The Official End Thread

[obscurejude]

I've been thinking about this for years, and I am not sure. All the metaphors for creativity listed above are very astute but ascribing all creativity as a channeling makes me worry most over responsibility. Ideas are powerful and I think we must at some point concern ourselves with the kind of actions they might produce. The writer is creating an artifact to be viewed by anyone, and though we cannot anticipate every moral response, it doesn't mean we should throw all caution to the wind and write whatever comes to mind. The imagination is subject to the darker aspects of the human experience as well.

[Armand St Pierre]

I'll be as blunt and as brief as possible.

Mr. King's responsibility began after he published his second book in the series and it ended with the last sentence of book 7.....coda and all.
He had a responsibility to finish what he started.
His duty was bound to his craft and he fulfilled that role, everything else is aesthetic conjecture.

[obscurejude]

It ceases to be aesthetic conjecture when it results in human actions which extend beyond sense perceptions. Actions have consequences both positive and negative. King doesn't have a blog in which nobody but himself and his mother read, he's sold over 300 million books. His duty is bound to more than his craft because he has an influence and that comes with responsibility.

[Armand St Pierre]

It ceases to be aesthetic conjecture when it results in human actions which extend beyond sense perceptions. Actions have consequences both positive and negative. King doesn't have a blog in which nobody but himself and his mother read, he's sold over 300 million books. His duty is bound to more than his craft because he has an influence and that comes with responsibility.

Well, then.....
I sure hope that you think he's doing a good job

[obscurejude]

Armand, sorry if I came across a little strong...

[Armand St Pierre]

I just disagree with the fact that a writer, any writer, has an obligation to form their work around social responsibility. The story is what it is and if it's any good then people will come back for more. Any attempt to bend it to the will of an outside (outside of the story) influence is a form of censorship that lends it's boring and often predictable hands to the task of removing the essence of wonder or imagination (or metaphor) from the story.
As far as fiction being a vessel for the darker aspects of the human psyche, I fervently embrace it as a tool towards making psychological or spiritual growth possible.
People that write about intolerance and genocide (and who do it well) provide us with the consequences of their reality. Where would we be without the Kafkas of antiquity?

It's fairly ridiculous to expect social responsibility (judged by each individual reader as to it's definition and requirements) in the realm of fiction when there are hardly any such standards in the land of non-fiction. Do you know how many conflicting books exist, just on the topic of healthy diet? Some of them have to be wrong and that makes their claim of "health" (in this instance) fraudulent and therefore socially irresponsible. That doesn't stop any of the top book distribution outlets from marketing them and their socially irresponsible memes.

[Jean]

I just disagree with the fact that a writer, any writer, has an obligation to form their work around social responsibility.

or around anything other than the story itself

[Letti]

I think writers do have responsibility for their writings (but not for the endings).
I mean if someone writes a book for teenagers and there the main girl character has sex with 25 men during a week and the writer shows how cool, exciting and great it is... and the young girls read it and start to dream about such a lifestyle..
(But for my part I wouldn't call that piece of paper a "book" and I wouldn't call that man a "writer".)
So I feel yeah, writers have responsiblity for their novels, short stories and books - and for the messages behind the letters - but they can't be said cruel or stupid if they don't choose a happy ending.

[Jean]

are we not confusing the responsibility of the writer with that of his editors, publishers, etc? Probably the book you're describing doesn't qualify as a book for teenagers; it's the question of publishers' policy to advertise or not advertise it as such. I generally don't think an author writes his stories "for" [a specific group of people].

[Letti]

are we not confusing the responsibility of the writer with that of his editors, publishers, etc?

I don't think so because the way I see it they all (the writer the editor and the publisher) have responsiblity for it.

[jayson]

i think we've crossed over into discussing the responsibility of a writer for the interpretation of the work once it'd complete. so there are two types of responsibility being discussed here as i see it

1. the responsibility of a writer for being the complete creative force behind a work, and

2. the responsibility of a writer for the social impact of their work

the question is as i see it - is art in the process or the prodcut? to me, the answer is both. for the artist, the "art moment" comes in the creation, while for the art consumer the "art moment" takes place in the reception. what i'm saying is, nobody but the creator of a piece of art knows exactly what it meant by it. we are all free to interpret it as we will but as clever as we may be about it, without direct knowledge, we don't really grasp it's full "meaning." as for being fully responsible for the work creatively, all of the metaphors i used earlier are still just that, metaphors. wherever it came from, it came from the artist.

[Wuducynn]

I'll be as blunt and as brief as possible.

Mr. King's responsibility began after he published his second book in the series and it ended with the last sentence of book 7.....coda and all.
He had a responsibility to finish what he started.
His duty was bound to his craft and he fulfilled that role, everything else is aesthetic conjecture.

Well put Armand.

[Brice]

I think his only responsibility was to be true to himself and to be true to the story. Once he finished writing it all responsibility with regards to the story ended.

[Bev Vincent]

I think it's a mixed bag. Writers do have a responsibility for the ending but there are two things that must be considered. First off, the characters have to behave "in character" once they've been created, or else it's a lie. Secondly, where does the story come from? What is the source of inspiration? I know it's something King has wrestled with explaining, too. There are times when you sit at the keyboard when you have absolutely no idea what's going to happen next, and the story keeps coming to you as you need it.

So while there can be little argument that the story came from King and so long as he was true to his characters it's completely of his invention, I don't know that you'd be able to get him to explain exactly where all of it came from. And once certain ideas come to the writer, it's damnably hard to think of the story in any other way. I know I've rewritten stories and tried to take them in different directions, but it's not easy.

[Letti]

May I ask why you tried to rewrite stories?

[obscurejude]

I just disagree with the fact that a writer, any writer, has an obligation to form their work around social responsibility. The story is what it is and if it's any good then people will come back for more. Any attempt to bend it to the will of an outside (outside of the story) influence is a form of censorship that lends it's boring and often predictable hands to the task of removing the essence of wonder or imagination (or metaphor) from the story.
As far as fiction being a vessel for the darker aspects of the human psyche, I fervently embrace it as a tool towards making psychological or spiritual growth possible.
People that write about intolerance and genocide (and who do it well) provide us with the consequences of their reality. Where would we be without the Kafkas of antiquity?

It's fairly ridiculous to expect social responsibility (judged by each individual reader as to it's definition and requirements) in the realm of fiction when there are hardly any such standards in the land of non-fiction. Do you know how many conflicting books exist, just on the topic of healthy diet? Some of them have to be wrong and that makes their claim of "health" (in this instance) fraudulent and therefore socially irresponsible. That doesn't stop any of the top book distribution outlets from marketing them and their socially irresponsible memes.

Armand, I was striving for a delicate balance between content and expression. I recently took a seminar on Victorian Poetry and do not ascribe to Wilde's vision of beauty in the preface to Dorian Grey. You seem (key word) to echo some of his sentiments. May not be the case. That is why I responded the way I did. Your comment about aesthetic conjecture is what got me thinking in these lines. As for censorship, you took me too far. "Worry" means I'm sorting through it, not that I have become overly Idealistic and think the arts should be banned from society or something. I never said the author of fiction should center his story around social responsibility. In fact, I never used the term social responsibility.

[Armand St Pierre]

I just disagree with the fact that a writer, any writer, has an obligation to form their work around social responsibility. The story is what it is and if it's any good then people will come back for more. Any attempt to bend it to the will of an outside (outside of the story) influence is a form of censorship that lends it's boring and often predictable hands to the task of removing the essence of wonder or imagination (or metaphor) from the story.
As far as fiction being a vessel for the darker aspects of the human psyche, I fervently embrace it as a tool towards making psychological or spiritual growth possible.
People that write about intolerance and genocide (and who do it well) provide us with the consequences of their reality. Where would we be without the Kafkas of antiquity?

It's fairly ridiculous to expect social responsibility (judged by each individual reader as to it's definition and requirements) in the realm of fiction when there are hardly any such standards in the land of non-fiction. Do you know how many conflicting books exist, just on the topic of healthy diet? Some of them have to be wrong and that makes their claim of "health" (in this instance) fraudulent and therefore socially irresponsible. That doesn't stop any of the top book distribution outlets from marketing them and their socially irresponsible memes.

Armand, I was striving for a delicate balance between content and expression. I recently took a seminar on Victorian Poetry and do not ascribe to Wilde's vision of beauty in the preface to Dorian Grey. You seem (key word) to echo some of his sentiments. May not be the case. That is why I responded the way I did. Your comment about aesthetic conjecture is what got me thinking in these lines. As for censorship, you took me too far. "Worry" means I'm sorting through it, not that I have become overly Idealistic and think the arts should be banned from society or something. I never said the author of fiction should center his story around social responsibility. In fact, I never used the term social responsibility.

My bad, you never put the word social into your post and I apologize for taking your intent by the wheel and veering off into McCarthy land.
I still stand by my claim of aesthetic conjecture because, without a fully recorded manuscript of Mr. King's thoughts about his work, we will never really know all of his intent and if it contradicted itself at any point in it's gestation.
Once again, sorry for the misunderstanding, I hope it doesn't hinder any further discussion.

[obscurejude]

No worries. I'm sort of a big fan of Aristotle and I was just trying to warn against removing all possibility of moral impressions. (I realize that statement needs a lot of clarification but this doesn't seem like the thread). Its all good Armand.

[Letti]

Here is this long and amazing series - the Dark Tower.
My question will be quite simple and let me know what you think because I am interested in it a lot.

There are folks who love the ending.
There are some who say it's acceptable.
And there are people who can't stand it at all and feel disappointed and cheated.

Was it possible at all to write an ending that would have been loved by everyone? (or almost everyone)
After such a long journey with lots of readers who are different inside was it impossible?

[jayson]

Another good question Letti. I agree, it would be near impossible for King to have devised an ending which would have satisfied everyone. I don't even think it's his responsibility to do so. He need only write the ending he feels is right for his story.

The only criticism of it that I will mention is that I still get pissed off every time I read his criticism of us the fans for wanting an ending at all. If he didn't want there to be anything after Roland entered the Tower than he could have stopped it there. I don't appreciate him writing more and then getting all uppitty with me the reader for daring to want to read it. It comes off as a big "fuck you," and I resent it every time I get to that part. It's as if he's hedging his bets and saying "oh you prob won't like the ending but you're the kind of person who wouldn't anyway and i didn't even want to write it but you people made me feel like i had to so here it is jerk." it's his story, he should end it however he wants to.

[Letti]

I didn't feel this way when I was reading that part so it's quite interesting you did.

[Brice]

I also really never took that so harshly and I've read it several times.

[Wuducynn]

Was it possible at all to write an ending that would have been loved by everyone?

No.

[Wuducynn]

I also really never took that so harshly and I've read it several times.

Yeah, same here. When I went on DT.Net after I read DT7 the first time and saw some folk on there saying they were upset at his "tone" it actually surprised me.

[Letti]

I think I didn't feel that part harsh because I felt that he was talking to me and he wal stalking to himself at the same way... sometimes we need someone to listen to us to be able to do this or that. I felt in fact it was hard for him to write down those sentences and that's why he wrote that he wrote.
He needed us - the constant reader who loved and respected Roland the same way - to be able to keep on writing so he shared his feelings with us. He shared the khef.
So... to sum up my feelings I did love that part and I felt myself so close to King and to Roland at the same time.
That's how I felt.