Why King Stands Alone

[Homebrew]

This is just a general interpretation of King and why I think I always end up going back to him after burning through other novels by guys like Koontz.

First, it seems like King is hard to read. Not his books, but himself. His characters don't necessarily have a trend in their personalities, strengths and weaknesses and they're unpredictable most of the time. They can be sweet and charming, vulgar and hostile, stupid and clumsy, sick and twisted, neutral and mysterious, or downright hilarious.

I think we all subconsciously try to understand the person behind the pen, and if we're able to define him, it's detrimental to the experience of immersing ourselves in his work. I could be wrong obviously, but that's how it is for me.

King's detachment from his own characters are something I think most writers strive for and fail miserably. It's hard to not create a character that says what you'd say, or does what you'd do, or become the hero simply because you want to be the hero. It's hard as hell in my experience alone, writing short stories and developing characters with bias.

He also does a tremendous job of building the environment with vivid descriptions without going absolutely overboard. Sometimes he does, in my opinion, but it's never brutal to the point of losing my interest.

The good guys don't always win, happy endings aren't a trend, and wrapping the entire story up with a pretty bow is not his style.

Lastly, his books tend to vary quite a bit and it makes every new book a new experience without being all too familiar.

These are all things that make him great, I think. But as the title of my post implies, he stands alone. From who?

Well, Koontz, for one. I can't stand his writing. Watchers was one of my favorite books of all time. Phantoms a distance second, but almost everything beyond that put me in a coma. Everything I just said in favor of King I cannot say in favor of Koontz. Almost all of his books seem to be a slight variation of the other, with the two aforementioned standing aside from his bleak habits.

Koontz typically makes me throw up in my mouth with the romance he interjects in his work. Sickeningly bad. Here are a few certainties with just about every book he writes:

1. There will be an incredibly strong willed, hard ass, brilliant female protagonist with a thirst for vengeance.

2. Someone will have sex. And when they do, it'll be like they're floating in another world as one soul drifting through the stars of destiny in a love that cannot be... ugh. Sorry. You get the point.

3. The antagonist will lose. Every damn time. And it's always a man. He'll probably take someone important out of the picture before the end, but he's going to die.

4. There's a married couple. The dynamic in this relationship is always the same. The guy is a hapless idiot who's just lucky to have such a superior woman throw pity on him and find love in an otherwise hopelessly lost person. It's irritating.

Alright, that's enough Koontz bashing, but it's truly what differentiates him from King in my humble opinion. What King does right, Koontz does horribly wrong.

Last but not least, a special recommendation and shout-out to Joe Hill. If you don't know who he is, he wrote Heart Shaped Box and Horns, and they're both fantastic books. He is very similar to King and although there's an amateurishness in his writing, there's also a profound ability to tell a damn fine page-turning story. I'd say if King was going to call it a day and ditch writing altogether, Hill could stand up and do him justice as a, for lack of better word, literary replacement.

Thought I'd share.

[blunthead]

Well, first, I like a lot of the Koontz I've read very much, some not as much. He's still one of my all-time favorite novelists and part of the reason I became interested in sK. I'm not as much a connoisseur or as well-read as many, especially many sKMBers; though, I do know what I like when I read it.

It's difficult for me to truly understand why I enjoy sK so much. I know that part of it is due to his imagination being as unique as it is. This means that I know I can trust him to take me places I want to go--new places. I know that part of his appeal for me is due to my craving for intensity. I don't know if I was born with that gene, or maybe something grew in me as a child watching the old horror movies on late night TV ages ago, and Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, One Step Beyond. I know that where sK takes me there're built-in dangers, and I know I need that (maybe I have a risk gene?).

sK stands out for me in this sense, too: he's the only author who's caused me to actually try doing some writing myself. And, I've read plenty of authors.

[doowopgirl]

I would have to agree with you re Koontz. One book of his is really good called Lightening. It boils down to destiny struggles to put you where you belong no matter how hard you fight your destiny. Baring that his chracters are very one dimensional. Every one is either very good or very bad, and in real life people just aren't like that. And what you said is why I am such a great fan of SK. His people are real. He is the master of putting ordinary people in extraordinary situatio9ns and seeing what happens. I have read Heart Shaped Box and Horns. There is also a short story collection called 20th Century Ghosts, which apart from a couple of clunkers is terrific. He is son of SK, actually. Any way, keep on enjoying.

[Bryan James]

Last but not least, a special recommendation and shout-out to Joe Hill. If you don't know who he is, he wrote Heart Shaped Box and Horns, and they're both fantastic books. He is very similar to King and although there's an amateurishness in his writing, there's also a profound ability to tell a damn fine page-turning story. I'd say if King was going to call it a day and ditch writing altogether, Hill could stand up and do him justice as a, for lack of better word, literary replacement.

I've enjoyed many Koontz books. I've left many unfinished.

Joe Hill? I haven't read anything yet...but since he's Stephen King's son I look forward to doing so.

Is this a Ta-Daah! moment?

[Srbo]

I think we all subconsciously try to understand the person behind the pen, and if we're able to define him, it's detrimental to the experience of immersing ourselves in his work. I could be wrong obviously, but that's how it is for me.

Never for me.
I do like to read about SK`s life ( or any other writer that I find interesting), like the parts of Steve`s life in " On writing ", but I really don`t try to understand the person behind the pen.
He/she/they have their own lifes, they do whatever and that`s something that I`m simply not interested in.
That`s why, for instance, I have absolutely no desire to ever sit down with Stephen and chat.
About what?
I don`t know the guy, don`t want to pester him, I mean...what`s there to talk about?
He tells me everything I need to know through his stories.
A handshake, a signature and a picture, if possible, and I`d be happy as heck.

I like to read books, plain and simple. They are either good or bad and that`s where everything else ends.

" It`s the story, not the one who tells it."

[Doc Wilson]

Agreed on every point. Though I might have enjoyed a few more of the Koontz novels (Odd Thomas was pretty entertaining, I thought), but I agree Koontz is way too corny and predictable.

I would quibble a bit about Joe's amateurishness; I think HSB was much, much better than Carrie, and Horns was better still. I expect great things from him, he could well surpass even Uncle Steve.