Talk:Dean Koontz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Is it neccessary to mention here what drinks and clothes he advertises in his books? Corona, Chinos, Reeboks, Rockports etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Who wrote "The young age 25"?[edit]

"He started writing at the young age of 25, and sold his works to support his family.- Is this a joke? A fact? How is 25 a young age? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

- Unless you're a child, 25 is a young age. I might not have worded it that way but yes 25 is young. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Young by whose standards, other novelists? Other published novelists? That is the only criteria against which such a silly statement can be judged. It fails because, no, 25 is not really a young age at which to "start writing". Guv2006 (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

25 is young, unless you are perhaps 16 to 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's best to keep things as objective as possible, without opinions and sticking to the facts. It's better to simply state "He started writing at the age of 25." B4theword (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Was He Able to Avoid the Draft Due to a Teacher Deferment?[edit]

Those of us who were drafted in 1967 or 1968 recall the intense pressure of the Vietnam War. If Koontz graduated in 1967 and was physically healthy, he had to find some way to sidestep conscription. Perhaps schoolteachers were deferred by his draft board? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Trixie Koontz[edit]

I am of the opinion that Trixie merits at least a section of the Dean Koontz entry, as two books have been published under her name (which is currently noted, briefly), and she is an important part of the Koontz fandom. "Her" articles, reviews, and short pieces included in Koontz's newsletter and website have become very prolific in recent years.

One can access the Dean Koontz entry by attempting to access "Trixie Koontz" -- something a reader of "her" books may do. If this occurs, it's currently difficult to find the mention of her within the larger body of work.

If any further mention of her is made, it should be noted that she died on 30 June 2007. 22:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC) but there is far too much detail about the dog here. And the fact that Anna is Trixie's grand niece is surely not encyclopedic. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove the "R" from the article title.[edit]


I dont get the Trivia section. What does this mean?

in Stephen King's It, the character of "John Koontz", the sadistic guard at Juniper Hill who was killed by Pennywise, was named for King's rival author. Oddly enough, a major character in Koontz's Life Expectancy, written roughly two decades later, is a psychopathic, murderous clown.

What is the source of the info that Stephen King named John Koontz after Dean Koontz? What is odd about Dean Koontz's book (written 20 years later) featuring a murderous clown? Is Stephen King being compared to a murderous clown - why? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

Concured. It seems weird and doesn't make sense. Hbdragon88 04:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"It" stephen king's novel was about a murderous clown. King gave koontz a nod at the national book award speech. But besides that I can not confirm or denie the above. -dan

I've just found out that one of King's characters in The Green Mile is named John Coffey, and one of Koontz's pseudonyms is Brian Coffey. Maybe it's not a coincidence after all.

    • I don't think anyone actually considers Dean Koontz to be Stephen King's "rival". King is just as prolific and considerably more successful, especially concerning film adaptations. ** —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What is this?[edit]

And, according to, Koontz was also in a car accident (hence the joke - Brian runs over a person, thinks he is Stephen King, but gets back in the car when it's Dean Koontz), but no mention in this article? WTF? Hbdragon88 04:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I remember that episode! That was a great episode - he actually backs up and runs him over again. By the by, I've noticed that Stephen King's article is much more detailed. MasterXiam 02:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC) isn't exactly a reliable source, especially considering they got their facts wrong. It was Stephen King, not Dean Koontz, who was walking and hit by a car in real life (hence's Brian's question of "Are you Stephen King?"). Go to King's wiki-bio if you want the detail of the erie incident. Ynot4tony (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

King Versus Koontz[edit]

The conflict of Stephen King Versus Dean Koontz

The Family Guy episode brings up a good point. The Stephen King versus Dean Koontz conflict. Although subtle the rivalry between these two does exist and is noted by fans. The name Koontz does apear in a few of Stephen King's novels including IT and Desperation where Koontz plays mean or just plain silly characters.

Koontz has also been called "The poor man's Stephen King". I can't recall any pejorative reference to King in any of Koontz's books. Unless this 'conflict' can be substantiated and shown to be important to the writer's body of work, I can't see it being worth inclusion in the main article. Greybeard2ca 19:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A writer making litereary allusions about other writers? My God! This is huge! Stop the freakin' presses! But seriously, since "Koontz" is an uncommon name, logic would dictate that King was indeed referencing Koontz in his novels...but logic can only be used for verification purposes in math, not an encyclopedia. Unless an interview with King or something similarly reliable can verify King's intent, the assumed fact(s) do not belong. Ynot4tony (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure Koontz is such an uncommon name. There are certainly many families with the name Koontz in the area I live in. That was a little OT, however. It's interesting that some are saying that it is Koontz fans who think there is a rivalry between King and Koontz because from what I have read on this page the inverse is true. Lot's of King fans are bringing the rivalry, if there is one, up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Mets fans hate the Yankees, but Yankees fans are oblivious and don't see any real rivalry at all. This is what I think of when people try to compare Koontz and King. The only people who thinks there's some rivalry are Koontz fans, King fans are either oblivious or just don't care. For the record, I'm both a Koontz fan and a Mets fan (though less of the former now that I read he contributed to Mitt Romney's campaign and other conservatives) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did read something by King (an article, or possibly Danse Macabre, where King, jokingly, made some reference to the fact that his books come (just) before Koontz in bookstores, alphabetical listings, etc. Seemed to me to be light-hearted though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether characters named "Koontz" are named after Dean Koontz or not, it is worth noting for this conversation (if not the article) that both The Tommyknockers and Doctor Sleep (novel) refer specifically to Dean Koontz the writer. King also, in an interview, apparently said that Dean Koontz is "sometimes ... just awful" (I can't find the original interview, the ellipsis were in the place I saw quoting it).


I'd like a "Criticism" section to be added to the entry. Koontz is imaginative--I'll give him that--but his prose is deeply flawed. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to adequately evaluate his body of work, or even any specific work, but I think his stature in the literary community should be mentioned here on wikipedia. Any thoughts? Suggestions?

I think thats a very bad idea. This is a place for historical facts, not opinons.

Disagree. Most artists have some form of criticism and Koontz is no exception. Most Wiki articles mention this. Koontz HAS been criticised for his style (although admittedly I don't have sources for this) and his moralising. I think his political and moral views should be mentioned in this article as they have become more apparent in recent works. It should be noted that he is an active contributor to the Republican Party.

I disagree with the last sentence (put it in the biography if you want, but IMO it has no place in a literary criticism). As a Canadian I really don't care what party he supports, but good for Dean for being involved!

But I would like to see a good criticism section, if only so the writer of the first paragraph ("his prose is deeply flawed") can explain himself! The main article misses the import of Koontz's cross-genre work; it touches only superficially on common themes, plot staples, and formulas; it does not IMO give any indication of why Koontz' work is popular. Many of these could be covered by a good critical analysis.Greybeard2ca 20:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A criticism section would be a very good thing. However, it must be built from published criticism -- reviews, etc., not editors' own views. DavidOaks (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Here are some potential sources:
  • Greenberg, Martin et al.. The Dean Koontz Companion. Riverside, Calif.: Berkley Trade, 1994
  • Munster, Bill. Discovering Dean Koontz: Essays on America's Bestselling Writer of Suspense
  • Sharp, Michael D. Popular Contemporary Writers
  • Supernatural Evil and Good in the Novels of Dean Koontz at
  • Kotker, Joan G. Dean Koontz : a critical companion (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

In the "Common Elements" section, I object to the passage, "Koontz writes according to a formula." Unless Koontz himself has made this claim, then that is simply nothing but a criticism stated as if it were a fact. I'm going to go ahead and remove it, although I feel his writing can be a bit forumlaic (sp?) at times.
"Common Elements" should also include a mention of the capable male protagonist you commonly see in his novels, often a current or former policeman or military person. Ynot4tony (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Its silly to see people oppose this. Koontz's political views are very relevant because he chooses to make them active, I say this as someone who has nothing against Koontz personally and has enjoyed many of his books. But Dean Koontz's books, when you really look into them, really feed into a common irrational anti-government paranoia almost, its like being at a gun show. In addition to this clear political aspect of his novels, he does actively donate to Republican causes. Stephen King's article notes his increasing invovlement in Democratic politics, (since the Bush whitehouse), Koontz shouldn't be treated any differently.

Beyond that there is no doubt that his writing is deeply flawed. I've read a lot of his work, and it is a huge flaw to reuse the same plot staples and character aspects over and over and over again, especially when they are such cliches and stereotypes to begin with. The very fact that his article can in a few paragaphs peg, precisely, the standard plots for all 200+ novels he has written is a deep flaw in itself. This article definitely needs a balanced criticism section, with a few paragraphs incorporating the statements of on critics and other authors on his work, balanced by the perspectives of readers and some critics who may appreciate his or, plus any statements the author may have made if possible.--Robert Waalk (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also beyond that I would just like to add how intensely political his books are. I mean its plain to see a common thread between his irrational villains who have this parodied view point, they're heartless, they have a warped world view, and they seek to fulfill some grand dream and destroy anyone who opposes it. I read a thorough analysis of this common theme and it showed how Koontz uses this theme and in a way it represents his feelings about people who advocate liberal political views. His books are the wet dreams of conspiracy theorists gun show fanatics with their pivate militias, governmental conspiracy where a lone group with a gun in their hand and no one to trust takes care of business and destroys some evil villain, science experiment, or organization, or both.
On an additional note, his writing has this random flow from sparse to overwhelmingly thick and flowery, just pointless and talentlessly overdone poetic flourish.--Robert Waalk (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A criticism section is certainly appropriate. It appears however, that much of the criticism being offered is due to the political beliefs of those offering the criticism. Certainly, political affliliations mean a lot to people, but the United States has always guarded the freedom of it's citizens and allowed free speech. There should be no criticism of any writer concerning the political views advocated. That is a form of suppression and does not need to be remarked on. Criticize his style, too often recurring themes or whatever else can be objectively criticized, but not politics or religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynkade (talk • contribs) 19:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Criticism of any author is certainly appropriate, and Mr. Koontz ia only human. He does write to a type, although recently there has been some growth in his novels as far as plot, characterization and scope. The type of novels he writes however, call for certain outcomes and characters with certain personalities or qualities. A suspense novel can not be written without those aspects. From A.A. Milne I expect whimsical poetry. From not only Koontz but any writer of suspense novels, I expect the plot of a suspense novel. What bothers me most about the criticism section though, is that it leans heavily toward critizing not his writing, but his beliefs and political leanings. Criticize the writing, not the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:33, 15 May 2012

Criticism that is published in a reliable source can be included in the article. The opinion of one or more Wikipedia editors, regardless of how true or false, cannot. That's just the way Wikipedia works. RossPatterson (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


Note: Most recent dates MUST be incorrect, considering at this current date (3/30/06), some of the publications of recent novels are wrong. I do not have the sufficient resources or time to revise, so would the author of this section please step forward to correct it. Thanks.—This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 04:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC).

Dates such as? An example would help alot.

Darkest evening of the year is already out, been for at least a week, but this says 27/11.(*24th today)

Movie adaptations unclear[edit]

The article states: "Not all of these films are approved of by Mr. Koontz. Specifically Watchers II, Watchers III, Watchers Reborn, Frankenstein and Haute Tension. For most of the rest of them, he's just not happy with the result."

This seems to be unclear. "Not all are approved...specifically..." seems to indicate he specifically does not approve of those films. Yet it goes on to say "for most of the rest he isn't happy..." - so which is it? He doesn't approve of Watchers II etc, or he does? Kat, Queen of Typos 13:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tick Tock hyperlink incorrect[edit]

The Tick Tock link takes you to Tic Toc of Oz - should go to

Make all his books and stuff a separate article[edit]

As of now, the list is even longer than the actual article. Do you guys agree?

I strongly agree with the above. Long lists suck. - Jason

book three, frankenstein[edit]

a release date for frankenstein three would be nice, i was under the impression that it would be out this summer 2006. there's no mention of a release date or even a third episode in that story on any online forums that i have checked out. if anyone knows please post. thanks, herrskull


Is the blurb about Koontz' possibly having a hair transplant necessary or interesting? I like the man's books but could care less about his hair. Doesn't seem very encycolpedic either.

Actually Koontz has openly stated in an interview that he has had hair transplants.

Well, I'm a long-time fan and reader and didn't know that, so I was glad it was there! Greybeard2ca 19:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The mention of the hair definitely belongs. A lot of people, like me, had one day purchased a Koontz book and thought to themselves, "When did he get hair?". And since Koontz has commented on it (I laughed about the G. Gordon Liddy comparission), the mention should stay. Ynot4tony (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Magnum Opus[edit]

Why did someone change the novels listed under magnum opus back to Frankenstein, Whispers, and Odd Thomas after this list was corrected to include what is generally accepted as his most popular works? What makes you think these three should be listed under magnum opus? Why didn't you comment on the reason for changing it back?

Stephen King Trivia[edit]

Just an interesting thought you might want to add on the Dean Koontz page:

In Stephen King's From a Buick 8, a minor character in the book has the same name as a minor character in Dean Koontz's Velocity - Jackie O'Hara. The characters don't seem to have any similarities other than their names, and possibly what can be infered from the name; that they are both Irish. I'm not an expert on Irish names, so Jackie O'Hara could be a common name. It might even be an inside joke within a small group of authors. Whatever the cause, just thought I'd let you know. 23:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S., I put the same note on the Stephen King discussion page.


Just a comment. I think that Trixie, as a "published author" and beloved Koontz family pet, deserves posthumous recognition in her own wikipedia article. What a beautiful story! I was so touched when I read the exterior link: Trixie's Monthly Columns. This is a great article, by the way. I'm a big fan, but I still learned a lot.CindyBotalk 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No offense to the dear, departed Trixie, or to my fellow Koontz fans, but inclusion guidelines for Wikipedia are not based on sentiment; they're a matter of notability in the world at large. Trixie's fame is tied solely to Koontz's personal anecdotes and his ghost-writing of her "works", and the latter, objectively considered, are nothing but a vehicle for his irrepressible creativity. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I disagree. I believe that she is notable enough for her own article.
  1. I think an important critieria for inclusion is this: do people want to know more about Trixie? I think they do. A dog being credited for authoring two books is an interesting story, and it seems as if the books have done well and have gone into a least two printings. She was more than just another of Dean's psuedonyms. He wrote those two books from her perspective and deliberately credited her with the authorship and donated the royalties to the charity responsible for training her.
  2. She is well known to millions of Koontz readers around the world, thanks to her inclusion in his author photos on many of his books.
  3. Her future notability is assured with Dean's comment that he plans to write a book on her.
  4. There are many sources of information on Trixe, not just Dean's personal website.
  5. I know we're not supposed to use the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but in this case I can't help myself, because, holy cow, does it ever exist. Surely if Paris Hilton's Tinkerbell, who also "wrote" a book, is notable enough, then Trixie is as well.

The original discussion on redirecting Trixie to Dean here, is more than two years old and based on an article that was a stub and one sentence long. However, before I decided to ask for a separate article for Trixie, I wrote one in my sandbox here, mainly to see if there was enough sources to write an interesting article on her. I think if it was in the main space, other editors would be happy to improve it. As it turns out there are plenty of sources to work with. Comments???CindyBotalk 00:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To address your points above, CindyBo:
  1. Fan interest is not a qualification for inclusion. Otherwise we would just be transferring the entire content of fan websites to Wikipedia.
  2. Millions of fans may have seen a dog in an author photo on Koontz's books, but it's an incredible leap to use that to justify an article on the dog. (I'd bet only the tiniest percentage of Koontz readers could even name the dog. Most people read books for the story, not to learn about the author's life.) We could more easily justify writing articles about Piers Anthony's children, because they at least have been featured prominently in his "Author's Notes" (actual words and events in many published works, not just pictures on book jackets and columns from emails and a website).
  3. Future notability is also not an inclusion criterion, and nothing in the publishing industry is "assured", least of all an author's plans. (I'm fairly sure Koontz himself has commented on this industry cliché on occasion.)
  4. Your draft article suggests only a single independent source (the AP article "Life's good for writer's pampered pet") outside of Koontz's fan-directed material. Most subjects that can't muster more than a single independent article are delete-bait.
  5. There's a reason why WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS exists. The existence of one flawed article doesn't justify creating another. Mathematical induction proves this is a recipe for disaster.
You might feel that this is a worthwhile topic, but so do a million other fans of ten thousand other obscure elements of truly notable people and works. We fans are supposed to check our obsessions at the virtual door of Wikipedia. I know it doesn't always work that way, but we should strive for the ideal of "Wikipedian first" when editing. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, you're probably right, Jeff Q. I've been mulling it over myself today and read the notability guidelines a little further at John Broughton's Index to Wikipedia and I realize now that I spoke in error. But something about how Trixie redirects here seems incomplete/clumsy to me. What do you think of a section here on Trixie for the redirect to go to? Because right now it just goes to the main article and a reader has to search for one or two sentences on Trixie. Also it'd be nice if we could add a fair use cover of one of her books here.CindyBotalk 06:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you are, like myself, troubled by violation of the principle of least astonishment (especially the WP version), which describes the confusion readers feel when they enter a female dog's name and get an article on a male human. If we're going to have a redirect, it probably should be something like #REDIRECT [[Dean Koontz#Trixie]] (which fortunately works now in Mediawiki).
As far as an image goes, we must be wary of the Non-Free Use Police. (Disclosure: I am an occasional but perfectly willing participant of Wikimedia license enforcement. But I don't carry an NFUPD badge — I don't need no stinkin' badge! ) To ensure we're not just adding a gratuitous non-free image, it would have to be (among other things) the primary means to illustrate the subject, and not replaceable by a free image. I'd suggest a jacket image of Trixie with Koontz, which would "illustrate the subject" of the section while tying her into the article's main subject, Koontz. Even so, many would argue that this is unnecessary. At the very least, I would be scupulous about the license information. (See Image:Time out album cover.jpg (and, if the source is still missing when you read this, my suggestion on its talk page) for what I believe is a thorough NFI license statement using the convenient {{Non-free use rationale}} template.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have the picture covered. I found a nice photo of Dean and Trixie at here yesterday and emailed them with a request to use it and they emailed me back today with the information that they got it from another site who told them it is an old press photo and "free for the taking". I'll upload it to commons and forward the email on to them. I've done that before without any problems. Then I'll see if I can't expand the info on Trixie so she gets a small section for the redirect to go to.CindyBotalk 23:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Okay, I created the section, maybe its in the wrong place in regards to the rest of the article, I'm not sure. Anyway, I edited the redirect so it goes there. I didn't even know you could do that or that's what I would've suggested in the first place. I'm just waiting on the picture, as I'm doublechecking that I have the proper permission to be able to upload it to Commons.CindyBotalk 00:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't upload it to Commons per the discussion here. So I filled in the fair use rationale and uploaded it that way instead. I've only done one or two of those before, so I hope I did it right?CindyBotalk 03:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You may be able to fly under the radar for now by having a competely filled-out NFU-rationale template, but I think this will eventually be a problem. I don't think you can properly assert fair use if you can't identify who the copyright holder is, because you can't know how they might be affected by our use of their material. I would think that we might more easily justify snapping and uploading a digital photo of a Koontz jacket photo. Since the copyright is associated with the entire book, the photo is an insignificant component of it, and the book's value isn't diminished by this fair use of the photo to identify the article's subject and the image of one of his discussed pseudonyms. But that just my two cents of non-legal opinion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a jacket photo. I'm almost positive I saw it on one of his books, but I can't remember which one. I pulled down all the ones I have and couldn't find it. At any rate I also emailed requests for permissions of to the other images I found on google image search and may find a copyright holder for it yet, or another copyright holder willing to let us use a different image. BTW, the article's looking far better. Thanks for going over the Trixie section, I knew it was a bit off. Sometimes it needs a pair "fresh eyes" to help things make sense.CindyBotalk 06:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The section on Trixie is really too long and displayed to prominently at the top of the article. From the viewpoint of someone unfamiliar with Koontz, it would appear that Trixie was the main driving force behind his writing. It really detracts from the information about Koontz. It is also written as it is about Trixie herself (i.e. Trixie began her own "career" in writing...) , when this article is not at all about a dog. I think it should be shortened and moved to the end of the article. Thats obviously just my opinion. Beach drifter (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Demon Child hyperlink incorrect[edit]

The hyperlink for "Demon Child" (1972) leads to a list of episodes for "Ghost Whisperer", A TV series which didn't see the light of day until after the turn of the century. Why? If there IS a page for "Demon Child", it should link there. (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Original Research[edit]

Most of Section 3, "Recurring themes and elements", appears to be in violation of WP:OR. Roothog (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


There should be a mention of Koontz's ideas on originality. He has stated that when an author first begins, he should follow very closely the conventions and ideas of the genre he is working in, and only after he has completed a large body of work write material that is more original. He wrote a non-fiction book telling writers how to do this, and it is how he describes his own career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Unusual phrasing 2nd paragraph of Bio[edit]

For the sentence below, the phrasing seems wrong. There may be some words or punctuation missing. What for example does "to grow a magnum" mean in relation to publishing? Is this descriptive text from an outside source? If so, it needs to be replaced with a citation of some kind. If it is original text, then replacing it with some other wording would help.

"In the 1970s, Koontz began to grow a magnum publishing mainstream suspense and horror fiction, under his own name as well as several pseudonyms."

I suggest striking "to grow a magnum" from the sentence. I also suggest that the end of the sentence be changed to "under several pseudonyms. Later in his career he switched to using his real name instead."

When something is started, there is generally only one thing going on, not several. Rjhawkin (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed extrenal link[edit]

I am new so please don't crucify me! =( Right now, I'm just trying to figure out what I did wrong. I attempted to add The Dean Koontz Fanspace to the external links, and it keeps getting removed. This is the reason: The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bmyspace\.com (links:

I was instructed to discuss it here first before trying to "undo" the bot's revert. Let's see, the relevance of the link. Well, I do moderate the Dean Koontz Fanspace, it is solely created to provide a wide array of information about Dean Koontz to fans, including upcoming news and events. The BIGGEST plus is I frequently receive information from Dean's employees that allow me to post information before anybody else on the web, and they keep tabs on the profile to make sure all posted information is correct. Thousands of fans use The Fanspace solely for their source of Koontz info, and many people ask me various questions I can usually get verified via his staff. I also noticed that other celebrities have Myspace pages posted on Wiki, so I know that Myspace is not a blacklisted site. Am I able to fix this, or should I not include the link? =( I really would like to.

Chris Dreamyst (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary Findings[edit]

dragon tears, watchers, hideaway. techniques taken from certain ideas from these novels, and films, proven factual to extent. research labs. greatly appreciated. sphinx75.251.0.238 (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

huh? Beach drifter (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Stylistic Shift[edit]

Koontz has not always written the same Newage-Christianity fusion stuff he writes now. Compare The Bad Place to One Door Away From Heaven and you'll see what I mean. Earlier in his career he wrote straightforward thrillers with some supernatural overtones, but lately he has been doing overt Bible-thumping. The article should make some mention of this. (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source which says so, perhaps some such comment (without the POV) belongs in the article. Otherwise it is just original research or personal opinion which does not belong in the article. Mamalujo (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My experience isn't of new-age Christianity, but his old school conservative Christianity is certainly not new. Having just completed his dire The Bad Place (from 1990), I can confirm that he mentions "God" on practically every page, and his conservatism is bashed into the reader throughout. It's a terrible read for anyone who enjoys well written agenda-free fiction. Guv2006 (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There certainly has been a stylistic shift in Koontz's later work. And I certainly find nothing in common with New Age Christianity in it. I have yet to find any author agenda free, however. I think that is an impossibility. What people usually see as agenda is simply different from their own ideologies. (No I do not agree with Mr. Koontz's politics and have some differing theological beliefs as well, I'm sure). Some of his work is less palatable than other of his work, just as some of the work of his rival (according to this page) Stephen King is more palatable than other works by the same man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


I was going to start a template for Koontz's work, similar to Stephen King's. It would be good to have a common template for his works, but he just has so many works that the template would be very large. It is collapseable, though, so it would only be large if the user clicks on the "show" link. Has this been discussed before? Agentchuck (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


Missing from the Bibliography list - Oddkins


Not sure what category to list it under, as it's not, strictly speaking, a novel. (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

incomprehensible sentence[edit]

In the 1970s, Koontz began to grow a magnum publishing mainstream of suspense and horror fiction...

What in the world is a "magnum publishing mainstream"? Bacrito (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Career / erotica[edit]

I've removed the line "In 1970 Koontz collaborated with his wife on 30 erotic novels; in an article for the fanzine Energumen 8 (1971) Koontz described the period and named some of the titles, others have only been identified in recent years." from the career section. Dean denies the majority of this content including the article being referenced (which I do have a copy of so I know what it says,) and consistently claims that some of the content with his name on it in this vein was significantly rewritten by the publisher[2] . See citation for details. Otherwise please cite a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msauers (talkcontribs) 00:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the article you take issue with is the one beginning on page 9 of Energumen 8, and the (somewhat implicit) denial is the "Therefore, in 1991, Dean was shocked to learn that a person he had previously worked with professionally had, beginning in 1969 and continuing at least through the early 1970s, been writing letters in Dean’s name to individuals and had submitted letters, and even some articles, in Dean’s name to fanzines. ... Consequently, any fanzine appearances by Dean after 1968 are highly suspect unless they were submitted with a cover letter on his own letterhead of that time. from Facts for Collectors - FANZINES. Correct? Or is there a more explicit rejection of this particular article? RossPatterson (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's get this straight - Energumen (one of the highest profile fanzines of the time) publishes a series of articles by Koontz _requested by Mike and Sue Glicksohn, editors of the magazine!!_ in which he talks about his writing career in detail (publishers, titles, genres, editors, payments), which they ("the publishers") then proceed to totally rewrite to include (for some unspecified reason) the erotica OR conversely, some mysterious "X" somehow convinces them for several years that "he" is Koontz and they publish sompletely bogus letters and articles and YET Koontz _never hears of this_, Koontz the fan, Koontz the heavy contributor to fanzines.. no, Koontz isn't even aware of it for _exactly_ 20 years, but does Koontz then bruit it round? Does Koontz tell the Glicksohns, do the Glicksohns or anyone else in fandom get told this???? Why no, Koontz stays _absolutely silent_ until (well, well) the erotica information becomes known; then Koontz "disavows" the article )(as he "disavowed" the books that were rewritten). From this we get: the Glicksohns didn't know Koontz; they didn't know where he lived (since they were writing to and receiving back articles); nobody mentioned to Koontz the articles he was writing for Energumen (and that includes the many friends who are writers); and the writers I know who knew Koontz are liars. Either 40 years ago "X" fooled every editor in fandom over a years-long period.. or writer "Koontz" is desperate to fool everyone now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't believe him therefore what you believe must be true. Hardly proof. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." -- (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

How about a compromise in which the article states his denial and links to such as a citation? -- (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Mike Glicksohn was a renowned, much feted magazine editor over many years. The suggestion by "someone" that he (along with many other "unknown" editors) was stupid enough not to know he wasn't dealing with the real Koontz (at that time a struggling unknown writer) for not just years but decades is an insult to him. And in fact, Koontz does not "deny" the article, he writes: "Consequently, any fanzine appearances by Dean after 1968 are highly suspect unless they were submitted with a cover letter on his own letterhead of that time," which is no denial at all. He has been said to "disavow" it, which means he no longer agrees with its content, but again that does not mean he didn't write it. It's the same word he uses about the two erotic novels which have been definitely identified as by Koontz, "disavowed" because they were "altered by the publisher"; so presumably Koontz has no problem with them being republished with his name removed? Of course, should Koontz write "I did not write letters to Energumen nor did I write any articles for them", that is a whole other ballgame. It would probably not be relevant to mention that Koontz has issued only 2 early novels after revision - DEMON SEED which removed all its erotic content (and being mainly sexual, that didn't leave much), and PRISON OF ICE whose main change was the removal of several references to pornographic magazines. Writers may come to dislike what they write, but Wikipedia is not governed by the confusion between "deny" and disavow"; or between "highly suspect" and "lie". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In Koontz's acknowledged book, WRITING POPULAR FICTION, he names HUNG and THIRTEEN AND READY along with other erotic titles mentioned in the Energumen article - an article which he purportedly had not written or seen. In another acknowledged book by him, HOW TO WRITE BESTSELLING FICTION, he says "I had sold two dozen novels [by 1972]" and "During my first six years as a novelist...I wrote a lot of ephemeral stuff...I did some pornography, too, and a variety of other things". There really is no controversy about this - Koontz wrote the books, and he wrote the article. Koontz _has_not_denied_this_, and he will not. He was willing to mention the works in various places, including his own early books. History does not change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Compare: Dean Koontz, "Dean's Drive", Energumen 8 (June 1971): "Gerda and I collaborated – since my love has such a true sense of the obscene – to produce 30 porn titles ranging from such peaks of erudition as THIRTEEN AND READY and ORAL ORACLE to SWAPPER'S CONVENTION and LAY ME DOWN, BUT NOT TO DIE. (yes)." + Dean Koontz, WRITING POPULAR FICTION (1972), Ch 7: Erotica: "None of these {Big Sexy Novels}, however, would be appropriate titles for the Rough{SexyNovel}, which must come on much more forcefully, as these several examples attest: Share the Warm Flesh, Thirteen and Ready!, Swapper's Convention, Sextet, Thrust, and Hung." [HUNG being the novel published as "Leonard Chris" which he has subsequently disavowed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As Kubigula rightly points out, "Controversial content about a living person must be reliably sourced, per WP:BLP". Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons guidelines are quite clear:

  • "... contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable ..."
  • "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source ..."
  • "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ... Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if ... there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; ..."

I have just removed the erotica statements from the article because they are obviously in contention here, because the veracity of the Energumen 8 source is reasonably disputed, and because BLP requires someone to do so. For the statements to return, they must return with a reliable and verifiable source. If such a source is found and cited directly, the material ceases to be reasonably contentious and should be dealt with just like any other information in any other article. RossPatterson (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And I am putting them right back in. There IS no contention here, and the veracity of the Energumen 8 source is _not_ reasonably disputed, in fact the only one disputing it is Msauer. Msauer began this by saying that Koontz "denies the majority of this content including the article being referenced", but he has not gone on to quote the source of this comment. In all my research I have found no such denial of authorship. If Msauer can point to a page where Koontz denies writing the article or the erotic books, then let him do so. If not, it is surely bizarre of Wikipedia to say that one unsourced comment proves "contention" about a fact sufficient to get the fact removed from a page. If Wikipedia requires referenced sources - which I have provided - before a fact can be added; why is it that a fact can be removed _without_ a referenced source? If Koontz has written "I did not write the article for Energumen", then point us to that quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Here you go. This is a PDF of a page of my manuscript of The Collector's Guide to Dean Koontz (Cemetery Dance Publications, forthcoming) that contains hand-written notes by Dean in which he flatly denies that he wrote the article in Energumen. Believe him or not, this is therefore a disputed fact. I would also re-submit the bit quoted from his own site about anything in a fanzine post 1968 as being "highly suspect." This again, shows there is a controversy over this material. Believe him or not, the content is disputed and you seem to be missing the subtlety of this argument. I'm not disputing that his name is on the material, but when the author makes such statements, then the material becomes suspect. His argument is that *despite* his name being on it, it isn't his (or was changes sufficiently to make it not his). Move it all to a "controversy" section or something, but under the guidelines of Wikipedia, the article can not state that he a Gerda wrote 30 porn novels as fact. --Msauers (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


Shippensburg was Shippensburg State College when Koontz attended. Shouldn't this be indicated in the article?Kdammers (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dean Koontz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dean Koontz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^ "Facts for Collectors".