King's Role in SoS

[ManOfWesternesse]

Weak and ordinary doesn't change the fact that he was there... why would one talk about himself in such epic fiction book? Even the minor mentioning of authors name in the story would be silly and sad in my opinion - of course it would ruin quite a lot for me.... but to give "yourself" an important character in the story, one who's "important" in the story, "key" to the Tower - just killing me.

You're not alone by any means MM, but you seem to have taken it a lot worse than others of similar opinion.

Personally I loved King's appearance in the story, and certainly see nothing of ego in the idea or the execution. Do you seriously contend that a man of King's worldwide standing as an author sought to gain anything by writing himself into a Book as a character? Gain what?

[obscurejude]

I have written it before as well but I am sure he didn't write himself into the story because of his ego. In fact he seemed weak and ordinary in the story. I didn't feel anything special about him. He didn't paint a good picture of himself.

Weak and ordinary doesn't change the fact that he was there... why would one talk about himself in such epic fiction book? Even the minor mentioning of authors name in the story would be silly and sad in my opinion - of course it would ruin quite a lot for me.... but to give "yourself" an important character in the story, one who's "important" in the story, "key" to the Tower - just killing me.

Right on Mad Man. I've voiced very negative opinions myself. Feel free to scroll back and let me know what you think. I used the term self aggrandizing to describe his appearance and in some ways even egomaniacal due to the paradoxes it creates. I, personally, would love to hear more of your opinions.

[Wuducynn]

Do you seriously contend that a man of King's worldwide standing as an author sought to gain anything by writing himself into a Book as a character? Gain what?

This is what I would like to know from folk saying that.

[Mad Man]

Weak and ordinary doesn't change the fact that he was there... why would one talk about himself in such epic fiction book? Even the minor mentioning of authors name in the story would be silly and sad in my opinion - of course it would ruin quite a lot for me.... but to give "yourself" an important character in the story, one who's "important" in the story, "key" to the Tower - just killing me.

You're not alone by any means MM, but you seem to have taken it a lot worse than others of similar opinion.

Personally I loved King's appearance in the story, and certainly see nothing of ego in the idea or the execution. Do you seriously contend that a man of King's worldwide standing as an author sought to gain anything by writing himself into a Book as a character? Gain what?

One can own a huge ego without gaining anything I'm sure that he didn't do that for fame, perhaps he wanted to show us that he's nothing special - just a person like we are... but why? *i'd love to see someones opinion on this one* Why should an author wrote about himself in fiction book? he could have used any other name, any other character but yet he messed himself deep into the story.

Ok a great writer wrote about himself in one of HIS books, ok perhaps i can live with it, some day (i hope) but only if there's a reason for it. Yeh i agree that he wasn't anything special there - no super hero for sure - but he still hinted and hinted about good things he have done. Like the stuff King left to our loved Ka-tet. Also it seemed to me that he couldn't let the idea of him BEING IN the story go - from time to time his name occurred again and again - as a great author or just mentioned with one of his books (no, i don't believe he did it for spreading his other books [although even this one has crossed my freakish mind ])

Thank god that he did it in the DT6 and not in the first one or i would have quited on it and wouldn't be here at the moment.

So yeh i agree that he didn't do it because of gaining anything and i'm almost sure that bumping his ego wasn't also the reason for him to do it - but when i went through the king part in DT6 it felt like a huge ego bumping for me.

Some other thoughts about it:

I really thought about it now - about the reasons.
Kings role in The Dark Tower book was out of place for me. He was there but he also wasn't. He was a minor bug who wanted to be "special" in the story but remained pointless all the time (at least it looks like that to me). He was mentioned a lot, so o yeh i can be cursed when he wasn't there but the story, the big one just slipped pass him and it seemed to me that he couldn't keep the thought about himself in the book up. He was mentioned from time to time *as i said before* but he was forgotten with the page turn - perhaps it was just my head *who still hates the idea of King being in the story* who burned the memories of King with the page turn so i could avoid my rage at him

I'm really interested in feedback and wouldn't mind a bit if someone would burn and decapitate my thoughts

[Wuducynn]

From the years I've read King's articles and various other things by him outside his novels and from folk I've known who have met him, he just isn't someone with a bloated ego.
I think why he added himself he doesn't even known for sure, but that it came to him and that's what he did. The wind was blowing.

[Mad Man]

Right on Mad Man. I've voiced very negative opinions myself. Feel free to scroll back and let me know what you think. I used the term self aggrandizing to describe his appearance and in some ways even egomaniacal due to the paradoxes it creates. I, personally, would love to hear more of your opinions.

Yeh i went through your posts already before you mentioned 'em
Yeh i can't convince others any better than you did back there For me Kings role in The Dark Tower books robbed away the "fiction" part, most of it for sure. It was all made up story (of course it's more for me than a made up story) and a totally new world(s) for me - a world where i'd like to live. But the Kings role made it too "It's-not-so-sacred-place-where-i'd-like-to-BE-anymore" Nice to see that i'm not alone here

[Letti]

Why should an author wrote about himself in fiction book?

To make it less fiction and more real?
It worked for me and it didn't for many.

[Mad Man]

Why should an author wrote about himself in fiction book?

To make it less fiction and more real?
It worked for me and it didn't for many.

Why are we buying/reading fiction books if we want 'em to be real? At least i'm after fantasy and fiction only

[Letti]

Why should an author wrote about himself in fiction book?

To make it less fiction and more real?
It worked for me and it didn't for many.

Why are we buying/reading fiction books if we want 'em to be real? At least i'm after fantasy and fiction only

Hm, the question is good. For my part I am always happy to meet humans in fiction or fantasy books. Usually I find them more interesting than the other new creatures. And why do I read fantasy in this case? Because it's really fascinating to see and watch how humans react and behave in another world. But I guess I am quite alone with this thing.

Anyway DT isn't just a simple fiction. It's fiction-action-western... and I could go on. I have seen it mentioned many places.

[Mad Man]

And why do I read fantasy in this case? Because it's really fascinating to see and watch how humans react and behave in another world.

Fiction doesn't mean that the activity is in other world - it means that the book is made up - fictional.

I read fiction books because i love to read about what COULD be in THIS world and then i love to dream that i can live there - in the fantasy world where everything is different compared with my life

so why would one want to turn his own epic fictional saga/quest into a more real one?

[Jean]

I don't know about "more" or "less" real, or how it applies to a piece of fiction... I think that, for example, claming that it is "based on a true story" only subtracts from its qualities as work of literature... but here I believe we have to do with entirely different kind of shit.

The Dark Tower is what holds all universes together; it is both the product and the source of Sai King's inspiration; if there are all universes, there must, logically, be the one where the Dark Tower saga is written, as well. In some way, it makes the saga kind of meta-fiction, literature comprising and justifying all literature, and describing its source (the source of all existence as well, but it's irrelevant now) as eternally reflected in indefinite number or novels, stories, songs, even movies. If we disregard that, we'll be as dissatisfied with, to name just one instance, the Seven Samurai motif in Wolves. One may like or dislike it, but it's intrinsic to the very nature of the Dark Tower, both the phenomenon and the books. The inner logic of its development brought us to the storyteller, because he, like everything else, exists in one the worlds generated and held together by the Tower, like it brought us to Roland himself, who is, after all, Childe Roland who to the dark tower came. Dismissing King as a character, we dismiss most everything that holds the book together and makes it unique.

[obscurejude]

...Dismissing King as a character, we dismiss most everything that holds the book together and makes it unique.

I couldn't disagree more, but I don't want to restate my position ad nauseum. There's a reason that some find it jarring, and it isn't insignificant that King himself felt the desire to provide a disclaimer for his reasons- something I've never seen him do since he claims over and over that his approach is purely organic. It was a gamble and in my opinion it didn't work- at all.

King's very presence jeopardizes the internal logic of the novel. Look at the Keystone thread and please explain to me why Gan needs a Ves Ka besides King's bloated ego.

And I wish I could burn Eddie's description of King as being so similar to Roland they could pass for brothers out of my memory, but I can't.

[Jean]

Ryan: I am well acquainted with your position - as I believe you are with mine, because we chewed each other's ears off long ago on this subject - I just briefly restated mine here for Mad Man and Wuducynn who've only now joined the discussion. I hope to get back to our argument soon, though!

[obscurejude]

Me too Jean. .

[Letti]

so why would one want to turn his own epic fictional saga/quest into a more real one?

I didn't say it was King's goal.
If you ask me he did it because it was on his mind. He had to. He had no choice. When you are writing you have no choices. You just let it flow through your fingers. King is this type of writer so I am sure he did it because that's how the story went on.

[Wuducynn]

and Wuducynn who've only now joined the discussion. I hope to get back to our argument soon, though!

Recently joined the discussion? Take a look back through the thread.

[Jean]

WhyTF is your name Wuducynn now? I've only now recognized you. I thought, where the hell AllHail was?

[Melike]

I don't know about "more" or "less" real, or how it applies to a piece of fiction... I think that, for example, claming that it is "based on a true story" only subtracts from its qualities as work of literature... but here I believe we have to do with entirely different kind of shit.

The Dark Tower is what holds all universes together; it is both the product and the source of Sai King's inspiration; if there are all universes, there must, logically, be the one where the Dark Tower saga is written, as well. In some way, it makes the saga kind of meta-fiction, literature comprising and justifying all literature, and describing its source (the source of all existence as well, but it's irrelevant now) as eternally reflected in indefinite number or novels, stories, songs, even movies. If we disregard that, we'll be as dissatisfied with, to name just one instance, the Seven Samurai motif in Wolves. One may like or dislike it, but it's intrinsic to the very nature of the Dark Tower, both the phenomenon and the books. The inner logic of its development brought us to the storyteller, because he, like everything else, exists in one the worlds generated and held together by the Tower, like it brought us to Roland himself, who is, after all, Childe Roland who to the dark tower came. Dismissing King as a character, we dismiss most everything that holds the book together and makes it unique.

I totally agree with you. This is a perfect explanation.
And King put our world *the real one we live in*, put us into the story, with putting himself. He made real world fictional, and fiction more realistic. He erased the border. That makes you, your imagination stronger to visit other dreamy-worlds. I think that is what Letti is talking about by saying that King's existance in the series is making it more real.

[Whitey Appleseed]

I guess one either likes King's presence in the tale or not. I don't think it's ego. Maybe it's related to the Beams. And magic. When Mia and Susannah are on the allure, the first time, Mia asks Susannah, "and when the Beams were created out of the greater discordia, the soup of creation some (including the manni) call the Over and some call the Prim, what made them?"

Susannah suggests, "God?"
Mia says perhaps...God, "but the beams rose from the Prim on the airs of magic...the true magic which passed long ago."

When magic left, men despaired. The Age of Magic gave rise to the Age of Machines.

Later, "Great men of thought...[something about deduction]...these came together and created the machines which run the beams."

I don't know where I'm going with this...lost my train of thought...maybe I was thinking SK is related to the magic that was, and as such, it's only natural that he be a part of the story. More so, I'd say, because of what we learn in the last book about the Breakers.

[Mad Man]

...Dismissing King as a character, we dismiss most everything that holds the book together and makes it unique.

I couldn't disagree more, but I don't want to restate my position ad nauseum. There's a reason that some find it jarring, and it isn't insignificant that King himself felt the desire to provide a disclaimer for his reasons- something I've never seen him do since he claims over and over that his approach is purely organic. It was a gamble and in my opinion it didn't work- at all.

King's very presence jeopardizes the internal logic of the novel. Look at the Keystone thread and please explain to me why Gan needs a Ves Ka besides King's bloated ego.

And I wish I could burn Eddie's description of King as being so similar to Roland they could pass for brothers out of my memory, but I can't.

I couldn't agree more with you and yeh i also can't disagree more with Jean

But i think Whitey got something right there Some people just can stand the King's part in SoS and some can't. It depends on people - i can't see the reason why should one like the idea or even how can someone live in peace knowing that King was in the book but perhaps one day i'll get it

I still haven't seen a good-enough reason why did he do it but i'm afraid there's no good-enough explanation for me - ever. I dislike the idea of King in SoS more and more with each day passing so perhaps i'm just mad and can't see the beauty of such special way of Ego bumping *yeh i'm mean and now i can't get the ego part out of me head *

PS: If it would avoid killing me then replace the "ego bumping" with "writing"

[Jean]

Mad Man: could you please give some details as to what exactly in what I said you disagree with?

[Mad Man]

Sure

Dismissing King as a character, we dismiss most everything that holds the book together and makes it unique.

How can you even say something like this? That's just your opinion I dream about SoS (and the other DT parts where King is mentioned) without the King's part. King as character in the saga doesn't make it unique in any way at all for me. It makes me sick if anything at all

[Jean]

Sure

Dismissing King as a character, we dismiss most everything that holds the book together and makes it unique.

How can you even say something like this? That's just your opinion I dream about SoS (and the other DT parts where King is mentioned) without the King's part. King as character in the saga doesn't make it unique in any way at all for me. It makes me sick if anything at all

Actually I've produced an argument (here) where I hope I explained how I can say "something like this". If it is not too much to ask, I would like you to tell me what exactly you disagree with in that argument, not in my position (that is, liking or disliking King's role) itself.

[Mad Man]

One may like or dislike it, but it's intrinsic to the very nature of the Dark Tower, both the phenomenon and the books. The inner logic of its development brought us to the storyteller, because he, like everything else, exists in one the worlds generated and held together by the Tower, like it brought us to Roland himself, who is, after all, Childe Roland who to the dark tower came. Dismissing King as a character, we dismiss most everything that holds the book together and makes it unique.

"because he exists in one the worlds generated and held together by the Tower" Why should he? He shouldn't be there and for me it's not logical that he is/was there.

[Jean]

Why not, if the Tower generates all worlds? Why should the one where we live be an exception?