Dark Tower & Ring World

[Cikomyr]

I heard about these book series, and i wanted to know if they are worth the bother?

[BWR]

i'm not a big fan of Steven King and Dark Tower did nothing for me, so IMO: no.

I like a lot of Larry Niven's stuff and the Ringworld stories are quite good, so IMO: yes.
The later RW stories feel quite a bit different than the first one, though. I like it but I can understand those who prefer to ignore everything but the first book.

[huttj509]

Depends on what you're looking for.

It's been quite a while since I read Ringworld. I remember liking it, but it was very much "a product of its time."

[McStabbington]

Never read Ringworld, so I couldn't say yea or nay on it.

That being said, I am a huge fan of The Dark Tower series, and I heartily recommend it to any fantasy enthusiasts. I would say that it helps if you come to Stephen King with a relatively blank slate. I would also say that it differs radically from most fantasy, in that it looks and feels (quite deliberately) less like a fantasy and more like a Spaghetti Western in the beginning, and it's only through uncovering the mystery of What is Happening to Mid-World? and What is the Significance of the Dark Tower? that you start encountering more and more fantasy or at least very, very soft sci-fi elements.

It's amazingly original, and it's a surprisingly effective character study of a character who first comes off as a cynical anti-hero, but eventually grows in your view (Roland himself doesn't change much) to one of the great heroes of sci-fi/fantasy literature.

The only addendum I would add is that the final ending struck many as terrible, but I count myself in the minority view that both endings were absolutely perfect ways of ending the series. Admittedly, my view is influenced by the fact that I've never read The Stand the whole way through. If you have, you might like the ending(s) less, and find yourself holding to the majority opinion.

[Talakeal]

Overall I would highly recommend the dark tower series as a whole.

In my oppinion The Gunslinger is the best book ever written.

The drawing of the three, the wastelands, and wizard and glass, and wind through the keyhole are great fantasy novels.

The dark tower, the rewritten gunslinger, little sisters of eluria, and the wolves of the callah are pretty good.

Song of susannah is just ok, it has way too many "meta" elements to keep pace with the rest, but is still better than most books out there.


I am going to agree with the above poster, I am part of the minority that likes the ending. If you are looking at it as the climax to an epic fantasy sage you will be dissapointed, but as a parrelel to the first book and a commentary on the character of Roland it is excellent.

[LibraryOgre]

Haven't read the Dark Tower, so I won't vote, per se, but I found the first Ringworld book to be less a novel and more an exploration of a couple concepts... one fairly practical (i.e. the Ringworld itself), one pretty speculative (the minds of a sentient species derived from running prey herd beasts), and one a little bit fantasy (the woman selected entirely for luck).

It's a good book, but while novel in form, I think those aspects take more of the stage than the tale.

[JoshL]

I wonder about the "minority who like the second ending" thing. I loved it, and it's absolutely perfect. Makes complete sense given the rest of the series.

That said, I've never talked to anyone who disliked it. The only talk about disliking it comes in the book itself. I believe there are people who dislike it, but I wonder what the percentage really is.

Anyway, yeah, Dark Tower. Tons of fun, does what King does best (characters) and opens up layers in almost all of his other books. Highly recommended!

[Tengu_temp]

I think Dark Tower hits its peak in the third book and gets increasingly worse from there, but overall it's good and worthy of recommendation. Its ending is weaksauce and disappointing, though. Also you have to endure Stephen King stroking his ego way too much in the sixth book.

[Shadow]

I enjoyed Ring World.

I always hated King. His style annoys the heck out of me. If he begins describing a leaf blowing in the breeze, you could turn 16 pages and he *might* be finished describing that tiny insignificant detail. I have always found his style to be swill not fit to feed the hogs.
Then I read The Gunslinger.
Then I read the entire Dark Tower series (or what was available of it at the time).
Then I wanted to go back and read all of King's other work (that I have always hated) so that I could better understand the relevance of the tie-ins included in the DT series.
Every few years I reread the series. It's quite literally one of my favorites where any series is concerned. And that's coming from someone that has historically despised King as an author and never understood how or why he ever became so damned popular.

[Starwulf]

Then I wanted to go back and read all of King's other work (that I have always hated) so that I could better understand the relevance of the tie-ins included in the DT series.
Every few years I reread the series. It's quite literally one of my favorites where any series is concerned. And that's coming from someone that has historically despised King as an author and never understood how or why he ever became so damned popular.

The REAAAAAALLLLLLLYYYY funny thing about that, is that the more of his other books you read, the more things you find actually tie-in to the Dark Tower series. I'd say a solid 2/3rd of his books have at least one significant mention in them that ties them into the Dark Tower series. It's one of the reasons why I love his works so much, they all seem so separate, yet the more of him you read, the more you find they all weave this incredibly intricate tapestry that makes up his stories universe. Of course, it's that much better when one of his books features prominently(like Salems Lot, or Insomnia) in the DT series.

I once read a rumor that King was going to write sequels to every one of his stories, and man, if that was true I'd probably be one of the happiest people on the planet. Especially if he re-wrote the DT series, BUT does so by picking back up from Rolands adventure where this time he remembers to grab his friends (insert item here) from the battlefield that he forgot the first time. Would be pretty awesome to see the small(and big) changes that would occur from that one action changing(and going by the ending and how significantly it's portrayed, I'd imagine it has massive ripple effects).

As for Ringworld...I've only vaguely heard of it, never read it so I can't offer any advice on it, but DT gets a huge yes from me!

[Gnoman]

The best way I can describe the Dark Tower series is that it has a "meh" start, shoots up to amazing in the second book, then begins to go downhill until the ending, where it goes back up to "very good". The real downhill vector comes in after King almost died (IRL), and it seemed as if he was trying to push hard to finish the thing and avoid pulling a Chaucer.

[Lurkmoar]

Haven't read Ring World, but I did enjoy the Dark Tower. The first four books are pretty good, but I felt that Song of Susannah and the Dark Tower were a little weak. And considering almost every character disparages King, it hardly seems like an ego stroke. The Dark Tower really suffers from some Dues Ex Machina though. And then there's the hype for some of the villains who end up being fairly ineffectual.

Still, I enjoyed it.

[BWR]

The best way I can describe the Dark Tower series is that it has a "meh" start, shoots up to amazing in the second book, then begins to go downhill until the ending, where it goes back up to "very good". The real downhill vector comes in after King almost died (IRL), and it seemed as if he was trying to push hard to finish the thing and avoid pulling a Chaucer.

If only King could write like Chaucer.

[Starwulf]

If only King could write like Chaucer.

Yes, because everyone knows you can compare classic English Literature wrote in an entirely different era with a modern Horror writer. It's apples and oranges man, both may be fruit but they aren't even in the same category. Chaucer should be put against Shakespeare or someone of that ilk. King's contemporaries are Koontz, Barker, Straub or Keene(many others of course, both those are the ones I'm most familiar with). If King wrote like Chaucer 95% of the modern world wouldn't read a single thing he wrote, and the other 5% would likely be those snooty people that constantly drop lines from classic literature that they've read as though they think it makes them seem more knowledgeable.

[SiuiS]

King's writing is pedestrian. The comparison to Chaucer is apt int that it points that out. King's writing isn't all that special.

That's the point. King writes stories of mundane feats brought to larger, more terrifying light. King writes the stories of fears that men who walk down the street and see something out of the corner of their eye wonder. Of mad dogs, crazy hotels, Indian burial grounds.

Ling's writing shines elsewhere though. Look up Dragon's Tears, I think it's called. It's a fantasy book he wrote, and it is hands down far and away superior to his horror strictly from a technical writing standpoint. This means a few things to me. For one, his bad writing isn't bad writing, it's a choice of style to get an effect, and it works. Not everyone appreciates that effect but there it is. It also means he is a better writer in capacity than he usually is in actual output. His works are masterpieces in the sense that, unlike so many, he does exactly what he wants to do, no word wasted. Whether you appreciate the end result or not you have to respect that. That is mastery of a craft.

[Feytalist]

As mentioned, Ringworld is interesting more for the concepts explored in the book than for the story itself. I'd recommend it, even if only for a bit of SF "history". It's not badly written in any way, though. (I'd stick to the first book, though.)


The Dark Tower is fairly unique. The plot is huge and sprawling, in traditional "epic" manner, and transitions into various genres. The quality of writing varies a bit, as has been explained. Also - and this is a bit of love-or-hate - King ties most of his standalone novels into the Dark Tower 'verse in some way. It's that sort of meta series. If you don't know the bulk of his other work, it won't make much of a difference, of course. But if you're up for it, Dark Tower is a good read.

[Peebles]

Never read Ringworld, but I enjoyed the Dark Tower series. In my opinion the first book is borderline appalling, but they get better and better up to and including Wolves of the Calla, and then they drop off again when King starts getting too self-congratulatory with everything. The ending is divisive, but I'm on of the few that liked it.

I am a general fan of King's work, though he can chuck out some absolute stinkers every now and then. It's not really a standard fantasy though, more a western with fantasy overtones. Nice atmosphere, nicely written for the most part, with some excellent characters and some unique ideas, definitely worth a read if you can get past the first book.

[BWR]

King's writing is pedestrian. The comparison to Chaucer is apt int that it points that out. King's writing isn't all that special.

That's the point. King writes stories of mundane feats brought to larger, more terrifying light. King writes the stories of fears that men who walk down the street and see something out of the corner of their eye wonder. Of mad dogs, crazy hotels, Indian burial grounds.

Ling's writing shines elsewhere though. Look up Dragon's Tears, I think it's called. It's a fantasy book he wrote, and it is hands down far and away superior to his horror strictly from a technical writing standpoint. This means a few things to me. For one, his bad writing isn't bad writing, it's a choice of style to get an effect, and it works. Not everyone appreciates that effect but there it is. It also means he is a better writer in capacity than he usually is in actual output. His works are masterpieces in the sense that, unlike so many, he does exactly what he wants to do, no word wasted. Whether you appreciate the end result or not you have to respect that. That is mastery of a craft.

I'll agree that King can generally set up a story fairly well. Interesting start and somewhat creepy progression. Then at some point it seems he has no idea how to pull the story ashore and just loses all control, and things get boring and bloody. It's usually the big reveal that leaves me disappointed.

[Cespenar]

The funny part about Dark Tower is how each book differs from the others. The first is more or less standard western with a twist. Two and three are gritty and post-apocalyptic. Four, the story-within-a-story, is almost more interesting than the real story itself. Five acts as a return to the "original" style. Six ups the meta to 11. And Seven is like two-three books in its own.

Ringworld, I personally didn't like. It's pretty much the exploration of a couple of ideas, but the grating part (to me, at least) is that the author doesn't show that the book is just about those. Nah, he introduces a plot, and acts like the plot is actually important. So you read on, and realize that it's just a prop.

[Starwulf]

King's writing is pedestrian. The comparison to Chaucer is apt int that it points that out. King's writing isn't all that special.

Im not sure you can call someone who has sold more then 350million copies of his books, and received several dozen awards(both major and minor) for his writing to be merely a "pedestrian" writer. Just because he's not Shakespeare doesn't make his works bad, or even not good/great. I mean, they have almost all been incredibly well received, and in more then a few cases, critically acclaimed.

[Talakeal]

Yes, because everyone knows you can compare classic English Literature wrote in an entirely different era with a modern Horror writer. It's apples and oranges man, both may be fruit but they aren't even in the same category. Chaucer should be put against Shakespeare or someone of that ilk. King's contemporaries are Koontz, Barker, Straub or Keene(many others of course, both those are the ones I'm most familiar with). If King wrote like Chaucer 95% of the modern world wouldn't read a single thing he wrote, and the other 5% would likely be those snooty people that constantly drop lines from classic literature that they've read as though they think it makes them seem more knowledgeable.

I agree.

I am not sure how fair it is to compare modern literature to classics. A lot of classic literature is passed on simply because it has survived, not for any merit, Beowulf for example is well known simply because it is the only thing left from that era.

Also, older stuff works differently than modern stuff. For example, when I was in college in my literature class we were reading The Portrait of Dorian Grey. This is considered a classic, but I remember at one point the author drops the narrative and instead starts off on a tangent giving a several page long geology lecture because one of the character's was interacting with a peculiar gem. If I had gone into my creative writing class and done something similar I can guarantee you that the professor would have told me I was insane and needed to cut such digressions immediately.

Even Tolkien, as we are discussing in another thread, uses a lot of stylistic elements that just don't fit and would be considered "wrong" to a modern audience.

[LibraryOgre]

Ling's writing shines elsewhere though. Look up Dragon's Tears, I think it's called. It's a fantasy book he wrote, and it is hands down far and away superior to his horror strictly from a technical writing standpoint.

Perhaps you mean "Eyes of the Dragon"?

I do love that book.

[Gnoman]

There is a Dean Koontz book called Dragon's Tears, about a pair of cops trying to catch a metahuman killer. Probably not what was meant, though.

[Starwulf]

Perhaps you mean "Eyes of the Dragon"?

I do love that book.

Interesting note, The Eyes of the Dragon is, if I'm not mistaken, the only other book that is set solely in Roland's world(The Dark Tower world) outside of the DT books themselves. Pretty sure the main antagonist is one of the primary ones of DT itself as well(or at least, the person behind him) can't fully remember though it's been since I was 11 since I read it and no longer have the book.

[LibraryOgre]

Interesting note, The Eyes of the Dragon is, if I'm not mistaken, the only other book that is set solely in Roland's world(The Dark Tower world) outside of the DT books themselves. Pretty sure the main antagonist is one of the primary ones of DT itself as well(or at least, the person behind him) can't fully remember though it's been since I was 11 since I read it and no longer have the book.

I have the copy my older brother got in paperback. It is older than my wife.

[Tengu_temp]

Four, the story-within-a-story, is almost more interesting than the real story itself.

Hah, I actually hated that story-within-a-story, and couldn't wait for it to be over. I liked Roland's old friends, and that's pretty much it.

[SiuiS]

I'll agree that King can generally set up a story fairly well. Interesting start and somewhat creepy progression. Then at some point it seems he has no idea how to pull the story ashore and just loses all control, and things get boring and bloody. It's usually the big reveal that leaves me disappointed.

He can't seem to close the deal ever, yeah. He writes like real life, stories don't end, just eventually someone stops talking.

Im not sure you can call someone who has sold more then 350million copies of his books, and received several dozen awards(both major and minor) for his writing to be merely a "pedestrian" writer. Just because he's not Shakespeare doesn't make his works bad, or even not good/great. I mean, they have almost all been incredibly well received, and in more then a few cases, critically acclaimed.

I'm not sure a popularity contest means anything. Book volume is a daisy chain where being on a list gets you you more publicity and keeps you on the list to get more books sold. It's common understanding that the average reader doesn't care about quality beyond a minimum benchmark, and escapism doesn't have a high bar.

I'm not comparing him to Chaucer. I said he chose to write in a very dul manner because his stories don't work told in a different voice. It's all true, and it's based on my own eyes and the words of people whose critical evaluation skills I trust, not some number crunch.

Read eyes of the dragon. You'll see with your own eyes that his writing style can and indeed does get much better. Then slog through the stand and tell me he couldn't have written that more exciting, at a cost to the structure.

Perhaps you mean "Eyes of the Dragon"?

I do love that book.

Yes. My gosh, that's an amazing bit of story. I wish he would do more like that. Not even world, just structure, pacing, design. He can do a lot of good stuff!

Interesting note, The Eyes of the Dragon is, if I'm not mistaken, the only other book that is set solely in Roland's world(The Dark Tower world) outside of the DT books themselves. Pretty sure the main antagonist is one of the primary ones of DT itself as well(or at least, the person behind him) can't fully remember though it's been since I was 11 since I read it and no longer have the book.

Is it? I believe it's a unique world. Flagg just has the ability to move around. It's only part of Roland's world in that all worlds are part of Roland's world. He's from the primordial level of things.

[Gnoman]

Interesting note, The Eyes of the Dragon is, if I'm not mistaken, the only other book that is set solely in Roland's world(The Dark Tower world) outside of the DT books themselves. Pretty sure the main antagonist is one of the primary ones of DT itself as well(or at least, the person behind him) can't fully remember though it's been since I was 11 since I read it and no longer have the book.

Flagg's a secondary villain in the DT series. He's a bit of a recurring King bad guy as well, being the Big Bad of The Stand and quite possibly Needful Things and Hearts In Atlantis.

[McStabbington]

Flagg's a secondary villain in the DT series. He's a bit of a recurring King bad guy as well, being the Big Bad of The Stand and quite possibly Needful Things and Hearts In Atlantis.

At the risk of spoiling, I think that has a great deal to do with why there's a split in the fanbase over the ending to The Dark Tower series. In point of fact, I'll put my explanation in spoilers just to avoid causing any problems for newcomers to the series:

Spoiler

Show

Older readers mostly came to The Dark Tower series because they read The Stand and loved it. If you do that, the ending(s) can be . . . unexpected, and not in a good way. Or at the very least, not if you aren't very familiar with Sergio Leone, who was all about the build-up to the big fight rather than the final shootout itself. Younger readers usually come to The Dark Tower first, and so they don't know who Marten Broadcloak is, and as a result aren't necessarily put off by the ending, which was never really about Flagg anyway, but about Roland's attempt to find the Dark Tower and discover what lies inside it.

[Starwulf]

I'm not sure a popularity contest means anything. Book volume is a daisy chain where being on a list gets you you more publicity and keeps you on the list to get more books sold. It's common understanding that the average reader doesn't care about quality beyond a minimum benchmark, and escapism doesn't have a high bar.

I'm not comparing him to Chaucer. I said he chose to write in a very dul manner because his stories don't work told in a different voice. It's all true, and it's based on my own eyes and the words of people whose critical evaluation skills I trust, not some number crunch.

Read eyes of the dragon. You'll see with your own eyes that his writing style can and indeed does get much better. Then slog through the stand and tell me he couldn't have written that more exciting, at a cost to the structure.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I consider King one of the greatest writers(not just of Horror) of our current Era, I love his writing style, and apparently I'm not alone, since again, he has not just sold 350mil+ copies of books but has also received critical acclaim for many, and has a ginormous fanbase. I don't think "pedestrian" writing could ever achieve the success that King's writing has.

Also, if you had read all of my posts instead of just the one I replied to you with, you'd have noticed that I HAVE read Eyes of the Dragon, it's actually the second King book I read(I was like 11), the first being Firestarter when I was 10. Yes, it's good, though I can't say I remember much, but I certainly don't recall it being head and shoulders above everything else he's written like you claim. And as far as the Stand goes..yeah we definitely need to agree to disagree. The Stand is one of my favorite King books, and I've read and reread that book 7 times, I love everything about it, and find it perfectly exciting. What you consider a slog, I consider in-depth and immersive, making me feel like I am one of the characters that have survived an apocalypse.

Flagg's a secondary villain in the DT series. He's a bit of a recurring King bad guy as well, being the Big Bad of The Stand and quite possibly Needful Things and Hearts In Atlantis.

Ahh, yeah I thought it was Flagg, but it's been a solid two decades and a bit of change since I read Eyes of the Dragon, so I didn't want to say "Flagg" and look stupid. Hmm, Hearts in Atlantis is one of like 3 King books I've never read(It never seems to show up at the paperback book sales I frequent, and I don't want to pay $9 bucks for an older book), so I can't comment, but yeah I've definitely felt Needful Things guy is, if not actually Flagg, at least directly connected to him.