King or Koontz
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
King's early stuff was pretty good. Salem's lot was a great vampire story. Let me try this. Stephen King and Dean Koontz are like Monty Python's flying circus and Fawlty towers. I always thought that Monty's circus wasn't that funny but once in a while they were really funny. Fawlty Towers I thought was more consistently funny than Monty python. King after the first few were not as good. I think Koontz has managed to keep his novels consistently more entertaining than king, although just recently he has lost his mojo. I think Koontz is more of an optimist in that more endings of his books end up on a positive note. I think King ends his novels on more depressing notes.
Omar B
Senior Master
Don't compare good stuff like Monty Python and Fawlty Towers to garbage like King and Koontz. There's trying to make a point and then there's disrespecting truly good shows.
You think King ends his novels on a depressing note? You think Koontz is more of an optimist? You should be more sure of things like this considering you have read them. Or just looking for an opinion you can link to from another thread.
You think King ends his novels on a depressing note? You think Koontz is more of an optimist? You should be more sure of things like this considering you have read them. Or just looking for an opinion you can link to from another thread.
King is a much better writer than he is popularly given credit for; he also has the rare ability to cross genres seamlessly. I wonder how many people are aware that King wrote The Green Mile and Shawshank Redemption?
Koontz, I liked almost as much as King, but he was starting to repeat plotlines about 10 years ago so I dropped him altogether.
Koontz, I liked almost as much as King, but he was starting to repeat plotlines about 10 years ago so I dropped him altogether.
You are right. King is probably one of the most influential autohrs of fiction, since he started writing. And the ease with which he can change genres and still produce great works is just one more reason he is probably the author with most movie adaptations of his books
Steve
Mostly Harmless
I am a huge fan of King's early works. I see a clear divide between pre-It and post-It Stephen King. Carrie, Christine, Pet Semetary, Firestarter, Salem's Lot, The Shining, the Dead Zone, Cujo... the Bachman Books. The short stories from Night Shift and Skeleton Crew... man, I read those voraciously as a teenager. He was up there with Michael Moorcock, Andrew J. Offutt, Robert E. Howard and HP Lovecraft.
Then I read It and felt EXACTLY how Omar described him. Hundreds of pages, great story and then at the end, they basically pray, there's some wierd Hindu reference and Deus Ex Machina saves the day.
On the topic at hand, I wonder how you're defining optimism and pessimism. I'm not sure I understand how you're using the terms in this context.
Then I read It and felt EXACTLY how Omar described him. Hundreds of pages, great story and then at the end, they basically pray, there's some wierd Hindu reference and Deus Ex Machina saves the day.
On the topic at hand, I wonder how you're defining optimism and pessimism. I'm not sure I understand how you're using the terms in this context.
I like a bit Clive Barker, but for the most part I prefer authors that use a bit of plausibility. Rather than a five part story about a mouse with the powers of God, Green Mile, Can't you just write about people and their struggles?
Sean
Sean
I never really cared for King books, good movies but never got into the books. I've read a lot of Koontz books, I think you're right he is more of an optimist. I've read a lot of his books, he's definitely got a formula that works for him. Take a 'broken' hero who had something bad happen to him when he was younger, add in some supernatural(ish) stuff, make it looks like something tragic is going to happen but in the end the good guy wins, bad guy loses.
A bit formula, but you can count on the good guy winning. Much better than John Saul books (at least the ones I've read) where it looks like the hero has made it, he's won and then gets TOTALLY SCREWED at the end of the book. Depressing.
A bit formula, but you can count on the good guy winning. Much better than John Saul books (at least the ones I've read) where it looks like the hero has made it, he's won and then gets TOTALLY SCREWED at the end of the book. Depressing.
Gnarlie
Master of Arts
I like them both, but I think they are very different authors. Koontz is more feelgood, certainly. I have a rather darker disposition, so I prefer King. His Dark Tower series is brilliant and I would suggest if you've not read that, then you don't really know what he is capable of. The epic plot arcs and character development over such a long time really made those characters alive to me. Man, I felt like I had lost an arm when I finished that series.
As an aside, I would also totally recommend Clive Barker's Weaveworld to anybody with a little imagination.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
As an aside, I would also totally recommend Clive Barker's Weaveworld to anybody with a little imagination.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
I've liked and disliked books by both authors. One thing is for sure, they can both write their asses off.
Koontz's "Watchers" and "Phantoms" were corkers. My favorite book by King was "On Writing", which was half about his life history, and half about the craft of writing.
Koontz's "Watchers" and "Phantoms" were corkers. My favorite book by King was "On Writing", which was half about his life history, and half about the craft of writing.
Similar threads
