"It was all of a piece he realized now; all part of some awful, decaying whole, an incomprehensible stone spider. All of Mid World had become one vast haunted mansion in these strange latter days, Mid-World had become the Drawers, all of Mid-world had become a waste land, haunting and haunted."
First time around, I really loved this book. This time, I was surprised to discover I was much more conflicted on it. An awful lot happens, so there's excellent momentum, and we begin to get some answers (plus many more question) about Roland's world. But is it a good stand-alone book? And is it a good book 3 of a 7 part saga, given how certain things end up happening in later books? Most people think so. I'm unsure.
If you're new round these parts, this is a spoilers-laden/ no-plot-summary re-read of the Dark Tower. And away we go with:
THINGS THAT
I MOSTLY LOVED
(1) Blaine, obviously, and the ALL CAPS super-city "Velcro Fly" apocalyptic-Lud Buck-Rogers-pilot fury that goes with him. Here's a spoiler alert for next time: I kind of hate the way King ended this confrontation with Blaine in Wizard and Glass. (Another thing that surprised me.) So I'll get to the disappointments with Blaine next time, but here, he is foreshadowed well throughout, and the payoff is well-earned. Fantastic cliffhanger, and the whole Cradle of Blaine the Mono is appropriately epic.
(2) King answers my 'why would his enemies guide Roland to the doors' question from my Gunslinger reread handsomely enough with the paradox, i.e. by saving Jake in The Drawing of the Three, Roland created a causal loop where he is experiencing both realities simultaneously, the effects of which are driving him insane. So, it stands to reason that the Man in Black and Crimson King hedged their bets on this one - either Jake dies, or he lives with a good chance Roland goes too crazy to do anything with him.
And knowing how the series ends, it made me wonder: how many variations of this Tower Chase have played out? This time around, the plan was to try and drive Roland insane. Not that I think it was an absolutely intentional thing, or that the MIB and CK are any more cognizant of the differences between their many times around this rodeo than Roland is. But: they don't have to be; each time the pieces are re-arranged.
Could the right combinations, the right variations, of this endless journey repair the universe? It'd be lovely to think so, if an eternal and eternally heartbreaking quest for Roland himself.
It does raise a problem with me, though regarding the role Patrick Danville is to play later on. But I guess we can hold off on that for now.
THINGS I DIDN'T LOVE
BUT DID NOT DISLIKE
"The Beams saved it; other say they are the seeds of the world's destruction."
The first time I read this, the whole beginning with the Bear and the Beams was a steady succession of "Holy shit!" moments. Absolutely loved it. Some of the murkier aspects of the series came into focus, plus there was this big fuck-off bear infested with parasites sneezing on Eddie and all the rest. Far be it from me to discount such readerly delights as those. And I still mostly love the whole opening - it's only in context of the rest of the series that this time, I had some issues.
"When everything was new, the Great Old Ones - they weren't gods, but people who had almost the knowledge of gods - created 12 Guardians to stand watch at the 12 portals which lead in and out of this world. The Great Old Ones didn't make the world, but they did re-make it. Some tale-tellers say the Beam saved it; others say they are seeds of the world's destruction. (They) created the Beams... lines which bind and hold... not just magnetism, but... gravity and the proper alignment of space, size and dimension."
Okay, so I get that it's all a big mystery and there are no answers. But does not North Central Positronics grow from an earth very much like our own? One with "Velcro Fly" and "Hey Jude" and Citgo? It's hard to square such a world with one where there's a mystical tower at its center, vampires, and magic. Has it always been there, or did it start to appear the way thinnies did, and as a result only of the NCP machinations? Somewhere after our own recognizable time, this tech super-consortium built all the machines of Roland's world, then poisoned it so comprehensively they had to... well, here the story gets murky. Roland relays some possibilities above and then characteristically changes the subject.
As any sci-fi fan knows, a technologically advanced civilization would have things that would resemble magic to those from less technically-advanced civilizations. This part of me is fine with the Bear and the Beams, even if it makes certain other things to come a little... odd. But what about the demon speaking rings and the magic jawbones and ka and all the rest? I think ka and the Tower exist independently of NCP, but if the Beams and these Portal Guardians are the work of NCP, something seems off with that.
I want to stress - there's so much about Roland's world we don't know - and neither does he. I'm not demanding all the answers, just trying to work out why the same NCP that built Blaine the Mono also built a big fuck-off bear that occasionally terrorized the villagers, or where the magic jawbones and door portals come from. If there's this logical-NCP throughline, what's the magical throughline?
 |
| The Portal Guardian and speaking ring seem not built by NCP. But they could have been. Again, I don't see it as impossible, just kind of a rough fit. |
I think the answer lies in whatever plans King had for Maerlyn. There are strong hints King is laying in these books that Maerlyn was meant to be the MIB. But we know from The Wind Through the Keyhole that this is not the case, unless that was meant to imply that the MIB imprisoned Maerlyn and then impersonated him. Which could very well be the case. Aaaaarg. I wish there was a prequel trilogy to shake some of this out, but you and I both know if there was one, there'd just be more questions.
When asked about what these Beam terminus portals are, Roland gives some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo about how they don't go to a "where or a when we would recognize." And then he distinguishes them from the doors on the beach, which directly relate to the MIB/ka-tet's doings. So... who's making the doors and writing THE BOY, THE LADY OF SHADOWS, THE PRISONER, and THE PUSHER on them? Another gift from the Old Ones, peeking into their glass and seeing Roland with the lobstrosities (at least) two millennia in the future? (Actually, maybe it was - Maerlyn himself, peering into one of his rainbows, knowing he'd not be there to see it because he's read bk 7, and sending muddled clues and other assistance over the centuries.)
Two last things about the Bear: okay, so let's assume it was built to just keep people the Old Ones knew were lapsing into pre-NCP society (and how) from wandering into these Portals, whatever they are. Done deal. Who, then, is the "Sub-nuclear cells must not be replaced" warning for?
And two: we only see the Turtle and the Bear in King's cosmology. Is the Turtle in It a creation of North Central Positronics?
What King should do is commission a bunch of other writers to write tales of the other Portal Guardians. He can edit the book and write intros to the selections and even contribute one if he's so inclined. I know it'll never happen, but sheesh.
Before leaving this section behind: I can only imagine how contemporaneous readers of this must have thrilled at not just the sudden appearance of Randall Flagg at the end of The Waste Lands but also the revelation that he was the Man in Black from The Gunslinger. That had to be kind of cool to experience "live." (Bryant Burnette describes just such an experience here, and it's worth reading.) On the other, I can't help but wonder why the MIB would even bother with rescuing The Tick Tock Man. Looking back from the end of Wizard and Glass, what was the point? What was gained from this besides inserting Flagg into The Waste Lands?
THINGS THAT ACTUALLY
GROUND MY GEARS
In no particular order but since I picked Gasher and Jake for the header for this section, we'll start with that.
(1) To hell with Gasher and the 50-ish pages of unbelievably repetitive abuse he heaps on Jake. The payoff ("Gasher looked up. "You?" "Me," Roland agreed. He fired once and the left side of Gasher's head disintegrated. The man went flying backward, bloodstained yellow scarf unraveling. His feet drummed spastically on the iron grillework for a moment and then fell still.") is almost worth it but not enough. It's just overdone. And exceedingly unpleasant.
(2) The Tick Tock Man. Might as well stay in this part of the book. What is it with King and extraordinarily large characters? Particularly ones who throw other characters - comic book style - into walls? Someone needs to make a comprehensive list of traits King gives his villains too many times. Excessive height is one of them. At any rate, this whole thing is just odd. So, he's the great-grandson of a Luftwaffe pilot - who may be Lord Perth? I walked away from the book with this impression, but I think I was mistaken - and filled with impotent range, dubious lord of the computer bowels of a super-city he cannot begin to fathom or utilize in any way. He's in a cool setting, but in a way that makes it worse. He's just yet another brute in King's rogue's gallery. I get that this fits with King's personal conception of good and evil/ heroes and villains. But the saga could have used someone way more interesting here, and King does not deliver. (That Gasher is the warm-up act doesn't help.)
(3) I don't buy Roland's teaching Eddie and Susannah to be gunslingers.
 |
| With only the 3 boxes of ammo he got in NYC? No way. Am I wrong? He makes a point of buying only 3 in NYC at the end of DOT3. 3 boxes, 50 bullets apiece? Even if it was 500 bullets, though, I still don't buy it. |
Like Eddie's and Susannah's love and marriage, I can shrug it off. This sort of thing adds up, though: if I don't quite buy them as soul mates, lovers, and gunslingers, some of the ka-tet dialogue is not going to land with me, and as the story goes on and things hinge upon these things, I'm going to be removed where I should be engaged. King decided he needed his questing band to have this dynamic, so be it. Mainly, it's a logistics problem. With 150 bullets (and let's keep in mind Roland still has plenty, so it's more like 100 bullets) and one brief tongue-lashing he achieves what took Cort years and years of abusive instruction?
(4) I don't like the rose. I like the idea of the Tower and this field of roses surrounding it existing in every level of the universe but only visible in some, and the roses are temporal-radioactive or something, but this idea of one of them poking up through the ground in NYC bugs me. It adds a layer - protect the one rose in NYC! - that is just kind of silly. I get that I'm just supposed to trust King and give him his back-and-forth-to-NYC set-up, but I just think all the New Age Rosicrucian stuff is unconvincing.
 |
| But it's all crystal clear compared to the key. |
Roland throws the magical jawbone (NCP must have been one WEIRD company) into the fire and Eddie sees within a vision of the key he suddenly has to whittle. Oh yeah and he suddenly remembers how he used to whittle. Like the ka-tet's accelerated desires for marriage and ability for gunslinging and devotion to the quest, this whittling thing doesn't arise all that organically. The author is whispering to his characters that they will need this or that magic item later in the plot. These are things King does perhaps a tad too often. Knowing that we see a literalization of the author himself down the road, telling the characters things murkily (or they to him), compounds my unease.
(5) Detta: "Prime numbahs!"
"Any demon want to fuck wit' mme he goan find out he's fuckin' wit' the finest. I th'ow him a fuck he ain't necer goan f'git."
OMFG. This dialogue - all King's dialogue of this nature - is just terrible. I want to stress like last time: my objection is not from some "who is this white guy writing this" angle; I object because it is dumb. Just a bad idea, executed badly. Do not pass Go, Sai King; pay the fine to the center of the board and go to jail.
(6) Jake's goddamn "Blaine is the truth" mantra. It's nothing compared to Jake's "Blaine is a pain" stuff from next time. These are just dumb mantras. They keep popping up like King/ Jake finds them profound or cool to say over and over. They are not. Okay so he's a scared kid. But hey: I'm not blaming Jake.
(7) Sudden telepathy is always dumb, and I don't care how much khef you invent to justify it. The fact is, when the gang comes to an obstacle, Sai King gives them telepathy. I don't look the other way on this; I deduct the appropriate points-penalty. It's like King plays a game with himself when writing how long he can hold off bringing telepathy into it. Once surrendered, it seeps into everything else (as we see in each subsequent book of the saga.)
(8) Oy. Does it make me an asshole to not care for Oy so much? Perhaps all the above had combined by this point to annoy me rather than allow me to shrug it off. It just seems like King turned to the TV playing in the background and saw a children's cartoon and said "Hey! Snarf snarf!" ("The sudden appearance of a billy bumbler who remembers people doesn't seem completely coincidental to me," Roland says. Yeah. Me neither, Roland.)
IN CONCLUSION
Hey now! I mean, I didn't hate it. I'm just invested in the re-read now, and my brain is abuzz. I leave you with the evocative line with which I almost started this post, but I thought the haunted Mid-World one worked better as an opener. Perhaps this'll do similarly for an ender. Until next time.
"They left the bees to their aimless, shattered life in the grove of the ancient trees, and there was no honey that night."
(1) Don't you hate it when you revisit something you think you love and find it to be some degree of disappointing? I -- like any grownup who revisits books, movies, etc. -- have had that happen numerous times. It didn't happen to me the last time I reread this one, though. Still, I'm unable to argue with most of your criticisms here; so I totally get the bummed feeling.
ReplyDelete(2) "Okay, so I get that it's all a big mystery and there are no answers. But does not North Central Positronics grow from an earth very much like our own?" -- This, obviously, is one of the central questions just about any reader is likely to have regarding the worldbuilding of the series. My take is that there are no actual answers. This may well mean that AS a series -- or even as individual novels -- "The Dark Tower" is a failure of storytelling. If someone feels that way about, I think I'm probably unable to defend it except by hinting that that's not really what the series is about. But then I wonder if that's just a bullshit excuse.
Ultimately, I'm going to need a lot of my own blogging in order to untangle all of this. But I think the answer probably lies in multiverse theory, slippage theory, and so forth. I think Mid-World is Earth, but Earth of a very distant future; I think End-World (and the Tower) is accessible from Mid-World, but is not part of it.
Basically, what I think is the mental equivalent of squinting and pretending it makes sense.
(3) Also, I'm increasingly apt to view these novels through a biographical lens of sorts, and in that way they kind of represent nothing more than King's imagination running wild. I think he keeps it all pretty consistent (more or less) within the first four books; but I also think that the final three books represent the work of an author who had been fundamentally changed. He's using the same approach; but the results don't quite sync up with the expectations. Granted, I say that as someone who is not even vaguely as familiar with the final three books (which I've read twice) as with the first four (which I've read minimum half a dozen times each, I'd expect).
(4) "just trying to work out why the same NCP that built Blaine the Mono also built a big fuck-off bear that occasionally terrorized the villagers, or where the magic jawbones and door portals come from" -- My sense of things is that the tech is from NCP, and the magic is from something else entirely. And the dark magic from something else still. NCP, to me, represents technological ambition run somewhat riot. This is the sort of company that Jim Gardener was afraid might be the end result of all that mucking about.
It *might* be the case that you can look to "The Mist" as an example in answering the question of how things got from a technological society to a quasi-Arthurian society. NCP may eventually have messed around so greatly that it created some kind of massive tear between dimensions. There may literally be multiple worlds in a state of bare co-existence. I may also be talking out of my butt.
(5) "I think the answer lies in whatever plans King had for Maerlyn." -- This is an aspect of the books I've never given much thought to. But I plan to the next time through. You've piqued my interest on this topic. "Keyhole" does indeed throw a wrench into those gears. Unless it doesn't; it *might* take the wrench out of the gears. I'm not inclined to think it does; but I can't rule it out, either.
(2) I think you're correct about Mid-World being like Earth-that-was and the others being smashed together, and it all being the result of whatever the hell NCP got up to: tearing apart the multiverse, poking holes in reality, etc. And you're right to bring "The Mist" into it as well. That all makes sense.
Deleteit could make MORE sense, and I wish we'd get that prequel trilogy to dot some i's. But like I say up there: if we did, there'd just be more questions.
It could absolutely make more sense. I wonder if that sort of thing ever bugs King himself. If these stories are trains of thought that exist in his mind at more or less all times -- and anecdotal evidence indicates that that is probably the case -- then in theory I can imagine it being somewhat maddening for him to not quite be able to see all the particulars of what something like Mid-World is.
Delete(6) "So... who's making the doors and writing THE BOY, THE LADY OF SHADOWS, THE PRISONER, and THE PUSHER on them?" -- The idea I came away from the final novels with was that this was happening by efforts of the Tet Corporation, but very, very, VERY far in the future. Seems like magic; is actually science designed to appear as magic. Why they'd do things that way, I dunno. But that's how I perceived it.
ReplyDeleteAnd while we're here, I firmly believe that the Green Card Man in "11/22/63" is part of that corporation. King stated in interviews around the time of that novel's release that it was not related to the Dark Tower series, but I think that given the "It" midquel which occurs within it, that's a suspect claim.
(7) "Is the Turtle in It a creation of North Central Positronics?" -- A fascinating question; again, one that had never occurred to me. If it is, what might its intended purpose be? For my part, I tend to think that the Turtle in "It" is NOT an NCP creation; but that it could well be a Tet Corporation creation. Even that, though, I think less likely than this: that somewhere, there's a robotic Guardian turtle that is the equivalent of Shardik, and that it was created (by whomever created it) to serve as a sort of representation of the "real" Turtle. This might have been intended to serve as a sort of "living" tribute to the Turtle, or it might have been intended to be a blasphemous mockery of the Turtle.
Or possibly none of the above.
(8) "What King should do is commission a bunch of other writers to write tales of the other Portal Guardians. He can edit the book and write intros to the selections and even contribute one if he's so inclined." -- Depending on who did the writing, I'd potentially be excited about that. But the larger part of me wants King to just hold on to all of this lore for himself, and either explore it in his own work or just die and leave a set of unanswerable mysteries. I'm not sure I can ever accept any other writers' answers to these questions. Maybe Joe or Owen; but even then, that'll feel to me like they're giving me THEIR answers, not THE answers. But I'd happily read those.
(9) "Looking back from the end of Wizard and Glass, what was the point? What was gained from this besides inserting Flagg into The Waste Lands?" -- This is a problem that worsens as the series progresses, I think. My feeling is that King pre-accident would have handled all of this differently than he handled it post-accident. But maybe not; who can say for sure?
(10) Thanks for the link! I enjoyed writing that one.
(6) I had not considered that the Tet Corporation could be the architects of Roland's ka in these early books. I'm not sure I buy that, really, but it's an option I had not considered and I will keep it in mind as I get through bks 5 and 6.
DeleteOh, you mentioned up there that the works are like meta-King-biography, and I agree, and the difference in tone between each portion of the series (with the first 2 and especially the 2nd being from his anything-goes years, the 3rd being from his immediate recovery period, Wizard and Glass his pre-accident feminist period, and the final 3 having a different voice/ aim/ structure to befit the changed circumstances again of his post-accident years.)
The Green/ Yellow Card Man as Tet is interesting - had not considered that either!
(7) I need more on these Portal Guardians than what we get/ got. I think your idea is sound, though: there's a big fuck-off turtle at the other end who is sneezing parasites and (very slowly) telling people to get off its lawn, but it is not the turtle Bill meets in IT. (Who may or may not be dead.) (What a weird damn sequence that is in IT.)
(8) "that'll feel to me like they're giving me THEIR answers, not THE answers. But I'd happily read those." Yeah, I agree. At this point I think the only thing we can hope for is if King has been secretly working on Dark Tower stuff. In my heart of hearts I see/ hope he's scouring blogs, jotting down the best ideas and questions, and getting inspired. (I say "scouring blogs" instead of "reading the forums" because the latter might turn him off on ever revisiting the mythos.)
(9) I think that's true. (On all counts.) Good point. But yeah when I got to the end of WIZARD AND GLASS I thought wtf? King even has Flagg/MIB say something like "Gee, maybe I shouldn't even have saved him." Yep. This is one of those times where King's writing conceits ("I'm just finding it as I go!") betray him. If he'd worked some of this stuff out beforehand, we wouldn't have stuff like this (Or fucking Dandelo still to come.)
(6) I'm not sure I buy it, either; and if I do, I'm not sure I like it. This goes back to me preferring the whole thing to remain a bit aloof and mysterious. I don't necessarily need it all to make sense; I only need the illusion of it making sense. But I've GOT to have at least the illusion, and I think you're right to poke some holes in some of this stuff.
Delete(7) It sure is. I'm with you -- I'd love to know more about these robotic faux-Guardians. You made a good point in wondering who the reactor-meltdown warning was for. I can't come up with anything on that other than the idea that they are, essentially, theme-park attractions. And that they've -- or Shardik has, at least -- gone untended and unmaintained so long that it's gone "insane."
(8) I mean, there's GOT to be more. There simply has to be; that's all there is to it. The good news is, I see no reason why King couldn't keep writing for twenty more years. Whether he'll decline in his abilities remains to be seen; but my guess is that if he does, it won't be to the degree most elderly authors do. It just seems like this is what causes his gears to move. So who knows? We could get a dozen Dark Tower books, for all we know!
(9) And see, I actually *like* the Dandelo scene. But, like most of the final book (if not the final two, or even the final three), I have a relationship with it that is not entirely unlike Jake's (and Roland's) bifurcated personality and perception of reality in Book III. I both love it and hate it at the same time. I love it for what it is; but I also sense that it isn't really what it was supposed to be. So it doesn't feel entirely genuine to me. But it also DOES feel genuine to me! Very strange. I'm keen to find out if I'll hop down off the fence and pick a side when my reread finally comes around.
(9) "This is one of those times where King's writing conceits ("I'm just finding it as I go!") betray him." -- I forgot to respond to that. I agree enthusiastically. I'm always persuaded by King when he talks about that sort of stuff, though; here, again, I kind of see things two ways at the same time. On the one hand, I firmly believe that that is the only way King knows how to write with any feeling. His process IS his writing, to a large degree.
DeleteBut on the other hand, surely at least *some* planning and forethought could be of use to him, especially on a project like this one. I'm sure he's worried about what would happen if he sat down to write from his outline/notes and then his muse insisted he go in some other direction. But I suspect that sort of thing happens to him anyways.
But in the end, I'm -- as almost always -- to give him all the room to move that he wants; or as little. His hit-to-miss ratio is still awfully high with me, so it probably makes sense for him to keep right on trucking as-is.
Maybe with less Holly Gibney, though. Ack! What if he wrote her into a Dark Tower book?!?
(6) " I don't necessarily need it all to make sense; I only need the illusion of it making sense." Hear, hear. In life as in art!
Delete(9) I'm worried I'll be too negative on Bk7. It didn't sit well with me after the first read and I've been criticizing it in my head ever since. I don't want to just bash it when I get there, but I'm also really invested in this now and might actually get angry if it reads the way I remember it reading. But, we'll see!
And God you're so right. I can only imagine King announcing he was releasing a new Dark Tower book and that it starred Holly Gibney. That has a depressing inevitability feel to it.
Delete(11) "To hell with Gasher and the 50-ish pages of unbelievably repetitive abuse he heaps on Jake." -- Do yourself a favor. Don't ever -- EVER -- listen to the audiobook. Especially the King-narrated one. You will not grow to love Gasher in that manner.
ReplyDeleteMe? I love Gasher. Not in an I-want-to-be-like-Gasher-and-have-the-whore's-blossoms-when-I-grow-up sense of things, but just in an enjoyability-of-reading sense. This may well be pure nostalgia on my part. If so, I have no plans to ever fight it. But I totally get how Gasher would be a bit of a deal-breaker.
(12) "So, he's the great-grandson of a Luftwaffe pilot - who may be Lord Perth?" -- My take on this is that Tick-Tock's gramps was a normal guy, more or less, who somehow slipped from one world into another. Now, his size poses questions. Was he always that big? If so, I'm not sure that works; abnormally large people aren't often pilots, methinks. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Assuming I'm not, the assumption then becomes that when he slipped through into Mid-World, he was somehow physically altered. He grew 25% bigger or whatever. A weird idea, but hey, why not?
From there, I think the people who encountered him probably began referring to him as Lord Perth in the way someone in our world might begin referring to a very large person as Goliath.
(13) "I don't buy Roland's teaching Eddie and Susannah to be gunslingers." -- I'm more or less with you on that. The whole idea of gunslingers doesn't hold much water, to be honest. Are these people imbued with actual superpowers in some way, like Jedi; or are they simply really gifted with marksmanship and whatnot? I think the idea is the latter, but if that's the case, then does being a gunslinger mean anything inherently? I think that's a clear no.
But in these stories, it DOES mean something inherently, so ... ARE they superpowered? Or, perhaps, magically gifted? If so, then Roland's training of Eddie and Susannah perhaps makes more sense. It might simply be a process of teaching them to trust in their powers, which were always there.
I kind of like that as an idea, actually, so I'm turning my back on my previously-stated notion of them not being literally gifted.
(14) "I don't like the rose." -- I just fell over a bit when I read that. The rose is one of my favorite things in all of fiction! I'm utterly unable to defend it, though; at least not at this time.
(15) Facepalming over Detta is entirely appropriate. But I have to confess something: I've always loved that bit about how she was going to fight that damn demon with her pussy. I found it to be scandalous the first time I read it, but also kind of weirdly heroic. Like, Detta was such a cartoonish villain in her first book, and we thought she was gone. But here she is again, doing all her old schtick, but FOR THE GOOD GUYS this time! I'm a sucker for that kind of bullshit.
As with Gasher, though, I get Detta being a complete dealbreaker for some. In both cases, it's King playing music only he can hear; and that sort of thing is always going to alienate some readers. I'm either mostly in tune with him here, or nostalgia has deafened me to the deficiencies in his playing.
(16) "Oy. Does it make me an asshole to not care for Oy so much?" -- Like...I'm kind of tempted to just say "yes" here and move on, but I respect you too much to do so, even in jest. I will say, though, I think you may be the only person I've ever heard of who doesn't love Oy. But hey; it's a fair reaction.
(17) Those mutie bees are an especially evocative sidebar, aren't they? Whatever the flaws of this series, the fact is that it's got a lot of brilliance in small moments like that. And you can do a lot worse than that, for sure.
(18) Great post! You got my head spinning, here, too.
(11) This whole section was like "I'LL RAPE YA, CULLY!" then smack, then drag/ run/ then "I CAN FEEL YOUR BUNGHOLE, CULLY!" then smack/ shove/ slap, then drag/ run, then rinse wash repeat all the way to the Tick Tock Man, who was similarly repulsive. I have no problem with villains being bad, but this all seemed like a textbook example of Hemingway's "don't confuse movement with action" axiom. Anyway, if it works for others, I'm happy; it did not for me. (And I'll avoid the audiobook.)
Delete(12) That all makes sense. I thought for a little bit that maybe the Lord Perth legend grew up because of the Luftwaffe pilot, as an extreme example of time's slippery nature in Roland's world(s) but it wasn't adding up. But fortunately, it's not in the text to begin with, so it was just me mistaking things.
(13) Yeah this is a significant problem. Especially once Jake gets the eye of the tiger, which is even damn sillier. (And his Dad's gun holds like 12 bullets... Sure. You can teach someone how to be a gunslinger with a dozen bullets, Roland.)
I do think you're on the right track, that we're meant to think they had these "gunslinger qualities" within them that Roland is activating. That's meant to pave over all the absurdities of teaching them how to be the killers they become. I don't particularly like that explanation, but I think that would be King's answer. So we have to accept it, but I just am not persuaded. Like the ka-tet stuff and Eddie/Susannah's love, I can roll with it, but it becomes a problem as the series goes on and more and more hinges on the reader's acceptance of these things. I can already feel my eyes rolling a bit whenever that comes around in the dialogue (in WIZARD and WOLVES.)
(14) and (16) Ah well, ha! Yeah I'm probably a minority on both these counts but they just bounced off me.
(15) It must be handy to have a personality no one likes to call forward whenever there's a raping demon around. "I'll be right back - you handle this one." I was not particularly inspired by her performance, myself. I confess I found it all to be unbearably dumb. I don't mean to be so negative! But yeah, everything about Detta (her backstory, her dialogue, her motivations, her ability to out-demon an actual-fucking-demon) lands with me like the Hindeberg.
(17) I agree 100%. And (18) Thankee,sai! This one took me a few weeks of editing each and every day to get to this final stage. It'll be weird not to be working/ thinking about it everyday. But, on to WIZARD, I guess.
(13) I agree. There are a few too many asks of that nature; each one is kind of a big ask, and eventually one's good nature and willingness to buy in gives out. Mine never quite does; but Jake's telepathy (when it shows up) gets real close to making it happen.
Delete(15) "It must be handy to have a personality no one likes to call forward whenever there's a raping demon around." -- That's a fine sentence there, pard. Take a bow!
Pretty funny -- if "funny" is the right word (it probably isn't) -- that this series contains multiple raping-demon scenes. What an odd series.
(1) I'm fine with Blaine, I guess. I know I don't mind how King handles him both here and "WIG". The funny thing is how he's one of those cases where I can't quite get a bead on this character. I mean I have hard time figuring out what or how the engine sounds like.
ReplyDelete(2) I don't know if I'm starting to get more into a negative stance on the whole world-building thing. I think the reason why stems from a market flooded with Tolkien clones, or else just stories that focus so much on the world at the expense of the one that matters in narrative entertainment: The Story.
Don't take this the wrong way, yet I think what I just said applies also to the criticism about world-building in fiction. Lately it seems that the world has overtaken the story in the minds of readers and viewers. I'm against this on critical-aesthetic grounds. I think the narrative itself takes precedent over whatever the setting is.
I think what I object to is the literary or aesthetic naturalism that undergirds such approaches to fiction. Such thinking seems a poor way to approach a novel or a film. The reason why is because (don't take this the wrong way) it is unimaginative at it's core, and therefore is not conducive to the kind imaginative mindset necessary when entering upon any possible narrative.
Granted, this is not to say that those who utilize this arroach are, themselves, lack imagination. Rather it's just that I can't help thinking there's a risk involved for anyone who gives credence to naturalistic concepts like so-called "world building". The potential risk, I'd posit, is that there's danger of sapping the mind of it;'s ability to imagine, or to tap into the imagination, and hence the risk is the loss of creativity.
ChrisC
(2) It's a good point. Too much worldbuilding is tedious. I just like things to add up, but I don't necessarily need an entire world to actually be built.
Delete(3) I tend to agree with Bryant that we're not meant to over-think Mid-World. I will go a bit further however and point out something I've maintained in the past.
DeleteThis can be boiled down to three(ish) points:
1. Joe Hill's N0S42 is set in his Dad's universe.
2. Therefore, it stands to reason that both Hill will more than likely take up where dear old dad heads for the clearing at the end of the path.
3. In N0S402, Hill introduces the concept of Inscapes.
4. Hill describes Inscapes as imaginary landscapes, existing inside the mind of artists or just very imaginative types, that temporarily take on a life of their own.
5. These Inscapes don't seem to be permanent and self-sustaining in and of themselves, however. They require the presence of the mind that imagined them. It is possible that some Inscapes may linger for a time after the creative creator has left the building.
5. Hill has the villain mention Mid-world and its doors as Inscapes.
6. Therefore, ipso-ergo, it makes sense to see Roland and his world as fictions brought to temporary life.
7. Therefore "DT" is less about an epic quest set in an objective fantasy world. Rather, it should be looked at as the same type of story as "Unmey's Last Case", "The Dark Half", or "Secret Window, Secret Garden", where fictional creations come to life on their creators.
8. Looked at from this perspective, "DT" becomes not an epic quest, but rather the tale of what happens to a fictional version of a real life book author, and a totally made up priest (i.e. Father Callahan) when said author's creation comes to life on the both of them.
9. I would use Robin Furth to back up this claim. In particular, I'd point to her intro for the second volume of the "DT Concordance" where she pretty much affirms the narrative viewpoint I just outlines. In fact, without Furth's help, I don't think I could have made sense of the whole thing otherwise. So there's that going for it, if nothing else.
10. She lays it all out as a metaphor for the way fiction can sometimes save the life of the artist. If that should be the ultimate theme of "DT", then.............I've heard worse.
ChrisC
(3) My problem is not overthinking MidWorld but that we're given such oddly specific flesh-put-the-reality of it things, but when they don't add up, Roland says hey, math doesn't work over here. Well, okay, but sheesh. Keep it vague then. I don't need blueprints to an imaginary world where nothing makes sense; just give me the world. But, for the most part. it's not a huge problem/ dealbreaker, just trying to work out the specifics he gives us with the Portals and Guardians.
Delete(3.5) I don't know if I have much interest in Joe Hill's take on Dark Tower stuff. I could be wrong. I just don't get a good vibe from that guy. At any rate, he has nothing to do with the Dark Tower books themselves, so I don't have to make a decision on him, thankfully.
(7) and (8) I am trying to stick to primary texts altogether so I have a similar posture re: Robin Furth. I refuse to go to any other source except the books themselves for this re-read. I will say, though, that I think your perspective is sound, except it is very much definitely an epic quest narrative. It could be a deconstruction of that genre (or as Roland says in WOLVES, "do people not have stew in your world?" re: combination(s) of genres and how it's not JUST an epic quest narrative.) But yes, given all that happens - and particularly the "Amok Duck" of the very end at the Tower - I think if you could say the 7 books were about any one theme, it is indeed what happenes when the creations and narratives turn on their creator(s).
I think with the dark tower especially, but with King in general, feeling is more important than thought. If you try to connect to much or understand more than what is given, your putting more work in than king himself. That's not to say this series shouldn't be critizced when it stops making sense, but I think it is fair to say that making sense isn't the point. It doesn't make sense narratively to do a 700 page flashback in the middle of your epic quest, but wizard and glass is the best book in the series. In other words, King himself is vaguely insane and trying to keep up with his thought process is a headache
ReplyDeleteProbably true. And well put!
DeleteThank you very much.
DeleteWould you recommend people to read this series, having read through it twice? I have read the whole series but I honestly don't know myself the answer to the question. What works for me really works with the dark tower, and nothing ever truly breaks the series for me, but it's close at points and I don't know if I can guide people to a series that seems to fall apart for a lot of people.
ReplyDeleteI would recommend it, for sure, but with some caveats or mild warnings of what's in store. I think most people feel like you do: I never really meet people who couldn't stand it, or who loved it without any caveats. But there's a general hey-it's-worth-checking-out vibe. I feel more or less the same way.
DeleteAlthough, I am worried: I'm about 200 pages from the end of WOLVES, now, and I'm kind of annoyed, and I know from the first time through that bks 6 and 7 were my least favorite. So, I might be in for a whole lot of annoying myself, which will undoubtedly throw off my appreciation of seeing them anew. So I'm kind of living out the question you ask and wondering if I should even be recommending this reread or if I shouldn't just abandon it altogether. Who wants to read about me bitching about the last 2-3 books? Not me.
But: I probably won't be able to help myself.
Delete