King's influences for the DT series *spoilers*

[nomis93]

hi guys.I am trying too decide if I should start reading the dark tower series or the LOTR trilogy.I read about both series and am having trouble.So i thought I should ask the fans. oh and please no spoilers.Right now I am busy reading the ruins by scott smith the same guy who wrote A simple plan,which was called the best suspense novel of the 1990s by stephen king himself.So it will be a while before I start reading one of the book series i mentioned above. But I still wanna hear your opinions.:rose:

[ManOfWesternesse]

Welcome to the place nomis.

Of course, there's only one answer to your question, and that is that you absolutely need to read both!

Now, as to which to read first? Hard to answer that one. I'd personally say read LotR first, then DT after. But I do know some people have ... problems... reading LotR, and I wouldn't want you put-off trying DT if LotR didn't work out for you.

Are you a Fantasy fan generally? What Fantasy have you read, and what have you really liked? (This might influence the answer).

[Jean]

But I do know some people have ... problems... reading LotR
not only people, Brian

nomis93: do you want a poll here?

[ManOfWesternesse]

...not only people, Brian...
Ah, but descendants of Beorn should surely have no problems with it....?

[mia/susannah]

Welcome nomis93. I have not read the LOTR trilogy. I have watched all the movies and really enjoyed those. I have read the Dark Tower Series and must admit I am more of a fan of the Dark Tower. Personally, I would recommend the Dark Tower series first.

[Brice]

Yeah, I liked LotR alot and all, but I'd have to say DT.

[jayson]

I agree with Brian [big surprise there :)] to try LotR first. If it's not to your liking you can always put it down and pick up DT. As to the question of how they compare, other than the fact that they are both multi-book epics about quests, they really don't compare all that much. They are pretty distinct from one another in terms of style and subject matter. Each is a great series in its own right.

[LadyHitchhiker]

Dark Tower > Lotr

[jayson]

Dark Tower > Lotr

In terms of there being a greater number of books in DT. Otherwise, I think there is a LOT of room to debate that one. :)

[ManOfWesternesse]

Dark Tower > Lotr
:arg: - goddamed mathamatical symbology!@#~*&%!

[sarah]

Well, I have to say The Dark Tower first all the way. You must read both of course, but my vote is start with Roland and move onto Frodo.

[John_and_Yoko]

I personally would read The Lord of the Rings first. The Dark Tower makes reference (in different ways) to a LOT of previous literature, including The Lord of the Rings. It would be easier to get the references if you've read the latter before you start the seven-volume epic.

However, having said that, different people are different, and that's only what I personally would do (and what I personally did do).

[Ves'Ka Gan]

I don't believe the two are comparable in any other way than being epic-length tales about a quest.

I really never fell in love with LOTR. I tried to get into it several times and failed, hobbits just weren't my bag. I did enjoy the films, but it still didn't move me or amaze me.

I would say read both & read whichever first. I did just fine reading the Dark Tower without having knowledge of all the LOTR references.

[John_and_Yoko]

I beg to differ--they're both mythological in ways, but they take different approaches to mythology. The Lord of the Rings is based on language and the past, while The Dark Tower is based on the present and the facts we now know about what the world is like.

[Letti]

I think you can choose either. You can only win.

[cozener]

Read LotR first. It was LotR that inspired King to write DT in the first place. I read DT knowing this and I think it added to my enjoyment to a certain extent.

But you y'know, you don't really have to read LotR. You can just rent the movies and be done in a fraction of the time then go read DT :)

[John_and_Yoko]

Read LotR first. It was LotR that inspired King to write DT in the first place. I read DT knowing this and I think it added to my enjoyment to a certain extent.

But you y'know, you don't really have to read LotR. You can just rent the movies and be done in a fraction of the time then go read DT :)

Movies =/= books. :P

They made a number of changes to the movies....

[jayson]

Watching the LotR movies instead of reading the books is a MAJOR disservice to the story. HUGE parts of the story were left out and/or changed drastically in the movies. The movies may be enjoyable but they are NOT by any means an adequate substitute for these books.

[John_and_Yoko]

Watching the LotR movies instead of reading the books is a MAJOR disservice to the story. HUGE parts of the story were left out and/or changed drastically in the movies. The movies may be enjoyable but they are NOT by any means an adequate substitute for these books.

The same could really be said for most movie adaptations of books. I agree with R_of_G.

[jayson]

Watching the LotR movies instead of reading the books is a MAJOR disservice to the story. HUGE parts of the story were left out and/or changed drastically in the movies. The movies may be enjoyable but they are NOT by any means an adequate substitute for these books.

The same could really be said for most movie adaptations of books. I agree with R_of_G.

That's the main reason I am against DT movies being made. I always felt that way but the LotR movies sealed the deal.

[Matt]

I would say read DT first but not because I consider one better than the other, I would just consider DT an "easier" read. :cool:

[Odetta]

No one has said this yet so I will....

DT is more odd or bizarre than LOTR... tho once you've read about 2 of them they don't seem so bizarre anymore. Maybe that can help you choose.

[cozener]

Y'know I put that little smiley on the end of that statement to indicate that I was joking. :rolleyes:

But hey, lets open the ball on this topic...

Of course they made changes...its a movie that can't be 20 hours long. But while I agree that it would be a disservice to the story (but more to Tolkien himself) to watch the movies and not read the books, I don't consider it a major disservice. The basic story is still there. Also, "major" and "huge" are very subjective terms. The only HUGE change, to me, was the elimination of "The Scouring of the Shire". This necessitated a couple of other changes of course. There were some changes that I would consider annoying and unnecessary (Frodo's dismissal of Sam comes to mind) but not "major". Some of the changes I actually consider improvements...namely the inflation of Arwen's role. I think it made both Aragorn and Arwen more interesting. Her getting Glorfindel's role in the first flick, I thought was a masterstroke. Sorry, but Glorfindel, elven baddass that he may be, just isn't important to this particular story.

Besides, if someone who watches the movie really enjoys them they can go read the books and find out for themselves.

But I am a pretty die hard Tolkien fan. I'd love to see that 20 hour flick. I just don't trust that everyone else does and I like the idea of the movie being an audience pleaser to get more folks into reading the book. Its like watching movies like Gladiator and 300. Historically, they are, to a large extent, bunk. But if they get people excited about reading up about gladiators, Ancient Greek city-states, and the Roman Empire...I'm thrilled. Besides, like LotR...they were kickass movies


DT is more odd or bizarre than LOTR...

Y'know...I'm sure that I can agree with that. But balrogs, Istari, and Gollum are pretty damn bizarre. :)

[jayson]

I know you were kidding, at least partially but I do think there were some other drastic changes besides the elimination of the Scouring of the Shire. The most glaring to me is what happened at Mt. Doom. In the book Frodo does not catch and then drop Gollum. Gollum is carried over the edge by his own celebration and Frodo NEVER plays a part in that. Pippin doesn't light the beacons at Minas Tirith, in fact they're already lit when Gandalf is bringing Pippin to Minas Tirith. Merry didn't go to the battle at the gates of Mordor [in fact I think the missing Houses of Healing section is almost as bad an omission as the Scouring of the Shire section]. The entire role of Denethor is different in the films than in the books. There is much much more, especially as I've pointed out before the inclusion of new material by Jackson at the expense of Tolkien material [like that bullshit scene with the Wargs and Aragorn going over the cliff which never happened in the books]. Some of these things may seem like not a big deal but imagine how most of us would feel if a director changed elements of DT to make characters do things they never did in the books. I know I'd be pissed off.

[nomis93]

thanks for the responses guys. I am new too fantasy fiction so i wanna start with a good fantasy novel.

[ladysai]

thanks for the responses guys. I am new too fantasy fiction so i wanna start with a good fantasy novel.

I'd say start with DT since you're new to fantasy.
ALL of LOTR is fantasy, but DT has roots in our world. Sometimes its easier to get the taste of fantasy if it still has some flavor of home in there. :)

But, definately, read them BOTH! :D

[ladysai]

But I do know some people have ... problems... reading LotR
not only people, Brian


:o
The Bear has not been enchanted by Tolkien's masterpiece?!
:o
How can this be?!
:o

~these smilies are inadequate to express my shock~

[John_and_Yoko]

I'd say start with DT since you're new to fantasy.
ALL of LOTR is fantasy, but DT has roots in our world. Sometimes its easier to get the taste of fantasy if it still has some flavor of home in there. :)

But, definately, read them BOTH! :D

Heh--I guess it's hard for me to understand that, since fantasy has been with me from the beginning.

In fact it's only recently that I've appreciated more realistic works like Stephen King's.

But if you're more of a fan of realistic works and are new to fantasy, then yeah, that might be a way to start out (unless you'd rather have fewer volumes to read than more just at first).

[Jean]

...not only people, Brian...
Ah, but descendants of Beorn should surely have no problems with it....?

well, the tribute to my greatgreat[...]grandfather was one of the few redeeming features of the saga




:o
The Bear has not been enchanted by Tolkien's masterpiece?!
:o
How can this be?!
:o

~these smilies are inadequate to express my shock~
alas... I already tried to express my feelings here (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showpost.php?p=70425&postcount=10). I'll try re-reading it one of those days, though

[ManOfWesternesse]

Well nomis, are you any the wiser fro having asked your specific question? :lol:

Read them both, in either order, and enjoy them. (but preferably LotR first... :innocent: )

[cozener]

I know you were kidding, at least partially but I do think there were some other drastic changes besides the elimination of the Scouring of the Shire. The most glaring to me is what happened at Mt. Doom. In the book Frodo does not catch and then drop Gollum. Gollum is carried over the edge by his own celebration and Frodo NEVER plays a part in that. Pippin doesn't light the beacons at Minas Tirith, in fact they're already lit when Gandalf is bringing Pippin to Minas Tirith. Merry didn't go to the battle at the gates of Mordor [in fact I think the missing Houses of Healing section is almost as bad an omission as the Scouring of the Shire section]. The entire role of Denethor is different in the films than in the books. There is much much more, especially as I've pointed out before the inclusion of new material by Jackson at the expense of Tolkien material [like that bullshit scene with the Wargs and Aragorn going over the cliff which never happened in the books]. Some of these things may seem like not a big deal but imagine how most of us would feel if a director changed elements of DT to make characters do things they never did in the books. I know I'd be pissed off. And this is where relativity comes in. A lot of what you've listed here I consider minor...at least not major. (if you know what I mean) And I actually thought that the Beacons of Minas Tirith thing was an improvement. I loved that scene...or at least I liked how the Beacons were showcased...being the great achievement that they were. Although I to would have preferred that Denethor be more like the Denethor in the book and ordered the lighting of them himself. About the Beacons...one of the things that I always loved about Tolkien was how he made Men seem, in their own way, just as magical and special as Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits. The Beacons are a testament to human ingenuity so I enjoyed the grand way that the Beacons were presented in the film.

I also agree about the Aragorn warg thing...totally unnecessary. Aragorn had enough drama surrounding him without throwing that in too and PJ could have used that time to do something that actually did happen in the book. Oh...and I'm not a fan of Aragorn lopping off the Mouth's head either (nor how the Mouth was depicted)

[ManOfWesternesse]

C'mon guys, neither of you have mentioned Bombadil yet... *runs & hides*

[cozener]

:lol: And I refuse to talk about that pretentious bastard too! Him and his sillyass hat!

[ManOfWesternesse]

:lol:
That's priceless Cozener!

Actually, I tend to think PJ was probably right to leave him out - would have been very difficult to get him accross to a non-Book audience, hat or no hat!
But then other times I think the effort should have been made, even if only the bookreaders 'got' him.

[cozener]

It would have been great seeing him in FotR but yeah...it would have been hard to work him in. But like I said earlier...I would have loved to have seen a 20 hour cut of LotR.

[ManOfWesternesse]

.... like I said earlier...I would have loved to have seen a 20 hour cut of LotR.
Yep, that would float my boat!

[jayson]

You know I agree with you Brian. The elimination of Bombadil is another problematic issue for me. Coz, good call on Aragron vs. The Mouth. The whole battle at the gates of Mordor was wrong. Just to note, the reason I like the beacon scene the way it was in the books was because it set up the greater geography of Gondor and the surrounding areas. Gandalf's explanation to Pippin of where these beacons were showed that Gondor was a huge country made up of many regions, not just the city of Minas Tirith as PJ made it seem in the movie. In the books this all comes together when the forces from each of these areas comes marching in to Minas Tirith to prepare for the coming battle [as witnessed by Pippin sitting atop the walls watching]. In those two scenes you get so much more history of just what Aragorn is the King of than you ever do in the movies, and that to me is the major flaw with the third film. It's called Return of the King but PJ did a terrible job of showing anything about the history and nature of the kingship. Again, if these kinds of omissions were made in a DT movie this board would be ablaze with criticism.

[ManOfWesternesse]

Just related to what You're saying there jayson - The films gave no status at all to the Prince of Dol Amroth, and the nobility of his men. It would have been great to see him & them recognised for what they were, Elvish blood included.
But again there was no time. Cozener's 20-hour-film looks more attractive all the time. Just imagine what you could do with that!

[jayson]

Just related to what You're saying there jayson - The films gave no status at all to the Prince of Dol Amroth, and the nobility of his men. It would have been great to see him & them recognised for what they were, Elvish blood included.
But again there was no time. Cozener's 20-hour-film looks more attractive all the time. Just imagine what you could do with that!

They could have saved some time by not wasting our time with the scene of Faramir bringing Frodo to Osgiliath which never happened in the book. Every time I get to the "there's no time" issue I always think about the material that PJ just made up out of whole cloth. If there was time for that, there should have been time for the real material. Obviously he couldn't fit it all in, but I often just shudder at the choices he did make. I do agree with Cozener that the biggest shame was the omission of the Scouring of the Shire. The crucial element of the story is how the 4 Hobbits took the lessons they learned in the wider world and brought them home to the Shire.

[ManOfWesternesse]

Agreed, the scouring was a big let-down for me. I couldn't believe it was not going to be in.

[cozener]

True, the vastness of Gondor (or the King's dominion) was not very well explored...although it was hinted at here and there. But I don't see how this could have been translated to the film. It would have required to much explanation for an already long movie. Of course, they might have had time to explain all that if they hadn't have put in the Frodo/Faramir/Osgiliath thing, the Aragorn/warg scene, and done the Black Gates battle a little differently.

And I'm still pissed about the Scouring but I do love the films...even with its omissions and additions.

With DT, you're looking at massive cuts if translated to films. There's way too much to squeeze in. Hell you could drop almost all of WotC alone, turn it into a 30 or 45 minute version of High Noon. W&G, they'd fix that but good. All of Roland’s experiences in Mejis would likely be relegated to flashbacks dispersed throughout the series instead of concentrated in one place. I could even see some directors cutting it completely and writing it off as irrelevant to the story. (which would be a huge mistake as its integral to the development of Roland's character but you know some assface producer would suggest it)

[jayson]

With DT, you're looking at massive cuts if translated to films. There's way too much to squeeze in. Hell you could drop almost all of WotC alone, turn it into a 30 or 45 minute version of High Noon. W&G, they'd fix that but good. All of Roland’s experiences in Mejis would likely be relegated to flashbacks dispersed throughout the series instead of concentrated in one place. I could even see some directors cutting it completely and writing it off as irrelevant to the story. (which would be a huge mistake as its integral to the development of Roland's character but you know some assface producer would suggest it)

I agree and that's why I'd prefer to not see movies made of DT.

[ladysai]

alas... I already tried to express my feelings here (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showpost.php?p=70425&postcount=10). I'll try re-reading it one of those days, though

Have you ever listened to the audio versions of the books?
(or tried?)
Sometimes a new perspective on the story can help...and while audio is the same words, the reader's expressions can breathe more life into the characters than the words on the page.

I am glad you leave your heart open to Frodo's world...and are willing to try the story again.
:)

[cozener]

I couldn't even get through The Silmarillion but listening to it was a completely different experience.

[obscurejude]

I've personally gotten wrapped up in DT much more than LOTR imaginatively. That being said, one of the things I really like about Tolkien is how well thought out his stories are thematically. Being the good Catholic he was, Tolkien really utilized a lot of literary theory from my boy Aristotle. Tolkien had definitive story lines centered around moral impressions that he wished to convey 20 years before LOTR was even published. This is such a departure from King's whimsical "organic" method, of just grabbing the type writer and going.

[Wuducynn]

thanks for the responses guys. I am new too fantasy fiction so i wanna start with a good fantasy novel.


Forget Dark Tower and LOTR, read the far superior Dragonlance novels which LOTR and Dark Tower are based on.

[jayson]

Forget Dark Tower and LOTR, read the far superior Dragonlance novels which LOTR and Dark Tower are based on.

Dragonlance was published in 1984. How could LotR be based on it since LotR was first published in 1954 and written starting in the 1930's? Unless Tolkien had a time machine it's Dragonlance that takes from LotR, not the other way around.

[Brice]

I'm pretty sure Matthew was joking around there.

[jayson]

He'd pretty much have to be I suppose.

[Wuducynn]

Dragonlance was published in 1984. How could LotR be based on it since LotR was first published in 1954 and written starting in the 1930's? Unless Tolkien had a time machine it's Dragonlance that takes from LotR, not the other way around.


The Dark Tower and LOTR both come from the Dragonlance series. Fucking King and Tolkien couldn't think up there own ideas. Plagarism pure and simple. Its sickening, SICKENING I TELL YOU!!!!!

[jayson]

I def missed your sense of humor when you were gone Matthew

[Wuducynn]

:lol:

[obscurejude]

I've personally gotten wrapped up in DT much more than LOTR imaginatively. That being said, one of the things I really like about Tolkien is how well thought out his stories are thematically. Being the good Catholic he was, Tolkien really utilized a lot of literary theory from my boy Aristotle. Tolkien had definitive story lines centered around moral impressions that he wished to convey 20 years before LOTR was even published. This is such a departure from King's whimsical "organic" method, of just grabbing the type writer and going.

Jayson, I thought you might have missed this. What do you think, being such a fan of both authors and possessing an opinion that I'll immediately appreciate?

[obscurejude]

I def missed your sense of humor when you were gone Matthew

Quoted for truth.*

*Another thing I missed when Mathew was gone.

[nomis93]

Dragonlance series eh.never heard of it. how does it compare too LOTR

[jayson]

I've personally gotten wrapped up in DT much more than LOTR imaginatively. That being said, one of the things I really like about Tolkien is how well thought out his stories are thematically. Being the good Catholic he was, Tolkien really utilized a lot of literary theory from my boy Aristotle. Tolkien had definitive story lines centered around moral impressions that he wished to convey 20 years before LOTR was even published. This is such a departure from King's whimsical "organic" method, of just grabbing the type writer and going.

Jayson, I thought you might have missed this. What do you think, being such a fan of both authors and possessing an opinion that I'll immediately appreciate?

Can't disagree with you there Ryan. While I don't know much about Aristotle and his literary theory, I do still see the overall point you are making. Much of this may be due to the fact that Tolkien was intentionally trying to write mythologically based stories [drawing particularly heavily from Norse mythology] while King was writing a series of fantasy novels with some mythological overtones throughout. The former obviously lends itself a bit more to conveying a clearer set of moral ideals, while the latter leaves itself a bit more open.

One other item of contrast between the two works that I always come to is the use of author-invented language. Now, this should be prefaced by noting that Tolkien was a renowned professor of Linguistics first and a writer second, while King is a writer first and foremost. I do not expect the same linguistic abilities from King that I do from Tolkien as that would be unfair. That said, there is a consistency to the author-invented language(s) in Tolkien that is sorely missing in King's DT. One of the things I always come to when thinking about this is King's use of the word "Can" (as in Can Ka-No-Rey, Can-Toi, Can-Tah, Can Callyx, etc). That word seems to mean just about anything King wants it to. That rubs me the wrong way. Again, I know Tolkien is the language expert, but he created at least two full languages that are completely internally consistent and it shows in the writing making it feel deeper and more "real" whereas in DT there are far less made up words yet they are very inconsistent in their meanings. I would think the smaller the quantity of invented words, the easier it would be to maintain some consistency but apparently not. It's not a big point obviously, but I have always found that aspect of DT to be a bit lacking in authenticity.

[Wuducynn]

Dragonlance series eh.never heard of it. how does it compare too LOTR

I have no idea, I've never read one.

[Wuducynn]

Can't disagree with you there Ryan. While I don't know much about Aristotle and his literary theory, I do still see the overall point you are making. Much of this may be due to the fact that Tolkien was intentionally trying to write mythologically based stories [drawing particularly heavily from Norse mythology] while King was writing a series of fantasy novels with some mythological overtones throughout. The former obviously lends itself a bit more to conveying a clearer set of moral ideals, while the latter leaves itself a bit more open.

One other item of contrast between the two works that I always come to is the use of author-invented language. Now, this should be prefaced by noting that Tolkien was a renowned professor of Linguistics first and a writer second, while King is a writer first and foremost. I do not expect the same linguistic abilities from King that I do from Tolkien as that would be unfair. That said, there is a consistency to the author-invented language(s) in Tolkien that is sorely missing in King's DT. One of the things I always come to when thinking about this is King's use of the word "Can" (as in Can Ka-No-Rey, Can-Toi, Can-Tah, Can Callyx, etc). That word seems to mean just about anything King wants it to. That rubs me the wrong way. Again, I know Tolkien is the language expert, but he created at least two full languages that are completely internally consistent and it shows in the writing making it feel deeper and more "real" whereas in DT there are far less made up words yet they are very inconsistent in their meanings. I would think the smaller the quantity of invented words, the easier it would be to maintain some consistency but apparently not. It's not a big point obviously, but I have always found that aspect of DT to be a bit lacking in authenticity.

Maybe "Can" is a prefix type word that changes with the rest of the phrase or name.

[jayson]

Maybe "Can" is a prefix type word that changes with the rest of the phrase or name.

Yeah, but it's the fact that it can seemingly change to mean just about anything that rubs me the wrong way. Ultimately it just makes King's made-up language read as if it's just that, a made-up language. With Tolkien the prefixes and suffixes are consistent throughout, like in actual language.

[obscurejude]

Jayson, good points. One of Tolkien's critiques of Lewis is very similar to what you're saying about King. In his space trilogy, Lewis dabbled in creating languages, but Tolkien complained that it hurt the story if it wasn't done all the way rather than helping it at all (at least in terms of the fantastical). Lord of the Rings started with a language, and then stories that developed from the legends the language created, and yes, Middle Earth is one of the most authentically created things in history. So, I agree with what you're saying about "Can" and the same could be said about "Ka" or "Char" or whatever.

Something else along these lines, in Middle Earth, there is no real point of comparison with the "real world" as there is in Lewis or King, and I think that made up language has something to do with this as well. In Lewis, kids leave the real world through a wardrobe or a scientist re creates the Genesis fall on another planet (venus) but only after having left the "real" earth. I've already accused King of doing this badly at times in the series (like incorporating Harry Potter etc...). The bad language elements have a similar reaction in me, because it comes off making Mid World less authentic rather than otherworldly cool.

[Wuducynn]

Yeah, but it's the fact that it can seemingly change to mean just about anything that rubs me the wrong way. Ultimately it just makes King's made-up language read as if it's just that, a made-up language. With Tolkien the prefixes and suffixes are consistent throughout, like in actual language.

My point was that the "Can" changes meaning with the phrase its being used in. Some languages are like that. I like the differences in languages that we get to experience in the Dark Tower series. Also there is a lot of mystery in regards to their use, everything isn't spelled out, because All-World isn't spelled out. Just another of the big differences between LOTR and DT. The DT world is incomplete, and mysterious. LOTR is fleshed out thoroughly.

[obscurejude]

My point was that the "Can" changes meaning with the phrase its being used in. Some languages are like that. I like the differences in languages that we get to experience in the Dark Tower series. Also there is a lot of mystery in regards to their use, everything isn't spelled out, because All-World isn't spelled out. Just another of the big differences between LOTR and DT. The DT world is incomplete, and mysterious. LOTR is fleshed out thoroughly.

Sometimes it seems too convenient but you make a good point about the DT series being open ended. That's the real debate going on here, but perhaps its best illustrated by discussing the authors use of fantastical language.

[jayson]

Something else along these lines, in Middle Earth, there is no real point of comparison with the "real world" as there is in Lewis or King, and I think that made up language has something to do with this as well. In Lewis, kids leave the real world through a wardrobe or a scientist re creates the Genesis fall on another planet (venus) but only after having left the "real" earth. I've already accused King of doing this badly at times in the series (like incorporating Harry Potter etc...). The bad language elements have a similar reaction in me, because it comes off making Mid World less authentic rather than otherworldly cool.

Of course a lot of that has to do with the fact that Tolkien's Middle Earth is not supposed to be another world, rather it is supposed to be the "real world" prior to our known history. I agree that this lends to a more consistent overall feel to things.

I agree that DT is more open-ended, but I think at least some part of that is due to the inconsistencies that would be exposed if King tried to more completely define some of these concepts. In many cases it adds to the mystery in a very cool way, but in some cases, particularly the language issue, it just makes Mid-World seem less authentic. It's not a deal-breaker by any means, but when comparing/contrasting the two works it's one of the more glaring differences. Again, it can almost all be chalked up to Tolkien's linguistic training. It's unfair to expect the same depth of language from King, but I do think he could have tried a bit harder to achieve some level of consistency.

[Wuducynn]

it just makes Mid-World seem less authentic.

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m168/Los_The_Red/STFU.gif

[jayson]

:lol:

I love that fat fucker Penn

[obscurejude]

Jayson, I'm a real admirer of Tolkien's and I think it would be unfair to hold anyone up to that kind of standard, including King, but I think the point with language is that if you're going to do it, you should do it right. Sometimes its just better not to do it at all.

Jayson, you might really enjoy "On Fairy Stories" by Tolkien. Its the basis for a lot of what I'm saying.

[jayson]

Thanks for the rec Ryan. Will have to pick up a copy of The Tolkien Reader so I can check it out. :)

[obscurejude]

Thanks for the rec Ryan. Will have to pick up a copy of The Tolkien Reader so I can check it out. :)

No problem sir. :cowboy:

[cozener]

LotR and DT do have one thing in common for me. I'm more in love with Middle-earth and Midworld than I am with the stories taking place in them.

[obscurejude]

LotR and DT do have one thing in common for me. I'm more in love with Middle-earth and Midworld than I am with the stories taking place in them.

Cozener, good to see you. :thumbsup:

Could you elaborate? I find your statement interesting.

[cozener]

Whats up :)

First of all let me make clear that I, for the most part, do love the stories too.

I like Tolkien's characters a lot although I did find most of them to be rather one dimensional. Tolkien wasn't much for telling us the thoughts and feelings of his characters. None of the inner mental workings of the Nine Walkers...even Frodo...were explored to anywhere near the extent that either member of Roland's Ka-tet was but I didn't mind that. I like what Tolkien had to say about friendship, honor, and not giving up when things look hopeless. I was struck, as Boromir was, by the irony of the situation...the fate of an entire world resting on something so small as a ring.

Middle-earth itself is explored more deeply than the characters in the story. I find the peoples, histories, cultures, etc very fascinating to the point where it makes the story for me. Often when people are into the story they think about being Aragorn or Frodo or whoever. I'm much more fond of the idea of living in that pure, green world filled with such magical things as ents, elves, wizards, and hobbits; all only marginally touched by the corrupting hand of man. It would be truly wonderous to see the Shire, Minas Tirith, Moria, Rivendel, etc. All of Tolkien's sketches, descriptions, languages, etc drew me in and never let go of me. I kind of imagine heaven to be something like a Sauron free Middle-earth (either that or something like Castle Anthrax from Monty Python's Holy Grail but we'll leave that for another thread)

Now with Midworld its a little different. I have no desire to live in such a dangerous, hopeless place but I find the environment intriguing. Its similar to the fascination I have with snakes and sharks. I'm terribly afraid of these things but at the same time I recognize their beauty and power and, in a very real way, they are mystical beings to me…like dragons and sea monsters. With a cup of fantasy, a spoonful of the Old West, a thimbleful of horror, and pinch of science fiction King brewed up a completely mesmerizing universe. It was the world itself as much as my fondness for the characters that kept me reading after WotC and will eventually lead me to read Dt again. Whatever bad things I might have to say about the last 3 books, King completely succeeded in enchanting me with this world of castles, demons, witches, vampires, insane trains, and six gun toting, cowboy hat wearing knights.

Oh and on the subject of King and language. The differences were supposed to be small and yet great enough to give Midworld an archaic and at the same time, alien, feel. I feel that King was completely successful here. Its one of the things about Midworld that charmed me.

[jayson]

VERY interesting thoughts Coz.

Much as I love the story of LotR, I too am fascinated by the depth of culture and history of Middle Earth. I'm actually a much bigger fan of The Silmarillion than I am LotR. It's like reading a history book for a world that I often have to remind myself doesn't actually exist.

[obscurejude]

What both of you are describing really pays homage to Tolkien's linguistic gifts. As I understand him, he began with the premise that language naturally springs from cultures and lends them authenticity. Its very Wittgenstenian, which gives him high high marks in my book.

Jayson, some day I'm going to explore Middle Earth more fully. I've only had the pleasure of studying Tolkien academically and we were limited to LOTR and some selected essays so we could fit Lewis and the other inklings in the class.

Cozener, I too am enamored with the Mid World (as is Jayson). I sometimes get disappointed with the lack of information about the mythology of Mid World and the metaphysics of the tower. It seems that we get just enough to peak our interest, but not near enough...

Just my opinion.

[cozener]

Oh I agree. I want the whole 9...maps, lineages, histories of the Old Ones, the Baronies, etc. I don't think its going to happen though.

I just thought of this though...unlike King, Tolkien really concentrated on one fictional world his whole life so, of course, its going to have a lot more to it. I don't know but I'm sure he'd written some nonfiction books concerning language but had he written anywhere near as much as King? While we might wish for all of this history and what not I guess its a lot to ask. King is nowhere near as consumed with the world he created as Tolkien was with Middle-earth. On the other hand, is it much that we're asking? Maybe just one fair sized book with maps, a few histories, and Roland's family tree going back to Arthur Eld?

[jayson]

I just thought of this though...unlike King, Tolkien really concentrated on one fictional world his whole life so, of course, its going to have a lot more to it. I don't know but I'm sure he'd written some nonfiction books concerning language but had he written anywhere near as much as King? While we might wish for all of this history and what not I guess its a lot to ask. King is nowhere near as consumed with the world he created as Tolkien was with Middle-earth. On the other hand, is it much that we're asking? Maybe just one fair sized book with maps, a few histories, and Roland's family tree going back to Arthur Eld?

I agree again. The vast majority of Tolkien's work went into developing Middle Earth. I think what it comes down to in the end is that Tolkien set out to create a full world, complete with mythology, cosmology, language, et al whereas King set out to write a story that contained elements of these things, but where the story was the main ingredient. Is it too much to ask of King to "fill in the blanks"? Perhaps it is. It's possible he just doesn't know the answers to these questions. Then again, maybe if he thought about it, it'd come to him. Tolkien gave us the line of Numenor & Gondor's Kings straight through from Elros to Aragorn (and really much further back when you consider the lines of Elven families from which Elros and Elrond were born). He gave us the line of Rohan's Kings from Eorl to Eomer. It'd be nice to know what came between Arthur Eld and Stephen Deschain's father.

[LadyHitchhiker]

Nothing's original anymore... not even my novel...

[Empath of the White]

I found Tolkein to be a better world-builder than writer. Rings was hard for me to get through, though I really liked the Scourging. He was a professor, and I felt that the writing made that evident. I would suggest starting with the DT, then working your way up.

[William50]

I found Tolkein to be a better world-builder than writer. Rings was hard for me to get through, though I really liked the Scourging. He was a professor, and I felt that the writing made that evident. I would suggest starting with the DT, then working your way up.

I agree. I think the DT should be read before the Lord of the Rings. Although, I also think that The Hobbit should be read before the Lord of the Rings. :cool:

[Empath of the White]

Oh, and for what its worth I enjoyed the Hobbit so much more than the Rings books. That's a quintessential fantasy/ bedtime fairy tale right there. You could probably tackle that one before the Tower books.

[obscurejude]

Rings was hard for me to get through, though I really liked the Scourging. He was a professor, and I felt that the writing made that evident. I would suggest starting with the DT, then working your way up.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Its one of the reasons his works make so much sense and King's tend to take serious leaps in logic and numerous "god machines" to save his characters from his rickshaw plot devices.

[jayson]

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Its one of the reasons his works make so much sense and King's tend to take serious leaps in logic and numerous "god machines" to save his characters from his rickshaw plot devices.

Exactly. I see Tolkien's academic background as a plus.

[obscurejude]

Hear, Hear! :couple:

[Jean]

well, absolutely. The problem is that it is his only plus.

[Empath of the White]

While I'll not deny that King's used such devices,what of the army of spirits Aragorn allied with?

[obscurejude]

well, absolutely. The problem is that it is his only plus.

That needs qualification. What, exactly do you mean Jean?

[Jean]

well, absolutely. The problem is that it is his only plus.

That needs qualification. What, exactly do you mean Jean?
the same as usual when the subject of Tolkien is touched upon. To my mind, he is a very poor writer, who can't create viable characters or plausible dialog, or really interesting (and, at the same time, easy to follow) storyline, and has no sense of humor whatsoever. He sowed the seed of everything I hate about fantasy as a genre - namely, that most guys writing it think that the very fact that they write about kings and feats and dragons in a far-off land relieves them of all other writer's duties; they write as if they were walking on stilts. Thus, the only redeeming feature of Tolkien for me is that reading him you wade through stuff that has roots in actual lore. I wouldn't give a f***k for it, though, if he had any other good qualities.

(also, I can't remember King using any deus ex machina that wasn't perfectly warranted by situation, characters involved, or philosophy of book - but that's for other threads)

[obscurejude]

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. I see Tolkien as a faithful aristotelian and to me that's admirable (but that places the two of us, myself Tolkien I mean, and Aristotle in a minority).

As far as King and ex deus machinas, I could name several from each novel, not least of all the hand of God in the Stand. Some of them are warranted, but this one wasn't in my opinion.

Thanks for clearing up your position for me Jean, I appreciate it sir.

[DettaDelgado]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, I'm new here and I did a search to see if it had. Anyway, William Blake wrote a short poem called The Sick Rose, here it is:

"O Rose, thou art sick.
The invisible worm,
That flies in the night
In the howling storm:

Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy:
And his dark secret love
Does thy life destroy."

And here is some text from chapter 17 of "Key and Rose" from The Wastelands

"There was something wrong. He could feel a pulsing discord, like a deep and ugly scratch across some priceless work of art or a deadly fever smouldering beneath the chilly skin of an invalid's brow.
It was something like a worm. An invading worm."

Some clear connections already, also "the invisible worm, that flies in the night in the howling storm" sounds like The CK riding around in his portable tempest.

[Wuducynn]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, I'm new here and I did a search to see if it had. Anyway, William Blake wrote a short poem called The Sick Rose, here it is:

"O Rose, thou art sick.
The invisible worm,
That flies in the night
In the howling storm:

Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy:
And his dark secret love
Does thy life destroy."

And here is some text from chapter 17 of "Key and Rose" from The Wastelands

"There was something wrong. He could feel a pulsing discord, like a deep and ugly scratch across some priceless work of art or a deadly fever smouldering beneath the chilly skin of an invalid's brow.
It was something like a worm. An invading worm."

Some clear connections already, also "the invisible worm, that flies in the night in the howling storm" sounds like The CK riding around in his portable tempest.

Great catch Detta!! :harrier: And yes that does sound like that to me too.

[Woofer]

Indeed, great catch. That is very much something King would do, too.

[Letti]

Wow, thank you for sharing Detta. What a great catch.

[DettaDelgado]

Thanks everyone. :dance:

[glm]

Obviously there is the Lord of the Rings, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Arthurian Legend.

So, what else would you say there is?

[razz]

there's Childe Roland to the dark Tower came, of Course.
I'd also say a shitload of HP Lovecraft.
Now there was also this story that tied into W&G, something about a rainbow and emeralds. Now what could that story be again? :orely:

[glm]

there's Childe Roland to the dark Tower came, of Course.
I'd also say a shitload of HP Lovecraft.
Now there was also this story that tied into W&G, something about a rainbow and emeralds. Now what could that story be again? :orely:

Maybe, just maybe, the Wizard of Oz?

[pickle]

Dont forget harry potter too, from The Wolves of Calla

[Matt]

And the whole of the marvel comics universe.

[turtlex]

I mentioned this over in the Constant Readers Poll thread .... but you really can't be a Red Sox fan and not see the symbolism of Roland's Quest, the Tower and the Journey and it's relation to the Sox.

[John_and_Yoko]

This overlaps with the Arthurian legend but isn't unique to it.

The wasteland motif of Celtic mythology (made most famous by the Quest for the Holy Grail), I would say, is a BIG influence. Maybe even the biggest--at its heart I would say that The Dark Tower is simply Stephen King's take on that motif.

Think of it--instead of a king, it's a tower (a male symbol) that has been damaged and is in the process of being destroyed, and this is resulting in the worlds becoming barren (as well as unstable--reality itself degenerating into chaos) due to an intimate connection between the tower and the worlds.

I even see the Horn of Eld in the next loop as being the missing "Grail" (that is, female) symbol that is required for true healing.

[glm]

This overlaps with the Arthurian legend but isn't unique to it.

The wasteland motif of Celtic mythology (made most famous by the Quest for the Holy Grail), I would say, is a BIG influence. Maybe even the biggest--at its heart I would say that The Dark Tower is simply Stephen King's take on that motif.

Think of it--instead of a king, it's a tower (a male symbol) that has been damaged and is in the process of being destroyed, and this is resulting in the worlds becoming barren (as well as unstable--reality itself degenerating into chaos) due to an intimate connection between the tower and the worlds.

I even see the Horn of Eld in the next loop as being the missing "Grail" (that is, female) symbol that is required for true healing.

Interesting.

[John_and_Yoko]

Thanks! :D

[pickle]

There is a poem by T.S. Elliot too, the title eludes me at the moment.

[John_and_Yoko]

There is a poem by T.S. Elliot too, the title eludes me at the moment.

Rather than tell you what it's called (since you obviously DO know it), allow me to point out that "Eliot" has one L. :P

[pickle]

lol sorry im so bad at spelling.

[John_and_Yoko]

lol sorry im so bad at spelling.

Nah, 'salright. :)

It's a common mistake. Just remember, he's not the one who met E. T., he's the one responsible for "Cats."

[razz]

:wtf:

[Letti]

there's Childe Roland to the dark Tower came, of Course.
I'd also say a shitload of HP Lovecraft.
Now there was also this story that tied into W&G, something about a rainbow and emeralds. Now what could that story be again? :orely:

Maybe, just maybe, the Wizard of Oz?

Not maybe at all.
Sure.

[LadyHitchhiker]

Don't forget Simon and Garfunkle.

[pickle]

Salems lot lol

[John_and_Yoko]

Don't forget Simon and Garfunkle.

Come again now? Simon and Garfunkel? :unsure:

[flaggwalkstheline]

the amount of clever references to classic rock n roll that sai king works in there is della

[obscurejude]

the amount of clever references to classic rock n roll that sai king works in there is della

I'm not familiar with "della." Are they a good classic rock no roll band?

[RicardoLeBlanc]

C.S. Lewis' Narnia stories (unfound doors opening up on new worlds).

[Whitey Appleseed]

Sergio Leone...did I spell his name right?...something about his interpretation of geography, Chicago being next door to Phoenix or something. Nietzsche, that long-dead German philosopher...his "eternal recurrence" and ubermensch...may as well throw in Sartre into the mix as well...racism in America and how that relates to "predestination"...John Calvin maybe and his train of thought...ZZ Top...the generation gap if ever there was a wiz there was in Lud...the frumious bandersnatch, jub jub birds...Ovaltine.

[Darkthoughts]

I have merged the thread that compares LoTR with DT, with some other threads comparing DT to various works. Please discuss them all in here ;)

[flaggwalkstheline]

If you really want a challence read the silmarillion! Its considerably more difficult to read than the lord of the rings but once you get into it itll b worth it!

oh and obscurejude della means "many" in the dark tower series lol

[Brice]

If you really want a challence read the silmarillion! Its considerably more difficult to read than the lord of the rings but once you get into it itll b worth it!

oh and obscurejude della means "many" in the dark tower series lol

Isn't it delah?

[pickle]

Narnia is a big influence too.

[jayson]

oh and obscurejude della means "many" in the dark tower series lol

Isn't it delah?


I heard Della Reese was a huge influence on King, especially her performance on "Touched By An Angel". :P

[flaggwalkstheline]

it was a typo, yes it is spelled delah

[NorthFork]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, I'm new here and I did a search to see if it had. Anyway, William Blake wrote a short poem called The Sick Rose, here it is:

"O Rose, thou art sick.
The invisible worm,
That flies in the night
In the howling storm:

Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy:
And his dark secret love
Does thy life destroy."

And here is some text from chapter 17 of "Key and Rose" from The Wastelands

"There was something wrong. He could feel a pulsing discord, like a deep and ugly scratch across some priceless work of art or a deadly fever smouldering beneath the chilly skin of an invalid's brow.
It was something like a worm. An invading worm."

Some clear connections already, also "the invisible worm, that flies in the night in the howling storm" sounds like The CK riding around in his portable tempest.
I agree there is a strong connection between King's Dark Tower and The Sick Rose, which led me to

A Rose for Stephen King

O Rose you are healed
and the worm put to flight.
Hope has stood true
through the terrible night.

Quiet, triumphant,
acquainted with death,
you sing in the dawn's light,
our courage, our breath.

[obscurejude]

it was a typo, yes it is spelled delah

I was giving you shit because of the typo. ;)