In THE GUNSLINGER, Stephen King
introduces readers to one of his most enigmatic heroes, Roland of
Gilead, the Last Gunslinger. He is a haunting figure, a loner, on a
spellbinding journey into good and evil, in a desolate world which
frighteningly echoes our own.
In his first step towards the powerful and mysterious Dark Tower, Roland encounters an alluring woman named Alice, begins a friendship with Jake, a kid from New York, and faces an agonizing choice between damnation and salvation as he pursues the Man in Black.
Both grippingly realistic and eerily dreamlike, THE GUNSLINGER leaves readers eagerly awaiting the next chapter.
In his first step towards the powerful and mysterious Dark Tower, Roland encounters an alluring woman named Alice, begins a friendship with Jake, a kid from New York, and faces an agonizing choice between damnation and salvation as he pursues the Man in Black.
Both grippingly realistic and eerily dreamlike, THE GUNSLINGER leaves readers eagerly awaiting the next chapter.
What can be said about "The Gunslinger" and "The Dark Tower" that hasn't
already been said? In truth, probably very little. But here goes...
I approached this series as a steadfast avoider of King's works. Growing up as a child, I'd seen a few of his films and read none of his books and for the most part I believed King's body of work to be a thing I would never actively seek out. That's not to say it was bad or that it was even distasteful. But I'd ignorantly resigned myself to the fact that all of King's works were of the horror genre, and that simply did not interest me. So vested was I in this belief that as I entered my teens and became more and more aware that King's stories spanned a much broader swathe of the literary buffet table, even so I was unwilling to give King's books a chance.
I'd seen "It" as a child and it properly frightened me. I'd seen both versions of "The Shining". I'd seen "Misery" several times before I was 14. These were all films that made me 'uncomfortable'. Yet I found "Misery" to be a fascinating film and willingly returned to. I saw and enjoyed "The Green Mile", only to discover later that it was a work of King's. The same was true for "Schawshank".
The evidence was slamming me in the face like a brick that there were great stories to be enjoyed by Mr King, and yet I steadfastly refused to give most of King's work a chance. "The Dark Tower" certainly wasn't going to receive a moment of my attention. My friend mentioned he was reading the series and how good it was. Indeed I was aware of the series, as you couldn't enter any bookstore without seeing them everywhere. The series had recently (at the time) been republished in anticipation of the the release of books VI and VII, concluding the series. The lasting image in my mind was that acid-green cover to "The Waste Lands" all over every bookshop window in town. It looked grim...it looked dark...it said "Stephen King" on the cover. Despite having a healthier appetite for the horror genre than I'd had in my youth, despite knowing full-well that King wrote excellent stories, despite actually knowing absolutely nothing whatsoever about the plot of the books I couldn't have possibly cared less.
It was about two years ago when I stumbled upon a story surrounding the planned film adaptation of the series that I began to take interest. The story mentioned very briefly (a single paragraph) that (and I'm paraphrasing), [Stephen King's epic, inspired by such works as J.R.R. Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings' and westerns such as 'Gunsmoke' and Sergio Leone's "Man with No Name Trilogy" starring Clint Eastwood, would soon be adapted into a major motion picture series.]
I was flabbergasted. I was a life-long Tolkien fan myself and couldn't believe that this man whom I'd spent so much of my time actively avoiding could possibly have anything in common with my favourite author of all-time. I immediately began researching "The Dark Tower" (initially expecting to find that the author of the aforementioned article would surely have made some grave error). I soon learned that Stephen King had indeed been inspired by Tolkien in his youth, as had so many of his generation. I read that King had decided that he wanted to write a fantasy (not horror!) epic of his very own...but that he didn't want it to be concerned with elves, wizards and dragons as there was so much of that around already. It had been done well (by Tolkien) and it had been done a lot (by everyone else). The market was saturated.
Instead, King opted to wait...and contemplated what would become "his" epic. This eventually came to be published in a seven-volume series (soon to contain an eighth) beginning with "The Gunslinger"...which is what this review is really supposed to be about anyway.
The very fact that a 'fantasy' series could involve a 'Gunslinger' rather than...well, rather than what I was accustomed to seeing in my fantasy stories...was enough for me to track down an online-copy of the first chapter of "The Gunslinger". Like so many before me, I was hooked from the first line.
"The Man in Black fled across the desert, and The Gunslinger followed."
An absolutely perfect way to begin a tale, and I rank it just as highly as ever I have Tolkien's own introduction to his world, "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." It's a short line...a memorable line...and it instantaneously demanded my attention. It forced me to read on, made me want to know more.
Who was this Man in Black? Why was he fleeing and who was he fleeing from? Was he fleeing from The Gunslinger, or was he unaware he was being tracked and was simply fleeing for other reasons? And who was The Gunslinger? Why did he chase this unnamed man, who must surely be a villain (being so attired)?
We soon learn that The Gunslinger is Roland Deschain, and his role as "Gunslinger" could be equated to "Keeper of the Peace", "Preserver", even "knight". It is or was his task to stop his world from 'moving on'...but he has failed in his task to do so. The world has moved on Roland is the last of his kind and nothing is as it used to be. The changes which are happening are linked to the mysterious Man in Black, and the mythical tower, which supposedly stands as the centre the intersection of many words or universes. A change is happening there, and not for the better. Roland's quest is to reach this tower for what ultimate purpose is not known. Will he succeed? what friends and enemies will he make along the way? The choices he makes will affect not only his world, but all worlds including our own. But is it choice, or is it Ka..."destiny"?
I approached this series as a lover of Tolkien's works. It is with such an eye and mind that I have unavoidably cast judgement upon Roland Deschain and his world, his friends, his quest and his stories. Tolkien believed that an author does not 'create' stories. The stories are already there like leaves on a great tree of stories. An author simply finds or selects the story and it is his job to tell it in a successful way a task he referred to as 'sub-creation'. Tolkien believed that with any genre this sub-creation was the difficult part of storytelling, and the trick to successful sub-creation was to do so in such a way so as to encourage your readers to invest in and believe in your story. Once you question it once you begin to think that what you're reading doesn't work or make sense, the spell is broken and the art of sub-creation has failed.
Tolkien believed this to be particularly difficult when dealing with the fantasy genre. After all, it's much easier to get a reader to invest in and believe in a story concerning 'real world' events such as modern or historically factual warfare, a detective story, a romance novel, murderous thriller than it is to ask a reader to believe a man can fly, or that dragons walked the earth, or that hobbits used to be as natural a part of this world as men. If you can tell such a story sub-create it successfully and your readers are invested and come along willingly to where you take them then you truly have made something special.
I am proud to say that Stephen King has made a convert of me. Not only am I enamored with King's sub-creation of all things concerning Roland, but I have a strong desire to read other works by King, particularly those which "link" or "connect" with "The Dark Tower" (e.g., 'The Stand'). That is perhaps the greatest praise I can offer, considering my previously ignorant and stubborn unwillingness to try to meet him halfway.
I approached this series as a steadfast avoider of King's works. Growing up as a child, I'd seen a few of his films and read none of his books and for the most part I believed King's body of work to be a thing I would never actively seek out. That's not to say it was bad or that it was even distasteful. But I'd ignorantly resigned myself to the fact that all of King's works were of the horror genre, and that simply did not interest me. So vested was I in this belief that as I entered my teens and became more and more aware that King's stories spanned a much broader swathe of the literary buffet table, even so I was unwilling to give King's books a chance.
I'd seen "It" as a child and it properly frightened me. I'd seen both versions of "The Shining". I'd seen "Misery" several times before I was 14. These were all films that made me 'uncomfortable'. Yet I found "Misery" to be a fascinating film and willingly returned to. I saw and enjoyed "The Green Mile", only to discover later that it was a work of King's. The same was true for "Schawshank".
The evidence was slamming me in the face like a brick that there were great stories to be enjoyed by Mr King, and yet I steadfastly refused to give most of King's work a chance. "The Dark Tower" certainly wasn't going to receive a moment of my attention. My friend mentioned he was reading the series and how good it was. Indeed I was aware of the series, as you couldn't enter any bookstore without seeing them everywhere. The series had recently (at the time) been republished in anticipation of the the release of books VI and VII, concluding the series. The lasting image in my mind was that acid-green cover to "The Waste Lands" all over every bookshop window in town. It looked grim...it looked dark...it said "Stephen King" on the cover. Despite having a healthier appetite for the horror genre than I'd had in my youth, despite knowing full-well that King wrote excellent stories, despite actually knowing absolutely nothing whatsoever about the plot of the books I couldn't have possibly cared less.
It was about two years ago when I stumbled upon a story surrounding the planned film adaptation of the series that I began to take interest. The story mentioned very briefly (a single paragraph) that (and I'm paraphrasing), [Stephen King's epic, inspired by such works as J.R.R. Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings' and westerns such as 'Gunsmoke' and Sergio Leone's "Man with No Name Trilogy" starring Clint Eastwood, would soon be adapted into a major motion picture series.]
I was flabbergasted. I was a life-long Tolkien fan myself and couldn't believe that this man whom I'd spent so much of my time actively avoiding could possibly have anything in common with my favourite author of all-time. I immediately began researching "The Dark Tower" (initially expecting to find that the author of the aforementioned article would surely have made some grave error). I soon learned that Stephen King had indeed been inspired by Tolkien in his youth, as had so many of his generation. I read that King had decided that he wanted to write a fantasy (not horror!) epic of his very own...but that he didn't want it to be concerned with elves, wizards and dragons as there was so much of that around already. It had been done well (by Tolkien) and it had been done a lot (by everyone else). The market was saturated.
Instead, King opted to wait...and contemplated what would become "his" epic. This eventually came to be published in a seven-volume series (soon to contain an eighth) beginning with "The Gunslinger"...which is what this review is really supposed to be about anyway.
The very fact that a 'fantasy' series could involve a 'Gunslinger' rather than...well, rather than what I was accustomed to seeing in my fantasy stories...was enough for me to track down an online-copy of the first chapter of "The Gunslinger". Like so many before me, I was hooked from the first line.
"The Man in Black fled across the desert, and The Gunslinger followed."
An absolutely perfect way to begin a tale, and I rank it just as highly as ever I have Tolkien's own introduction to his world, "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." It's a short line...a memorable line...and it instantaneously demanded my attention. It forced me to read on, made me want to know more.
Who was this Man in Black? Why was he fleeing and who was he fleeing from? Was he fleeing from The Gunslinger, or was he unaware he was being tracked and was simply fleeing for other reasons? And who was The Gunslinger? Why did he chase this unnamed man, who must surely be a villain (being so attired)?
We soon learn that The Gunslinger is Roland Deschain, and his role as "Gunslinger" could be equated to "Keeper of the Peace", "Preserver", even "knight". It is or was his task to stop his world from 'moving on'...but he has failed in his task to do so. The world has moved on Roland is the last of his kind and nothing is as it used to be. The changes which are happening are linked to the mysterious Man in Black, and the mythical tower, which supposedly stands as the centre the intersection of many words or universes. A change is happening there, and not for the better. Roland's quest is to reach this tower for what ultimate purpose is not known. Will he succeed? what friends and enemies will he make along the way? The choices he makes will affect not only his world, but all worlds including our own. But is it choice, or is it Ka..."destiny"?
I approached this series as a lover of Tolkien's works. It is with such an eye and mind that I have unavoidably cast judgement upon Roland Deschain and his world, his friends, his quest and his stories. Tolkien believed that an author does not 'create' stories. The stories are already there like leaves on a great tree of stories. An author simply finds or selects the story and it is his job to tell it in a successful way a task he referred to as 'sub-creation'. Tolkien believed that with any genre this sub-creation was the difficult part of storytelling, and the trick to successful sub-creation was to do so in such a way so as to encourage your readers to invest in and believe in your story. Once you question it once you begin to think that what you're reading doesn't work or make sense, the spell is broken and the art of sub-creation has failed.
Tolkien believed this to be particularly difficult when dealing with the fantasy genre. After all, it's much easier to get a reader to invest in and believe in a story concerning 'real world' events such as modern or historically factual warfare, a detective story, a romance novel, murderous thriller than it is to ask a reader to believe a man can fly, or that dragons walked the earth, or that hobbits used to be as natural a part of this world as men. If you can tell such a story sub-create it successfully and your readers are invested and come along willingly to where you take them then you truly have made something special.
I am proud to say that Stephen King has made a convert of me. Not only am I enamored with King's sub-creation of all things concerning Roland, but I have a strong desire to read other works by King, particularly those which "link" or "connect" with "The Dark Tower" (e.g., 'The Stand'). That is perhaps the greatest praise I can offer, considering my previously ignorant and stubborn unwillingness to try to meet him halfway.
No comments:
Post a Comment