Talk:Dean Koontz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

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

"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 193.11.231.212 (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


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

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 70.44.145.124 (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trixie Koontz

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. 65.79.208.239 22:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Trivia

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 156.34.95.79 (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.

[edit] What is this?

And, according to FamilyGuyFiles.com, 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)
FamilyGuyFiles.com 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)

[edit] King Versus Koontz

Image:KingvsKoontz.jpg
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)

[edit] Criticism

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)
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)

[edit] Dates

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 70.232.45.17 (talk • contribs) 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)

[edit] Movie adaptations unclear

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)

[edit] Tick Tock hyperlink incorrect

The Tick Tock link takes you to Tic Toc of Oz - should go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick_Tock_%28novel%29

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

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

[edit] book three, frankenstein

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

[edit] Hair

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)

[edit] Magnum Opus

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?

[edit] Stephen King Trivia

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.

68.43.129.184 23:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Trixie

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)

[edit] Demon Child hyperlink incorrect

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. 207.207.79.3 (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)