King's Role in SoS

[Erin]

Today I was thinking generally about King's role in Song of Susannah.

Did you like his appearance in the novel?

Do you think King created Roland by writing about him or did Roland already exist and King just wrote about him?

[Wuducynn]

Erin?? What is this "Awesome topic night"? :cool:

Personally, like King says in the book he's not Gan, but sings Gan's song. So in the process of writing about Roland and his quest he gives force to it. But is definitely not a puppeteer, nor do I think of Gan as a puppeteer. There is always a chance that things go differently because of the Red King's will.

[Erin]

:lol: I don't know what came over me tonight.

[Wuducynn]

I like it a lot.

[Darkthoughts]

Yeah, this is cool - I was online until midnight last night, so I wasn't expecting to have much to do when I came to the board this morning :thumbsup:

When I first read the books and got to King's role in them, it really jarred me at first. See, when I'm reading - it doesn't matter where I am, alone or with people, somewhere quiet, somewhere noisy - if I get into the story I'm simply not there at all while I'm reading. I totally get transported by a good book.

But when SK first put himself in the tale it was as if I'd been thrown back into my chair and reality with a bump. There was too much realism in it, but not in a good way. Then, I kinda started to enjoy it because it started to make sense - plus the writing was still good, and King furthered the plot and gave it a new twist as a character, instead of being self ingratiating.

Now, whenever I'm rereading, I can't imagine the book without King being in it.

[Storyslinger]

I thought it was very cool of himself to included him self, expessily with all his faults

[Wuducynn]

Expessily?

[Daghain]

When I first read the books and got to King's role in them, it really jarred me at first. See, when I'm reading - it doesn't matter where I am, alone or with people, somewhere quiet, somewhere noisy - if I get into the story I'm simply not there at all while I'm reading. I totally get transported by a good book.

Exacly what I was thinking. After rereading, I liked it a lot better, and it made sense in the end. But the first time I didn't like it. At all. :D

[Wuducynn]

Thank you for expessing that Daghain.

[Daghain]

:D

[Matt]

I'm in Daggers boat. At first I was a little put off by it but I believe King understands his fans are deep thinkers and will eventually figure that kind of thing out.

Seems all together necessary for sure now, when its re thought

[NeedfulKings]

I was pretty excited to see King portrayed in the book. I had NO idea where it was going, but his first encounter with Roland was hilarious! And, as it progressed, it DID work.

I know it took the series in a new direction, and for some, it killed their adventure. For me, it deepened it.

[Wuducynn]

I was pretty excited to see King portrayed in the book. I had NO idea where it was going, but his first encounter with Roland was hilarious! And, as it progressed, it DID work.

I know it took the series in a new direction, and for some, it killed their adventure. For me, it deepened it.

This is exactly what I felt. Now Bill, get the hell out of my mind. Its deadly in there.

[NeedfulKings]

I was pretty excited to see King portrayed in the book. I had NO idea where it was going, but his first encounter with Roland was hilarious! And, as it progressed, it DID work.

I know it took the series in a new direction, and for some, it killed their adventure. For me, it deepened it.

This is exactly what I felt. Now Bill, get the hell out of my mind. Its deadly in there.

It's quite cluttered too!!! You need some housekeeping up here!!! :onfire:

:D

[Wuducynn]

Good idea.

[cozener]

I didn't like it. For me, it was one of the things that bogged down the last few books. I didn't think it was done badly. I just think it shouldn't have been done.

King really should have asked me before pulling that shit. :)

[Wuducynn]

He asked me and I said "hell yeah, go ahead. Especially to piss off this guy Cozener"

[cozener]

I knew you were in on it you fuckwad!

[Storyslinger]

Expessily?

Damn right. Welcome back

[Sinistar]

Lol...King did manage to pull it off but I just didn't like the whole Deus Ex Machina concept here. Doesn't mean I'm not a deep thinker...am so!!!!!

[Wuducynn]

Lol...King did manage to pull it off but I just didn't like the whole Deus Ex Machina concept here. Doesn't mean I'm not a deep thinker...am so!!!!!

For me I like that the "deus ex machina" part went only so far, its even mentioned several times that King is the conduit but not Gan. I dig the concept and its cosmic implications within the saga.

[Storyslinger]

Right, It basiclly stated that King could only do so much, like CK said, only a minor role

[Wuducynn]

Well I wouldn't say minor, I would more say that he is not actually creating these folk and events but "the pipe, not the water that flow through it" and to go a little farther, not the source of the water.

[Storyslinger]

right, thats a better explaination, well said

[jayson]

Well I wouldn't say minor, I would more say that he is not actually creating these folk and events but "the pipe, not the water that flow through it" and to go a little farther, not the source of the water.

Reminds me of the great Carlos Santana quote that the music is the water and the audience is the plant, he is just the hose. I agree, I don't think King necessarily "created" anybody. He's a functionary of ka to help get people in the right place. What they do when they get there is freewill.

[Wuducynn]

Yeah and King could always get turned into a vampire and work for the Crimson King. :harrier:

[Jonn Wolfe]

My Mood: http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/images/mood/Sleepy.gif


This was my only pet peeve for the entire series. I know it's for bringing the reader further into the story, and I did like it at first. After a while though, it seemed really corny.

It would've made more sense if he had used his Richard Bachman or John Swithen pen names. Bachman even more than Swithen since he used the last name of Bachman for the alternate author(s) of 'Charlie and the Choo Choo'... not to mention giving something else for the Ka-Tet to wonder about with coincidences.

I think I'm going to mentally translate Stephen King into Richard Bachman when I get to that part of the story again. It may make more sense to me. Not sure.

As always, whenever I'm a bit sleep deprived, be sure to understand that my mind's a bit muddled and free associating at the moment.

[edit]

Hark! There was a thread.
I must've not put in the right words for yon magic search engine.

Made of Fail.

[Bev Vincent]

In April 2002, King sent me the handwritten manuscript of this chapter as a thank-you gift for some work I'd done for the Wavedancer Foundation.

I thought it was the coolest thing ever at the time and it added a dimension to the series that nobody ever saw coming. A lot of King's writing has been an exploration of the nature of creativity and the act of creation--even as far back as The Shining--and this was another facet of that exploration, and a pretty darned profound one. Daring, too.

[Matt]

I totally agree with that. I think putting himself in the story was a way to bring the idea to us that was unique and totally believable.

[obscurejude]

I agree with Bev and Matt in principle, but I found it very jarring within the actual narrative when King appeared. I'm still not sure exactly how I feel about. Eddie even makes the comment that Roland could pass for King's older brother and I must say that I had a hard time visualizing that in my head (not saying anything negative about Stephen King's true physical appearance). Also, I've noticed a few comments about King only being a conduit and not Gan himself. There is a lot of buildup before Eddie and Roland actually see King and they are convinced they are about to see their creator. Because of the buildup, I think there might be some ambiguity about the whole subject. You might see what I mean if you read the passage. I'm not sure exactly how to say it. King may not be Gan, but he's seems damn close in the passages leading up to the actual encounter.

[Wuducynn]

I agree with Bev and Matt in principle, but I found it very jarring within the actual narrative when King appeared. I'm still not sure exactly how I feel about. Eddie even makes the comment that Roland could pass for King's older brother and I must say that I had a hard time visualizing that in my head (not saying anything negative about Stephen King's true physical appearance). Also, I've noticed a few comments about King only being a conduit and not Gan himself. There is a lot of buildup before Eddie and Roland actually see King and they are convinced they are about to see their creator. Because of the buildup, I think there might be some ambiguity about the whole subject. You might see what I mean if you read the passage. I'm not sure exactly how to say it. King may not be Gan, but he's seems damn close in the passages leading up to the actual encounter.

How many times have you read Song of Susannah? Why I'm wondering is because I've heard from folk who didn't like it at first or found it " very jarring" like you put it, got to understand and even like it the next time they read Song of Susannah.

[Storyslinger]

I agree with you on that CK, because I was one of those people. Over my long break away from work, I found the time to reread the last three books, and it is amazing all the things that I missed the first few times

[obscurejude]

I agree with Bev and Matt in principle, but I found it very jarring within the actual narrative when King appeared. I'm still not sure exactly how I feel about. Eddie even makes the comment that Roland could pass for King's older brother and I must say that I had a hard time visualizing that in my head (not saying anything negative about Stephen King's true physical appearance). Also, I've noticed a few comments about King only being a conduit and not Gan himself. There is a lot of buildup before Eddie and Roland actually see King and they are convinced they are about to see their creator. Because of the buildup, I think there might be some ambiguity about the whole subject. You might see what I mean if you read the passage. I'm not sure exactly how to say it. King may not be Gan, but he's seems damn close in the passages leading up to the actual encounter.

How many times have you read Song of Susannah? Why I'm wondering is because I've heard from folk who didn't like it at first or found it " very jarring" like you put it, got to understand and even like it the next time they read Song of Susannah.

CK. I've read the first four about four times apiece. I attempted to read the final three during my semester break. It's interesting that this thread appeared when it did. I actually read the scene with King in SoS this morning and asked my room mate about his response. This is the second time I've read SoS although I've already read DT twice and plan to read it a third within the next few weeks. I still find King jarring. I knew it was coming. It was foreshadowed in WofC, but I was still taken aback. Again, I understand the principle, am fond of it even, but still find it hard to digest in regards to the actual narrative. Maybe some of you have read "On Faire Stories" by Tolkien. It was an essay he wrote about fantasy as a genre. One of the points I remember is that for fantasy to be successful it must remain distinct from the actual world. LotR was conceptualized by Tolkien twenty years before the volumes were published in the fifties. He began with a language (always the linguist) and then let the genealogies and stories unfold from there. I could talk about this for hours, but suffice it to say, that King's appearance made it hard to for me to exist within the narrative imaginatively. The Gunslinger (as well as Eddie) began to lose their otherworldliness when presented next to a writer that exists in reality. Ironically, reality can make the fantasy even less real.

[Wuducynn]

CK. I've read the first four about four times apiece. I attempted to read the final three during my semester break. It's interesting that this thread appeared when it did. I actually read the scene with King in SoS this morning and asked my room mate about his response. This is the second time I've read SoS although I've already read DT twice and plan to read it a third within the next few weeks. I still find King jarring. I knew it was coming. It was foreshadowed in WofC, but I was still taken aback. Again, I understand the principle, am fond of it even, but still find it hard to digest in regards to the actual narrative. Maybe some of you have read "On Faire Stories" by Tolkien. It was an essay he wrote about fantasy as a genre. One of the points I remember is that for fantasy to be successful it must remain distinct from the actual world. LotR was conceptualized by Tolkien twenty years before the volumes were published in the fifties. He began with a language (always the linguist) and then let the genealogies and stories unfold from there. I could talk about this for hours, but suffice it to say, that King's appearance made it hard to for me to exist within the narrative imaginatively. The Gunslinger (as well as Eddie) began to lose their otherworldliness when presented next to a writer that exists in reality. Ironically, reality can make the fantasy even less real.


For me it had the opposite effect. I don't agree with Tolkien on that...and it sure seems the Dark Tower series has proved him wrong.

[obscurejude]

I'm sorting through it CK. I wasn't saying that Tolkien's point was true for the whole series. Its just that "going nineteen" made Roland's world so fantastical that it wasn't as believable to me as it was before. By presenting it side by side with the actual real world (Oz, King, Salem's Lot, Harry Potter etc...) it made it harder for me to exist within the fantasy. I wish it had the same effect on me that it did to you because I love Roland's world. In this sense, I was a little mad King showed up. (But it's his story and he is certainly free to do so).

[Jean]

For me it had the opposite effect. I don't agree with Tolkien on that...and it sure seems the Dark Tower series has proved him wrong.
In my opinion, Tolkien was absolutely right as far as the purety of Fantasy as a genre was concerned. But TDT is not fantasy. It's a novel in a league of its own, like any other great novel.

[Darkthoughts]

I had the same initial reaction as Obscurejude, I have to say. I was blithely enjoying this other world and then thud! King appeared and it...well, jarred is the exact word I remember using at the time on another forum.

However, as CK has pointed out - over subsequent rereads (and I think you need to leave a good amount of time inbetween rereading if you can, to be able to go back into the story with a fresh perspective) I can't imagine how the story could possibly flow without him, it seems fitting now.

And also, from another point of view - to the large majority of Constant Readers who are possibly never going to get to meet King, he is almost a fantasy himself, so its quite easy to consider him alongside the ka-tet, y'know?

[Wuducynn]

In my opinion, Tolkien was absolutely right as far as the purety of Fantasy as a genre was concerned. But TDT is not fantasy. It's a novel in a league of its own, like any other great novel.

If TDT isn't fantasy than I don't what you would call it. Autobiography?

[Brice]

In my opinion, Tolkien was absolutely right as far as the purety of Fantasy as a genre was concerned. But TDT is not fantasy. It's a novel in a league of its own, like any other great novel.

If TDT isn't fantasy than I don't what you would call it. Autobiography?


Well, IMO it is fantasy, but it also encompasses to a large degree aspects of all fiction "genres".

[Jean]

AllHail: it's a novel. It defies the very concept of genre. It creates its own rules and plays by them, like any great novel does.

[Letti]

Yeah, this is cool - I was online until midnight last night, so I wasn't expecting to have much to do when I came to the board this morning :thumbsup:

When I first read the books and got to King's role in them, it really jarred me at first. See, when I'm reading - it doesn't matter where I am, alone or with people, somewhere quiet, somewhere noisy - if I get into the story I'm simply not there at all while I'm reading. I totally get transported by a good book.

But when SK first put himself in the tale it was as if I'd been thrown back into my chair and reality with a bump. There was too much realism in it, but not in a good way. Then, I kinda started to enjoy it because it started to make sense - plus the writing was still good, and King furthered the plot and gave it a new twist as a character, instead of being self ingratiating.

Now, whenever I'm rereading, I can't imagine the book without King being in it.

I felt and feel absolutely the same way. Thank you for putting it into words, Lisa.

Anyway I must add King amezed me so much... when I first heard somewhere that he would appear in the book and when I first met him there I was sure it's impossible to make it acceptable (or make me accept or like it because I couldn't stand it at all) or good and it wouldn't fit the books.
And he did it! He put himself into the book and it was so damn great. It made this series much richer. It's still incredible to me. King was big in my eyes before that but now... I just say wow wow and wow again but it was so dangerous.. but he stood and he was true.
Congratulations, sai King.

[Darkthoughts]

King was big in my eyes before that but now... I just say wow wow and wow again but it was so dangerous.. but he stood and he was true.
Congratulations, sai King.

Also well put :thumbsup:

[Wuducynn]

AllHail: it's a novel. It defies the very concept of genre. It creates its own rules and plays by them, like any great novel does.

I'm not sure what putting it in bold does but it doesn't make me think its not a series of fantasy novels.
Fantasy, AKA make-believe, you know? Now, its a mixture of fantasy genre's such as science fiction and horror and goes beyond them both.

[obscurejude]

I had the same initial reaction as Obscurejude, I have to say. I was blithely enjoying this other world and then thud! King appeared and it...well, jarred is the exact word I remember using at the time on another forum.

However, as CK has pointed out - over subsequent rereads (and I think you need to leave a good amount of time inbetween rereading if you can, to be able to go back into the story with a fresh perspective) I can't imagine how the story could possibly flow without him, it seems fitting now.

And also, from another point of view - to the large majority of Constant Readers who are possibly never going to get to meet King, he is almost a fantasy himself, so its quite easy to consider him alongside the ka-tet, y'know?

Its been about three years since I read it the first time. Still jarred unfortunately. Especially after reading Tolkien's essay. Don't hate me cause I'm still jarred. Also, I was using fantasy very broad Jean (as Tolkien did). I think its interesting to bring him into the conversation because King has several times in regards to DT, most notably in the new essay at the beginning of the revised Gunslinger. I'm not sure I understand any of your comments in this thread Jean (but I thoroughly enjoy most of yours).

[obscurejude]

Just to clarify, nothing I have posted in this thread is an initial response to King's appearance. I've been thinking about it for three years. Still jarred.

Oh yeah...I'm still jarred.

Did I mention the jarring aspect of King's appearance?

Again, I wish I felt the same as all of you. Maybe in another three years. Does anybody STILL feel the way I do? Please let me know.

Also, I'm a little giddy and I hope you all have a good evening.

[obscurejude]

Light sabers and sneetches? Seriously?

[Darkthoughts]

:lol:

[TerribleT]

jude, I understand what you're saying, and I empathize. It just didn't have that effect on me. For me it lends itself to the concept that I discussed in another thread about all worlds revolving on the same axis. It would seem natural for things like sneetches, and light sabers (both major parts of our modern culture) to show up in Roland's world. Kings appearance also fits well within this framework for me. Also, if I look at it in the context of the series, where it bascially starts off with a young boy showing up in the way station from modern day NYC, it fits even more. LotR is much different, in that there was never any bleed between that world and our. The Talisman kind of addresses this topic as well, if memory serves me. Either way, I respect the fact that you're jarred by it, and different things hit different people different ways.

[obscurejude]

I appreciate the kind tone T. I love the concept idealogically, but again, it hurt what was going on inside my head when it came to the narrative.

[ATG]

What bugged me about SOS was Mia and Susanna chatting it up on the walls of the castle.

King being in the story was risky, but he pulled it off.

[obscurejude]

What bugged me about SOS was Mia and Susanna chatting it up on the walls of the castle.

King being in the story was risky, but he pulled it off.

He pulled it off for some. Apparently everybody but me.

[ATG]

What bugged me about SOS was Mia and Susanna chatting it up on the walls of the castle.

King being in the story was risky, but he pulled it off.

He pulled it off for some. Apparently everybody but me.


That's the way art is; some people go batshit for Clay Aiken, whilst I can hardly stand the sight of him, let alone is singing. It's not that he can't carry a tune, he's just so fruity.

[obscurejude]

Well, we certainly agree on that note.:lol:

[Jean]

AllHail: I am sorry I can't word it quite clearly; I'll try again. Trying to cram a great piece of fiction under a category is meaningless unless you intend further to judge it by the pre-existing laws of this category, foreign and external to the book in question. You inobtrusively acquire the right to say King "shouldn't have" written himself into it, or that he "should have" staged that epic battle between Roland and Flagg so many people sorely miss; and it has to do only with laws of genres, sanctified by criticists' analysis of someone else's writing. A great novel creates its own laws and should be judged by them only, with the help of the reader's taste, intelligence, and reading experience, not something someone invented for a different case.

[Wuducynn]

AllHail: I am sorry I can't word it quite clearly; I'll try again. Trying to cram a great piece of fiction under a category is meaningless unless you intend further to judge it by the pre-existing laws of this category, foreign and external to the book in question. You inobtrusively acquire the right to say King "shouldn't have" written himself into it, or that he "should have" staged that epic battle between Roland and Flagg so many people sorely miss; and it has to do only with laws of genres, sanctified by criticists' analysis of someone else's writing.


Except you're coming from the presumption that there are certain "laws" or "rules" of the fantasy genre. To me there aren't any. Outside of most of whatever story that is being written is a fantasy. I DEFINITELY don't think you unobtrusively acquire any rights by thinking a work is fantasy.
You can think whatever you want of course, but there are no "rights" involved.

[Jean]

I am only basing on my experience of arguing with other readers, on or off-line. If you look back you will see that I only started this, quite off-topical, sideline of reasoning because of what obscurejude said quoting Tolkien, namely, that "for fantasy to be successful it must remain distinct from the actual world".

::/end off-topicality::

[Letti]

For my part I think King created something absolutely new with this series. A new type. We can't put it into words or more exactly I can't. Maybe in 100 years when there are other writers who mix so many things (types) in one book or series there will be a new word for it.
Because right now I can't put it into a box.

[Wuducynn]

Anyway, one of my favorite parts of SOS is when Roland mesmerizes King and the indepth information we get from that session. I think his relationship to the whole series as "kas-ka Gan" is fascinating.

Oh and Jean, we've known each other long enough you can call me Matthew.

[Letti]

(May I call you Matthew, too?)

My favourite parts are when King believes and doesn't believe his own eyes at the same time. The way his sane mind fights with him.

[Wuducynn]

(May I call you Matthew, too?)

My favourite parts are when King believes and doesn't believe his own eyes at the same time. The way his sane mind fights with him.

Letti, you've always have haven't you? I love the moment too..he starts packing away the beers :lol:

[Unfound One]

Anyway, one of my favorite parts of SOS is when Roland mesmerizes King and the indepth information we get from that session. I think his relationship to the whole series as "kas-ka Gan" is fascinating.


I know this thread's a bit of a blast from the past,
but I just have to say...
I'm re-reading right now and I just finished this scene.
I forgot how much I love this part.
It gives me chills.

That's all. :)

[Wuducynn]

I know this thread's a bit of a blast from the past,
but I just have to say...
I'm re-reading right now and I just finished this scene.
I forgot how much I love this part.
It gives me chills.

That's all. :)


Abso-fucking-lutely! :harrier: In fact I loved that scene so much that I started a thread to discuss it. See you over there if you'd like to expound on your ideas, which you should.

[The Journeyman]

Am I the only one that cringed with Stephen King wrote himself into the story?


I suspect this, or similar questions, have been asked on this board before (a lot, probably), so apologies in advance.

Really, though, it just seemed so bloody...awful. It really made me cringe. Egotism, no matter how he intended it, was how it came across to me. A cheap, bitter plug at his car accident. I think it was a good concept...I just hated it.

What did you think?



EDIT:

edited title by maerlyn

[sarah]

I was a bit nervous about it at first but I ended up being really happy with how it was done.

I know other authors have written themselves in but personally I've never read a book that way. I thought it ended up being pretty cool.

[The Journeyman]

I liked how the crash played out, I suppose, but I really could have done without him. He could have had any old character as the writer, really. For me his presence is the only real blotch on the whole series.

Sorry about the title, by the way.

[obscurejude]

I agree with Bev and Matt in principle, but I found it very jarring within the actual narrative when King appeared. I'm still not sure exactly how I feel about. Eddie even makes the comment that Roland could pass for King's older brother and I must say that I had a hard time visualizing that in my head (not saying anything negative about Stephen King's true physical appearance). Also, I've noticed a few comments about King only being a conduit and not Gan himself. There is a lot of buildup before Eddie and Roland actually see King and they are convinced they are about to see their creator. Because of the buildup, I think there might be some ambiguity about the whole subject. You might see what I mean if you read the passage. I'm not sure exactly how to say it. King may not be Gan, but he's seems damn close in the passages leading up to the actual encounter.

How many times have you read Song of Susannah? Why I'm wondering is because I've heard from folk who didn't like it at first or found it " very jarring" like you put it, got to understand and even like it the next time they read Song of Susannah.

CK. I've read the first four about four times apiece. I attempted to read the final three during my semester break. It's interesting that this thread appeared when it did. I actually read the scene with King in SoS this morning and asked my room mate about his response. This is the second time I've read SoS although I've already read DT twice and plan to read it a third within the next few weeks. I still find King jarring. I knew it was coming. It was foreshadowed in WofC, but I was still taken aback. Again, I understand the principle, am fond of it even, but still find it hard to digest in regards to the actual narrative. Maybe some of you have read "On Faire Stories" by Tolkien. It was an essay he wrote about fantasy as a genre. One of the points I remember is that for fantasy to be successful it must remain distinct from the actual world. LotR was conceptualized by Tolkien twenty years before the volumes were published in the fifties. He began with a language (always the linguist) and then let the genealogies and stories unfold from there. I could talk about this for hours, but suffice it to say, that King's appearance made it hard to for me to exist within the narrative imaginatively. The Gunslinger (as well as Eddie) began to lose their otherworldliness when presented next to a writer that exists in reality. Ironically, reality can make the fantasy even less real.

I have expressed similar sentiments Journeyman, welcome to the site.

[Letti]

I was a bit nervous about it at first but I ended up being really happy with how it was done.

I know other authors have written themselves in but personally I've never read a book that way. I thought it ended up being pretty cool.

Same here. When I knew he would be in the book I was really sad and I couldn't imagine that my mind would be able to accept it.
But step by step it seemed more okay (but I needed a great deal of pages to feel this way).

[obscurejude]

I still don't like his presence in the book for the aforementioned reasons, but now I have a new one: why does Gan need a ves ka gan? CK, Monte, and I are wrestling with this and it seems to me that King's presence is what brings this tension within the text to the surface. Sometimes I can't help but think his role in SOS is self aggrandizing.

I still love Steven King and the Dark Tower series, or I wouldn't be here. Please don't hate me. I feel this way, in part, because I'm just frustrated.

[Letti]

*hugs Jude*
When I heard King would be in the book my first thought was: "Aha, so he wants to meet Roland in person" - but I didn't think it's self aggrandizing. And his character wasn't positive at all moreover..

[Unfound One]

I had no idea he was writing himself into the novels until I began to read those parts.
Like Letti and Maerlyn, I wasn't sure at first, but I think it really ended up good and even adding to the story.
I liked King as a character, and I think I'd like him as a person, assuming he wrote himself somewhat realistically.
Especially any time he's in a trance - I think he really showed his true colors then.
*edit* Even though his true self isn't so great - like Letti said, I didn't think it was self aggrandizing.

[obscurejude]

As Marcion did with the Old Testament during the pre-Nicene period, I have opted to take Song of Susannah out of my personal Dark Tower cannon. I will no longer refer to it, because it doesn't exist.

[obscurejude]

What is this thread about? What does SOS stand for?

[Letti]

Are you serious? *blinks*

[Unfound One]

Does that mean you won't participate in any more talks about the need (or not) for a Ves'-ka?
I really think we need a thread for that...

[obscurejude]

Does that mean you won't participate in any more talks about the need (or not) for a Ves'-ka?
I really think we need a thread for that...

What is a Ves Ka?

[Unfound One]

Aww helllll naw.
Don't even go there.

[Unfound One]

PS - Ves' ka is talked about in DTVII a lot too.

[obscurejude]

PS - Ves' ka is talked about in DTVII a lot too.

Not if you rip out certain passages with a box cutter.

[Unfound One]

Oh Jesus. :lol: :rolleyes:

[Wuducynn]

As Marcion did with the Old Testament during the pre-Nicene period, I have opted to take Song of Susannah out of my personal Dark Tower cannon. I will no longer refer to it, because it doesn't exist.

This is a very interesting strategy for dealing with something that you don't understand and/or dislike. The "ostrich-head-in-the-sand" strategy..in honor of our dear Obscurejude I present you all this picture of Obscurejude just after he read the "no-longer existant" Song of Susannah -

http://www.soxfirst.com/50226711/images/head-in-sand.jpg

[Jean]

much as I respect obscure... I can't help feeling Mattqhew has really, truly hit the nail on the head here...

[obscurejude]

Seriously Jean? I thought you of all people would understand the Marcion reference as being completely ridiculous and over the top hyperbole. Athanasius is one of my heroes and I regard his Easter letter of 347 as the first mention of the present-day New Testament cannon, although my present day agnosticism challenges cannonicity generally at times. Point being, it was a joke.

I'm pretty turned off that neither of you could tell it was a joke. I'm not going to say anything else, because it pisses me off.

[Brice]

I'm pretty sure they knew it was a joke and were joking back with you Ryan. :unsure:

[Jean]

well, yes - I'm sorry if it was clumsy Ryan! it's not always easy to play on subtleties, especially not in a foreign language and where you can't really be seen http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

[Matt]

Its a text thing too. :grouphug:

On topic:

Sometimes I think King truly believes he met Roland and Jake that day. Not a bad thing because I know he believes in infinite possibilities.

[Letti]

On topic:

Sometimes I think King truly believes he met Roland and Jake that day. Not a bad thing because I know he believes in infinite possibilities.

Oh yes, I think so.

[Jean]

why not?

[cozener]

Hey why can't obscure just act like SoS didn't happen? I wish I could compartmentalize my memories like that. It would save me a lot of unpleasantness...like the last 8 years :lol:


agnosticism challenges cannonicity I'll bet you can't say that 5 times fast.:nope:



I still don't like his presence in the book for the aforementioned reasons, but now I have a new one: why does Gan need a ves ka gan? CK, Monte, and I are wrestling with this and it seems to me that King's presence is what brings this tension within the text to the surface. Sometimes I can't help but think his role in SOS is self aggrandizing.

I still love Steven King and the Dark Tower series, or I wouldn't be here. Please don't hate me. I feel this way, in part, because I'm just frustrated. You're not alone in this. I didn't like it either. Not because it broke any "rules of fantasy" or whatever. There are no rules in fiction...certainly not in fantasy. I just felt that it was distracting from the story. I also felt that it was fed more corn than an Iowa hog too. But it wasn't self aggrandizing, it was arrogant. Like I've said before, Roland is King's fantasy self and he wrote himself into the story because, deep down, he wanted to share that fact with the Constant Reader. He knew it was risky. He knew not everyone would like it. But he also knew that he could get away with it and that folks would, in the end, still buy his books. But I can forgive him his arrogance. He's entitled to at least a little. Even with, what I consider, this huge mistake, the ending of this story was just about the best ending to any series of books I've read, bar none. It made up for everything I didn't like about any of it.

[obscurejude]

agnosticism challenges connonicity
agngokthcism challencges conagg... you're right Cozener.

[Brice]

:lol:

[Wuducynn]

But it wasn't self aggrandizing, it was arrogant. Like I've said before, Roland is King's fantasy self and he wrote himself into the story because, deep down, he wanted to share that fact with the Constant Reader. He knew it was risky. He knew not everyone would like it. But he also knew that he could get away with it and that folks would, in the end, still buy his books. But I can forgive him his arrogance. He's entitled to at least a little. Even with, what I consider, this huge mistake, the ending of this story was just about the best ending to any series of books I've read, bar none. It made up for everything I didn't like about any of it.


I don't see his portrayl as arrogant in the slightest. In fact he portrays himself in some pretty negative ways. Originally Eddie and Roland think he is their creator but it turns out that he is not Gan but Gan's Prophet or Singer. And doesn't like being it much at all, to boot. I really can't see any arrogance in there.

[cozener]

I wasn't referring to the character of Stephen King in the DT. I was referring to the author himself. When I said he was being arrogant I meant that he was very confident in that the folks that followed DT would follow it to the end even if he indulged himself in something that he knew might not come off so well. He figured that because we think he's so great (or at least because we've come this far) he could get away with showing us that Roland had always been Stephen King seen through the filter of his fantasies even at what many might see as the expense of the story.

In a way, I appreciate that he did share this with us but I would have preferred he just state as much in the afterward of DT7.

[Wuducynn]

It just sounds to me like you didn't like how the story went, with him including himself and so view it as arrogance on the part of King. I don't see any evidence that King was being arrogant in any way. He has always written what comes to him and not been overly concerned about what his fans think.
I don't see his inclusion as a character as an indulgence, but something he's been wanting to do for awhile but it finally came to him how to do it.

[Letti]

I don't think King put himself into the story consciously. He wrote down that he felt he had to write down. Like usual. His character in the books can't be arrogant because he described himself as a very weak, lost person. And if accept and believe him when he says he doesn't write consciously how can he be arrogant at all?

[MonteGss]

I agree with CK and Letti. King doesn't give seem to give a shit what his readers want. He writes what he wants and doesn't seem to "plan" much of it out. I saw no arrogance on writing himself in the story. After all, his presence in the story was building up from Book 2 and to me, it was natural. :)

[cozener]

It just sounds to me like you didn't like how the story went, with him including himself and so view it as arrogance on the part of King. I don't see any evidence that King was being arrogant in any way. He has always written what comes to him and not been overly concerned about what his fans think.
I don't see his inclusion as a character as an indulgence, but something he's been wanting to do for awhile but it finally came to him how to do it. Then perhaps you, as someone that liked what he did, would rather I used the word "bold"? :lol:

[Wuducynn]

Bold is good. Better than being a wimp. :)

[cozener]

The reason I ask is that as soon as I realized what King was about to do I said to myself, "Wow...now thats a bold move. Hope he doesn't fuck it up..."

[John_and_Yoko]

Today I was thinking generally about King's role in Song of Susannah.

Did you like his appearance in the novel?

Do you think King created Roland by writing about him or did Roland already exist and King just wrote about him?

I enjoyed it--lately I've come to love learning about "the story behind the story," and I don't mind fictionalizations of those at all. Something about those makes them more "real," in a way, to me....

As for your last question, I think the "or" is deceptive. Why does it have to be one or the other?

[Wuducynn]

I'm so with ya on that JY. King having himself as character brought a whole nother level of intensity and reality to the Dark Tower Saga for me. I was NOT expecting it when I read SOS for the first time, I managed to stay good and clear of all spoilers on .Net.
So it REALLY blew me away. Especially the part involving his trance when he was telling about Los' sending the spiders after him to turn him into a vampire that would tell Los's story instead.
I remember having to put the book down and just step away and take a breather at that point, it was just that overwhelming. :harrier:

[Empath of the White]

Indeed CK. At a certain part of Darabont's adaption of The Mist, my mind went back to that scene. And when King was introduced I had to put the book down for a moment. He injected a new level of realism into the series.

I think King's role was something like on the Bible prophets, recording what had already happened. On Roland's next go around, I think the Tower stories King wrote from this round will play a role to some extent.

[bangoskank1]

Expessily?

with all due respect if you look at this members flag you'll notice he's not from the u. s....probably should cut this person some slack..

[bangoskank1]

oh yeah one morte thing....I loved him being in the story.......loved it, loved it , loved it.

[Wuducynn]

Expessily?

with all due respect if you look at this members flag you'll notice he's not from the u. s....probably should cut this person some slack..

Your suggestion is duly noted.

[Arthur Heath]

I didnt like SK being in SoS at first. Then I began to realize that there probably isnt any other author that could pull it off like SK does. Then and only then did I enjoy him, writing himself, into the series. If your a household name and writing a series that has a cultish (avid) following and you can pull it off, why the hell not.

[Fathers Face]

I enjoyed it what with all the book's like Charlie the Choo Choo and the riddle book etc.... and all the Interlacing of his other story's it made perfect sense that Roland should at one point seek out Steven King. I often find myself wondering how many breaks Steven took while writing that part of the book. Talk about a stressful situation.

[The Lady of Shadows]

i thought it inevitable that roland's tet would end up in king's world. which is how i view this. i don't really look at it as king intruding on the story so much as the story intruding on king's life.

so much of what he's written throughout his life has been tower-centric. almost every thing has connected to the tower and roland in some way, even if it's only been a small way. and then when the accident happened i have to admit that my first thought, after sending up a prayer of thanks that he survived, was for the tower. my god, what if he hadn't survived? :panic: what if the tower had fallen? :panic: what if they had all been trapped there, in some kind of hellish limbo? :panic:

i don't believe that time is linear, i never have (and no, i really don't want to get into a long conversation about physics or matter or space or whatnot). i think in some very real way this story has been bursting into all aspects of his life for his entire life. since childhood. it only makes sense that a piece of himself would end up in it. so for roland and eddie, and then roland and jake, to end up in king's life and world, in the keystone world, was inevitable. he didn't put himself in the story, the story put him in the story - if we don't like it, well then it's a good thing we don't have to live it i guess. :)

[Wuducynn]

I enjoyed it what with all the book's like Charlie the Choo Choo and the riddle book etc.... and all the Interlacing of his other story's it made perfect sense that Roland should at one point seek out Stevphen King.

It made sense to me also. For me it was a surprise, which I liked. I actually was able to stay spoiler free.

[JRSly]

This was the one sorta big thing that I had spoiled for me. It was just a vague mention of King being in the story, and at first I was mad because I thought that would be the ultimate twist at the end....like the Dark Tower would end up being King's typewriter or something. :lol: So I was a bit relieved that wasn't the case and I didn't have the series' conclusion spoiled.

But I'm still torn on King's part in the story. I've only read the series once, Song of Susannah and the Dark Tower in early '07...so it's been a little while. If I missed certain points, and I fully expect that I have, please help to fill me in.

But I found King's inclusion a tad confusing. Honestly, a lot of the 'other world' business became a bit muddled for me and certainly is asking for another read through. But on King...if he's the creator, that really takes me out of the story and makes the characters and their quest much harder to invest in...and I don't really think this is the case, fortunately. But if he's not the creator, if he's just the vessel or the conduit, why is he vital to the story? Why can he not die? Gan's song will continue to be sung and Roland and the Ka-tet will go on, will they not? The Keystone Earth just won't have the account of it on their bookshelves. It seems to be conflicting concepts here...he's just the conduit, but...if he dies he can't create their story. Or have I flubbed something up?

And another aspect, that opens up more cans of worms, is that Walter mentions King at one point, I think it's in Book VI. So Walter is aware of him, and that he's important, but he doesn't see himself as a 'slave' or 'victim' to his whim the way Roland and company sort of do. And of course, the Crimson King knew of King, and knew he was someone to be feared. So...yeah, it gets hard for me to wrap my mind around what I even want to say exactly..but like above, it becomes this weird, seemingly disparate combination of ideas where Roland is fictitious but Walter is not, where the Dark Tower's survival is strongly tied to King's life or death...but King is just a storyteller.

Phew...does any of that make sense? :panic:

[Wuducynn]

This was the one sorta big thing that I had spoiled for me. It was just a vague mention of King being in the story, and at first I was mad because I thought that would be the ultimate twist at the end....like the Dark Tower would end up being King's typewriter or something. :lol: So I was a bit relieved that wasn't the case and I didn't have the series' conclusion spoiled.

But I'm still torn on King's part in the story. I've only read the series once, Song of Susannah and the Dark Tower in early '07...so it's been a little while. If I missed certain points, and I fully expect that I have, please help to fill me in.

But I found King's inclusion a tad confusing. Honestly, a lot of the 'other world' business became a bit muddled for me and certainly is asking for another read through. But on King...if he's the creator, that really takes me out of the story and makes the characters and their quest much harder to invest in...and I don't really think this is the case, fortunately. But if he's not the creator, if he's just the vessel or the conduit, why is he vital to the story? Why can he not die? Gan's song will continue to be sung and Roland and the Ka-tet will go on, will they not? The Keystone Earth just won't have the account of it on their bookshelves. It seems to be conflicting concepts here...he's just the conduit, but...if he dies he can't create their story. Or have I flubbed something up?

And another aspect, that opens up more cans of worms, is that Walter mentions King at one point, I think it's in Book VI. So Walter is aware of him, and that he's important, but he doesn't see himself as a 'slave' or 'victim' to his whim the way Roland and company sort of do. And of course, the Crimson King knew of King, and knew he was someone to be feared. So...yeah, it gets hard for me to wrap my mind around what I even want to say exactly..but like above, it becomes this weird, seemingly disparate combination of ideas where Roland is fictitious but Walter is not, where the Dark Tower's survival is strongly tied to King's life or death...but King is just a storyteller.

Phew...does any of that make sense? :panic:

No.

[JRSly]

Oh.

...This way to the exit, right?....

[Letti]

Nevermind, JRSly. Our Matthew always gives such answers. ;)
I love your post and I will try to answer your questions when my mind doesn't refuse to work.

[Matt]

Don't pay any attention to him JR, he's anti social.

I actually agree with the confusion. I think King really didn't want to make himself the creator of the story even though he obviously is. I suppose that you could look at in the way that if a field doesn't get irrigated...it dies.

To me though, the story is about obsession and the Tower is a manifestation of that.

[Brice]

If King didn't write then he couldn't create Gan to create him so he could write. :rofl:

[JRSly]

If King didn't write then he couldn't create Gan to create him so he could write. :rofl:
Right, exactly.

It seems like something, like a few other elements, that you just have to go along with and try not to analyze and pick apart too much.

[theyspunaweb]

I really thought it was weird at first. In the end (well...I'm not completely finished reading the final book but half way)...so far, it's been fine though. I just was like huh? I mean, come on, putting yourself in your own book? Especially the one you want to be your very own "Lord of the Rings" and you put yourself in it, and make yourself be a key player, someone who has to keep his end of the deal or the whole thing just disappears? I mean I get if he never did write it we wouldn't be reading it...but...in the beginning it just felt a little like an unnecessary twist that King could have done without and kept the story going strong. But now it's just become a part of the story and it's fine with me either way. Clever, I suppose.


I told my mom about it, and she made a good point - he appears in all of his movies doesn't he? Why wouldn't he appear in a few, if not one of his own books. Might as well...

[Letti]

He appears in his movies??? Where? How? I might have missed something...

What always bugs me when I am reading those parts of King when Eddie or Roland or any other character is wondering if they are just some figures in a book.. and they don't really exist. I always feel a huge force to jump into the story to shake them and tell them: "You are as real as possible."
Yeah... that's what I feel however I am reading a book... madness.

[Matt]

I think in the infinite worlds of the Tower, all people in all books are real.

[Letti]

I think in the infinite worlds of the Tower, all people in all books are real.

Do you say there is a Roland somewhere from flesh and blood?

[VastOne]

I think the great sage and eminent junkie Henry would have been perfect in answering this if he never met Balazar's men.


Seriously tho, I think it was a perfect touch to the layering of the many paths and roads for the Tower and worlds in which it revolves.

And thinking SK does not have an EGO or just maybe bored with the billions of words he has written, I am sure the concept was gratifying and the decision to do it easy....

VastOne :excited:

[Matt]

I think in the infinite worlds of the Tower, all people in all books are real.

Do you say there is a Roland somewhere from flesh and blood?

I do indeed my lady, I do indeed.

[theyspunaweb]

He appears in his movies??? Where? How? I might have missed something...

here I may be a little off because I haven't seen the entirety of S.K.'s movies, but he's appeared in the ones I have, and I was quoting my mother. He always makes a small (and shall I say..."dorky"?) appearance in his movies. Like a delivery man, who says one line or something like that. You have to look out for his role in the movie but it is something special. I watched Graveyard Shift the other night however, and didn't see him (I may have missed it though because I was reading in between commercials) and I could have missed him or he could have started appearing in his movies later on too?

[JRSly]

I love King's appearance in The Stand miniseries...with as cheesy as the series is, his appearance amps up the cheesiness even more. When he first appears, I almost expect to hear applause and whooping from a sitcom live audience.

[VastOne]

I love King's appearance in The Stand miniseries...with as cheesy as the series is, his appearance amps up the cheesiness even more. When he first appears, I almost expect to hear applause and whooping from a sitcom live audience.

Tis exactly how I felt...

Now wouldn't it be awesome if The Stand was made into a full fledged LOTR type movie? I'd kill to see that done

[Letti]

Wow, thank you for the information. I have never noticed him but I hope I will in the future. :)

[Tony_A]

He appears in his movies??? Where? How? I might have missed something...

here I may be a little off because I haven't seen the entirety of S.K.'s movies, but he's appeared in the ones I have, and I was quoting my mother. He always makes a small (and shall I say..."dorky"?) appearance in his movies. Like a delivery man, who says one line or something like that. You have to look out for his role in the movie but it is something special. I watched Graveyard Shift the other night however, and didn't see him (I may have missed it though because I was reading in between commercials) and I could have missed him or he could have started appearing in his movies later on too?

According to IMDB, King has appeared in the following movies/shows for which he has written:

Kingdom Hospital
Rose Red
Storm of the Century
The Shining (1997 mini)
Thinner
The Langoliers
The Stand
Sleepwalkers
Golden Years
Pet Sematary
Both Creepshows
Maximum Overdrive

[Letti]

I have no eyes...

[Wuducynn]

I have no eyes...

That must make your movie watching experience very interesting.

[razz]

According to IMDB, King has appeared in the following movies/shows for which he has written:

Kingdom Hospital
Rose Red
Storm of the Century
The Shining (1997 mini)
Thinner
The Langoliers
The Stand
Sleepwalkers
Golden Years
Pet Sematary
Both Creepshows
Maximum Overdrive

"Come over here, sugar buns! This machine just called me an asshole!"

[Letti]

I have no eyes...

That must make your movie watching experience very interesting.

I'd rather use the word hard. ;)

[droland]

is it just me or is it a little weird to here Stephen King talk about himself in the third person in this book? discuss.

[Letti]

For me it's not weird, at all. It was... strange for some pages but after that it was great.

[droland]

For me it's not weird, at all. It was... strange for some pages but after that it was great.

hmm... so you didn't think king putting himself into the story was a bad idea?

[jayson]

Making the DT series into meta-fiction was an interesting concept, I just don't know how much I care for the way King did it.

[Letti]

For me it's not weird, at all. It was... strange for some pages but after that it was great.

hmm... so you didn't think king putting himself into the story was a bad idea?

I wasn't sure at all that he would manage and first I didn't like the idea at all. But page by page I felt it was good as it was and now after 2 more rereadings it's absolutely good and natural.

[Melike]

It was like a present to me, never thought it is weird. King's including himself in the Dark Tower story, made it deeper;
and I think the loop became more meaningful.
And it represents how strong King is connected to the story.

[Letti]

It was like a present to me, never thought it is weird. King's including himself in the Dark Tower story made it deeper.

Agree.

[flaggwalkstheline]

that was where the Dark tower officially blew my mind
Up to that point it was a great fantasy story
but when He made himself a character and made his writing a part of the story was where I felt that it really went off the deep end (in a totally awesome way)
It turned it into something more than "just fiction"

[Darkthoughts]

Hey droland :D

Glad you're getting stuck in and discussing the books with us all...but! :lol: Be sure to check the existing threads first, we already have a thread discussing this topic, which I shall merge yours with :thumbsup:

[droland]

Hey droland :D

Glad you're getting stuck in and discussing the books with us all...but! :lol: Be sure to check the existing threads first, we already have a thread discussing this topic, which I shall merge yours with :thumbsup:

oops, sorry about that. i skimmed through and didn't find it. should have done a quick search. i cry your pardon sai.

i don't know. maybe king being in the story will grow on me. it's just so very different for me, i guess. i've never read a story where the author puts himself in it (other than autobiographies of course). i'm reading the last book for the second time now. i usually wait long periods of time between readings of my favorite books so i always forget what happens by the time i re-read it.

[Matt]

It used to freak me out when Clive Cussler did it too. :panic:

[Wuducynn]

It turned it into something more than "just fiction"

I think there are plenty of elements in the series that are. King bringing himself into the series brings that home for a lot of folk.

[jayson]

Matthew is no longer affiliated with the Crimson King?

[obscurejude]

For me it's not weird, at all. It was... strange for some pages but after that it was great.

hmm... so you didn't think king putting himself into the story was a bad idea?

Scroll back my friend. I hated the idea and have been vocal about it. A few others weren't so keen on it either.

Welcome to the site. :couple:

[Mad Man]

to be honest i hated it, i really really hated it.... it like stabbed me :doh:
It was perfect till he wrapped himself into the story .... and i wouldn't mind it so much if he'd be a small character there but no... the hint at famous and great writer in 1999 to Jake was the worst part... huge ego

[The King of Kings]

The only part I didn't like about Stephen King's role in the novel was how the characters handled the situation. You'd think if you just met the dictator of your universe, you'd ask better questions then what they did.

[Letti]

to be honest i hated it, i really really hated it.... it like stabbed me :doh:
It was perfect till he wrapped himself into the story .... and i wouldn't mind it so much if he'd be a small character there but no... the hint at famous and great writer in 1999 to Jake was the worst part... huge ego

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.


The only part I didn't like about Stephen King's role in the novel was how the characters handled the situation. You'd think if you just met the dictator of your universe, you'd ask better questions then what they did.

Because they did know all the time that they had very important business to do. They couldn't waste their time with monkey business. I am sure they were confused and it was very hard to speak with him. I can understand them... for my part I couldn't have handled the situation at all but I am not a gunslinger.
And later it turns out King wasn't the dictator of their universe. He was the wordslinger... a protector. An anti-breaker. Maybe Roland and Eddie had some idea -deep inside- about it and they didn't really believe that they were just characters in a book.

Just my two cents.

[Mad Man]

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.

[Whitey Appleseed]

Today [Erin/Manager, 11-08-2007, nineteen, may it do ya] I was thinking generally about King's role in Song of Susannah.
Did you like his appearance in the novel?

Yeah, thought it was a real hoot. Previous book, TWOTC, Eddie heard King's voice and spoke to him, interrupted the narration and said, "Nope," not lungs--when Andy was signaling (messenger robot, many other functions) in the crossmock, singing Vivaldi backwards). Callahan appeared in a tale about him...maybe there's another instance of something like this happening in 1-6 books.

Do you think King created Roland by writing about him or did Roland already exist and King just wrote about him?

I know Roland already existed cause in came into Lindell's Coffee Shop the other day and told me so. Surprised to see him, truth be told. What say? Roland, I said, Whitey, he nodded, then he said he had issues with me, something me making him look like a bad man, what with some of my posts. He tapped a sandalwood revolver on his hip, wagged his eyebrows up and down. Think about dude, big-big, he said. I've been pondering the thought.

[Melike]

If it is his egoism that made King to put himself into the story, I would wish his ego to grow more.
Creation is the greatest egoist.

[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. :grouphug:

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. :grouphug:

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 :ninja: 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 :unsure:])

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 :drool:

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

[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 :dance:
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 :rock:

[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 :panic:

[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 :panic:

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 :drool: and then i love to dream that i can live there - in the fantasy world where everything is different compared with my life :rock:

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 http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_wink-1.gif - 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! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

[obscurejude]

Me too Jean. :couple:.

[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! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

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?

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear4bis.gif

[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 :panic:

But i think Whitey got something right there :orely: 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 :P

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 :wtf:*

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

[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 :panic: 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 :panic: 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 (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showpost.php?p=320654&postcount=161)) 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? :arg: 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?

[Mad Man]

*hints at "fiction"* - but yeah i got it now, what you mean at least :P In this case it depends from a view to life :D if i think about it like that then yeh it would be absurd without him but i don't think about it like you i guess

[Jean]

but then, as I suggested before, you must be equally dissatisfied with other references (Seven Samurai, Wizard of Oz, etc), as well as the origin of Roland himself as Browning's Childe Roland?

[Mad Man]

To be honest...i'm not. Those things doesn't bother me at all :orely: Perhaps the reason would be that they're also fictional.

[Whitey Appleseed]

Sorry if this doesn't seem related to King being in SOS, but one thing bugged me about it. Eddie's on a mission in the book to learn where Co-op City is, Brooklyn or the Bronx. Aaron tells Eddie that Co-op City is in the Bronx, always has been. Eddie asks King where it is and he says it's in Brooklyn, same as the world where Eddie is from...1984 is it?...This is July 9, 1977. Does King say that cause he's confused? Is this a mind trap? This world that Eddie and Roland are visiting at the time is the key world, we get there in SOS and in the next book, so what gives?

[ImprisonedNtheDarkTower]

Today I was thinking generally about King's role in Song of Susannah.

Did you like his appearance in the novel?

Do you think King created Roland by writing about him or did Roland already exist and King just wrote about him?

I really liked Kings role in SOS. To me, it was just another little twist to get a smile out of me. And make me want to keep reading just to see what exactly what piece of the puzzle he was playing.

In King's fantasy land. I believe Roland already existed. And the Character of King just helps out with his part of Ka.

[Anastasia]

When King first wrote about himself as some author of Salem's Lot I really didn't expect there be a continuation and he'll put himself in person into the books. So, when Roland and Eddie decided to go and see him it was a real twist! But truely a good one. I mean it was one of the things I really liked in SoS.
But at the same time I can't still decide how I feel about it. I mean wether King made up the Roland's world and the characters or they already existed. I finished the book just yesterday, so I need to think it over again:)

[Letti]

When King first wrote about himself as some author of Salem's Lot I really didn't expect there be a continuation and he'll put himself in person into the books. So, when Roland and Eddie decided to go and see him it was a real twist! But truely a good one. I mean it was one of the things I really liked in SoS.
But at the same time I can't still decide how I feel about it. I mean wether King made up the Roland's world and the characters or they already existed. I finished the book just yesterday, so I need to think it over again:)

I have been thinking a lot about it and now I think
SK is a protector of the Tower. He is a Beam guardian. Yes, he writes about the Tower but he didn't create it (not in the series). When he is writing down the story of Roland he makes the Beams stronger. He has power in his words but he is just a servant, too. A servant of the Beams. Of the Tower. But not Gan.

[Anastasia]

I have been thinking a lot about it and now I think
SK is a protector of the Tower. He is a Beam guardian. Yes, he writes about the Tower but he didn't create it (not in the series). When he is writing down the story of Roland he makes the Beams stronger. He has power in his words but he is just a servant, too. A servant of the Beams. Of the Tower. But not Gan.

Actually yes, I tend to agree with you. (should I put a spoiler?)
SK (the character of DT) doesn't seem to me being a Gan even though Roland thought he is at first. But then who made him write this story? And what does help him to have effect on everything going on (such as passing that note to Jake, for example)?

[chris777]

When I first read the books and got to King's role in them, it really jarred me at first. See, when I'm reading - it doesn't matter where I am, alone or with people, somewhere quiet, somewhere noisy - if I get into the story I'm simply not there at all while I'm reading. I totally get transported by a good book.

Exacly what I was thinking. After rereading, I liked it a lot better, and it made sense in the end. But the first time I didn't like it. At all. :D

Agree 100% I was actually pissed off that he would do that. It felt to me like it was a narcistic thing. Roland and Eddie calling Stephen King a GOD?! Comon man...Now reading it more it makes a little more sense. TBH i'd rather it not have happened at all. But considering Pere, and Flagg, and everything else...it makes sense.

[obscurejude]

The more I read and think about it, the less it appeals to me. I need to find that picture of him in SOS and write "metafiction fail" underneath.

[jayson]

I need to find that picture of him in SOS and write "metafiction fail" underneath.

:lol:

Perfect.

[obscurejude]

I need to find that picture of him in SOS and write "metafiction fail" underneath.

:lol:

Perfect.

:lol:

I looked and looked, but couldn't find one online. The picture I was thinking of is actually in DT 7, but I don't have a scanner. I'll figure out a way, hopefully. :evil:

[Letti]

The more I read and think about it, the less it appeals to me. I need to find that picture of him in SOS and write "metafiction fail" underneath.

Is there a pic of him?
I have never seen it.

[Letti]

I have been thinking a lot about it and now I think
SK is a protector of the Tower. He is a Beam guardian. Yes, he writes about the Tower but he didn't create it (not in the series). When he is writing down the story of Roland he makes the Beams stronger. He has power in his words but he is just a servant, too. A servant of the Beams. Of the Tower. But not Gan.

Actually yes, I tend to agree with you. (should I put a spoiler?)
SK (the character of DT) doesn't seem to me being a Gan even though Roland thought he is at first. But then who made him write this story? And what does help him to have effect on everything going on (such as passing that note to Jake, for example)?

To answer to your questions:
The Beam or the Tower did. Or maybe he just has this special talent that he can write about other existing people's life... he can feel the other worlds but just when he is writing.

[obscurejude]

The more I read and think about it, the less it appeals to me. I need to find that picture of him in SOS and write "metafiction fail" underneath.

Is there a pic of him?
I have never seen it.

Yeah, there's one that's in the "this haze of green and gold" section if I'm not mistaken. Its been a while for me, and my books are buried under several others at the moment.

[Letti]

The more I read and think about it, the less it appeals to me. I need to find that picture of him in SOS and write "metafiction fail" underneath.

Is there a pic of him?
I have never seen it.

Yeah, there's one that in the "this haze of green and gold" section if I'm not mistaken. Its been a while for me, and my books are buried under several others at the moment.

Wow, I would be interested in it.

[Brice]

I have no scanner, but here. :)

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/fatuhiva/dt6-03.jpg

[obscurejude]

Thanks Brice. I had a really hard time finding that online for some reason. Couldn't seem to come up with the right search tags.

[Brice]

I didn't use search tags. I just know where all the art from the books is online. :D It was my pleasure to help.

[Mad Man]

and where would that be? :P

[Brice]

I don't name that site. :nope:

[Mad Man]

:cry:

[Letti]

Oh thank you, Brice. The nice thing is that I have this pic in my SOS but somehow I forgot tha it's sai King.
silly me

[Brice]

You're welcome, Letti! :huglove:


:cry:


oh, very well...

thedarktowercompendium

[Cravinsky]

After being directed to this thread by Jean (for which I say thankee-sai) and reading the responses and contrasting opinions, I feel I should share my own. I am on my first read-through of the series and have just finished the part in SoS where Roland and Eddie meet Stephen King, I had already known King played some role in the series before I reached this part, and I had been looking forward to it as the concept of it really sounded interesting. My first opinion however was similar to others who believe it just should not have been done, it pulls away from the story and seems very narcissistic at points (as mentioned already the idea of Roland and King being so similar they might be brothers, as well as the general idea of King being this godlike figure which Roland falls onto one knee for). However I've taken on a lot of what has been said, especially the ideas conveyed by Jean, the fact of the matter is that the Dark Tower concerns all universes, so why should it not include our own? And if our universe is to be included you could not ignore the importance of a man who writes about Roland and the Dark Tower, it's almost as if it really connects us as the reader to the series, or at least tries to, by showing that indeed our own world hangs in the balance as much as any other.

I conclude in my head and heart that the concept behind King's role is both required and certainly interesting, its execution was perhaps poorly handled in some areas but I'm sure by the time I finish the series it will all fall into place and I might reconcile with my own opinions on a second read-through.

[Jean]

bears really hope you won't be dissatisfied. It's a structure so complex that it defies all expectations. I tried to describe it here (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?1316-King-s-Role-in-SoS&p=320654&highlight=#post320654) (thank you for reminding me! It was five years ago, and I totally forgot I said something coherent), but it still defies full comprehension. The "poorly handled in some areas" observation is totally true, and refers to the whole book, as it grows more and more complex - it's probably because the complexity of the construction defies Sai King's own comprehension as well.

[Jon]

But what artist isn't or does't want to be the protector or a participant in his Magnum opus??