Printable View
Okay, so I finally finished reading all of the books in this series, so I had to make a thread and see what other people thought.
I really thought the series was fantastic, up until about the last half of the last book. Idunno, it just seemed like it was all downhill after a certain point.
I've been waiting for this to finish up. Now that its officially over I'll go buy them. I reccomend The Stand (also King).
I'm in the middle of book 3. They aren't the best books in the world, but they're pretty good. I don't like Stephen King's writing style sometimes. Now I must avoid this thread so I don't get spoiled.
I looooove them. And I think the end of book seven is supposed to be downhill. It is the end, afterall.
King can be really, really melodramtic stylistically, and throughout the series there are some serious groan moments. But he's also very good at communicating emotions we (well, I) wouldn't attribute to certain characters. In most of his works, he layers the characters very well. Roland is a cold hard killer, but he's not JUST a cold hard killer. He runs deeper than that.
The official ending of the story is great and terrible, but some of the things that happen in the last two books are rushed and cheesy. (SPOILER)
I leave space so people can turn back! xD Anyways.
For example, the whole thing with Patrick Danville and the Crimson King. Danville was necessary in getting Susannah out of Roland's world, but I thought it was silly that he stuck around to deal with the Crimson King. I thought it was pretty silly that the Crimson King made an appearance at all. For example, how did he get into the tower, when the only way for Roland to get in was because he was Roland? I think it also convolutes the theme of the book, that there is a Dark Tower within us all, something we strive for that is capable of destroying us. I suppose you could say that the Crimson King is just another reflection of Roland, someone who will stop at nothing to achieve his goal, but I still think it comes into the story far too late and isn't properly developed.
Also, something I don't understand is people who hate that King himself is in the story. I thought that was a brilliant move, especially given his purpose in the story and his own opinion on his writing.
Okay, Stri. Now you have to tell me about your favorites in the book so I have more to talk about. xD
I got a few chapters into the first book before I set it down and ran away. Just wasn't my kind of thing. My great aunt and uncle love them to pieces though.
Dude, Oy freaking owns.
the first book is ridicoulously hard to soldier through at first. two and three and four are a charm. i started on wolves of the calla recently but dont actually own it so that'll take a while.
I've read the first 3 books. I'm going to return to the start of the series and read the whole of it in its entirety now that I own all 7 books. Out of those first 3, though, my favourite was the first book. King's beautiful, eloquent descriptive style in the first book is a harsh contrast to his usual fast-moving, rushed, exciting writing, but I must say I prefer his early writing.
Apparently he rereleased the first book in a revised and expanded version, but I've heard that it's rewritten in his usual, poorly written though compulsively page-turning style. I much preferred the metaphor-laden, poetic style of the first book, which was really what got me into the series.
Thought I found the Drawing of the Three as exciting as watching an excellent action movie, it lost all of the poetry of the first book. After all, the original Gunslinger novel was written over a very long period, lending a somewhat fragmentray, serialized aspect to it; but also showing the benefits of its long period of production in its description and especially within the lengthy philispohical banter between the Gunslinger and the Man in Black at the end.
So, in short, I prefer book 1.