They both have their strong points. Clive Barker is my favorite writer, I think he has often had the better imagination. And I find myself more disturbed by his writing. But King is the best with it comes to characterization. Even when his plots are terribly derivative, his characters are amazingly real. I think he is better than a lot of people give often give him credit for. He has his problems as a writer, but no author is perfect. And yes, I agree he is one of hell of a story teller. King has managed, a few times, to genuinely disturb me. IT is one of my favorite novels, and I agree with Doc Faustus, I think IT is one of the greatest horror novels written. Not many books have gotten to me as much as Pet Semetary did, or as much as Apt Pupil. So I think he is a very effective horror writer, who has put out more than his share of great stories and novels, AND his share of those that just don't work.

Very true Doc, often times I see people skip a movie that may look good because it's PG-13.

I've caught myself doing it every now and again, but I got over it. I think when Cell the movie comes out, fans of the harder stuff will get back into him, and, as much as I love Tim Curry, I think a newer more high tech It miniseries is in order.

i think king is a great writer - at times i think he's a bit lazy and sometimes he really needs a better and more aggressive editor - but overall he's still got chops.

i think some of his later stuff has become more mature - which isn't always good for the kind of high-octane horror people have come to expect

Exactly, Zero, Duma ain't gonna run your heart around your ass.

Jenna, I think you're right. I think Clive can go into places, see into worlds much more strange and ill fitting (to use an odd expression) that Stephen King has ever really been able to do. He's a great seer, just not the greatest storyteller, though he is pretty damn good. Now if there were an amalgam of the two... WOW! I don't particularly care much for Neil Gaiman either, but damn he's clever. Neverwhere was a fantastic book, and I did not see the movie.

Barker is gritty and raw as all hell. After reading a lot of Peter Benchley and King, I picked up "The Damnation Game", knowing that Barker was the guy behind Hellraiser. I gave it a shot. I turned out that this book was one of the most real and downright fucking gut wrenching books I have ever read. Not to gush about Barker too much, but his stories stick in your head, or at least mine. I still think about The Damnation Game, even though i read it a while ago.

I agree. Many writers fall somewhat short of characterization, but King never does. The same goes for Peter Straub. I am still trying to learn how they do it. By the second act of the book, you learn to love these characters, and thats a huge asset to a horror story.

I disagree, but its a matter of opinion, and I respect that. I don't wanna argue to any length about it. I remember reading "It" and loving ...it. Its a great book, and I remember I was rather young and having people be like "oh wow, hes taking on It damn". It took a long time to read, but there were a lot of sections that could have been edited out to streamline the book a bit more, or maybe it could have used a bit more straight storytelling. Who knows? I personally enjoyed The Tommyknockers a bit more, although I admit that was overly long as well.

Pet Sematary is amazing, and so is The Tommyknockers. Every writer puts out crap from time to time. I just read Floating Dragon by Peter Straub. Straub is an amazing writer. While the book wasn't crap per se, it just wasn't effective horror. I found myself plowing through it just because I was tired of reading it. I could name Stephen King books that are sub par too, namely his Castle Rock series (The Dead Zone to the Dark Half, although the Dark Half is alright). But they are never hard to read.

This is a lively discussion about books for once, and I enjoy this a great deal. You are all making very good points. It seems we are all Clive Barker and Stephen King fans, but I have a question; what does everyone think of Dean Koontz? Maybe I am asking a loaded question (thats my reporter side I suppose), but he hasn't been very prominent in any discussions lately.

Personally, I was weaned on Koontz. Hes the first horror author I read with any loyalty, and I have maybe 25 or so of his books under my belt. Then I got into Stephen King, Clive Barker, Peter Benchley and Peter Straub. I realized then that Koontz is sort of a hack. I mean, not many thriller/horror writers have half as many books as he has published, but hes just not very interesting. i will, however, commend his ability to blend scifi with horror in some instances. As much as I don't like most of his work, this aspect has had a considerable influence on my writing (there, I admitted it). I do think some of his work is not all that bad. Winter Moon is a good read. Watchers is his flagship book, but its decent as well. Phantoms is where he stands out. This book is pure genius, I loved it. The rest of his stuff...not so good.

I really enjoy Koontz, he's a decent writer and tells some entertaining stories. Some people seem to feel that he just writes to make money and that his heart and soul isn't it, well, I could care less. If the stories are good I have no problem enjoying them regardless of his endgame. The only problem I've had with Koontz are themes that seems to repeat themselves way too often in different books so I generally can't read a lot of his work back to back. Recently I've read Intensity, which seemed to inspire High Tension, and Velocity. My wife just finished a few including Bad Place and she really enjoyed that one. Nobody can deny that Phantoms is a treasure right? I guess I've always seen Koontz as one of those "popular" authors that most people write off because he's mainstream but who constantly produces very readable books. Oh, and his Christmas book, Santa's Twin, is one of the best Christmas books ever. :)

I liked Watchers and Mr. Murder a lot. Watchers is kind of pulpy, but I like that. I think the most unsettling thing about Koontz is the sheer volume of work. It makes a writer look lazy or moneygrubbing. The only one who gets away with putting out that much work is Joyce Carol Oates, who ironically does more sloppy writing than King or Koontz. Her commitment to grue and grotesquerie is cool, but her lit fic efforts don't always pass muster.

I really like Watchers, Intensity, Dark Rivers of the Heart, Strangers and Phantoms. I never could even finish Mr. Murder, and it remains one of the few books I actually put down. I have always meant to try it again sometime.

Overall, I enjoy Koontz, but I don't think he is a great writer by any means. He can be good, really good, but I have trouble with his characters who often seem to be a little TOO pretty, or a little TOO good. Its annoying. More often than not, I would have to say I find his books entertaining, but forgettable.