King's influences for the DT series *spoilers*

[jayson]

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

[Wuducynn]

[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.

[jayson]

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.

[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.

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.