Question About the Non-King Literary Tie-ins..

BevVincent

I just finished The Dark Tower Series, and then read "The Road to the Dark Tower", which really helped put a lot of things in perspective for me about the series. But I have a question that was never answered clearly (or clearly enough for me to catch) in the series or "The Road.." Something I found confusing was the appearance of many pieces of other stories throughout the series (Dr. Doom, Wizard of Oz, Harry Potter, etc..). I realize every writer has influences, but it seemed like King was going somewhere with it.. At first I thought maybe the Crimson King was pulling these images out of their minds to confuse them, but as far as I know it was never explained (and none of them had any idea who Harry Potter was). Later, Roland guesses that Robert Browning had for a short while heard the song of the Turtle, and written "Childe Roland.." So, from that, do you think maybe King is implying that many writers and artists had caught wind of the Song o' the Turtle? And those elements in their stories that appear in Mid-World are truly FROM Mid-World, and appear in their stories due to their glimpse into the Song? Any other possible explanations would be welcome. Because when I first came upon "Sneetches" in Wolves of the Calla, as well as talk of Harry Potter, it made me think, "What the hell is King doing?" and it shook my faith in the series a little. Of course, not enough to stop me from going through to the Tower. Every other question I had was pretty much resolved by "The Road to the Dark Tower".. But this one thing is nagging at me. Thanks.

BevVincent

Spoilers for DT series

---

One possible reason for all this is to emphasize that the ka-tet is living in a fictional world. When Roland removes the bullet from Eddie's leg, he thinks about seeing the scene in countless western movies. The fact that the Wolves looked like Dr. Doom, the sneetches...all of these things leaked into the story from the Dark Tower version of Stephen King. King was conjuring up the story, so things that were part of his psyche became embedded in the tale.

BevVincent

First of all, thanks for the reply. It's not often that you can talk directly to an author whose book you've just read, and get an answer so quickly. Secondly, I found your book to be really helpful and well-put-together. Your post makes sense, I guess I was just trying to think of the story (for the sake of fun) from the point of view that the fictional King is the real King, and that he somehow does have this link to the world of the Gunslinger. So from that viewpoint, it would make no sense to run into Red Wizard of Oz booties and light sabers. I loved that King fictionalized himself in the books, even poked fun at himself.. so your explanation works along those lines quite well. Thanks again.

BevVincent

As much as readers like to hear back from writers, the converse is true, too--we like to get feedback from our readers! So thanks for dropping by, I'm glad you enjoyed the book, and I hope you hang around and post some more!

Coral

My personal opinion is that Roland's world is not meant to be fictional (created by the fictional King) but a post apocalyptic version of our own after we have advanced beyond ourselves. We have a tendency to bring our dreams to life, many times in the most destructive way possible. The "Snitch" from Harry Potter becomes a Sneetch. A bomb based on a child's toy. Robots made in the form of Dr. Doom by the "geeky scientist" who created them as a kind of joke. Further "geek-dom" implied by the fact these machines are wielding light sabers... which any Star Wars fan would tell you would be freaking awesome...lol. But again, a dream made destructive. I think the point in all of these references is that we destroyed ourselves. They are just more support for the bigger story...Roland destroys himself just as all human beings have a tendency to do. "Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it..." and so forth.



As for the Wizard of Oz kick that we went on in Wizard and Glass I think that is all Martin/Walter's doing. We KNOW Martin/Walter is a great magician and has many times been to our world. He knows that Eddie, Jake and Suzanna come from a version of our where and when. It is a play on their emotions, a head game, a farce meant to be seen through but also set to amaze. "There's no place like home" right? That is what Dorothy learns at the end of her journey to Oz. Unfortunately, Roland, poor deprived fellow that he is, misses the reference and plods right along toward his cliff of damnation.



I feel that we as readers have become stuck on King's appearance in the story. He himself is a fictional character regardless of the similarities between his real self and his counter part. Roland and Eddie view him as their maker because they must save him. He writes their story down and many many others but does that make them any less real? "Am I a dream with in your dream or are you a dream within mine?" He states himself that he hears the voice of Gan which requires him to tell this particular story and it is the story which saves his life so they are not mutually exclusive. They are dependent on each other. King must tell the story to the world but he is not their creator which is never quite said, I think, though it is strongly implied despite what Roland and Eddie and King might think on the subject. They are characters and thus have their own thoughts but those thoughts are not necessarily the truth of the matter. Let me summarize this last a bit: King made an image of himself as a character, what that character thinks in response to his encounter with Roland and his ka-tet is not necessarily what King himself thinks nor is it what he implies outside of the interior monologues.

BevVincent

Hedda Gabler

I enjoyed that.  She had a lot of information in that video.

I find people like this fascinating.  Bev is one. Robin Furth another. This little gal obviously enjoys it. Books, movies, TV shows, corporate America etc..etc..  have their worker bees:  The people who make that top dog look good, whether that be a boss or themselves.

 These people are part of an 8th classification of humans:  Elite: The Researcher.

I love to learn.  But I am lazy in a "gathering information" respect.  I'm not physically lazy; in fact, I'm the opposite when it comes to working hard physically.  But don't send me on a quest to gather information on a topic for you.

In college, I took the road less travelled on research papers.  While everyone else was hitting the library clawing and scratching for the same books, giving the teacher exactly what they asked for, I was the one standing out from the crowd with some off-the-wall paper.  In half the time my fellow students were spending sweating over their writing.  I always got A's.   Now, you might call me a cheater, cutting corners -- but I didn't cheat. I did my own work, I just did it in a way that stood out from 200 other monotonous readings.  I worked smart, not hard.  bwhahaha!  My teachers loved me and oftentimes, my papers would be singled out for discussion in a good way.

Does my technique translate to the adult world?  Depends really.  But, I think now more than ever, we need those hardcore researchers.  They do the deep dive as Carla talks about.  

I hate chasing down information.   The researchers are in their element and love the chase.  And I thank them for their dedication.  Because I sit back and try my best to soak up their hours and hours of tedious work.  

I ain't diving.  But I'll cast my net for their very appreciated labors of love.