The Cross Dog

[John Blaze]

Am I the only one to think of the dog as a shitty deux ex machina?>

So his fur is colored like a cross, he can take down a nasty strong old vampire?

I don't know. I love SK's stories more than the average fan, but sometimes even I cry "bullshit", and this detail is one reason I don't really like this story.

Any Opinions?

[Wuducynn]

Am I the only one to think of the dog as a shitty deux ex machina?>

So his fur is colored like a cross, he can take down a nasty strong old vampire?

I don't know. I love SK's stories more than the average fan, but sometimes even I cry "bullshit", and this detail is one reason I don't really like this story.

Any Opinions?


Very interesting topic! To me it seems like one of those things you could either look at desparagingly as "deus ex machina" like you do or you could look at it as a bizarre twist. I see it as a bizarre twist. I enjoyed the cross dog's odd role he had to play.

[ATG]

Oy ?!?

[John Blaze]

ATG, have you read the Little Sister's of Eluria?

and allhail, the question I have is does it make sense to you?>

[Wuducynn]

Since I considered it "bizarre" I would say that would mean it would fall out of the realm of sense. Does much of what happens in the Dark Tower series or in most SK books make sense to you?

[John Blaze]

ok, how about plausible?

Yes, the DT books are fantasy, but if all of a sudden Mordred killed everyone including Roland but was stopped by Oy, would that be plausible?

[ATG]

ATG, have you read the Little Sister's of Eluria?

and allhail, the question I have is does it make sense to you?>

No.

/hides.

[John Blaze]

it's in the Everything's Eventual compilation of stories.

[ATG]

I'll get to it Eventually.

[John Blaze]

:doh: not a pun!

[obscurejude]

This is a common critique of Stephen King John. I'm under the impression that sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. I think this might be the latter and not the former. I think it has a lot to do with his method of writing i.e. since he seldom uses outlines or even defined themes his characters require a god machine to deliver them. I'm sure I'm stating the obvious. Anyways, I think you're correct in bringing this up.

[Darkthoughts]

I remember wondering what the purpose of the dog was going to be when I intially encountered it. But it didn't jar with me, I quite liked it.

Infact, I'm coming to see Flagg's death at the hands of Mordred in much the same way. I'm starting to think that perhaps King sometimes kills off his biggest "baddies" with seemingly irrelevant characters as a kind of ultimate punishment/insult to evil.
So, instead of letting them go out in a blaze of glory with someone they'd consider an equal adversary, he snuffs them out with as little pomp and ceremony as they deserve.

The cross dog is like that.

[Jean]

I'm starting to think that perhaps King sometimes kills of his biggest "baddies" with seemingly irrelevant characters as a kind of ultimate punishment/insult to evil.
hear, hear

[Darkthoughts]

Thank you Jean :rose: I'm never sure if I'm putting my point across clearly or not :)

[Jean]

you always do

and what you said now is a perfect final touch to my theory about the evil in King's novels being vincible and vulnerable - provided the good guys stand and are true - and his villains ultimately ridiculous and able to triumph only over feeble souls.

[Wuducynn]

I'm starting to think that perhaps King sometimes kills off his biggest "baddies" with seemingly irrelevant characters as a kind of ultimate punishment/insult to evil.
So, instead of letting them go out in a blaze of glory with someone they'd consider an equal adversary, he snuffs them out with as little pomp and ceremony as they deserve.

The cross dog is like that.

I don't agree. There are plenty of King villains that go out with a bang...I think of Walter, George Stark, Pennywise etc. For me its not a matter of King spending a lot of time worrying about "giving an popular or powerful villain a big exit" but just what comes to him as he is writing.
He's said over and over in various publications and interviews that he doesn't have a conscious writing style but one that flows from his under-mind.
The cross dog is just an example of a bizarre twist in King's story. One that left thinking to myself..."Damn! Didn't see that one coming!"

[Storyslinger]

I'm with CK on this. I thought the turn about was a great addition, but I can see you side of it JohnBlaze

[Darkthoughts]

I'm starting to think that perhaps King sometimes kills off his biggest "baddies" with seemingly irrelevant characters as a kind of ultimate punishment/insult to evil.
So, instead of letting them go out in a blaze of glory with someone they'd consider an equal adversary, he snuffs them out with as little pomp and ceremony as they deserve.

The cross dog is like that.

I don't agree. There are plenty of King villains that go out with a bang...I think of Walter, George Stark, Pennywise etc. For me its not a matter of King spending a lot of time worrying about "giving an popular or powerful villain a big exit" but just what comes to him as he is writing.
He's said over and over in various publications and interviews that he doesn't have a conscious writing style but one that flows from his under-mind.
The cross dog is just an example of a bizarre twist in King's story. One that left thinking to myself..."Damn! Didn't see that one coming!"
But Pennywise was defeated by a bunch of kids - whom despite finishing him/her off as adults - were still "losers" and totally underestimated by Pennywise.

I didn't think Mordred was a worthy adversary in his infant state, and he was also underestimated by Walter/Flagg.

Can't comment on Stark, thats one I haven't encountered yet.

[Wuducynn]

But Pennywise was defeated by a bunch of kids - whom despite finishing him/her off as adults - were still "losers" and totally underestimated by Pennywise.

I didn't think Mordred was a worthy adversary in his infant state, and he was also underestimated by Walter/Flagg.

Can't comment on Stark, thats one I haven't encountered yet.

Well you can have your opinions on that of course, but my point still stands about King's writing style. He's not sitting at his Mac worried about what the CR folk would think about the cross dog killing the head villain of the story.

[Míchéal]

what exactly does deus ex machina mean?

[Matt]

From Wiki



The phrase has been extended to refer to any resolution to a story that does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic and is so unlikely that it challenges suspension of disbelief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief), allowing the author to conclude the story with an unlikely, though more palatable, ending.
In modern terms the deus ex machina has also come to describe a being, object or event that suddenly appears and solves a seemingly insoluble difficulty, where the author has "painted the characters into a corner" that they can't easily be extricated from (e.g. the cavalier unexpectedly coming to the rescue, or James Bond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond) using a gadget that just so happens to be perfectly suited to the needs of the situation).

[Míchéal]

ah ha... now i get it... jeez they're so commen

[John Blaze]

BUt the kids all had talents, and putting them talents together made them formidable.

Comparing the dog's defeat of the vamp to the loser's club defeat of pennywise is stupid, they're not even in the same league.

[obscurejude]

I remember wondering what the purpose of the dog was going to be when I intially encountered it. But it didn't jar with me, I quite liked it.

Infact, I'm coming to see Flagg's death at the hands of Mordred in much the same way. I'm starting to think that perhaps King sometimes kills off his biggest "baddies" with seemingly irrelevant characters as a kind of ultimate punishment/insult to evil.
So, instead of letting them go out in a blaze of glory with someone they'd consider an equal adversary, he snuffs them out with as little pomp and ceremony as they deserve.

The cross dog is like that.

I thoroughly enjoyed this comment Lisa. Very insightful, and I think you are right on.:thumbsup: Thank you for sharing.

[John Blaze]

I still can't agree. I should have made this a poll.

[Wuducynn]

I should have made this a poll.

Why? What difference would that have made?

[John Blaze]

your face :P

it wouldn't make a difference, but we could get everyone to vote on it and express their opinions.

[Jean]

I can add a poll. Which poll?

[Wuducynn]

your face :P

it wouldn't make a difference, but we could get everyone to vote on it and express their opinions.

Isn't everyone already expressing their opinions? What difference would making a poll make? Is it because if your opinion gets the most votes you "win"? ;)

[Míchéal]

A little healthy competition never hurt anybody...

[John Blaze]

not win exactly, but we could see where the majority of votes goes.

Besides, I'm me, therefore I already won. :P

[Wuducynn]

Besides, I'm me, therefore I already won. :P

You have a point.

[Darkthoughts]

BUt the kids all had talents, and putting them talents together made them formidable.

Comparing the dog's defeat of the vamp to the loser's club defeat of pennywise is stupid, they're not even in the same league.
No, they're not - but I made the comparison to show repeated use of a writing tool - rather than comparing the characters themselves ;)


Well you can have your opinions on that of course, but my point still stands about King's writing style. He's not sitting at his Mac worried about what the CR folk would think about the cross dog killing the head villain of the story.
He might not care what we think about the outcome or the actions of a character, but that doesn't negate the fact that he has a thought process behind it - and how are you to know anymore than I, what that process is?

Stories may "write themselves", but he obviously takes the time to insert many references and names and pop culture etc, so its not a totally organic process.

[John Blaze]

Darkers, I understand your point. However, somedays I think he just views books as money. Like, "My wife needs a new car, guess I'll put out a new book." And doesn't even worry about the quality anymore. The guy has lost the hunger.

[Wuducynn]

This
For me its not a matter of King spending a lot of time worrying about "giving an popular or powerful villain a big exit" but just what comes to him as he is writing.
He's said over and over in various publications and interviews that he doesn't have a conscious writing style but one that flows from his under-mind.

You said he makes a special point of killing off his villains in a way that makes them look pathetic or feeble -
I'm starting to think that perhaps King sometimes kills off his biggest "baddies" with seemingly irrelevant characters as a kind of ultimate punishment/insult to evil.
So, instead of letting them go out in a blaze of glory with someone they'd consider an equal adversary, he snuffs them out with as little pomp and ceremony as they deserve.

The cross dog is like that

and I'm saying that he does not write with any idea of making some special moral point behind the way the villains get taken out. Same with the case of the cross dog.

[jayson]

I see where you are going with your theory lisa, and it's workable for sure. perhaps what king is saying is that what's most needed to overcome evil is to stand in the first place. the universe will provide whatever help may be necessary as needed [like the cross dog or the turtle figurine]. i don't know that this applies to mordred & flagg though as both were evil so it wasn't really a stand it was just a murder and a meal.

[Darkthoughts]

I made the Flagg and Mordred point because its one thats so debated. The problem most people seem to have with Flagg's death, is the fact that Mordred was an infant, a newcomer and more importantly - of the Red. They seemed to want to see Flagg get taken down by the White at least. And I do think that King was purposely giving Flagg his just deserts by having him killed "in house" and not dying a hero's (whatever the evil equivalent of a hero is) death in battle.

The cross dog may not be such a good example, but I see it as definately similar. A neutral force taking down the "baddie", denied her confrontation with the hero, an unsatisfying (on her part) death.

[Wuducynn]

I made the Flagg and Mordred point because its one thats so debated. The problem most people seem to have with Flagg's death, is the fact that Mordred was an infant, a newcomer and more importantly - of the Red. They seemed to want to see Flagg get taken down by the White at least. And I do think that King was purposely giving Flagg his just deserts by having him killed "in house" and not dying a hero's (whatever the evil equivalent of a hero is) death in battle.

The cross dog may not be such a good example, but I see it as definately similar. A neutral force taking down the "baddie", denied her confrontation with the hero, an unsatisfying (on her part) death.


Like I said, you can have your opinions about whether Flagg's death was a worthy one or whichever villain you choose in King's universe, my point is not arguing about that but about King making a point with how his villains get killed when he has said over and over that he writes what comes to him. So to me he's not sitting there saying to himself "This is a villain so she should go out with a whimper, not a bang".
Unless you've read some interview where he has said different of course.

[John Blaze]

******SPOILER"S ABOUND************
and can I get a mod to spoiler the thread as a whole? PLease?



Murder and a Meal. Is that the Number #3 Combo? Can I get fries with that?


The way I see it is there is always a "Big Bad" of a book, (sorry, I love Buffy and use the terminology alot) and is usually taken out hardcore. I mean, RF in The Stand was taken out with a fucken A-bomb. Barlow was taken out in a fitting manner. Even, Walter was taken out in a fitting manner, although it didn't build up to it enough. But to be killed by a minor character...it's undignified for a Big Bad of the story.

[Wuducynn]

The cross dog killed the main villain because thats what came to King when he was writing it, not making some moral point about bad guys. Thats how I see it. Personally I loved how it played out because it was a shocker..like I said.."Damn! Didn't see that one coming!"

[jayson]

I made the Flagg and Mordred point because its one thats so debated. The problem most people seem to have with Flagg's death, is the fact that Mordred was an infant, a newcomer and more importantly - of the Red. They seemed to want to see Flagg get taken down by the White at least. And I do think that King was purposely giving Flagg his just deserts by having him killed "in house" and not dying a hero's (whatever the evil equivalent of a hero is) death in battle.

The cross dog may not be such a good example, but I see it as definately similar. A neutral force taking down the "baddie", denied her confrontation with the hero, an unsatisfying (on her part) death.

similar for sure. there is a pattern, whether it is intentional or not on king's part we could all debate and never really know for sure.

i still think he made some poor choices in the case of flagg's death. these can be somewhat rationalized after the fact, but i am pretty firmly in the camp that feels that flagg deserved a better ending. evil or not, he was among king's greatest creation and he deserved to be more than an afterthought killed off by a new character. ok, too much, too much.

my point is, i think the other examples like the cross dog or the loser's club is that sometimes if king has a "message" at all it's that when it comes time to stand, stand. even if it doesn't work, there's honor in it.

[John Blaze]

i get your point now allhail.

[jayson]

The cross dog killed the main villain because thats what came to King when he was writing it, not making some moral point about bad guys. Thats how I see it. Personally I loved how it played out because it was a shocker..like I said.."Damn! Didn't see that one coming!"

good points. i thought the dog's markings were just creepy story telling not foreshadowing. i liked the dog's ultimate role in the story.

[Darkthoughts]

******SPOILER"S ABOUND************
and can I get a mod to spoiler the thread as a whole? PLease?
I'm only marking my DT7 spoilers, otherwise its a given that the thread will have spoilers for the relevant story.


The way I see it is there is always a "Big Bad" of a book, (sorry, I love Buffy and use the terminology alot)
There is never a need to apologise for being a Buffy fan :huglove:

CK - I like what you're saying, but I will agree to disagree :couple:
The way you are regarding my opinion (about the way SK might be thinking/channelling his thoughts while writing) isn't entirely the way I'm meaning to express it...but I can't think how to rephrase it, so I'll leave it at that.

[Wuducynn]

CK - I like what you're saying, but I will agree to disagree :couple:
The way you are regarding my opinion (about the way SK might be thinking/channelling his thoughts while writing) isn't entirely the way I'm meaning to express it...but I can't think how to rephrase it, so I'll leave it at that.

*Bows* We'll just leave it at that then. :harrier:

[Jean]

******SPOILER"S ABOUND************
and can I get a mod to spoiler the thread as a whole? PLease?
I'm only marking my DT7 spoilers, otherwise its a given that the thread will have spoilers for the relevant story.
Right.

This thread is in The Baronies > The Little Sisters of Eluria, which means, The Little Sisters of Eluria spoilers don't have to be marked here, while all others do.

[John Blaze]

o, ok

[Brice]

The cross dog killed the main villain because thats what came to King when he was writing it, not making some moral point about bad guys.

Well, I think I can agree King isn't consciously out to make any kind of a point with regards to his villains. I think all his characters are if anything intended to mimic real life (despite fantastic circumstances). Sometimes evil dies a stupid senseless death. Sometimes good people do. There is no rhyme or reason, no causal reaction to circumstances. Sometimes there is no why. Death comes to us all except me :cool: with or without causality. There is no reason for a reason.

[Darkthoughts]

I can get my head round that no problem, I agree with CK making that same point - what I'm disagreeing with is King's writing being completely unplanned. He can be getting ideas from nowhere as his story unfurls, but thats not to say he then doesn't brainstorm with these ideas. Infact, in most of his storys he foreshadows, which itself denies that his stories are unplanned throughout.

I think he knew exactly what he was going to do with the cross dog from the moment he wrote it.

[John Blaze]

Or else why write in such an insignificant detail as his coloring, right?

What I hate is when he says something like "and that's the last time he saw her alive" at the end of a chapter, when he could have surprised you with someone's death.

[Wuducynn]

I'm sending the cross dog to your house in the middle of the night when your sleeping so he can rip out your throat.

[John Blaze]

can he deepthroat me first?

[Darkthoughts]

Eww, dog jizz!

[Wuducynn]

can he deepthroat me first?

No, he'll rip your throat out, then deepthroat you and then give you some analingus.

[John Blaze]

no, I don't want the CK special, ty very much. ;)

[MonteGss]

:lol: This thread has gone terribly wrong. :lol:

[John Blaze]

allhail posted in it, what did ya expect?

[Jean]

whatever Monte expected, what I expect now is this thread to go back to the topic
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/thank_you-1.gif

[John Blaze]

sowwy :(

[Jean]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_wink-1.gif

[Brainslinger]

I didn't have a problem with the dog coming out of nowhere. I also agree that it wasn't unplanned since it was described earlier in the story.

I do wonder if it would have worked though. I'm thinking particularly of
Callahan's confrontation with Barlow. "Without faith the cross is just plaster, 2 bits of wood"... words to that affect. Also his subsequent confrontation with the Grandfathers in The Dark Tower, where they dared him to put away his cross. He did, and his faith kept them back.

Would just having a cross on it's fur give the dog power to destroy the vampire, especially since this is an old powerful vampire, rather one of the 'little ones.' I.e surely it's not so much the icon itself which destroys these creatures, it's faith in what that icon represents.

True, as far as the rules of this particular story is concerned, the icon itself seems to be enough. Hence the medallion protecting Roland, even though he was unaware of it's power and thus couldn't have faith in it's protection. But in the wider rules of the Stephen King multiverse, I'm not sure it would work. For smaller vampires maybe but the big ones?

I.e. if a cross alone were enough, why aren't vampires jumping for cover every time they come across a fence? To keep myself safe from vampires, would tying my shoe laces do the trick? Kick it in the balls, "Bite that toothy" and watch it burst into flame?

Ok those are silly examples and I'm probably being a bit facetious, but I'm sure you get my point.

So how would a dog appearing out of nowhere have any affect? Did the dog have faith? Or was it Roland's faith in seeing the dog?

That being said, I didn't dislike the ending. And the fact that it was a small supposedly insignificant creature responsible doesn't bother me at all. It just seemed to follow a different logic to other King books I have read, but maybe thats also related to the kind of vampire. Or maybe the dog was sent specifically by Gan/Tower/ka giving it the power needed.

Ka. Kaka. whatever.

Great Roland story though! I hope we have more of such from King in future.

[John Blaze]

thanks for your post, you make some good points, but also one I was making. Just because his fur had a cross shape shouldn't be enough to kill the vamp. After all, remember Barlow and Father Callahan?

[Storyslinger]

thanks for your post, you make some good points, but also one I was making. Just because his fur had a cross shape shouldn't be enough to kill the vamp. After all, remember Barlow and Father Callahan?

The dog had some good faith....;)

:lol:

[Brainslinger]

thanks for your post, you make some good points, but also one I was making. Just because his fur had a cross shape shouldn't be enough to kill the vamp. After all, remember Barlow and Father Callahan?

Sorry I didn't notice you'd made the point already. Probably with less text than me too. ;)

I thought I had read through them all too, but I probably breezed through quickly and just forgot.

Still I got to do my shoe laces gag.

[Wuducynn]

Maybe there was something more about the dog than we know. Considering he was able to take out a "Grandmother" then I'm guessing thats the case.

[jayson]

maybe he is oy's twinner like wolf is. :excited:

[Wuducynn]

Yeaaaaaaaaaaah.... :rolleyes:

[jayson]

or just a dog ex machina

[obscurejude]

or just a dog ex machina

:rock:

[beam*seeker]

thanks for your post, you make some good points, but also one I was making. Just because his fur had a cross shape shouldn't be enough to kill the vamp. After all, remember Barlow and Father Callahan?

The dog had some good faith....;)

:lol:

I don't know if he had faith and that's why his cross worked, but I am betting he had Buddha nature.

[WeaselADAPT]

There is a very fine line between a real case of deus ex machina being used and an author simply trying to create and manipulate circumstances, boldly employing his or her imagination on the page. Was King incapable of extricating Roland by any other means? No. Did King start this little story thinking it would be simple and fun, and then near the end start kicking himself, and wonder how he could've just killed the main hero of his greatest tale ever (before said character even reached the tales he was already so well known for) and, scrambling, decide to go back and write the dog in, to give himself a way out? Surely not. That would have been deus ex machina.

When we find something that seems a little too convenient, perhaps seeming to lack the "umph" we were hoping for, it's too easy to assign that Latin term. The truth is far more direct: we, or in this case you wanted something more than he offered. In fact, the ones writing themselves a cheap way out are those who'll apply this term without digging deeper, or without accepting that he may have had a reason you failed to see, if ye kennit. Personally, I didn't even think deus ex machina was an accurate appraisal when everyone cried it about him writing himself into the story, or about Patrick Danville, or about the note in the medicine cabinet (well, ok maybe that one a bit, lol).

Anyway, about the cross dog, my thoughts were more along these lines: The whole story was to give a small glimpse into the trials Roland had come through to reach us in The Dark Tower saga's epic first line, and the greatest fact about him continuing through those trials to that point was that his victories were not purely due to his will or his grit, or even his bad-assery with the irons--and certainly not his mental acuity. Nay, he stood because he was determined to stand, and AS A RESULT OF THAT WILL, all of creation, ka itself, stood with him. He lost and he lost, but he always got back up and his boots never stopped. So ka was like, "send an angel, send legions god dammit, this is the one!" And they even sent a dog with a cross on its pelt because that's what was needed.

There'll be water if ka wills it; water if ka wills it, even in the desert. That's how I see it.