Phantoms discussion

Well, since this is a Stephen King group I'm pretty sure everyone will consider SK as the better author. I've read several books by Koontz and liked, and/or, loved them. After reading reviews for PHANTOMS, I'm anxious to start this book. I found it interesting that many of the reviews spoke to character development. I'm not so sure that I agree that Koontz let's the reader get to know the characters in more depth than King does. I will pay closer attention to that while reading this book. I think we're in for a wild ride!

I consider King better at creating more nuanced and complex characters, and also a better writer overall. However, I pick Koontz as better at writing stories that move along, because many of King's books get to be a bit of a slog at times.

I enjoy the dialogue/banter that Koontz creates, especially within the Odd Thomas series, and what I love about King is his ability to surprise. Where Koontz tends to be formulaic (boy meets girl, weird stuff happens, witty banter followed by imminent romance. Add a touch of golden retriever and maybe a special needs person, and you've got a winning Koontz story. That being said, I still find them to be entertaining)
King's stories are just...warped (sometimes this is very good, sometimes this is very terrible - but I don't find that his stories have many similarities outside of the Castle Rock/Maine connections)

love them both - but if I had to choose, I'd choose King.

I prefer the pacing of Koontz's novel, and love the cross genre elements many of his works possess. However, I have to admit to swearing off Koontz once he started in with the Odd Thomas books. I've tried reading the first in the series and can't seem to get past the first 50 pages before I put it aside. Besides, I'm kind of annoyed that Odd seems to be all he writes these days. Whatever happened to the third Chris Snow installment?

As for King, I love his earlier works. After Dolores Claiborne, he seems to have lost something, and has become hit or miss with me.

King has great ideas and set ups but for me the endings to ever book i have read by him has had a lousy ending.

Koontz my noot be a better idea man or writer but to me i get more enjoyment out his books.

Michael wrote: "I prefer the pacing of Koontz's novel, and love the cross genre elements many of his works possess. However, I have to admit to swearing off Koontz once he started in with the Odd Thomas books. I'v..."

Michael wrote: "I prefer the pacing of Koontz's novel, and love the cross genre elements many of his works possess. However, I have to admit to swearing off Koontz once he started in with the Odd Thomas books. I'v..."

I have read a lot of Koontz, but none of the Odd Thomas books. I have several, but haven't started them yet. I get sidetracked, but I do agree with you comment about King's earlier novels being better than his later ones. I sometimes start reading one of his books and start wondering when the actual story is going to get started when I'm more than 1/2 way into the book. I really did like THE DOME, though. That had me hooked from the very beginning.

Robert wrote: "King has great ideas and set ups but for me the endings to ever book i have read by him has had a lousy ending.

Koontz my noot be a better idea man or writer but to me i get more enjoyment out hi..."
I think I know what you are saying. I like to read Koontz when I'm traveling. King takes too much thought sometimes and I have trouble keeping characters straight if I'm reading "on the fly" so to speak.

I cant seem to get through a King novel. I dont like his pacing.

I LOVE Dean Koontz though. I was 14 and bored with young adult when I read my first DK novel. I liked him because he was a more intense 'Christopher Pike'. I havent read him in awhile. His last few books seem to have lost there touch.

Personally I love how Koontz usually starts his book with action on the first page. King takes a while (sometimes a very long while) for things to get going. As has been said I prefer King's earlier writing to what he's produced the last few years. I enjoyed The Dome but for me the ending kind of sucked.

I definitely prefer King over Koontz. While King has a completely unique and inimitable style, I do not consider Koontz that special. Also, the more books by Koontz I read, the more I get a feeling of repetition and mainstream.

And while I kind of celebrate a new book by Stephen King (like taking holiday just for reading), I like to take a Koontz for holiday reading material - light entertainment you can perfectly relax with.

Funnily enough though if you ask King "Who is the best writer in the genre?" His response is Koontz.
I have read almost every King book published and started reading Koontz based on his recommendation and would really have a hard time saying who is better, I will say From The Corner Of His Eye is my favorite book

Jo wrote: "Funnily enough though if you ask King "Who is the best writer in the genre?" His response is Koontz.
I have read almost every King book published and started reading Koontz based on his recommendat..."

King hasn't said this about Koontz. Here's a relatively recent quote about Koontz: “You’ve got Dean Koontz, who can write like hell. And then sometimes he’s just awful.”

I suspect if you ask who King's favorite horror writer is, the response would be either Peter Straub or Richard Matheson.

I love both of the authors and have read many of their books. Stephen King must be read with the lights on while I can use a lamp with Koontz. The main difference I find between them is King will make you fall in love with a character then brutally kill them! Koontz wrote one of my all time favorite books, Watchers!

Love both the writers, but King wins. I think they have both written their best stuff years ago. Koontz - "Watchers", "Darkfall" "The Face Of Fear", "Phantoms", and King - "The Stand" "The Shining" "It", "The Drawing Of The Three".

I like them both, have read almost all from both, just depends on what I'm in the mood to read! I feel SK is more horror, whereas DK is more suspense.

Dean Koontz wins this one for me hands down, SK likes to draw his books out too much, nobody needs to know the patter to every chair the main character sits in! Not to mention his endings can be so frustrating for me, it doesn't have to be a happy ending, but it should leave me satisfied with the book as a whole, Bag of Bones, was the nail in the coffin for me...

There was a time when I liked them both equally well, waiting for each new book to come along and snatching them up in hardcover - the only 2 authors I would do that with - as soon as they were available. In recent years however, I have found Koontz's writing to really fall off in quality, to the point where I didn't even finish the last one i tried to read (Odd Apocalypse). King, on the other hand remains strong for me, I find his characters engaging and his stories to have very original ideas, and I'll be eagerly awaiting Dr. Sleep, Joyland and whatever else will be coming down the line.

Both authors are among my favorites. Koontz novels are usually fast paced, full of suspense. Whereas, King likes to build up to the suspense, he also likes to describe the characters and surroundings in absolute detail which I sort find annoyingly tedious.

I just can't get into King's books at all, find them very confusing to read, but love all the films. Love Koontz though, have about 15 so far and have read them more than once.So it has to be Koontz for me.

The short answer is definitely King. However: Phantoms is a really great book, I still read it from time to time, as I do with all the great novels I was lucky enough to read in my life.

I have to say that I love both of them, both have some fantastic books (and both have some horrible ones as well). DK has an almost poetic touch in some of his books, while SK he just pulls me along and refuses to let me go until I'm finished. "The Long Walk" by SK still has it's hooks in me, 10 years after I read it the first time, he has some of the best short-stories ever written as well! "By the light of the moon", "Watchers" and "From the corner his eye" by DK are books that I read again and again.

I really can't say who's the best! But as several has mentioned, both authors has either stagnated or gone downhill the last years. The first book about Odd Thomas byt DK wasn't so bad, but I didn't finish the next one. Same with "Duma Key" by SK.

I find King's books way too long and overly abundant with unnecessary detail. As other have mentioned the endings are not satisfying at all. Many of them are anti-climactic. Like the Talisman. The story ends but then there are still 50 more pages in the book filled with boring junk. Give me a Koontz novel any time. More formulaic maybe. But you'll be entertained and be satisfied that the evil has been overcome.

I do enjoy books by both of them, but I think Koontz is more predictable, I never quite know what's coming with Stephen King.

That said they've both written books I've detested.

I've read both for years, and I like them each for many of the aforementioned reasons. I will say that lately I've been leaning toward King, but I've been branching out all together, since these two gentlemen got most of my attention for a long time!

Shane wrote: "I consider King better at creating more nuanced and complex characters, and also a better writer overall. However, I pick Koontz as better at writing stories that move along, because many of King'..."

Precisely. I so want to love King, but much prefer Koontz. Been in love with his work from the beginning. I sometimes thing that SK spends too much time over writing. Besides, you have to love that Koontz often puts adds a dog as a main character. On that note, I need to walk my two fuzzy kids.

Dimitri wrote: "The short answer is definitely King. However: Phantoms is a really great book, I still read it from time to time, as I do with all the great novels I was lucky enough to read in my life."

Phantoms is one of the best books I've ever read.

I've read all of both authors, and while King seems to revel more in gore, I seldom like his endings and I think Dean Koontz is simply better at winding up a story. The ending of the overly-long The Tommyknockers really ticked me off. While I long long novels, most of King's lengthier works like Under the Dome and The Tommyknockers could easily have been 300-400 pages shorter.

Donna, I'm so glad you said that. I always say you could lop 100 pages out of a SK book and it would instantly be better.
Not that I'm afraid to read 700 page book (I'm reading one now), but it had better hold my interest.
I read Phantoms when it came out. Be sure to read the real life tidbit at the end of the book. It was brand new then, and really made my tingle.

I read Phantoms when it first came out too, but my first experience with Koontz was his Night Chills. I was in advertising at the time and was fascinated by subliminals, and yet I've not met many Koontz fans who've read it.

At that time I was reading them all as they came out. Pre-amazon, and pre-ebooks. It was a different world then. I do remember reading Night Chills, but sadly that story is not coming to me right now. This is the thing about Koontz, in my opinion. In some way, the situation feels possible. I would have to say that a few of later books don't fit into this box, but the early ones ... that alone helped to make them page turners.

I agree--many of the Koontz novels have that "it could happen" quality, which is what made them so riveting, especially titles like Midnight, which came out just as the PC-madness took hold in America. I do like his post-Trixie, more spiritual novels too, like The Darkest Evening of the Year, and his Odd Thomas series. And then I fell in love with his Frankenstein series. He's incredibly versatile.

Donna wrote: "I read Phantoms when it first came out too, but my first experience with Koontz was his Night Chills. I was in advertising at the time and was fascinated by subliminals, and yet I've not met many K..."

Night Chills is one of my favorites--did you notice the list of references at the end?? Crazy book that made me think!

Yes, I did notice them. I had, in fact, read some of them, since they were required in several of the psychology courses I took in college. It's a fascinating subject, and I often wonder if current TV advertising still contains subliminals, or if there is anyone at the FCC even looking for them.

I personally prefer Dean Koontz. I've read some books by Stephen King such as The Shining and Misery which were great, but I have read many books by Dean Koontz, and I like him because his books are fast paced and he creates very good charactcers. My two most favorite books are Intensity and Lightning.

Corey, I've read almost all of King and all of Koontz and I agree, I prefer Koontz. His newest, Innocence, was impossible to put down. Lightning is one of my favorites, as are Strangers, the Door to December, and From the Corner of His Eye. He's simply better at ending a novel than Stephen King is.

personally i find Koonts work a bit more hopeful and romantic sometimes it makes it better sometimes it doesn't ,but i like both authors. have read more of koonts but their are a couple of kings work that i like best. over all i enjoy almost everything from koonts and some of kings work just hits me wrong but when he gets it he hits it out of the park.

Jayson, that has always been my complaint about King--most of his novels could be half the length they are and not lose a thing. I especially felt that way about Under the Dome and The Tommyknockers. Koontz always grabs me from Page 1.

Hey, everyone, I'm new here. :) My favorite author is King, but I don't let that color my opinion, especially in discussions like this. I'll never ever claim to be an authority, either!

All of you make a point about the strengths and weaknesses of both authors...I love their works, too, at least those I've gotten my hands on. (For one thing, I've only read up to The Waste Lands for The Dark Tower series. I need to read them all!) One thing I've noticed from most of you is how King tends to write huge works which sometimes don't have the best pacing, while Koontz' novels are usually much shorter and have a crisper pace that keeps the reader involved.

I think it's the case King (creatively) lets his characters decide the pace of the story, and often, his characters have a lot to say. Koontz doesn't have that problem, if you can even call that a problem. He knows what's necessary for his stories and what isn't and so his works are a little leaner and meaner. His great novels like "Phantoms" aren't literally lean, but I hope you know what I mean!

I've got to agree with Jayson and Donna, though I haven't read many of King's books, I found the ones I've read overtly long and tedious with too much to drudge myself through.

Koontz' writing style grips me, because there's always something 'happening' which keeps me interested.

Though I've got to say, I really liked some of King's short stories - Quitters, Inc. was brilliant in my opinion.

Well, that's what I think.

I have always loved both, but Koontz rates slightly higher for me. The love his writing style.

i really prefer Dean koontz and if you're like me you like a nice hard hitting novel SK just take's to long to get to the chase with me but DK he's just always had my attention but i was also raised on him he is by far and will always be my favorite writer mostly phantom's and cold fire are what i read over and over i just can't get the thought of what is he going to come up with next and he is always a tease so not to be hating on SK i'm just a DK kind of man maybe some of you people will give me a good SK topic that i can check out that would be great i'm interested in all writer's so please feel free to give suggestion's anytime thank you.

For years I read Dean Koontz books and couldn't get enough of them, but the last few years I stopped. I sent an email to D.K. stating my feelings for the last few books and letting him know he was no longer my favorite author. Why? He changed his style, his writing became too rambling in spots, strayed off topic in a lot of his books, and just couldn't keep my interest. Steven King Does do that occasionally also, but quickly jumps back, so you barely notice it. I haven't read a Dean Koontz book since I sent that email.

I truly like them both. . . very different. I like Koontz earlier books so much better than the recent series on Odd Thomas and Frankenstein. Phantoms and Watchers still my favorites. In his earlier efforts, Koontz books had great pacing and they just were a good ride to read. . . not so much these days.

King does better characterization for me. Favorites of his include The Stand, Misery, Duma Key and On Writing.

Had to pick one single fav book by either author. . . no contest.

The Stand by Stephen King

For me, Koontz has his moments. I read several of his books, hoping to like him, but there was always something missing. Then I read Phantoms and it was like a lightening bolt to my brain. Now I see why people like his writing! I've enjoyed the Odd Thomas series until the last few. I'm afraid that if the next one doesn't grab me, I'll be dropping it. I liked the first few of the Frankenstein series, but then it also kind of lost its luster. I also feel like he's preaching his theism and supernatural ideas a bit too strongly. I don't mind paranormal elements--and enjoy them in fiction (although I'm an atheist and skeptic)--but let's leave these things as fantasy, not as starting points to pontificate about the supernatural.

As for King, I always look forward to a new book. His writing has been quite good over the last 10 years. Now he's had a few in which my lasting impression was, "well that was long!" Lisey falls into that category. The Dark Tower series took a bit to pull me in, but once it did, I simply had to finish it. As others have noted, King's characterization is a major strength. He makes you really care about his characters. You want to know them better, warts and all, and you want them to overcome their obstacles. And of course, he is exceptional at building suspense and scaring the bejeebers out of you. Koontz can do that at times, but King is simply better at it. Koontz also seems like to use psychopaths a lot. That can get redundant. I have found that giving myself more times between books helps me avoid that deja-vu feeling of "Haven't I just read about this psycho?"

My favourite King book, which I haven't read in 20 years and will be reading (audiobook) soon is It.

I trust the intelligence of a man who wrote "Lightning"
And i trust the mind of a man who wrote "Misery"

BUT that does not mean their books cannot be irritating sometimes.

Phantoms is one of Dean Koontz better books. He is a poor man's Stephen King and he comes across as King lite. do not get me wrong, I enjoyed a bunch of his books when I read them, he is just not as good.

I like them both but I think King is the better writer. He ends stories on stringer endings and has less deus ex machina elements. Tick Tock is a good example of this. All these weird elements just fall into place for the main character, a pretty girl, who has lots of guns and money just when he needs it.

Koontz narrates with a kind of empathetic and reasonable voice, which offers a deeply moving experience, while King expresses a kind of eager diabolical madness his narrator needs to dig deep into the strange and disturbing quirks of his characters. They're different and I like them both. [P.S. Hi. My name's Dan. Haven't used Goodreads much at all in over a year but thought I'd step back in and take a look-see]:-)

King all the way! All though I enjoy some of Koontz books he also has more than a few that are totally forgettable and hard to get through. Koontz is quicker paced but a lot of nuance is lost. Koontz is like Chipolte. It's fast, decent but doesn't compare to the homemade stuff! Except for Gerald's Game I've never read a bad Stephen King book. Sometimes it might not be the right time for it but when it is they are always good!

This is one of the hardest posts! I have been reading both King and Koontz from a very young age, 13 I think. I'm now 56. Some of my favorites by King were The Stand, It, Tommy Knockers. Koontz, The Watcher, Phantoms, Lightning, etc. It's just really hard to pick either one for a favorite, they have different bends. One thing that I do like Koontz better for, he doesn't kill the dogs! If I see there's a dog in a King novel I know the poor dog's days are numbered. That's the only thing! Ok, now you can laugh.