Thoughts on the Dark Tower series. Stephen King.

I believe that King did not know where the story was going when he wrote the first book or two. This may, of course, strengthen his argument that the story was told through him rather than by him. Still, he seems undecided as to the reality of his characters and their worlds. Are we to take this series merely as a tale told by a "word smith," or are we to believe in it? Are these characters going to connect with us in a deep way, or are they only part of King's personal mythology? Or, is Stephen King opening himself up, as few authors do, and allowing us full access to his imagination and subconscious so that we may identify with what he hopes is a universal tale? I opt for this last theory.

One must wonder how he and the series will be regarded in 100 years. Will King be the Dickens of our time, in which case vast reference volumes and concordances shall be written? Or will he be yet another semi-forgotten author which just a few people will be interested in? This series is good; his writing matures (yet calcifies) over the 30 years it took him to write it. This may be his best shot at respectability and remembrance amongst our posterity.

The Dark Tower. Stephen King.

The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower.
Stephen King.
Grant: 2004.

[warning: plot spoilers]
The final volume in this interesting series is as good as the first. All the good guys and the bad buys die -- including some real tear-jerking moments -- except Susannah (who gives up--a very disappointing move on King's part) and Roland. He, of course, successfully reaches the Dark Tower. As he ascends, he passes through rooms, each of which encapsulates one moment, one part of his life. When he at last reaches the top and opens the door, the horrible truth comes to him: he has done this already, perhaps an infinite number of times. He is immediately sent back to the desert, chasing the man in black (the opening scene of Gunslinger, already forgetting what he knew. King could have made this a great commentary on the curse of a character who has to relive his painful life each time the book is read anew (he is, after all, aware that he is a character), but he backs away from this by changing one detail, which implies that next time Roland goes through this, he might find redemption, or at least be one step closer. Oh well, at least it's a positive message of perseverance and hope.

Flowers in the Attic. V. C. Andrews

Flowers in the Attic.
V. C. Andrews.

This book is generally classified as horror, though I don't know why as there's nothing really scary about it. Four kids are locked in the attic for a few years, so that their mom can inherit lots of money. After she does, she tries to poison them slowly.

The whole point of "willing suspension of disbelief" is that you will accept the premise of the book as long as people still act like people. And that is the flaw with this book: it's totally unbelievable. And as such, boring.

People usually say that this book is just about incest and child abuse, but it truly is not overloaded with nasty details -- only a few instances which are actually handled rather well. Indeed, the writing is good throughout, markedly so for this type of book. Character development, though, is its downfall: the narrator is the most believeable, but even she has moments of being too innocent.

Not too interested in the sequels, of which there are many.

The Longest Night. J. N. Williamson

The Longest Night
J. N. Williamson.
Leisure: 1985.

Psychologist tricks friend into living in a haunted house. Shrink winds up dead, main character is annoying, bad guy (ghost) is too boringly evil, beautiful girl ghost is never aware of anything going on, and the book isn't scary at all.

Supposedly a horror novel, the only thing that's horrible here is the author's writing.

Crawlspace. Herbert Lieberman

Crawlspace
by Herbert Lieberman. McKay: 1971.

I read this book as a teenager and remembered it as scary. On this reading, however, the book is merely inane.

The flaw with this book is that the two 'adoptees' of the psychopath living in their basement do not behave within any boundaries of normalcy whatsoever. The novel is touted as one of "growing menace and terror" but is instead one of growing ridiculousness and boredom.

The psychopath is a fairly interesting character, however, although he's not really in the book too much as an interactive character. (Perhaps that's why he is good - the author didn't have a chance to wreck him.) The villain of the book (the corrupt small-town sheriff) is a boring stereotype who at best reflects the author's disdain of small towns.

Fade

Fade
by Robert Cormier

I love invisible man stories (and enjoyed Cormier as a teen), so it's no surprise that I found this book enjoyable. Here, the invisibility is genetic, passing from uncle to nephew in a working class family. Along with the power to turn invisible (fade), which comes along right when the boy is entering puberty, comes an evil little voice that tells him to do bad things.

Paul, the main character, has got sex on the brain, as do most boys. He's crazy about his aunt, on whom he spies and discovers with the local gangster. He is very jealous. He then spies on others, while in the fade, and witnesses pedophilia & incest. This gives him a pretty jaded view of life and he eventually kills the gangster who happens to have been indirectly responsible for hurting his father.

Next generation is Ozzie, from a broken home, who starts killing people he's mad at and causing a general ruckus. Paul eventually finds him and has to kill him. Last generation is nameless and kills lots of people en masse.

Excellent depiction of descent of society into violent chaos.