The first dean koontz i read-got a paperback at a garage sale. A good little sci-fi well worth reading.

This story, delivered to the publisher in 1972, but not printed until 1975 is, in my humble opinion, one of his better early efforts. Koontz is very efficient with his words, and makes a short novel read like an epic. The imagery is clear and concise and the characters are vivid. P.S. If you can find a paperback of this novel, it is more affordable (by far).

Winter Moon would have been better as a short story. The first 300 pages are unnecessary drek. The characters are pathetic and bland (and does anyone else notice Koontz seems to have the same 3 main characters in nearly all of his novels? There's the heroic, faithful male, the strong female, and the young, innocent child). The story has real potential, as most of Koontz's novels do, but it is wasted in bad writing. It really seems like there was no editing at all, or if any, sparse and uninfluential. The book doesn't seem unsalvagable, but, unfortunately, it was left in a wreck on the beach. I would recommend against reading it.

I really enjoy reading a book that can give me a hair raising scare. In this story by Dean Koontz "Winter Moon." I get that effect.

This is a story about a family that falls on hard times and gets a chance to start their life anew in a seemingly perfect piece of heaven. The story starts out running in the first chapter, but then slows down to an almost Hitchcock quality. You don't actually see any monsters, but the suggestions and impressions that Koontz leaves you with get your imagination rolling 100 miles an hour. Koontz really hit a nerve here, by allowing the reader to use his/her own imagination in picturing what evil lurked around the corner, it was far scarier than if he just revealed it outright. When the creatures finally appear and your fears are confirmed its pretty heart racing.

My only complaint about the whole story is that it ends too abruptly and with a lot of unanswered questions. These creatures use mind control, but why are some affect and others not? Did they finally destroy it at the end or is it just hiding waiting to strike again? It leaves you with the idea that there should be a sequel.

Being an avid fan of Dean Koontz, I've read my share of his novels. But Winter Moon takes the cake. Koontz's writing in the book is superb. There are a few flaws (Anson Oliver's shooting spree and the events at Quartermass Ranch aren't linked together too well), but everything else makes up for it. Two more notes: I finished reading the book in about two days. You'll hopefully like it as much. Also, the part where Ed finds evidence (dirt, fabric) of the "intruder" is trully creepy. I couldn't sleep!

I would have to say as an avid Dean Koontz novel enthusiast, I would have to say that this novel is not one of Dean Koontz's best works. In the previous novels by Koontz you are indulged in the book as soon as you begin to read it. It took me a while to get into this book but as soon as the book started to pick up and get exciting it was a good book overall. However just as the book was starting to get exciting the book came to an abrupt end which was very disappointing.
The Mask begins with a couple in an adoption agency and they are discussing the possibility of adopting a child. The story drags on for the first 50 pages of the dialouge exchanged between the couple and the agent for the adopting agency. This is the point however that Dean Koontz is able to work his magic just as you are about to put the book down due to boredom the action begins. Just as they were about to leave the agency lighting strikes through the window causing mass confusion and excitement. I'm not going to further elaboarate on this scene due to the fact I don't want to spoil the surprise.
As the Tracys continue to live their lives after the adoption agency incident strange things begin to happen. Their once normal house is all of the sudden hampered by a constant hammering sound as if someone is trying to knock their house down. Also they see a suspicious I guess it could be described as an aporition that has frequented their back yard.
The real trouble begins when Carol is driving to work one day and when out of nowhere a girl walks out in front of Carol and Carol hits her with her car sending her flying into a ditch and what Carol beleives to be a permanent state of amnesia

THis was a little disapointing for me, i could not get into the book, usually i am hooked on the first page but it took me over 70 pages to get into it.
I am sorry Koontz but this was not ur best work, but i still love you. I love Koontz work to much to put lower than 3.

This is the first Koontz book I have read cover to cover, and I must say I am impressed. He has very solid writing skills, and these shine throughout the book. He does a fine job of building suspense slowly until the end, when the climax erupts. If Mr. Koontz were a carpenter, his work would be superb; his dedication to his craft is apparent. I do not understand the previous criticism of the ghostly images Grace sees; I thought these were eerie and an excellent part of the book, esp. the deceased reporter who showed up in her rose garden. The only thing keeping me from giving this book five stars is that I found the ending staisfying, but rather abrupt. I would have tied up more of the loose ends with a suitable epilogue. But, then again, his books have sold hundreds of millions of copies, and mine have merely sold hundreds, so who am I to talk?

Superhero stories are used to introduce discussions of various scientific questions -- Superman for the possibility of alien life, the Hulk for gamma rays, Batman for devices like those he has in his utility belt, and so on. There's also a chapter on the EC science fiction comics -- although it sounds as though it's more accurate to describe them as science-less morality tales -- and DC's STRANGE ADVENTURES and MYSTERY IN SPACE.

The last chapter praises the "one comic book writer [who] never cheated his audience" because "he used real science and real technology in his stories." Surprisingly, they're talking about Carl Barks writing Donald Duck and Uncle Scrooge. There are also two appendices: The first mentions material that wasn't covered in the book and why it was left out. The second is a collection of brief interviews with creators, including Len Wein, Mark Wheatley, Brett Booth, and Max Allan Collins.

The book is written in clear, direct prose that lays out everything you need to know, whether it's the laws of science or the history of a particular superhero. I found the origin sections enjoyable to read even thought I already knew most of them. For example, the Superman chapter begins with a history of the character from a social and cultural perspective before pointing out some of the scientific problems, like how Superman can lift a building without it falling apart.

The authors conclude that Marvel's characters were more likely to be based on inaccurate science than DC's, because DC's writers were more familiar with popular science theories and science fiction. In contrast to that theory, though, the Atom comes in for the biggest roasting, perhaps because his comic tried so hard to be plausible by using scientific technobabble.

One of the shorter chapters is the one covering the Hulk and the Fantastic Four, since instead of becoming transformed, if treated scientifically, the heroes should have died. To fill out the section, the authors give us a more plausible (given what we know now) origin for the Hulk, involving steroids and fluorescent gene modification. I would have liked to have seen similar treatments for other characters, since I appreciated the imagination and realism that went into their rewrite.

Overall, the book has just the right tone -- straightforward, educational, but not too stuffy or serious. They aren't making fun of superheroes or poking holes in the stories, but using them as springboards to teach readers more about the principles behind the concepts. At the same time, they aren't bending over backwards to make the heroes "realistic" or believable; they understand that some things are done for the sake of interesting or exciting stories.

(PS if the "mwaid" above is Mark Waid, comic book writer, I'm surprised that someone who's written humorous superhero stories in the past would react so badly to a fun read that appreciates the genre without taking it too seriously.)

Lois Gresh and Robert Weinberg have set up an interesting project for themselves in The Science of Superheores. They take a look at certain characters (Superman, Fantastic Four, Spiderman, Batman, Atom and Ant-Man, Hulk, X-mutants, Flash, Green Lantern, Aquaman and Sub-Mariner) and examine particular aspects of their origin or powers in light of what is known about science. The book could have a light-hearted debunking romp but the science sections are very series and weighty, perhaps too much. As a former (?) comic nerd who never reached uber-nerd status by combining that love with a love of science, it was interesting to see these two authors take one love to attack another, particularly as they digress into science topics that are clearly their favourites. The chapter that is the most fascinating, though, is the loving one on Donald Duck comics at the end of the book. An interesting look at science in a quick and easy read that will be scooped up by comic fans.

I found this book entertaining and a quick, easy read. Gresh & Weinberg clearly & simply explain what could be complex scientific concepts about most of my favorite superheroes. But you have to be flexible about perceiving the content, though, as their science isn't friendly to all comic heroes. They are balanced (Batman, X-Men could happen, Superman, Spiderman, Flash, the science doesn't hold). They are pro-comic, I thought, and you'd have to be: only comicbook lovers will like this book. I found "Science" a chance to laugh about the heroes I still love and that mean so much to me, and they shed some light on writing in this genre. Good summer beach reading.

There's nothing really bad about the stories in this anthology, but there's nothing exceptional or revelatory, either. One story in particular is kind of old hat (war victims haunting a U.S. soldier). All but one of the tales are contemporary. I found the more memorable works to be from the following authors: Charles deLint, Thomas Tessier, Kathryn Ptacek, Melissa Mia Hall, and David B. Silva.
Recommended only if ghost tales are your particular area of interest.

Koontz wussied-out, when he completely rewrote his wonderful 1973 novel of the same name into this Politically-Correctified "update."

The original I would give at least four stars, and if you can find it anywhere don't miss out. It suffered slightly from some over-science-fictioney terminology, but its basic story of a mad supercomputer tyrannizing a captive woman for rape and attempted reproduction had real raw power and a driving edge. It was the first book of Koontz's I ever read, and I still pull it off the shelf now and again for another go. It's still one of my favorites.

The rewrite turns the supercomputer into a sociopathic fourteen-year-old voyeur (a potentially interesting observation on artificial intelligence, but it doesn't work here), and the hapless victim into a wisecracking Rambo, completely ruining everything that initially made the story such a winner. Koontz used to write much more realistic characters, which is what made his early fiction so powerful. Today, he too often idealizes his characters to pander to a Yuppie audience, and it frequently - as it does here - undermines the credibility of his work.

The 1977 MGM film version, starring Julie Christie, differs from both Koontz versions (it's closer to the first), but is quite good.

This new edition of Demon Seed is an updated version of a novel that Koontz wrote in the 70's (of which a film version was made). The basic plot of the story is that a super-intelligent computer named Proteus becomes self-aware, and falls in what he thinks is love with the wife of the scientist who helped design him. He enters her fully-automated house by way of the controlling computer, and soon has her trapped inside. His aim is to impregnate the woman and inject into the foetus his own consciousness.

What makes this book particularly interesting is the fact that Koontz uses Proteus to make a social comment on the male mind and how it perceives women. It really gives a fascinating insight into the male psyche, through the eyes of the computer who thinks he loves this woman and can use that as an excuse to hurt her as much as he pleases. Definitely an interesting read, and one which will make both sexes think.

As Dean Koontz put it, "[Demon Seed] was more of a clever idea than a novel." And he's right. There's not enough in this story to really make a 400-page novel--but it's still very good. Maybe the best part of it is that I can boast about reading a Dean Koontz book in one day. I mean, it's 150 pages. Most anyone can do the same.

The basic idea of the book is a computer with a God complex holds a young woman (Susan Harris) captive in her own home by controlling her computer system that runs throughout her house. He then plans to use Susan as a "host" so he can be born into human form. The whole idea is disturbing and mesmerizing. Perhaps that's why I liked "Demon Seed" so much.

After being made into a movie in 1977 (which I haven't seen, but plan to), "Demon Seed" was revised into the current edition you're looking at right now. I never read the original version, but in the afterwards of this book, Dean Koontz claimed it was so bad that it caused him to "develop the squint-eyed look of Clint Eastwood" from wincing so much. Well, I can't say the book is that bad now--although it's still not one of his best books. But if you're a Koontz fan, then you should definitely give this one a try.

This book's about Alex who is driving with his wife's 11 year old brother across America from Philadelphia to San Francisco where his wife awaits them in their new house. Unbeknownst to them a mentally deranged man also sets out on a similar journey with the same destination in mind only he has some time to kill on the way. What Alex and Colin first think is a game they've created of the van which seems to be following them becomes deadly real.

This is a fairly short and simple novel which is very predictable in most parts. There's not really any twists in this story and its quality does reflect that Koontz has had thirty years of writing experience since this book. You also wonder why they didn't just contact the police when they first encounter their pursuer in the flesh. Still it's an easy simple read that will only take you a few hours. This would also make an excellent novel for young people who are first moving from Junior Fiction to Adult Fiction.

This rewritten version of the 1973 short novel written under the pen name K.R. Dwyer is pretty similar to the earlier version with subtle changes like "the Russians are our friends now" and things like that in general conversations between the characters.

This was the first Koontz book I have read and was somewhat disappointed. I did enjoy the rising tension as an unknown person was following Alex and Colin. And the feeling of rejection Alex experienced was an interesting tactic by the author. But there were unresolved subplots, and the ending was somewhat abrupt and predictable. I'll probably read another Koontz book but will seek recommendations first.

I believe you all are making this book highly under rated...I think that Koontz was a master at this book and this is the first book I have read from him. He still knows how to make a good book even if he is in a dry spell or w/e. The book developed great characteristics for Alex and Colin building a foundation; however, I do believe they needed to elaborate more on the plot about the cops. Overall, this book has great potential of being a superb novel and I recommned it to anyone who likes to read a chilling tale until and hang on to the edge of their bed until the book is over.