all of Koontz books are about evil souless men stalking somebody, all are very similar characters. Another typical thing he does is come up with real life phenomena for strange occurences in his stories, nothing is ever really supernatural or unexplained. I like his style of writing tho, he uses personification a lot. Koontz is always easy reading while sometimes King can be tough going, he builds stories and a history around every character, even those who are due to come to a quick end, however he's still a total genius. Big difference in seeing a new King hardback on the shelf than a new Koontz!

Tallyy

Stephen King is emphatically predictable. By reading just two lines of any of his work, you know it's him. To compare his predictability against Koontz is absurb; there is no comparison.

Dean Koontz, on the other hand, doesn't hold your hand and guide you through his storyline; he grabs you and shoves you through the explosive action and masterful twists.

Take Intensity for example. Even on the very first page, his description of the sunlight on the valley immediately hooks your attention. He maintains your interest when the explosive action and sinister suspense begins as Chyna, innocent yet damaged struggles against the utterly detestable Vess in order to save a life. Koontz writes in such a way that the reader is not only sympathetic for poor Chyna, but also makes you feel as though you are right there huddled in the motor home with her and wanting Vess to "lose" also. After reading Intensity, to say Dean Koontz books are boring and inferiror to King is ridiculous.

Yes, Koontz has made some blunders in his choice of storyline, such as The Husband, which sounded promising but didn't deliver, yet his proved imagination and superior writing abilities ought to hold him in great esteem regardless. At least with Koontz, you are surprised 99% of the time. I doubt the same could be said for King.

Eoin

I agree that some of Koontz's plots are interesting, but the writing style is just way too sentimental for me. Honey-ec's post sums it up quite well, "the corner of his eye" was too saccharine for me.

gubby

I am a big koontz fan and maybe i shoutld not comment on the post as I dont think I ever read stephen king book. However, I have to say that I too, like some other posters, find Koontz hit and miss. When he goes over the top.. he goes over the top. what I like about his books is the fast pace.. most of them take place over a few day or weeks. Intensity I think took place over 24 hours. can anyone recommend a start book of Stephen King??

Eoin

Give Pet Cemetary a go; I read it again a few months ago, and I think it's very good.

Ann22

'The Stand' is very popular, so is 'The Shining'. For me out of the ones I've read 'Salem's Lot' was his best. However I was petrified the whole way through it. There were moments I had to put it down to calm myself....those going down into dark cellar moments.:eek:

Eoin

The Stand is good, but very long - maybe best to start on a shorter one.

HydeRoad

'Four Past Midnight' is a selection of stories from Stephen King, which would give a broad idea of his style of writing. I loved his story 'The Langoliers,' I never read such a story where you simply could not fathom how the characters were going to get out of the scrape King devised for them. This story in particular really demonstrates King's infinitesmal power of imagination. But then I love stories where a small band of people are left in a world devoid of life.

A movie was made of 'The Langoliers,' but alas it suffered from the same problem many King novels suffered, being a very, very poor film dramatisation, with weak actors and a rather cheap looking production. 'The Stand,' too, was an apocalyptic story, but the movie looked cheap and nasty.

Bansheewails

Dean Koontz is a bit, hmmm, dull, I found, you could guess the endings of the book. Stephen King is an old sytle storyteller. The books grab you by the throat and take you on a rip roaring ride, and you actually feel for the characters!!

The Stand is one of my all time favourites, but I loved Salem's Lot and the shining, all three much much better than the films. But the scariest I found was 'It', I dont know why maybe because its the whole children thing, but the hair on the back of my neck stood from begininng to end.

Stand by me, which he wrote under the name Richard Bachman, and made into the film staring river phoenix was another brilliant story and would be a good place to start, though it is not a typical King Horror Story!!

trishdee

I've read a few King books but nearly all of the Dean Koontz books. I agree he can be hit and miss but also think that you can get used to a persons style of writing.

I do prefer Koontz but that's personal choice. Good book to start with is Mr Murder. Look on the Barnes and Noble websitehe has done an Q & A there very interesting.

Heckler

Tallyy wrote: »

Stephen King is emphatically predictable. By reading just two lines of any of his work, you know it's him. To compare his predictability against Koontz is absurb; there is no comparison.

Dean Koontz, on the other hand, doesn't hold your hand and guide you through his storyline; he grabs you and shoves you through the explosive action and masterful twists.

Take Intensity for example. Even on the very first page, his description of the sunlight on the valley immediately hooks your attention. He maintains your interest when the explosive action and sinister suspense begins as Chyna, innocent yet damaged struggles against the utterly detestable Vess in order to save a life. Koontz writes in such a way that the reader is not only sympathetic for poor Chyna, but also makes you feel as though you are right there huddled in the motor home with her and wanting Vess to "lose" also. After reading Intensity, to say Dean Koontz books are boring and inferiror to King is ridiculous.

Yes, Koontz has made some blunders in his choice of storyline, such as The Husband, which sounded promising but didn't deliver, yet his proved imagination and superior writing abilities ought to hold him in great esteem regardless. At least with Koontz, you are surprised 99% of the time. I doubt the same could be said for King.

Sorry my friend but you are wrong. To say that Koontz doesn't hold your hand through his books is a joke. I love both King and Koontz but the latter has been writing the same feelgood novels for years. Novels like Strangers and Watchers were outstanding but he's in a rut.

Koontz is very moralistic and preachy. His characters can never have sex. It has to be a sublime, soul touching, meeting of like minds. Guess what Dean, sometimes people just **** for the hell of it.

Koontz when hes on form is great but to compare him to King is like chalk and cheese.