SK v. Koontz Paper

[Tarrant]

Hi all,

Long time lurker, first time poster and rabid SK fan along with everybody else.

As a final assignment in a college English class, I've opted to write a paper which will essentially be King v. Koontz, as played out and ultimately futile as that argument may be. It won't be a simple "X is better and this is why" deal; it'll be a critical comparison of a small slurry of subtopics: their backgrounds and respective life experiences and how their bodies of work might reflect their differences, narrative styles, characterization and character voice, political differences apparent in their respective bodies of work, etc.

Having a Caligulan appetite for reading in general, I've consumed a large number of works from both King and Koontz: that being the case, I think my opinions on the two are pretty well-supported / warranted. I happen to find SK to be the superior writer and storyteller in... well, just about every way, quite frankly. Reading Koontz after King is like switching to diet caffeine-free coke.

On to my questions: What are you general thoughts re: SK v. Koontz? Are there any specific ways in which you see a pointed contrast between the two?

I'm certain this topic has been beaten into a fine pink paste around here, but any thoughts you're willing to share could be inspiring as I try to decide which specific subtopics have enough meat on their bones to address in the paper.

Thanks all!

T

[randallFlaggfan1]

There is no comparison. Stephen is a much better writer, his characters are fully developed and very life-like. Some of Dean's characters seem contrived, and his endings are too ideal (the good guys always prevail.)

[JayneH]

I can no longer read a Koontz book as they are far too predictable ... with SK you never know what you are going to get !
To me there is no comparison

[GNTLGNT]

I am a fan of both men, but give the #1 nod to SK...DK is my lighter weight fare-he is a good storyteller, but pontificates a bit much. I enjoy the hell out of his quirky sense of humor though!

[Billiards Girl]

Obviously I can't be sure about this, but Koontz seems like maybe he started out with good intentions, writing a book that people liked, selling a buttload of copies, then went on to write the same sort of book over and over again. Dare I say The Fame Monster (thanks Lady Gaga,) reared it's ugly head? I feel that he got lazy. Tired plots, one dimensional characters, etc. He's one tiny step ahead of John Saul in the 'I write the same story,' department. But hey, if people keep buying it and the fat cat gets fatter, more power to him, I guess. Stephen is in a league all his own.

[Spideyman]

I'll take King over Koontz any day. May I suggest you read through this topic thread to get further insight from the SKMB.
http://www.stephenking.com/forums/sh...ing-and-Koontz

[Dani~]

No, there is no comparison beyond the obvious genre similarities, but look at the differences in their descriptive passages. Stephen's descriptions of anything are flowing and interesting to read while also striking a chord in the memory. Dean's are clunky and far too drawn out. It's almost like he is fulfilling a quota sometimes.

[Hirsty]

Koontz's early stuff is, IMHO, a lot of fun, fast paced easy reads - his later stuff though to me seems like he's doing his utmost to emulate King, and just not quite getting there. He has patches of the old easy read stuff, kind of interspersed with some truly awful attempts at more 'literary' language. I'm in the middle of packing for a hosue move right now, and 90% of my books are packed so I can't include an example, but there are some truly painful sentences and paragraphs all over the place. King for me is more consistent & provides much more depth.

[Doc Wilson]

King is the best of his generation, Koontz is just okay, kinda like King-lite.

[JohnDalglish]

Hi,

I just finished a Koontz ('The Face') at the weekend and it frankly became a chore to read.

Long days and pleasant nights