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?
Printable View
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?
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.
:lol: I don't know what came over me tonight.
I like it a lot.
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 thought it was very cool of himself to included him self, expessily with all his faults
Expessily?
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. :DQuote:
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.
Thank you for expessing that Daghain.
:D
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
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.
Good idea.
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. :)
He asked me and I said "hell yeah, go ahead. Especially to piss off this guy Cozener"
I knew you were in on it you fuckwad!
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!!!!!
Right, It basiclly stated that King could only do so much, like CK said, only a minor role
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.
right, thats a better explaination, well said
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.
Yeah and King could always get turned into a vampire and work for the Crimson King. :harrier:
My Mood: http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/...ood/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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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'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).
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?
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.