Stephen King Book Club

The Battle Of Tull: Part 1

This is always been my least favorite part of my least favorite Dark Tower book and the comic is no improvement. 1 1/2 stars.

Roland's Journey To Tull

Robin Furth likes the story more than me, but whether she's right or wrong to, that fact makes her the right person for the adaptation. 3 1/2 stars.

Issue Overall: 2 stars.

The Battle Of Tull: Part 2

Credit where it is due: The ending resurrection actually IS creepy as hell. 3 stars.

Raising The Dead

Furth basically just details the resurrection from the book nearly verbatim. It's not my favorite essay of hers, simply because there's less speculation and her own ideas. Her talking about Walter's identity near the end was more of what I was looking for there, but also not the essay's main focus. 2 stars.

Issue Overall: 2 1/2 stars.

The Battle Of Tull, Part 3

Nort saying that Walter could have cured him of his addiction to weed if he wanted to shows Walter's immeasurably cruelty, as does the Nineteen mindtrap he left in that note for Allie. Seriously evil dude.

Sylvia Pittson knows how to make an entrance too. 2 1/2 stars.

Magic Nineteen

Furth not only discusses the reasons Walter lays the mindtrap, but she looks ahead to the final three books and the many instances the number can be found there. 3 stars.

Issue Overall: 3 stars.

The Battle Of Tull: Part 4:

Occasionally around every six years or so, Maine Senator Susan Collins pulls the same crap she always does, and votes for something unforgivable, but secretly pretends she's concerned about it. No Democrat has been able to dislodge her, even though she is a huge fraud and partly responsible for the current Supreme Court. Around election time somebody will sometimes pipe up, if nobody else can beat Collins, Stephen King ought to throw his hat in the ring and run for her seat. He's a Maine Institution, even more than Collins is! He'd cream her!

Those people are super dumb. Once Republican opposition research got done with King, he'd lose an election for dogcatcher as a Democrat by 20 points.

Because of some of the twisted things he's written that most everyday people aren't even aware of. He's the guy who came up with The Shining, and Carrie, and The Dead Zone. Yeah. He's also the guy who wrote the child orgy in IT, freaking RAGE, which considering how young he was when he wrote it might be forgivable, except he idiotically had it published as an adult under a pseudonym, the sexual and racial degradation of the short story "Dedication" and Roland Deschain literally raping Sylvia Pittson with his gun to abort her "demon fetus" here. I understand King deals with horror. THAT right there, and the other examples I mentioned, are signs of a profoundly disturbed mind. The fact that King is universally beloved is only because few people have really looked closely or are aware of many of the horrible, unforgivable things he's written. The comic tries to show the scene "tastefully", which is bogus in my mind, because nobody in their right mind should ever sanitize something like that, and pretend it is less horrible than it is.

All that being said, I've liked the fact that when Roland says goodbye to Allie, the narration informs us he'll only see her alive once more. For some reason, that strikes me as far more foreboding than "He never sees her alive again". It suggests whatever killed her, Roland was a part of it. Which is right, which makes it great foreshadowing, and it makes The Gunslinger an utterly crappy and appalling book. 0.

Characterization, Characters, And The Villainous Sylvia Pittson

I was more interested in Furth's comments about the rape, which are in the next issue. I agree that Pittson leaps off the page, and the fact that she is both 300 pounds and desirable makes her instantly memorable and unlike any other female character you can think of. But the fact that Roland covets her sexuality is the thing that adds added gravitas and horror to the rape he's committing. I don't like that Furth talks about Roland's lust without acknowledging how even more problematic that context makes the most problematic scene in the entire seven book series. 1 star.

Issue Overall: 0.

The Battle Of Tull: Part 5

The first Dark Tower novel is so freaking horrible, that I'm not only surprised King returned to it, but that it wound up as decent as is often did.

This crap? Is why I hated the first book. 0.

An Eye And A Hand

It would be a bad look for me to explain feminism to a woman. But the fact that Furth is a women is the reason I am SO frustrated with the excuses she makes for the rape. It "veers uncomfortably close to a sexual assault?" Robin, it IS a sexual assault. By every legal definition. I get you love the story, and that King is your boss. But you don't have to be cool with that. And it bothers me she isn't discussing her struggles in having to include that scene when she wishes she wouldn't have to. Instead her concerns involve how the reader might negatively perceive Roland in the long run for it. Roland is NOT the guy to worry about here, Robin. When he's raping a woman with a gun to abort her fetus, his personal growth and quest for redemption matter to me not a jot. I am certain in all other respects than this Furth understands feminism and women's issue better than I do, and I would do well to shut up and listen to her perspective about EVERYTHING else. But THIS? Is not something that is actually defensible, and I think a LOT less of her for attempting to provide a defense anyways. If you think I'm mansplaining a little here, I'll live with the accusation. I'm not changing my opinion if I get accused of it. That's how strongly I feel about it. 0.

Issue Overall: 0.

The Way Station: Part 1

Making "Wow, that's messed up," Jake Chambers' introductory line in the comic is genius because he might have actually said the same damn thing in the novel! Roland was simply unconscious for that part! Robin Furth and Peter David were giving a grand amount of leeway for Jake's first line in the comic, and they used it to great effect.

The best part is that it totally feels like a Jake thing to say.

I enjoyed Roland and Brown's debate over his reality. Considering the alarming things Roland is threatening, I love how coolly Brown defuses the situation instead. If the guy is the devil, he's saying the wrong things for that. Entirely. Yes, the devil is supposed to be reasonable and attractive. Nobody ever said he'd have to be RIGHT. Which Brown is on every level. So the devil he ain't.

It was a good issue. I'll admit it. 5 stars.

Transcending Time

Robin Furth talks about the time loop. Somehow without explicitly talking about the time loop. 4 stars.

Issue Overall: 4 stars.

The Way Station: Part 2

The parts with Jake Chambers are some of the rare good parts of The Gunslinger. When Roland expresses surprise Jake didn't kill him in his sleep, Jake's disturbed. "Should I have?" The fact that he fears Roland makes Roland trust him more. And Jake's insistence that the statues sold the clothes is so insane a story it just has to be true. I also like he wants to forget the death, because when the blood came out of his mouth, he could taste his own crap. One of the selling points of Stephen King is that he deals with the harsh realities and unpleasantness of death. And the kid's genitals being squashed and him tasting his own crap means King never glamorizes that sort of the thing, the way other horror writers and directors do. It's a hard world, Lloyd, ol' buddy, and King never pretends that it isn't. 4 1/2 stars.

Jake Chambers

You know what? I miss that these essays often used to be short fiction. Furth isn't actually telling us anything new here. 2 1/2 stars.

Issue Overall: 4 stars.

The Way Station: Part 3

Spooky enough, but we are sort of in a holding pattern for this issue.

One thing I'm gonna call b.s. on. It's in the book too, so Furth is actually telling the story right, but when Jake asks if the Man in Black is a bad man, Roland says it depends on your point of view. That is some Obi-Wan level b.s. right there. It's out of character that Roland doesn't just say the priest who pushed the kid in front of a car is actually bad news. 3 stars.

The Problem With Cellars

King Connections Of Note: Robin Furth discuss King's Forward to his short story collection "Night Shift". 3 1/2 stars.

Issue Overall: 3 1/2 stars.

The Way Station

I like that Jake has enough raw cunning and sense to note he heard 8 gunshots. And Roland brought back only three rabbits. Roland doesn't seem like the kind of guy to miss, does he? I like and admire Jake for that insight. Roland clearly does too which is why the kid is dangerous to him. 3 1/2 stars.

Speaking Rings

Again, I miss the short fiction these essays often were. This is all kind of dry stuff. 2 1/2 stars.

Issue Overall: 3 1/2 stars.

The Way Station: Part 5

I've always found it interesting that Jake is way more aware of the betrayal in the comic than he is the novel. He knows it's coming in the novel, but half-wants to believe Roland's pretty lies. In the comic it's clear he's know it's pure b.s.. I especially like that Peter David and Robin Furth added a scene of Roland telling Jake if he had such a problem with the danger he could just leave. And Jake insightfully knows how ludicrous that would be while they are miles away from ANYONE, with no new source of food or water to boot. It's not actually Jake's choice to continue with the Gunslinger. The truth is Roland had fixed it so he simply cannot currently survive without him. Roland has doubly screwed him there. That makes his betrayal all the more unforgivable if you ask me. 4 stars.

The Succubus

Couple of interesting notes.

Loved Furth recounting asking her fantasy-hating friend why they liked The Dark Tower. Duh! It's science fiction! And yeah, it's definitely closer to science fiction than fantasy. Robots and the Multiverse play a far bigger role than actual magic does. Magic is spoken of as part of the world BEFORE it moved on. The actual fantasy elements we witness are really few and far between.

I also love Furth bringing up the conversation between Roland and Eddie Dean when discussing different genres in fiction. "Does nobody in your world like to eat stew?" Which is like the perfect way to put it. And The Dark Tower is damn stew! Thick Chunky Beef! The entire thing encompasses way more different genres than similar sci-fi / fantasy stories. 4 stars.

Issue Overall: 4 stars.

The Man In Black: Part 1

I like that the comic diverges from the novel and has Jake take off and try to survive on his own briefly. The vision in the subway was great too.

I especially like that in the comic, for one brief moment, Roland actually considers renouncing the quest. In the book, the idea is a nonstarter. Comic Roland doesn't totally suck because he actually says "What am I doing?" at the end.

New artist. Things are less shadowed, more sketched-looking, and less painted-looking. I can tell what things are easier at any rate.

Good stuff. 4 stars.

Wind Through The Keyhole: Continuity And The Dark Tower Comics

I appreciate Robin Furth explaining The Wind Through The Keyhole breaking the comic's continuity by suggesting the comics take place on a different level of The Tower. But truthfully, that idea diminishes their importance and reality. But I think the differences there kickstarted the idea, so Furth briefly diverged from the novel this issue to prove the point.

Were I Furth I would have actually been pissed at King. And maybe she was, and this is the best spin she was able to put on it.

King Connections of Note: In describing Jake's trek through the pitch-black mountain, Furth recounts similar scenes from "The Stand", "The Talisman", and "Graveyard Shift". 4 stars.

Issue Overall: 4 stars.

The Man In Black: Part 2

I like that the comic has a scene of Jake calling out what Roland's ultimate hope for the Tower is as playing God. Roland still thinks he can control the Tower. And until he understands he can't he is going to make that same damn mistake over and over and over again.

I thought the artwork in the flashback was lovely, and decidedly different from everything else that had come before. They looked like watercolors.

Good issue. 4 stars.

Between The Pages

Furth again goes into the differences between this portion of the comic and the novel. 4 stars.

Issue Overall: 4 stars.

The Man In Black: Part 3

More changes. You almost expect the people on the train to have died of Captain Trips.

I love Roland telling Jake his clarification about what kind of terminal Grand Central was actually clarified nothing. Wiseguy.

I loved the cliffhanger! Normally I disapprove of adaptations adding new complications not in the source material, but this not only all feels very organic. It also feels like stuff King himself probably should have explored at the time.

Great issue. 4 1/2 stars.

Mid-World's Railways

Not QUITE a work of fiction, but one of Furth's famous profiles is closer to that than what we've been getting.

Blaine and Patricia the Mono are name-dropped and I'm literally squeeing in delight. I wish the comic hadn't been canceled when it was. I would have loved to have seen Blaine. 4 1/2 stars.

Issue Overall: 4 1/2 stars.

The Man In Black: Part 4

In this version of Jake's death, Roland does not strike me as calculating, ruthless, or a total bastard. He strikes me as sloppy. Reckless. Stupid. I would argue for the last living Gunslinger of Gilead that in and of itself is unforgivable. The fact that Roland's actions boil down to bad instincts instead of poor choices does not make me any less angry at him.

Jake is pretty sharp all throughout the issue. I love that about him. He knows what this is the entire time. No illusions for this kid.

I still love "There are other worlds than these." But I don't think King ever satisfactorily explained why Jake said it, or why he said it then. A LOT of mysteries were set up om the first book that were never paid off (see the majority of Roland's palaver with the Man In Black). That one especially puzzles me. 4 stars.

There Are Other Worlds Than These

Furth herself tries to explain the words but instead of making them sound reasonable for Jake to say, she details and spoils the rest of the saga. I read the books, so I don't care. I wonder how many people who read the comics first were super pissed instead. **.

Issue Overall: 3 1/2 stars.

The Man In Black: Part 5

The last chapter of The Gunslinger was my favorite and truly the only part of the book I loved. It was Stephen King uncharacteristically taking on Big Ideas and Grand Themes that he did nowhere else, not even in the next six Dark Tower books. It's Stephen on LSD b.s.-ing the night away about the Universe with his college roommates. It's amazing for that. And as bad of a book as The Gunslinger is, because it ends the way it does it FEELS much less worse than it actually is. And that's a good thing, especially because it IS the first book of a GOOD long-running series.

As far as the mysteries raised go, King does little to no pay-off about them as the saga ends. We'll hear a couple of the phrases again (I LOVE the phrase "He darkles. He tincts.") But absolute nothing about the rest of the saga has anything to do with Walter's prophecy regarding the Ageless Stranger and Legion. And I actually like that King couldn't actually make up his mind and kept me guessing there, even after the saga ended. I appreciate that about it in hindsight.

Balls-Out story, man. Also, your hands are huge. 5 stars.

Grasping The Infinite

Robin Furth does a full and shockingly in-depth recap of the Tarot reading from the book. I'm not going to say her interpretation of the card reading is the right answer. But it sounds way more plausible than anything I could have ever guessed. That's how close Furth is to all this. She gets things about the story and makes connections nobody else would ever be able to. 5 stars.

Issue Overall: 5 stars.

Sheemie's Tale: Part 1

A lot of this stuff was already referenced in the books and earlier comics, so it's interesting and delightful to see it all put down in a narrative and confirm all of the theories and speculations. Furth claims there are some stories that are seeds around a main tale. For this one, I don't actually think she had to stray outside the main canon at all.

King Connections of Note: Ted Brautigan is from "Low Men In Yellow Coats" from "Hearts In Atlantis". For the first time in the comics, various aspects of the fifth and seventh Dark Tower books ("Wolves Of The Calla" and "The Dark Tower") are referenced.

For the record, despite him being referred to as a halfwit, which is something I think even Furth has come to believe about him, I don't think Sheemie is remotely stupid. He says incredibly wise and insightful things about people and how they should treat each other as opposed to how they really do. I feel it's sort of what would happen if Forrest Gump's supposed pearls of wisdom were told sincerely by the writers of that movie, instead of being cynically calculated to manipulate the audience through punishing him for no reason. I think Sheemie is what would happen if Forrest Gump wasn't written by a group of aholes. Like if Forrest's creators actually cared about him instead of making up b.s. reasons why the audience should. Sheemie is what would happen if Forrest Gump held up to scrutiny.

Outstanding. I think Furth might be even better at scripting than Peter David was. 5 stars.

The Origins Of Sheemie's Tale

It's interesting Furth's initial idea was to tell this story third person, undoubtedly using the comic's snarky Narrator. Sheemie relating the story himself is WAY more effective.

King Connections: Besides Ted Brautigan, Dinky Earnshaw from the novella "Everything's Eventual", found in the short story collection of the same name, is mentioned too. 4 1/2 stars.

Issue Overall: 5 stars.

Sheemie's Tale: Part 2

A lot of horrific imagery for Sheemie being tortured by the Great Old Ones of the Prim. It reminded me of how I often found comics horrifying as a kid. Total nightmare fuel.

King Connections: The Old Ones of the Prim strongly resemble the creatures seen in the novella "The Mist" found in the collection "Skeleton Crew". It they are related, or even the same beings, the fact that they are both sentient and deliberately evil raises extra questions about THAT story.

Good stuff. 4 1/2 stars.

The Dark Tower As Axis Mundi

In discussing world-building influences Furth mentions Norse mythology, Robert Browning, and even J.R.R. Tolkien and Frank Herbert. It feels like she's deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room: H.P. Lovecraft. Is she worried people would accuse King of ripping him off for the Great Old Ones? If so, it's a foolish fear. As big of a dirtbag as Lovecraft was in real life, he made it so the Cthulhu Mythos could be built upon and expanded by other writers long after he was gone. It's weird Furth doesn't bring up the huge influence he not only had for "The Mist", and the entire notion of Todash Space, but King's entire career itself.

I'm declaring this essay a failure for that reason. 2 1/2 stars.

Issue Overall: 4 stars.

Evil Ground: Part 1

I love Roland telling Cuthbert that now is not the time to doubt him and Bert retorting that he doubted him from the beginning and this wasn't some last minute thing. I love Bert. King believes that Eddie Dean is Cuthbert's spiritual successor, but not only would Eddie never say that, he's always too starstruck by Roland, he'd never even THINK to say it. Whatever we think of Eddie and his dumb jokes, I believe he had more discipline than Cuthbert, if only because instead of the friend and equal Bert viewed Roland as, Eddie actually saw him as a mentor and role model instead.

I love the detail that in Mid-World it's considered bad luck to shoot a man in the back. And you know a LOT of superstitions, or as least religious beliefs and rules, seem to have less to do with religious orthodoxy, and were perhaps instead a case of a priest somewhere down the line inserting the proper lesson into the texts so people would behave more kindly and ethically towards each other. There is no honor in shooting a man in the back. Perhaps people of Mid-World are less inclined to be dishonorable if it's drilled into their heads early on that this specific brand of dishonor will cause them karmic misfortune. It's a detail I love. 4 stars.

Stories Within Stories

Surprisingly Furth's big influence for this one is "The Wind Through The Keyhole". I say surprisingly, because I still can't believe that Furth isn't super pissed King knocked the comic she put in over ten years of hard work on out of continuity himself. Were I her I would have been furious. It's interesting she loves the book instead. 4 stars.

Issue Overall: 4 stars.

Evil Ground: Part 2

It was all right. I like Arthur Eld and his Knights riding to the rescue at the end, but the thing about nightmare tropes is that they aren't actually real, so it feels less rewarding than it should. 3 stars.

Evil Ground Part II: The Horn Of Eld

Apparently before writing this article, Robin Furth did mad research on horns. Which is why we love Robin Furth.

Furth resists spoiling the time loop, but whenever the Horn of Eld is discussed, it's always the elephant in the room. How to talk about its importance without spoiling the ending of the final book? Hmmm. 4 stars.

Issue Overall: 3 1/2 stars.

So Fell Lord Perth

Honestly, I take this kind of thing with a grain of salt. This specific kind of fictional Mid-World mythology is the precise type of thing King himself would have no problems retconning with another midquel Dark Tower novel or short story. Like the comics for Buffy The Vampire Slayer, I don't believe their reality because the creators have repeatedly proved they would have no problems ignoring them if the franchise was ever "properly" returned to. The "true" tale of Lord Perth feel especially ripe for a rewrite from Stephen King.

I'm less interested in Arthur and Perth's parallels with the Biblical David and Goliath, and more with the ones Perth's army riding wolves raises with the robotic wolves of Thunderclap from "Wolves Of The Calla". Is this where the Crimson King got the idea (with some good ol' Harry Potter and Marvel Comics mixed in)?

I love that Arthur Eld was born in a place called Topeka. It not only raises the proper comparisons to the Wizard of Oz, but it ties into the fact that Blaine the Mono seemed to be able to travel between Universes, including a version of Topeka that suffered under Captain Trips from "The Stand". Is Furth hinting that Arthur's homeland was an Earth-based realm like our own and he journeyed out into End-World as part of crossing into the Multiverse? Maybe. Maybe. I love that question being raised.

King Connections Of Note: The land of Garlan is from "The Eyes Of The Dragon".

"Once Upon A Bye" IS from "A Wind Through The Keyhole". I still don't understand how or why Furth always pays tribute to that one, (which destroyed a great deal of her work in hindsight). It would have driven me nuts instead. She's way cooler than me.

Good for the comic for mentioning Roland does NOT say Aileen's name when he comes to the Dark Tower. Makes it a total d-word move after promising he would. He mentions Dinky Earnshaw but not Aileen? Part of me LIKES it when King knocks the comics out of canon, because a lot of the things they suggest about Roland are unforgivable.

Nice enough, but it's the kind of think King himself would make unofficial so fast your head would spin. 3 1/2 stars.

Dark Tower: How The Journey Began

Both Furth and the other creators are unsure about the future of the comics, but although Marvel DID do a loose adaptation of The Drawing Of The Three and the first half of The Waste Lands, this still saddens me because this wound up Furth's last essay in the comics. If you asked me, I think they were almost always the best parts of the comic. You read Groo The Wanderer for the letter column edited by Mark Evanier. You read The Dark Tower comics for the essays by Robin Furth. 4 stars.

Issue Overall: 3 1/2 stars.

It's an interesting idea to tell the second novel from the perspective of Roland's new tet rather than Roland himself, but it lowers the stakes a bit.

King Connections: The missing dog posters are from "Low Men In Yellow Coats" from "Hearts In Atlantis".

Still, the idea that Balazar's men accidentally killed Eddie's sister Gloria in a botched attempt on his life as a baby is new information, as is the revelation that Walter O'Dim and the Dixie Pig were a big part of it too. Can't accuse the comic of refusing to Go Big, especially considering what a small-scale and personal story The Drawing Of The Three ultimately was (comparatively speaking at least). 3 1/2 stars.

Interesting revelation about Calvin Tower and that the bookstore The Manhattan Restaurant Of The Mind used to actually be a deli. I forgot about that. But the same purpose was for Tower to protect the rose.

Mindblowing Easter Egg that Balazar had candid photos of Eddie Dean at all ages from different worlds, but I will call retcon instead. His behavior is the second book towards Eddie belies any possibility he remotely thinks that damn junkie is good for anything. Lucky Furth has stated the comic take place on a different level of the Tower than the books do. It simply doesn't fit.

Speaking of which, I hate that each time we get a new artist, they do a drastically different interpretation of The Dark Tower. Has the comic book industry never heard of consistency? I mean, maybe comics of the 1960's to 1980's weren't as visually interesting to look at, but they all looked like they credibly shared the same universe / larger stories. The conflicting art styles of all modern comics is MUCH harder for me to reconcile. I think things were probably better when there was a "House Style" to these things.

Balazar shooting a guy for knocking down his house of cards is directly from the book, as are his instructions that the body be buried in a place where chickens will poop on it.

Henry is pretty much as much of an irredeenable jerk as in the books. Jerkier than in The Drawing Of The Three actually, because we never understood this about the character until The Waste Lands. He was too doped up in the second book to determine what a sociopath he was.

And yeah, it's him running without looking back to check on Eddie that damns him. Absolutely worthless.

King Connections: I see less of "Christine" in the Bad Car than I do the Buick from 'From A Buick 8". Those brightly colored sedans are also seen in "Low Men In Yellow Coats".

Good issue, I think although I'm getting a bit impatient for the Lobstrosities. Where's my did-a-chiks at? 3 1/2 stars.

The "All is silent in the halls of the dead" thing is super freaky. Is that new? I don't seem to recall it from the novels. If so, it's absolutely great.

And yes, Henry Dean is a turd with almost no redeeming qualities. And the one redeeming quality he had in the books (when he bragged to his friends Eddie could talk the devil into setting himself on-fire) was not yet explored by the now defunct comics. Too bad. The guy is a total d-bag otherwise.

Possible King Connection: Is the Ronnie Henry describes from Vietnam Ronnie Malenfant from "Hearts In Atlantis"? I'm betting he's a VERSION of him, at least was intended to be by Robin Furth. Ronnie does not die in that novel, but Eddie's level of the Tower is also different than most other King Universes (it's the Co-Op City thing) so it would fit that it's both him and not him at the same time. Also the character seen here has red-hair which was Malefant's trademark. I think it is and isn't him simultaneously.

But where's my damn Lobstrosities at? Roland's fingers won't eat themselves. 3 1/2 stars.

That's more like it, Dad-a-chum!

I know Eddie has no way of knowing the Walter he's talking about is Roland's Walter. But it's something he would have put together later on if it had actually happened. I'm gonna say this is one of the additions to the canon Furth made that doesn't actually fit.

That last page was a killer though, right? 3 1/2 stars.

Finally starting to get to some of the good stuff from The Drawing Of The Three. Felt like we were spinning our wheels a bit for four issues.

I love the bit on the plane. Popkins. Roland's gonna get him busted.

It's funny when Roland tells him name Eddie says he likes, "Johnny Bronco" better and Roland concedes he does too. That is purely an addition to the comic and it fabulous. Kudos to Peter David or Robin Furth, whichever one of them came up with it. 4 1/2 stars.

House Of Cards: Part 1

This stuff is all just great. No negative notes for this one. 5 stars.

Eddie Dean And The Force Of Ka

Not QUITE an essay by Robin Furth. More like a recap. But it's wordy and I like it. Although if I'm being honest, it probably should have accompanied the first issue of "The Prisoner" instead. 4 1/2 stars.

Issue Overall 5 stars.

Eddie's interrogation in customs is great. I love that he says he'll only agree to a drug test if every Fed there gets tested too and the results are sent to his lawyer. That was a genius idea for King to write in the 1980's, and the hell of it is, it's not a threat I've seen elsewhere. It's something so obvious you'd figure cop and lawyer shows would be itching to ape. A lot of times a fictional project hits on an amazing idea that could change either the medium or the genre, and other Hollywood writers and producers simply don't appreciate how great it is. Eddie demanding blood test from TSA agents who were probably not clean themselves should not the only time I've ever seen that scene. After it hit, it should have become common.

Eddie is a pretty good lawyer himself if you ask me. His Miami Vice excuse is really perfect.

I think the meal Eddie sends Roland was handled better in the book. Because of branding issues, the soda is unnamed here. It's Pepsi in the book, and Roland is so hooked and delighted by it he wonders if it's the drug Eddie is carrying. He likes the hotdogs here, which is also a step down from the book. I love the idea that a guy who exists on a world with Mutant animals, and pure beef stock is a near impossibility, and a rare treat, can take or leave a New York hotdog. That didn't just say a lot about Roland and Mid-World. It said a lot about New York hotdogs, especially if it's not actually snobbery on his end, and he truly loved the Pepsi.

Good issue altogether. 4 stars.

The Walter Brennan thing just does NOT work here. In the book King had Henry do the Johnny Cash answer for a few questions, setting up the punchline. The comic actually has to explain the joke after the fact, simply because it's been so abbreviated it no longer plays.

Similarly, Eddie is wearing boxers in the final scene instead of being naked. It's a stark reminder of the fact that the comic is still under plenty of restrictions that did in fact water down the story quite a bit in places. For Detta Walker that was for the better. For Eddie's final stand against Balazar and his men it was for the worse.

I love Roland's expression as he views the Tower. I believe it more or less matches what my head imagined when I first read it.

Still solid, but not as solid as the book. At least not for this issue. 3 stars.

I love that when Roland smells pizza, and Eddie tells him what it is, he suggest they try it after this is all over. And Eddie tells him that's the correct viewpoint. That is definitely a cute scene, and it's not in book.

Also not in the book? I love that even through his grief Eddie frustratedly has to ask what "puling" means. Talk normal, Roland. Dude just lost his brother. Knock it off.

While I wish Eddie had fought naked, some of the rest of the comic was actually better than the book. 3 1/2 stars.

Eddie is not just observant. He says things Roland needs to hear but doesn't want to. Like that Roland will use people and discard them, and that he's smart enough to feel bad afterwards, but hard enough not to let it stop him. And Roland is hurt and offended by that observation. Mostly because it's true and it's not something he likes to believe is obvious. He wants to pretend his secret dark heart is entirely his. Maybe it never was. Maybe Roland isn't actually all too hard to figure out. What I especially love about Eddie's saying that is Eddie is telling him that behavior is not normal. Frankly Eddie's idea of being needed isn't exactly emotionally healthy either, but his telling Roland that that part of him is weird and unlike most other people is another thing that needed to be explained to him. Because I don't think Roland actually knew that.

I love Eddie hoping that he's eating one of the Lobstrosities that ate Jack Andoloni, and Roland crossly reminds him one of those things ate his fingers. And Eddie get a big dreamy smile while savoring the flavor: "Even better." Roland is also offended by THAT joke but I can't see why. He had it coming. How does he not know that?

Good reminder of the Jake situation. That is going to come up again soon and a refresher might have been necessary for people who hadn't read the books yet.

Interesting. Interesting. Interesting. 3 1/2 stars.

A little dry, much like the first chapters of "The Pusher". But no lie, I found the issue's exploration of the civil rights struggle (such as referring to The Green Book) far more interesting than Eddie being picked on by his sociopathic brother as a kid.

I also love the League of Gileadites. The Klan may wear the robes, but it's truly the Gileadites fighting for the side of Stephen King's The White. I love that they executed the Klansman for it. It's a freaking war. What else were they supposed to do with them? Let the law handle it? For real?

And Bert Albueno might be Cuthbert Allgood's Twinner. Even Susannah herself raises the possibility there are other worlds than these.

I'm surprised Walter is going by Walter here. A Klansman under the hood is exactly how that character tends to use the R.F. alias. It's weird he's using his real name instead of Rusty Frostbite.

I don't much respond to the biographical portions of this comic miniseries. But Susannah's story is so far a little better than Eddie's, so partial credit.3 stars.

The Jack Mort reveal is interesting and the comic is choosing to tell the story in a different order. In the book, all of the Jack Mort stuff comes out to the reader AFTER Roland enters his mind and learns the shocking truth. We learned those horrific things the same time Roland did.

Here Mort's guilt in the brick incident is explicit BEFORE it even happens. But the reader gets some additional context Roland would have no way of knowing: Walter was so impressed by him he went into cahoots with him and they plan to go for Odetta again, and then Jake Chambers. Mort's random sociopathy suddenly makes him the ideal candidate for Walter to hire to kill off Roland's gunslingers one by one before they even came to be.

It could be argued that Walter refusing to finish describing what Jack did after he dropped the brick is a troubling example of the comic watering down the actual novel. But no, I actually believe King was simply too crass there. I actually would have understood what Walter was referring to even if I hadn't read the book. King's prose is often way grosser than it actually needs to be.

The art while Odetta is imagining her tea party is quite fanciful.

Interesting, but the biographical stuff IS less interesting than everything else. 3 stars.

In my opinion Detta Walker remains one of Stephen King's most shameful story turns in a career with more than a few things to gripe about. "Problematic" is the nicest thing I can say about the idea. In reality, it's racist and insulting. And the comic cannot possibly polish that turd. Can't be done. She doesn't ruin the entire Dark Tower saga. But she DOES ruin a large part of it.

I liked the colorful art for the mindscapes though. I DO prefer house styles for comic books, but you don't get stuff this creative with that either.

But this is bad. 1 star.

I like Dan Holmes saying The World Has Moved On. Prophetic words.

The parts of the issue that are Odetta are interesting. The parts that are Detta suck. And it's about 50/50 of each. Middling. 2 1/2 stars.

I think the argument of JFK as the last gunslinger was handled better in the book. Especially because Susannah wound up changing her mind entirely on the subject.

The notion of Odetta being forced to stay in the jail cell just so she'd wet herself is both powerful and outrageous in its shocking unfairness. But this is what people of color had to face when they stood up against the corrupt system.

Sadly, I have to say the last panel didn't close strong. Often David and Furth come up with a strong closing joke or line to end the issue on and they just... did NOT this time. Sort of disappointing. They can do better than "I don't have anything else to do." It's weird that they are trying to convince me they can't.

Still, adding Roland and Eddie to the mix at the end helps. 3 1/2 stars.

I love Roland saying to himself "Handicap Accessible. Where does he get these things?"

For the record, Roland's quest jive is a b.s. rationalization. Eddie has it right in calling it a kidnapping.

Some of it was good. Which was all right. Some of it was Detta. Which was not. 3 stars.

The "candles" stuff is offensive even by Detta Walker standards.

Seriously, man. What the hell? 1 star.

It's a pity it looks like Roland in Jack Mort's body will probably only last two issues past this (at most). It was the best part of the novel, and I would argue when he wrote it, it was the best thing Stephen King had written up to that point. King is a master of tense exciting climaxes. But few were as funny and pleasurable as the one from The Drawing Of The Three. King proved he wasn't merely a thrilling storyteller with that. He was an awesome one as well.

I like Roland's only note when he gets back is that Eddie gave her the gun. Eddie is furious because of all of the work him put in and THAT'S the first thing he says. I think perhaps Roland noting it was the only thing that actually NEEDED to be said was actually sadly right.

Roland as Jack Mort in da house! Things are about to go bananas! 4 stars.

It's not as fun as the book because it omits small details. Like the fact that Roland is amazed and borderline greedy he can replace all of his ammunition (and then some) so cheaply. Part of him finds the world wasteful for that. His judgments against the sloppy cops in the book are also more explicit and understandable.

They kept the best part of Roland robbing a pharmacy at gunpoint for 60 bucks worth of penicillin, and leaving a gold Rolex watch as recompense. Honestly the way King describes it in the book is actually funnier, but I'm pleased they got the basics to that scenario down at least.

Fun. Which the Dark Tower has NOT previously been up until this point. 5 stars.

In the 1980's King used the fact that Jack Mort wore women's underwear as a sign of his deviancy and psychopathy. Did the comic really need to do the same things decades later when it should know better? I don't appreciate the fact that Mort is probably nonbinary being used as some sort of humiliating punchline. It's almost forgivable King was clueless enough to do that in the 1980's. There's no excuse for the comic not excising that gag 20 years later when people should know better.

That kind of wrecked my enjoyment of things. 1 1/2 stars.

The adaptation of The Drawing Of The Three is over. We are actually in The Waste Lands now. What I think happened was the title got canceled AGAIN, but the creators kind of knew there would be no third reprieve. And Jake was the loosest of ends. So they added a brief adaptation of the first half of The Waste Lands for five issues, just to leave thing off on a better place if there was nothing else coming. I think it was the right move.

The artwork in this arc is the most basic art in the entire run of the series. But that's why I like it the most. I can actually tell what things are and easily read people's expressions. It's weird how little modern comics currently value that. To me, that's the most important thing comic book art can do.

And we end on Shardik's boogery sneeze. Never let is be said that David and Furth refused to take after Sai King and Go For The Gross-Out. They are not proud. 4 1/2 stars.

The art may be simpler, but it's simplicity makes the action scenes, like the ones with Shardik, feel much more dynamic. There is a feeling of motion and movement in these drawings absent from all the previous issues. It's actually really cool. 4 1/2 stars.

Here, the simplistic art works against things. The Rose, one of the most visually important moments from the book, looks utterly pedestrian and underwhelming here.

Also Calvin Tower's design feels wrong to me.

I also previously wished that all the different artists drawing the Dark Tower used one agreed upon design and stuck with it. Consistency in a comic book is not too much to ask. 2 stars.

It feels a bit rushed, as if they are compressing things in these final two issues to get Jake to Roland. Probably because that's what's happening. 3 1/2 stars.

Rushed, condensed, and ended too quickly, but I think it was better to get to where they could leave off where they did. Would another of couple of issues helped? Yes. But knowing this was it, did the creators do the best they could? Also yes. 4 stars.

My favorite of the Dark Tower books. By far. Some of it drives me crazy but the best of it (like the cliffhanger ending) is purely mindbending.

In my reviews I often talk about the stuff that drives me crazy first, but I think I'll wait a bit. Won't save it for the end because it doesn't really feel like the proper thing to either begin or end the review on. That sort of thing actually matters to me.

I have to say out of all of the Dark Tower characters, Father Callahan is my favorite. And he's not even really a Dark Tower character. I will argue that in Stephen King's entire career the character he created that had the most epic, fulfilling, satisfying, and perfectly ended arc was Father Callahan from "'Salem's Lot". We'll get to the meta Stephen King ending soon enough, but King really plays up his introduction in this book and as if The Old Fella has been through the wars. And the reason the rest of the Tet sees him as one of them is he's probably the only person they've met who has.

Callahan is a man of contradictions. He uses the homophobic f-word, but to perhaps describe himself falling in love with another man (which Roland surprisingly and refreshingly show no negative judgment towards). His hardline stance against the abortion of Mia's chap is really insane and the one thing I hate about him, especially the way he forced Roland into the situation. What he gave Roland was the OPPOSITE of choice, which I can't stand. What I love is that in the seventh book he comes to understand he was wrong, which is why his arc is so great. His failings are learning experiences and the rocks on his ultimate path to redemption as a full member of the Tet (and a gunslinger). There's something else about the character that I haven't heard King talk about really, but I feel it. I feel like King loves and cares about Donald Callahan in a way he did no other character. At least until Holly Gibney of the Bill Hodges Trilogy. I feel like his inclusion wasn't correcting a mistake he made when writing "'Salem's Lot", but bringing Callahan's mistake full circle and have him be given the same choice and NOT fail. What I notice about the cross moment in "Salam's Lot", (which the prose actually reproduces here) is before Callahan rejects Barlow's offer, and winds up damning himself for his lack of faith, is that King reminds us that Callahan's refusal to throw down the cross wasn't well-considered. At it was happening it felt really fast, and he wishes he had time to time to think it over because the repercussions seemed far larger than he could imagine. And then Barlow releases Mark Petrie and Callahan is forced to abandon his faith before he is even allowed to understand that is what he is doing.

And the great thing about the first chapter of the last Dark Tower book is Callahan says and does the absolute right thing when the exact same scenario occurs. Because he's HAD that time to think about it. His death and sacrifice are devastating to the Tet. But considering how long he's been in the reader's consciousness, and how those last three books have made us actually love him as much as King does, it's a joyous ending. And I'm not letting "Revival" take it away from me either. I believe Callahan is truly with God now.

I knew about the series for years, and I'd read a ton of King's books before it, but I had sort of unofficially decided I wasn't gonna start the Dark Tower series until King actually finished it. I don't remember if that always remained a conscious decision on my end, but it IS what wound up happening. But I did read it before 'Salem's Lot, which let me tell you got me DYING to read that book. But waiting until King finished it was the right move. Forget the fact that the years long wait between books three and four would have been torture. The 6 month wait between this book and the sixth would have killed me. The Dark Tower is a series best binged, which makes how long King took to complete it astounding. How is it King's fans never killed him before the van accident?

I see the crap George R.R. Martin gets for never finishing A Song Of Fire And Ice. I actually think that book franchise is crap, and I don't care if he finishes it. I most certainly do not and would not think that about Stephen King and The Dark Tower if I had read it through the years like everybody else. I'd be furious. Waiting was the right decision for me.

The reader liked the Calvin Tower we saw briefly in The Waste Lands because we saw how friendly and helpful he was to Jake. Seeing him unfiltered through both Eddie and Callahan's eyes is kind of depressing. I think Eddie more has the right of what a turd the guy is. I punched the air upon Callahan writing in his note to him and Aaron "How stupid can you be?"

I read the book this time wondering about the ethical quandary it posed for Ben Slightman Sr.. And it drives me nuts. It's not bad writing per se, and it worked out. My problem is if the reality had been slightly different, and a more positive outcome was possible, it WOULDN'T have worked out. It only did because Slightman is a turd deep down. If he weren't, he'd be dead.

The second thing that determined if Roland killed him or not is how he answered the question of would Sr. have killed Jake, whom Roland refers to as "my boy", if he and Andy had found him when he overheard him. Slightman can't look him in the eye but answers honestly, "Yes." And that is the 1 in 500 chance Roland needs to spare him.

It a great scenario, and King writes it brilliantly. The contempt Roland feels for the traitor is palpable, and when points out that when he let Jake fall he didn't get spectacles for it, he's right. My problem is that Roland's mercy only would have applied if he said he would have killed Jake. If he said he would spared him because he cared about him and how much his son loved him, Roland would know he was lying and kill him for it because there is no redemption possible for someone like that. My problem with the scenario is it never takes into account the possibility, remote, but real, that in another level of the Tower, Slightman WOULD have spared Jake. He would have said "What the hell am I doing?" and come clean if he been discovered, even though he wasn't. I dispute both Stephen King and Roland that the other scenario is impossible. And if it HAD gone down that way, and Ben Sr. spoke truthfully, Roland would have killed him for being a better and kinder person than the dirtbag he allowed to live on this level of Tower. That bugs me. It bugs me enough that Roland is that sure enough about people to take that shaky illogical stand. It bugs me even more that nothing in the narrative hints that Roland's idea is wrong, or at least could be potentially wrong. And I dispute that it couldn't be. Roland doesn't know enough about human nature to speak that harshly about every single person in that potential scenario. And neither I believe does Stephen King.

I mentioned there was a part of the book that bugged me, but that wasn't it. I disagreed with it but it at least let me think. It was wrong, but thought-provoking.

The part of the book that raised my ire was Mia in the bog. I've mentioned how problematic a character Susanna Dean is because of the Detta Walker persona, but reading this made me realize that Detta isn't the actual problem. She's a symptom of the problem. But when King is describing Mia swimming through the bog naked with her bulging breasts and crushing a frog in her fingers and eating it's guts and eggs I understood the problem clearly. King has this weird need to degrade black women. It's been that way since he detailed Mother Abigail's bowel movement habits in "The Stand" but for some reason King needs to knock a black woman down a peg. Tell me I'm wrong. I'll say the short story "Dedication" is my receipt.

I don't know why white male liberals do things like this, especially those who WANT to be allies. I guess they write and say these horrible things hoping they'll be forgiven for them if the black people they are talking badly about understand they mean well. They say and write the offensive and degrading things they do in the hopes that they'll be accepted as "One of the good ones.". Story of Quentin Tarantino's life. But let me let King, Tarantino, and hell, Ralph Bakshi in on a little secret: If you actually love black culture as much as you claim, you wouldn't have your characters saying and doing the things they say and do. A true ally would not consider it a badge of honor if a black person admires them despite their offensive language. A true ally and friend would not WANT to say or do those hurtful things in the first place, much less actually say or do them.

I would very much like if this was never a problem for King. But it's always been, and Mr. Mercedes and the subsequent related books just proved he will never outgrow it. But I'm sure I could love The Dark Tower more than I do if King weren't always trying to repulse me with Susannah. That's what kills me. The misogyny and racism inherent in King's writing makes it really hard to enjoy things I SHOULD enjoy.

I am convinced it's not just the scope of the story which makes a good and faithful film adaptation impossible. Asking a black actress to do the things Susannah says and does in the books would be freaking ugly and beneath the dignity of any reputable actress. I don't know what the answer to that is to be honest. Other than to say that maybe means there should NEVER be another film or TV adaptation of it. I actually wouldn't object on those specific grounds. Susannah would not work on camera, especially in 2023.

I have to say all three chapters of "The Priest's Tale" are probably my favorite parts of all seven Dark Tower books. I usually do a rundown of King Connections in these Stephen King Book Club connections but this was the freaking motherlode! We got the Low Men from "Low Men In Yellow Coats" from "Hearts In Atlantis", and the "'Salem's Lot" recap (obviously). "Only two books?" you scoff. But seriously, King has NEVER done an info dump as informative as the lowdown on both the Low Men and the different types of vampires. The types of vampires is not something King always planned, doesn't fit either "'Salem's Lot" or "One More For The Road" entirely comfortably, but, by God, is SOUNDS like it SHOULD fit, so that's what I'm directing my headcanon to do. I'm sweeping those plot discrepancies under the rug where no-one will see them for millions of years. And I'll just keep smilin'.

Other King Connections: The scene the rose described of four men saving a boy from a monster with a red eye is almost certainly describing the events from the end of the sequel to "The Talisman", "Black House". Inside View from "The Dead Zone" and "The Night Flier" is also mentioned.

This review has been pretty long but I bet I could talk about it for a few more pages worth of writing. But man, I just wanna get to the sixth book now. That cliffhanger left a definite itch. That's how you know it's a great book. But like I said, because of the Mia stuff it is imperfect. But I am going to be a bad ally for a moment and give the book five stars anyways, because it IS the best book of Stephen King's biggest franchise. I should be knocking a star off for the Mia stuff. But I'm failing as an ally and declining to. Simply because this IS otherwise the best Dark Tower book and I DO love Father Callahan that much. 5 stars.

It's good, and the cliffhanger is great, but I feel like the out-there plot shows a lot of the inherent weakness of the story. I usually put the gripes either first or last. I feel like they are the most important thing to discuss in this mostly otherwise good book, so they are going first this time.

For the second to fifth books King always put a first chapter called "Argument" at the beginning. It was essentially a recap of the previous Dark Tower books. I believe that after the first one, he shouldn't have done another. From the third book on, when you hear his truncated explanation about how Susannah Dean was two people brought together by "Eddie Dean's love and courage" I was like "King doesn't actually understand how dumb and badly written that sounds." I think perhaps the larger problem is the plot turn IS a bit dumb and ridiculous, and although King's prose and the exciting and fun climax of "The Drawing Of The Three" can mask that a bit, the Arguments basically prove at its essence that it's totally stupid.

I think the same thing is 100% true for the hoops King had to jump through to make Mordred Roland's son too. Transferring sperm from the speaking demon, and changing genders and releasing it when it raped Susannah in the speaking ring... Just... No. Uncle Stevie. No. What bugs the crap out of me is it is essential mythology to King's most essential story of his entire career. This is the one story King needs to bring his A-Game to. And he just didn't with that. The Coda suggests the fictionalized King believes pregnancies make stories worse. I don't necessarily believe that myself. But King himself didn't disprove his thesis here. What alarms me is I think he offered the thesis in the first place because he thinks he did. I wonder about him sometimes.

The fictionalized version of him and Roland and Eddie meeting is also a bit much, but there is a difference to me. As awkward and ill-thought-out as the prose is, unlike Mordred's parentage, this feels like the correct story turn. Do I wish King wrote the scene and himself better? I do. But it feels like he stayed true to Gan for this part at least. It was supposed to happen. Or at least it was after the van accident.

I like the bit with King describing Eddie's turning-to-lethal-rage towards Calvin Tower. No lie. Tower is super obnoxious. It's not him refusing to sell the vacant lot to the Tet Corporation after all that annoys me. If he was actually ever really willing to sell the vacant lot, he would have been a poor protector of the Rose. It's actually good he's stubborn about it. What makes me dislike him is how careless he's been. Aaron Depneau comes off pretty well in taking his verbal admonishments from Eddie and telling Cal he's also had it coming. But man, if Aaron DOES know better (and I think he does) he should have been taking a firmer hand against Cal to begin with, and telling him to freaking chill with his hobby for a freaking hot minute. I do like Roland's true(ish) observation that Tower is no more obnoxious and obsessive with his rare books than Eddie was with his heroin. But Eddie kicked his habit. Tower never will. And Eddie actually knew he had a problem. For Tower, everybody else is the problem in getting in the way of it. Roland is right on the merits, but not the spirit of the subject.

Mia kissing Sayre's boots is another egregious example of King humiliating Susannah for no good reason, and another reason I don't think there should ever be a true film or TV adaptation of the series. No actress should ever be forced to do that, especially a woman of color.

The shoot-out with Andolini was fun because I think both Eddie AND Roland were playing the proper headgames on him.

I wish we had gotten more of Jake and Callahan in New York, but their one chapter heading to their (or at least the Pere's) death in the Dixie Pig is a doozy. When Callahan asks Jake if they free Susannah if that will make him a full-on gunslinger, I was, "No, dude, you already are."

The conceit of hiding Black Thirteen in a safety deposit box in the World Trade Center in 1999 is brilliant an an example of King meeting the cultural moment. When the book was published 9/11 was on everybody's mind. It gives the reveal added weight, makes it both horrible (and weirdly funny), and ends the loose plot end satisfactorily for the reader, if not the characters. I wish King hadn't pointed out the World Trade Center didn't actually have safety deposit boxes in the Afterward. That is not a truth I needed to know, or a fictional license he actually needed to come clean about.

King Connections of Note:

"'Salem's Lot", of course, and "Low Men In Yellow Coats", as well as Walter being referred to as Randal Flagg from "The Stand". "Carrie", the novel, is referenced a couple of times, but not by name. But the motherlode is in the Author's Coda where King refers to by name or obliquely mentions a TON of his work. Off the top of my head King (and the newspaper article detailing his death) talk about "Carrie", "The Stand", "The Shining", "The Dead Zone", "Pet Sematary", "IT", "Rose Madder", "Hearts In Atlantis", "On Writing", "Storm Of The Century", "Rose Red", "Kingdom Hospital". And probably others I forgot to list.

The Coda works better as a window into King's thoughts than his role in the book did. I have always believed as far as writing nonfiction goes, (Author's forwards, horror critiques, and the like), King is kind of an obnoxious snot. There is some of that in his journal, but because it's fictionalized, I sense the professional writer there too, instead of the vulgar Foreword writer trying to be edgy and hip, or the horror and movie critic who gives off a definite air of snobbery and elitism. King writes his journal the way he would during those years he sucked at nonfiction. And yet for narrative purposes it feels weirdly right. He is channeling some weird crap here, for sure. Is Gan flowing through him in real life? I don't personally believe so. But I think deep down that King HIMSELF does, and that's the thing that makes the actual difference.

King will often end chapters of great books the way he did when he said Eddie meant to ask Roland about the throat-tapping ritual before crossing water, but he never got the chance to because before he thought about it again death came between them. Surely gonna drive the readers crazy. And it did. And yet, even though I've already read the seventh book, in hindsight, I don't feel like King should be doing those moments. Or he should at least make them rarer than they are. For this one though? It doesn't feel like a fair thing to reveal to the reader. I would think that even if Eddie had died at the end of this book instead of the middle of the next one. I don't approve of that kind of thing at all. At least not for beloved characters.

The Dark Tower series is equal parts great, horrible, and polarizing. And I think the stuff with Mordred unfortunately put a lot of that into stark relief. I would find a lot of the plot already ridiculous without it. But that's just freaking dumb. It was a good book otherwise though. 4 stars.

The Dark Tower

This is a book that gets better and better every time I read it. I hesitate giving it five stars because there are things in it King does wrong (mostly involving the character of Mordred). But I dunno, it feels like a rare ending that lives up the promise of what King has been writing about for 22 years. There are things I don't like (and I'll talk about them for sure) but it's like with the horrible exception of Randall Flagg, King checked off the wishlist of nearly every fan. What happened with Flagg is travesty, but the rest of book is so amazing, that while I won't accept it, I'll maybe live with it.

Let's start of with the first chapter. The final Dark Tower book is so big, one of King most important characters, Father Callahan is killed off in the very first chapter. It is purely brilliant. What's exceedingly clever on King's end is the fact that his death devastates the Tet, as they have come to think of him as one of their own. For both Callahan and the reader however, it's a happy ending to a character who seemed to be doomed to a miserable one at the end of :"'Salem's Lot". Screw "Revival", I believe Father Callahan is with God now.

What's amazing about his redemption is that he was granted the one thing that set his initial damnation into place by not having it: time to think it over. I firmly believe if Callahan had had time to think about what Barlow was proposing in "'Salem's Lot", his faith would have held, and he could have if not defeated him, at least not have been damned. Barlow's victory and his utter ruin happens because the situation itself goes down so quickly that Callahan has no time to consider the actual consequences and weight of the proposal. Time and wisdom has Callahan agreeing here not to throw away the cross, but to meekly put it away. He got a do-over from the worst mistake in his life and finally made the right choice. Better yet, he repents for his regressive and cruel abortion stance in the fifth book. Callahan grows and changes into the man he always wanted to be before our very eyes. And him being killed by vampires, but putting a bullet in his own head before they turn him is a victory, and something readers have waited decades to see for him. I feel like the first chapter resonates with the final Coda. The Coda asks can people change and make the right decisions? I feel like with time and proper tools, like perhaps of the Horn Of Eld, yes, maybe they can.

Let's talk about that ending. King says in the afterward he doesn't want to hear people complaining about it. And there will be people who will. But King himself says he wasn't crazy about it personally, but it was the right ending. He's definitely right on the second point, but I don't think he's giving himself enough credit on the first. The genius thing about the time loop ending, that I appreciate more and more upon each reread, is the echoes of the voice of the Tower in the desert speculating that maybe THIS time things will be different, and our attention is brought to the fact that in THIS version of the timeline, Roland picked up the horn of Eld after the Battle of Jericho Hill. The ending is Roland's damnation with the promise of hope, that even if this loop goes similarly, small things will build and change each time he loops, and maybe Roland will one day decide to go through the door with Susannah after all, and be part of his Tet's happy ending instead of fruitlessly questing for and obsessing over the Tower. The book's themes focus on repetition and damnation, and the hope and possibility that these things can be broken in the future. It might take Roland a few more loops past this. But the Horn of Eld being present says the Tower itself is on Roland's side and WANTS him to break the cycle. Eventually, if not this time.

It's interesting that Roland's damnation and biggest fear is achieving the knowledge he was seeking all his life, and understanding it is fleeting and will be gone moments later. It's not the repeating that Roland objects to. It's the forgetting. If he remembered, he wouldn't repeat for a second time, not to mention multiple times. Frankly, this is why I fear death and the possibility of oblivion. The possibility that all that I am and know will simply cease to exist like I was nothing and didn't matter. I hope there IS a Higher Power out there and that they are as gracious as the Tower is for Roland. And if they are as tough on me as the Tower is on Roland, I hope they give me the tools to end my life at the clearing's path gracefully.

See, King feared people would feel ripped off by the ending. But it's not just the right ending for the story. It's a huge enough mindblowing concept that it does justice to the science fiction aspects of the story. And yeah, The Dark Tower IS more sci-fi than fantasy. And the ending goes full circle there. Literally, in fact.

I can talk about a couple of things I didn't like. Randall Flagg's ending is probably the worst storytelling decision of King's career. Arguably the child orgy in "IT" was worse, or possibly the real-world negative consequences to "Rage" deserve even more scrutiny. Both both "IT" and "Rage" were single books. Their failures were their own and we moved on from them. King unfortunately got a little TOO sci-fi here and fell into an unfortunate genre trap. King often claims to be a sci-fi fan, but I don't find that evident in his works of fiction or pop culture articles. If he perhaps were a fan of sci-fi, and if his superhero preferences were more mainstream than Plastic Man, he could have avoided this trap.

The genre convention and cliche he fell into is that often when a genre show introduces a new villain, they beef up their "bonafides", and say they are the genuine threat to the heroes, by having them dispatch the previous Big Bad, (or in Flagg's case Ultimate Evil) easily to supposedly make the reader / viewer think "And I thought the villain just killed was bad! If he's taken out this easily by the new guy, the heroes are really in trouble!" It rarely works out that way. The notable exception being Spike killing the Anointed One on Buffy The Vampire Slayer in his debut episode, which felt weirdly appropriate, and was played for laughs because nobody in the audience really ever took the Anointed One seriously because he was played by a kid who was aging out of the role. In all the other cases I can think of the trope being used, it's met with annoyance from the viewer / reader at best, and fury at the worst.

The worst thing about King using it here is I would argue it's the single worst use of the trope of all time. Not a single other example of the trope being used involved a character as important to not just the project in question, but the entire franchise if the project was a part of something larger, as Randall Flagg / Water O'Dim was for Stephen King readers. If that's not bad enough (and it already made it the worst use of the trope in fictional history) the reader also feels ripped off not merely because we feel Roland should have been the one to kill him, but because the epic conflict that had been teased between the two since the third book, hinting at an epic crossover and continuation of the events of King's most beloved book "The Stand", were actually a bust, and a narrative dead end. That is not something King should have EVER promised us without delivering a final conflict between the characters. I don't think it ever could have been as epic as the fans had made it in their heads, but I probably imagined the same thing about Roland reaching the Tower back in the day, and King handled that fine. It feels like King only lost that specific thread not because Gan stopped speaking to him, but because he was lazy. It's the one part of the book King indulged his inner hack, which very present in the 1980's and his cocaine-fueled days and something he's struggled to work out of to become a literate writer in the years since

In fairness to King, it might have been a case of the van accident spooking him THAT much. Maybe he thought "I could totally make an excellent final confrontation between those two. But it would probably take an additional five to ten years of thought and planning to navigate it and tell it properly." He might have not only not wanted to leave the fans hanging for that long, but maybe he wasn't willing to risk those ten years of his mortality on the saga not being completed if he died suddenly in the meantime. After that specific accident I don't blame him for that mindset, if that was what made the decision, but King's still alive NOW. It would have been better for the saga and his entire output if he had put in the time and effort to finesse that after all

I also have to say I didn't much care for King's use of Patrick Danville. "Insomnia" is still SORT of canon in that Roland thinks the book is "tricksy" when the Tet Corporation in modern day New York gives it to him, and the reader is led to believe a lot of the Tower lore in it would be inaccurate, but I would be far more impressed with King's writing (and his foresight) if he had made the Little Bald Doctor's prophecy of Danville's fate to die saving the lives of two men important to saving the Dark Tower fit into the last book itself.

Low Men In Yellow Coats's Ted Brautigan's role is much more successful. Of course Ted's story was only a few recent books ago, and his fate was a lot more ambiguous than the corner King might have felt he painted himself into with Patrick. But the use of Brautigan and Dinky Earnshaw from the novella "Everything's Eventual" felt especially rewarding to me.

Ted's immense power and value being that of a "facilitator" tracks with everything we saw in "Low Men In Yellow Coats" so King deserves praise for that too.

Okay, I've talked about things I didn't like. Time to talk about the things I did. While I AM ambivalent about the deaths of both Eddie Dean and Jake Chambers, I will say the Tet being broken sets up a far more interesting and personal dynamic between Roland and Susannah in the second half of the book. We see aspects of both characters we've NEVER seen before, and I won't say I finally like or approve of Susannah or Detta Walker (although Detta being the one to comfort Patrick when he's freaked out is a beyond interesting narrative choice). What I will say is this is the first and only book I don't hate her or feel embarrassed for her. She's not exactly been empowered. But King doesn't degrade her in the story either, for the first time ever in my mind.

Look at the scene where Susannah notes a bit of sullenness and pettiness in Roland's voice when he snaps at her. It frightens her because she's never heard it before. They kiss on the mouth a couple of times too, and while it's not really sexual, or even romantic, it's not sisterly, (or fatherly for that matter) either. There is legit tension between them in that department for the first time ever. Roland going to his knees begging her to stay, is an amazing scene, both for Susannah's horror over it, but our own as well. And Roland apologizing for speaking harshly to Oy over his dead body makes you believe this guy truly should have apologized to an animal when he had the chance. Or treated him better.

I think the thing I like best about Susannah and Roland's time alone together is it's something we never saw before. We've seen Roland's dynamics when it's just him and Jake, and later him and Eddie, but he's always related to Susannah as a part of the Tet, and not as an individual. It might be the sole reason I didn't mind her character this time out. A fictional woman being given a little agency, especially if they were previously denied that, will often make me come around.

Controversial opinion: I think Oy's death was handled better than Eddie or Jake's. Eddie's death played up the drama to the hilt, but it's ka and random bad luck that takes his life, not the bravery and sacrifice of Oy's death. Similarly, Jake is already dead by the time Roland is able to get back to him after speaking to Stephen King. Oy's death hits me right in the feels, especially his last word not being ""Ake", but "'Olan" instead. That killed me on every level.

King notes in the Afterward his putting himself in the story is known as metafiction, and is something he personally dislikes, and I get the concern there, but truly the moment with the Uffi is weird and unpredictable enough that I almost have changed my mind and want to see a film adaptation of the entire Dark Tower series JUST to see King play himself in that scene. Well, maybe not. But that bit tempts the hell out of me.

I felt a lot of Roland and Susannah's final adventures on the road to the Tower felt very much like fairytales. The fact that the Uffis speak in riddles and different personalities has a fable quality to it, and Dandelo's stuff doesn't just harken back to "IT". It seems to be a riff on Hansel and Gretel and other similar storybook tales too.

I love that the Tet correctly speculates that Ted's role in Hearts In Atlantis is his untold "Connecticut Adventure". And they are allowed to be right while knowing so little because it's a work of fiction and King can write it how he pleases. The Deus Ex Machina at Dandelo's House is stupid for the same reason, but another case of me looking down at King from the storytelling judicial bench and saying, "I'll allow it. But tread lightly with this line of questioning, Sai King."

I loved Roland's adventures in New York, especially him meeting the current Tet corporation and a still alive Moses Carver. Finding out what happened to Calvin Tower, Aaron Deepneau, and John Cullum is King dotting his narrative i's and crossing his story t's. Unfinished business is all that was, and King finished it brilliantly. The book explores a LOT of mindbending themes, but truly the most mindblowing to me is is Carver's daughter and Depneau's niece actually have read the entire Stephen King canon. There are fictional characters in King's canon who know absolutely everything about King's work everyone who has read all his books knows and know every single secret in every single story. In that regard and knowing, the younger Carver and Depneau have more power and knowledge than Randall Flagg, Mother Abigail, Maturin, or Roland himself. They are two of King's most mortal and vulnerable characters. But I envision they have read everything King has written PAST The Dark Tower, and will probably read and know everything about what goes down in his stories when he himself eventually goes into the clearing. That idea boggles my mind. It also make me feels as if I myself and the other Constant Readers contain a certain level of power in these stories as well. If my theory is wrong, why would King dedicate the last book to us? I think the introduction of the next generation of the Tet Corporation might have been a sly way for King to empower the Constant Readers in the Narrative itself. It certainly makes me feel more powerful for what I know if thinking about knowing King's output is a important life's goal for some on the characters on one of the levels of the Tower.

The stuff in Blue Heaven is both gross and interesting in equal measure. I don't love the stuff with the Taheen and slow mutants eating boogers and burst zits. But the interesting thing about that section of the book is how well-rounded King makes the characters. The Taheen, can-toi, and most of the Breakers are working to destroy the Dark Tower and all of creation. But to them, that's just their day job. It's nothing personal. They are more concerned over office politics and making the facility run smoothly. Ted being genuine friends with one of the low men is super interesting, as is Pimli Prentiss being weirdly religious, and Fimli O'Teegan being amused by human culture. Really the most uncouth people there are Prentiss's human housekeepers who nearly come to blows over the dude's open homosexuality. It feels like the people who eat boogers and pimples have more class and professionalism than those two trashy reality show rejects.

Sheemie's ending isn't great, but you never really expected to get back to him at ALL, so I'll take what I can get there. I can't afford to be a choosy beggar in regards to Stanley Ruiz's fate. I never expected him and Roland to be reunited at ALL.

King Connections Of Note: There are a lot and it took me a week to finish the book so I probably will miss reporting some. For example, I missed noting the can-tois from "Desperation" in my review for the last book, but I'll point out that's what the Turtle idol is here. It's been speculated that Joe Collins / Dandelo is the same species as the alien psychic vampire Pennywise from "IT". This is not confirmed in the Narrative itself, but his visage turning into that of a clown in his death throes makes that the most likely conclusion. Maturin was also first seen in "IT", and the robot Stuttering Bill is a reference to Stuttering Bill Denbrough from that book. "Insomnia" is referenced both as a book and a mislead to Patrick Danville's actual fate. Pere Callahan's end is a redemption to his damnation in "'Salem's Lot". Ted Brautigan is from "Low Men In Yellow Coats" from the collection "Hearts In Atlantis" and Dinky Earnshaw is from "Everything's Eventual" from the short story collection of the same name. "The Long Walk" and "Cujo" are mentioned as books King has written and the miniseries version of "It" (and the movie version of "Cujo") are discussed as well. Randall Flagg first popped up in "The Stand". Walter Paddick's backstory in Delain is a reference to both "The Eyes Of The Dragon" and the rape of him in the poem "The Dark Man". The second thing is currently frustratingly out of print and is the most major work of King's I haven't actually read yet.

Let's go over Susannah's ending, and the ending of the franchise in general. I am underwhelmed by the reality of the Crimson King, but maybe that's the point. Still I believe Walter woulda made a better final obstacle than the guy who screams "EEEEEE!" in the same way as the crazy Maitre'd Guy from the short story "Nightmare At The Gotham Cafe" from "Everything's Eventual".

King's prose is very literate near the end, and he does a lot of narrative callbacks, including referencing previously mentioned, bizarre, and interesting facets to Roland like that he's the man who straightens crooked pictures in hotel rooms (a memorable and fascinating quirk to give the Gunslinger), and returns to the phrase of "He darkles and tincts". These callbacks made the journey feel complete and satisfying and as if we are going full circle. And since the ending is about a time loop, full circle is exactly where we want to be.

Susannah in New York is good and bad. I like that she is essentially given back everything she's lost, and although King as the story's Narrator will not go so far as to declare it a happy ending, I'll disagree with him and say it's a rare day and he actually delivered one. Still, there are aspects that bother me. Susannah starting to forget her time in Mid-World is King taking after the ending of his worst long novel (IT) which is infuriating on some level. At least it's a worry instead of given, but damn it, King, everybody HATED how that book ended, even people who liked the book. IT's second worst aspect after the child orgy should not be turned into a freaking recurring theme in his work. I also don't like her throwing the gunslinger gun away. It's done as a sort of symbolism, and her breaking ties from her old life, but if you ask me, it's the wrong symbolism. I also think making this final version of Eddie and Jake brothers is too cute by half. It makes it a truly happy ending (especially with Sai King speculating a dog very much like Oy is in their future) but if I had written the book I simply wouldn't have killed Jake off in the first place, and had him go with her to New York. I mean it would have changed a LOT of the interesting aspects between Roland and Susannah, but I would have preferred that to this cutesy idea.

King's critiques about putting himself in the story as metafiction is sort of innacurrate. The actual metafiction is King overstepping his clinical Narrator bounds at Eddie's death and asking the readers to remember the joy of the Tet in the moment before it occurs, and the beginning of the Coda asking the reader to accept the happy ending shown and not read further. I love that crap. SO much. It's my favorite type of storytelling. Treating the reader honestly and like an adult is something I do in my own work, and whenever King does it (and he did it in "Eyes Of The Dragon" and "Black House" as well) I go bananas. What I love is the actual ending is hopeful if you examine the situation thoroughly, and is if not the happy ending King wanted you stop at, at least the hopeful ending we deserved. King offers some bold opinions about endings too. He suggests he does them not because he likes them, but because it's "the custom of the country". I find that fascinating.

I love endings. Most people do. I like that King writes endings because people like them. Greg Weisman doesn't like endings either. But his cartoons are all the worse for always feeling unfinished and unfulfilled. King's way is the right way. Even if you feel endings are too much like goodbyes, and are permanent, they HAVE become The Custom Of The Country, and something I think it is not unreasonable for the reader / viewer to want, or even expect. And best thing about this is the insights it not only gives about King as a writer, but as a fan. And not just that, but as a creator who believes he has an obligation to his fans, whether he likes it or not. And while I have done a ton of reviews stating that fandom wants and desires for most genre projects, (especially superhero-related ones) tend to be both toxic and bad for the story, don't for one second believe that means I think creators should never strive to to please their audience. While I do often say that fans are the worst judges of quality from our given fandoms, I also repeatedly note that we aren't the bad guys, and don't deserve to be repeatedly punished for loving a franchise and its characters. King's mea culpa here might actually not even be his true feelings on the subject, and just narrative b.s. to worry the reader about the conclusion to follow. But regardless, his expressing disdain for closure, and the reader demand for Knowing How It All Came Out is especially appreciated by me because he damned those torpedoes and gave them us the ending he warned us we didn't want anyways. And the delicious irony is not just that it's the right ending. It's that King is wrong for not being crazy about it and it's a perfect and amazing ending too.

I felt uncomfortable giving an imperfect book like "Wolves Of The Calla" five stars. But I did. But as much as I hated certain parts of it (and those parts I REALLY hated) the great stuff in it earned it. And the same is true for this book. Except the great stuff is even better and bad stuff is not as bad. I always believed Wolves was my favorite Dark Tower book. I've reread that book and this one multiple times. Upon this last reread, the seventh and final book has overtaken it in my heart. It's just amazing, Randall Flagg's crappy ending excepted. 5 stars.

Childe Roland To The Dark Tower Came by Robert Browning

For an Appendix to the saga, King has reprinted the entire damn Robert Browning poem from the 19th Century that inspired the saga. I find it utterly confusing. I give it the respectable four star grade I do not because I enjoyed it that much. But because I respect the fact it became the muse for arguably King's crowning (Towering?) achievement. 4 stars.

Book Overall: 5 stars.

May I confess something? While this IS a great book, it's probably one of the rare Stephen King books I like a little less every time I read it. Why? Because it makes me question and worry deeply about King's sanity and mental health. Stewart O'Nan is also a rabid Sox fan but he doesn't seem to take the wins and losses as personally as King does. I think the fact that the losses actually legit depress King is quite alarming. I am not a sports fan, and if I WERE a Sox fan (and since I do live in Massachusetts, I would be, and routinely disappointed) I would hope that my entire life did not revolve around this. King said something powerful that I don't think he grasped. His happiness over how the Sox do is entirely outside of his control. Man, Uncle Stevie, take some control back there. Reading about all these amazing and exciting games makes me think a LOT of this sport is down to random luck. And if that is so, there really ISN'T anything King can do about it.

I also am aware that since this historic win, the Sox have only won the Series once more a couple of years later. Does this mean King has spent all of the rest of those years in a crippling depression?

You can say, "Matt, he's using a narrative flourish, and not serious." But when he compares it to his drug addiction I will reply, "Are you sure about that?"

The last chapter is a thing of beauty, especially King's grandson asking, "Is this a dream, or are we living real life?" Because regardless of whether or not I think King is too obsessed with this sport and team, I DO remember how it was in 2004, and even though I didn't watch the Series, I absorbed and understood the joy and disbelief of the people who did. You didn't have to watch baseball or go to the games to have the Sox's losing streak a searing part of your consciousness growing up in Massachusetts. I don't care about baseball, and yet that year it felt like a weight had been lifted not just from me, but from all of us. Of course Bush won reelection a few weeks later so the high didn't last for me, but it was real and affected everyone who lives here.

I'll talk a bit about some of the baseball stories in the book I took special notice of.

I don't follow sports, but being a Masshole means I DO know The Boston Globe's Dan Shaughnessy. King views him with barely concealed contempt and let me tell you, Shaughnessy, like all Boston sportswriters and pundits always struck me as smug, insufferable, and high on his own farts. I'll tell you what I approve of: King taking special notice of how so damned unfair the sports reporters of The Town are and the fact that they are abrasive snots for the sake of being abrasive snots. If the smarmy Shaughnessy didn't spend his childhood shoved in his own locker, he should have been. His "Curse Of The Bambino" is so damaging not just because it's stupid and attaches a supernatural excuse to something completely Earthbound and rational, but because it's something that traumatized a LOT of people in Massachusetts dumb enough to believe it, Stephen King included. King's gullibility regarding superstitions is annoying in and of itself too. But when he notes that after the Sox win the Pennant that Shaughnessy says, "Not so fast. They need to win the Series to break the Curse," King mentioned he had no good answer for when he was asked what his Curse of the Bambino theory would mean if the Sox DID win the Series. King mentions the Curse was part of Shaughnessy's brand. While it existed he sold books over it. I question the wisdom of the Boston Globe hiring a sportswriter in which the hometeam winning was not in his personal financial best interest. It's not just that Shaughnessy was unfair to the team. It's that he was clearly rooting against them for cynical and selfish financial reasons.

Both O'Nan and King seem crushed and heartbroken when Nomar Garciaparra is traded in the middle of the season. Again, I don't follow the Sox, so I have no idea about his performance in previous seasons. THIS season? He struck me as useless. He was out for the first half of the season. When he came back his playing was shaky. He was shortly thereafter traded for two defense players. And then the Sox went on to win the Pennant and then the Series with them. You see where me not believing Nomar leaving the Sox was the end of the world comes from, right? Of course my reread of this book also comes through 19 years of hindsight, but I wish King and O'Nan put two and two together that that turned out to be a great trade.

I am concerned about Stephen King's mental health. It is not good to obsess about something that is not within your own control like baseball. I would love to believe King is describing the depression he is for comic effect, but his writing about it strikes me as 100% sincere. Basing your mood and happiness on a sports team's wins and losses, especially one that doesn't win that often, is the recipe for a sad and horrible life. Get help, Uncle Stevie. I am very worried about you. 4 stars.

The fake tie-n book to the miniseries "Rose Red" called "The Diary Of Ellen Rimbauer" was so successful, Stephen King had a similar book produced for his TV show "Kingdom Hospital". I think it's great, and in some ways better than Ellen Rimbauer's diary. But it sure as heck was nowhere NEAR as successful. Probably because "Kingdom Hospital" itself was not.

I have to say the book makes a far better case for Dr. Stegman's brand of banal evil than the show ever did. Bruce Davison played him as sort of hapless, and only through how he mistreats Eleanor and the other patients here do you realize how and why the guy would have been the new Big Bad if there had been a season two. He's arrogant, cruel, has a lousy bedside manner, and is bad at his job. This book does a better job of getting me to hate him than King did on the TV show.

I always found Eleanor Druse a little bit annoying on the TV show. What I like is that even though the book is from her perspective, I felt she WAS the same annoying character I remembered from the TV series. Just because I sympathize and understand her here, doesn't make her any less of a total nuisance.

Whoever ghostwrote the book not only knew (or at least researched) about medical jargon and hospitals, but I felt the abuse scene in the flashback of Gottreich trying to give young Eleanor a lobotomy feels very accurate in its cruelty and realism too. Gottreich breaches a child's trust to violate her in the way you'd imagine a sociopathic evil man in his position would to a little girl who is both frightened and desperate to please him. It all feels very credible and horrifying. When Eleanor describes Stegman at the end as the same as he was, that meant something to me.

"The Diary Of Ellen Rimbauer" was interesting, because it's clear Stephen King didn't write it, because the prose is structured entirely differently. The journals here strike me more as in the spirit of King. King is the only writer I ever see use the word "poochy" and it's in this book.

King Connections: Nozz-A-La Cola appears a couple of times. Clearly Kingdom Hospital does NOT exist on Keystone Earth.

Another way this is a little different that Rose Red's tie-in book is is features characters from the show itself and sort of lines itself up better. It's more along the line of "The Secret Diary Of Laura Palmer" from "Twin Peaks" instead of "The Diary Of Ellen Rimbauer".

Really neat tie-in book. Stephen King Book Club can be SO much fun. 4 1/2 stars.

Every time I reread this book I love it more and more. Not just because it's unlike any other Stephen King book. But it's unlike any other fictional novel either.

It's comprised of three good, decent characters. The "drama" is an extended conversation. The "journey" is two of the older characters guiding the younger character they admire, while she feels incredibly grateful for their wisdom and experience. This is not actually a Hard Case Crime Story. This is doing nothing but setting off positive vibes for me, and is the way I love different stories being told.

King actually did do another book dealing with an unsolved mystery, "From A Buick 8". It's an alright book, but that's my highest compliment. It's inferior to this in every way, despite having been written first. I think the main reason I prefer this is Stephanie McCann absorbs the lessons being taught (to Vince and Dave's delight), while Ned's petulance and dumb questions piss Sandy Dearborn off. I also like the fact that because of "The Dark Tower", despite the characters never figuring out the mystery of the Buick 8, the reader probably already has. Here we are as refreshingly in the dark as Vince, Dave, and Steffi are, and are allowed to make up own minds at the end of the day. King treats us like grown-ups able to come up with our own explanations for what happened. I love the trust that he's shown me there.

The story doesn't just celebrate the deduction of policework. It's about chasing a story, and finding an angle that everyone else misses. Steffi believes it's foul play based on the cigarettes, and without knowing one way or the other for sure, Vince agrees because they don't fit the picture otherwise. There are really very few positive portrayals of fictional reporters. Even for Lois Lane and Clark Kent there is always some ethical quandary attached to the stories they seek. Vince, Dave, and Steffi are simply put wonderful people who want what is best for their community. It is utterly refreshing.

Elephant in the room is the bizarre science fiction TV adaptation "Haven". King has disowned that (although he was never a producer) and you won't find it in the list of adaptations of his work on his site. It's completely inappropriate to turn a story about an Earthbound mystery into a science fiction fantasy with elements of God mythos. But what kills me is that even if all that is so (and it is) out of all of the TV shows that claimed to be based on King's work, whether they had his blessing, whether he was a producer, whether he actually wrote it, or whether or not he wanted nothing to do with it, "Haven" was easily the best. It was my favorite Stephen King adaptation of all time, despite being a crappy representation of the source material. It was just a phenomenal show, period.

I cannot say enough good things about this book. Except to note I will probably somehow crazily love it even more the next time I inevitably read it. 5 stars.

It's old-school Stephen King. "The Stand" meets zombies. People have noted how bleak it is compared to The Stand's optimism, but I agree with King that the ending here is nowhere near as ambiguous as it portrays itself as. Of course it worked. There is no reason it wouldn't.

King cowrote the screenplay to the movie adaptation because he felt bad about the ending. Which makes no sense because although I haven't seen the movie, I read the synopsis, and the ending there is legit dark and a total bummer, and the movie is widely hated for it. I didn't really understand his motivations for writing that movie. His thoughts about the ending have been very publicly inconsistent (to say the least.)

It's a quick, tight read. The Pulse is one of those openings that grabs ahold of your imagination, and doesn't let go. It's as great an opening scene as the exploding plane on the pilot of "Lost". It's a great damn hook for sure.

The Raggedy Man is a memorable villain too.

How long does this review even need to be? It will just be me saying "This was good. That was good. This part was good." It's all good, and that's about enough said.

King Connections: Subtle but there. The TR-90 is from "Bag Of Bones". Charlie The Choo-Choo is from "The Waste Lands: The Dark Tower III." And Juniper Hill from "IT" is mentioned too.

Sometimes I don't need to go in-depth to detail a damn good read. That was a damn good read. 4 1/2 stars.

For the first half of his career if you asked Stephen King what his favorite book that he wrote is, he always answered "'Salem's Lot". On some level that saddened me. For over 30 years the dude believed his entire career highpoint was his second damn book and that he never topped it! Once he wrote "Lisey's Story" his answer changed and I would think he has much less to be ashamed about.

What do I think of the book? I think it is very literary. I also think some of the babytalk makes me cringe. King is onto something in exploring the secret languages and the shorthand of married people. I think the babytalk and the bools stuff is dumb, precisely because I am on the outside of it. Which is how it is for all marriages and the insular ways they communicate. King also deals with grief and loss, and although the supernatural elements of the books are clearly real, I question how much of Scott's ghost is actually present. As far as hauntings go, it might all be in Lisey's mind.

The final chapters detailing Scott's horror at being forced to kill his father are certainly some of the most powerful words King has ever written. It's a very sad and effecting ending.

But do I think it's his best book? Not even close. Why not? This will sound dumb, but when he wrote it, King clearly thought it was his best as it was going, and sort of rubbed what he believed was its intrinsic awesomeness in the reader's face. A little smug, but normally, no biggie. It's just the empowering, funny, awesome things in the books strike me as less empowering, funny, and awesome than some of his other stuff specifically The Stand, Doctor Sleep, Black House, and a few books in The Dark Tower. I feel like Lisey's story is far more literary minded and more emotionally well-rounded. But I believe King thinks the book also contains a level of maturity compared to his other stuff it simply does not. Is it awesome and funny that Lisey drinks Kool-Aid straight from the pitcher after telling the loser professor that she has 20 million dollars and if she want to "ass f-word" him he'd be crouching for the rest of his life? ("Yum!") Yes. Do I believe that moment showcases writing maturity and literary excellence? No. Sorry, Uncle Stevie. It's weird that you think I would.

The book isn't just about the complicated love between a difficult husband and a put-upon wife. The things it says about the love a boy and his monstrous, abusive father share are quite provocative in suggesting that love is genuine. And it's something that is true for many people in abusive relationships. Not all abusers are unfeeling sociopaths. And sometimes for even those that are, the abused can have genuine feelings of love for them. King does not go so far as to excuse the abuse. But he suggests it is a LOT harder for Scott to process and get over it knowing the love was real, his father was forced to kill his brother, and he was forced to kill his father. It's why it hurts so much, and is so powerful. If Sparky Langdon were like Margaret White from "Carrie" there would not be so much regret, much less controversy, over Scott's actions at the end. Knowing the monster did love him and his brother, and was counting on him saving him from Hell makes things a LOT harder.

The scenario of an unwanted, obsessive stalker of a writer is sort of similar to "Secret Window, Secret Garden" except it doesn't turn out at the end that Lisey is a secret psychopath.

King Connections of Note: A few. Michael Noonan from "Bag Of Bones" is mentioned. Norris Ridgewick is from "Needful Things" and other Castle Rock books is mentioned. Likewise Andy Clutterbuck returns in the Gwendy's Button Box Trilogy. Derry from "IT" is mentioned.

I am very glad that King found a project he so personally connected with and fills him with pride. But I do have to disagree with him on it supposedly being his greatest work. It's not by a longshot. 4 stars.

This is Stephen King's longest-gestating "trunk novel", as in a novel he wrote as a very young man, and let it sit in a trunk for three decades because he thought it was no good. 30 years later King reread it, saw its potential, and did a final pass to even the tone, but still clearly didn't feel comfortable enough about the quality to put it under his own name.

I think it's an all right book, but I see exactly what King is talking about in the forward when he's worried people will laugh at it. It's ridiculously tragic. And although that might be Bachman's jam, it's also kind of sappy and heartwarming, which is not, and it makes it yet another later Bachman book that doesn't seem like it was actually written by the fake pseudonym, and instead by King himself. If you want to get technical, the last novel King wrote as Bachman that actually felt like it was WRITTEN by Bachman was "The Running Man" in the early 1980's. "Blaze" especially doesn't contain Bachman's legendary cruel streak. Bachman has been described as "Stephen King without a conscience" and this book is ALL conscience, and sympathy for the poor, tragic character of Blaze. Frankly, I don't have as much sympathy for the character as the book suggests I should. Because he's a criminal and he's done some seriously crappy and violent things. He may be genuinely good-hearted and simple-natured, and simply cursed with bad luck. But I don't give a baby kidnapper a free pass just because he's feeble and has a tragic backstory.

King mentions in the forward that he sort of went back and made the narrative a bit more straightforward, and not the three-hankie weeper it used to be. I respect him for that not only because I don't do as he feared and laugh at the tragic goings-on. But it also allows me to make up my own mind about Blaze without being manipulated into loving him by King the way the movie Forrest Gump did with the titular character. King never mentions Gump as a cautionary tale to aspire to be unlike (although he does mention the obvious homage to "Of Mice And Men") but for me Forrest's shadow is all over the book, and King does right by the tear-jerking premise of a feeble man's crappy lot in life that Robert Zemekis did very wrong. King may not have done well by Blaze himself, but he did well by the reader, and never dealt us dirty, or forced us to feel bad feelings we didn't want to. The straightforward tone of the prose allows us to make up our own minds and it's appreciated.

My favorite chapter is the third to last, the flashback where we actually meet the late George, and weirdly get a bunch of his backstory from his own perspective somehow. It definitely lives up to the hype, and you see why the guy's shadow is all over not just Blaze's increasingly disturbed mind, but the entire book at well.

King Connections Of Note: Not all Bachman novels have them (for obvious reasons) but since the cat is already out of the bag now, Shawshank is mentioned several times.

King's prose gets nearly profound at several points. I particularly admired the bit of when Blaze is put on the stand and asked if he has anything to say for himself he says, "Yessir. But I don't know how." That strikes me as wonderfully deep and beautiful.

King mentions in the forward that the book "Thinner" was essentially a written confession that Bachman was King. I'm glad he now sees how ill-advisedly putting that specific novel under Bachman's name blew his cover. It might not have been if he hadn't done that. It is 100% a Stephen King book (with a Bachman ending sloppily tagged on). He was not fooling anybody.

I love that at one point book randomly ends a chapter revealing Blaze fathered a son he never found out about, the kid was put up for adoption, and he is now a gifted and loved college student studying literature. I mentioned this doesn't feel like Bachman wrote it? That! That!

The last 2 page chapter detailing Blaze's burial and Joe's hospital convalescence is told in a no-nonsense way that makes Joe's bit in the crib with the mobile and the "wrong face" feel especially bittersweet and wistful. The delusion of George insisted that if he kept him alive the kid would be raised to hate Blaze. And damn it, that's inevitable, and exactly what happened. It's a sad story, but considering the fact that Blaze knew this was the likeliest outcome deep down and did it anyways, Blaze's bad end also feels just.

I don't hate the book. But I don't like it either. But King has also put out MUCH worse stuff under his own name. When you compare this to say, "IT", King really has nothing to be ashamed of. 2 1/2 stars.

The tone and story seem to recall both "Bag Of Bones" and "Lisey's Story" but I noticed it's not quite as good as either. I feel a lot of sympathy for the narrator Edgar Freemantle. And his honesty about what happened to him is refreshing. But he honestly stated certain truths about himself that made me dislike him.

It's not just the angry outbursts after the accident. He's says some pretty horrible stuff and is violent, but that's not really his fault. The thing about him that bothers me is he admits to the reader he loves and prefers his youngest daughter Ilse to his older daughter Melinda. That's not only not something a good parent should do. It's not something a good person would do either.

Another problem is I don't think Perse is a very smart supernatural villain. Wireman (who is a great character, and one of Stephen King's best at this stage of his career) says Perse is gonna regret messing with Edgar. And that's right. Edgar would not have had the motivation or even the knowledge to stop Perse and trap her for however long she is now if she hadn't killed Ilse is retribution for... what, exactly? Finding stuff out? Her motivation for starting a blood vendetta against the most powerful person Duma Key had ever seen is unclear. And stupid. Which makes Ilse's death not just tragic. But pointless and counterproductive. I wish villains weren't so damn stupid all the time. Even supernatural beings of an omniscience, mythological nature can't help doing super dumb stuff that is their downfall.

I mentioned how much I like Wireman. The best and most telling description about him Edgar gives us is that Wireman is a rare person who can repeatedly tell him no, while refusing to budge, and not make him angry for it. And considering anger is Edgar's usual state of being, him noticing that suggests Wireman is both reasonable and chill. I like that specific description very much.

I also love that Wireman gives him a "blank check" after Edgar gives him back his sight, and as much of a jerk as Edgar is, he is at least sensible enough to know that when somebody offers you a blank check you never cash it. Maybe that should go without saying, but it weirdly usually doesn't.

I also like the idea that Edgar believes Jack believes in the supernatural stuff easier than his generation would because he was raised on "The X-Files" and "Lost". And while I think supernatural stuff is nonsense myself, because I was raised on sci-fi and speculative fiction, I would definitely entertain the notion of it being true if it came from a credible personal source. A LOT of the tertiary characters in King's earlier work got their dumb asses killed for refusing to believe the obvious. Maybe his later fiction has fewer main character casualties than before simply because current society makes it easier for people to get with the freaking program.

I do feel the death of Ilse was not just stupid on Perse's end, but King handled it cruelly. I dislike Edgar, but I can't stand his ex-wife Pam. I understand it was his fault. I understand she's mad. But her saying she never wants to speak to him again and that she wishes he HAD died in that accident while he is grieving as badly as she is suggests she is entirely self-involved. And Edgar's opinion has sort of hinted that's how he saw her after the accident and why he always flies into a temper with her. But in reality, if I were her I would be exactly as pissed at Edgar over the things he says and does. The thing that makes me realize Edgar is right after all is her saying that. Honestly, it's one of the cruelest damn scenes King has ever written, and it makes me cringe every time. I don't mind my heart being broken in a good way. This broke it in a bad one.

I could discover no explicit King Connections here (rare for non-Bachman novels) but Edgar describing his last happy memory brought back the narrator of Pet Sematary describing the same scenario with Louis Creed. Now Edgar survived this story, and has said he would be surprised if he never has another good moment again. But just the fact that he's spent four years between that night and writing this biography without a single happy or good moment or memory is a very powerful and sad idea.

I was always confused who wrote the "How To Draw A Picture" chapters. Many are from the perspective of young Lisbeth. I decided during this reading to read those chapters as if Edgar wrote them as he did everything else in the book, and yeah that made it fit. The narrative ship there isn't exactly tight, because for years it was never evident I should have done that all along.

Technically, it's standard King. But it's also from the era where his standard stuff was no longer pedestrian at best, or awful at worst. Standard King in the early aughts meant a good yarn. Even if it was imperfect, King is not the shoddy writer he used to be when he didn't hit a home run. 4 stars.

This collection of short King stories is about average for this stage of his career. Not too many stinkers, but also really lacking a real stand-out. The closest to that is "N." and frankly, I think the comic adaptation is better (and I will be reviewing that next).

I do want to note that King says a real wiseguy line in the Sunset Notes: That people who decry spoilers tend to be spoiled. It sounds wise, but it's really trite, and another way King passes judgment on the rest of society in an elitist fashion. I am a fan of his fiction. When it comes to speaking to his Constant Readers as himself, I think King is quite a snot.

But maybe that is neither here nor there. Collection Overall: 3 1/2 stars.

Willa

I like this one. A spooky love story that is equal parts haunting and romantic. It makes you shiver in chills and good vibes alike. 3 1/2 stars.

The Gingerbread Girl

King has written quite a few stories like this one of an ingenious young woman escaping a serial killer. Probably because they are so damn effective. Emily is particularly cunning and easy to root for, and I liked seeing her victory over the monstrous Pickering.

That being said, the story ends a little too suddenly. I mean, I know it's LIKELY Pickering killed Deke Hollis, but I think we were entitled to a little more wrap-up about things like that.

Still, it's a pretty harrowing story and I sure as hell enjoyed Pickering's horrible death as much as Emily did. 4 stars.

Harvey's Dream

I'm always hated this story, not just because it's cynical and depressing, but because it's totally predictable. 1 star.

Rest Stop

King often takes random ideas from his life and makes short stories out of them. Sometimes they work. Sometimes, like this story, they don't.

King ALWAYS tells the joke in stories like this of there being so many domestic abuse victims in this country because they won't f-wording listen. If he told the joke once, it's a good pointed critique at toxic masculinity. The fact that he's told it over and over again suggests that on some level he thinks it's funny.

Not good. 2 stars.

Stationary Bike

I found this story boring. 1 1/2 stars.

The Things They Left Behind

This isn't just a harrowing story about the aftereffects of 9/11 people in New York suffered. It's a damn good read. With an ending that is by turns terrible, and then hopeful and satisfying.

Very good. 4 stars.

Graduation Afternoon

I feel a special loathing for King's stories that are pure bummers. In this one in particular, I can find nothing to compliment. 0.

N.

Really scary story and one of the best in the collection.

King Connections of Note:

Castle Rock, of course, and 19 is described as not just a number of great power, but a BAD number too (harkening to "The Dark Tower"). Also, although "Under The Dome" hadn't been published yet, the town of Chester's Mill is mentioned several times, and Julia Shumway from that book has written the newspaper article at the end,

Do you know the irony? The comic book adaptation is even better! That is bizarre to me but it's just amazing.

This though? Is great too. 4 1/2 stars.

The Cat From Hell

I don't dislike cats but I acknowledge there is something inherently comical and scary about the notion of an evil cat. It's something both horror and cartoons have returned to time and time again.

Is it because cats are unpredictable? Or because as Halston notes here, cats can take care of themselves? There are a lot of cat lovers in this world, but I think there are an equal number of people who simply distrust them for ill-defined reasons. Clowns are similarly polarizing, and King created "IT" from people's fear of them. I will argue that this short story (which is of a much higher quality) kicks IT's ass not just for making a universal fear for some people frightening, but funny as well. Better yet, it's short and sweet, and gets the gags and yucks in fast and furrious, while IT spends a thousand pages leading up to a totally underwhelming giant spider and shockingly gross child orgy.

When it comes to base fears of things some people like, I prefer this story to the hot mess of "IT". It's not even a question. 4 stars.

The New York Times At Special Bargain Rates

On the not so great side is the fact that King seems to have told the story of the haunted phone call multiple times already. On the plus side, this is one of his better takes. 4 stars.

Mute

A good yarn. It's sort of a horrible (if predictable) ending but it's funny in places and it taking place in a Church confessional is a genius framing structure.

What's great about the story is that as flawed as the guy Monette was (and the more he told his story the less I liked him) his wife was ten times worse. And I do not blame his ill-feelings at the end and would not have given him the extra Our Fathers and Hail Marys the priest did. I never understood the idea of bad thoughts being a sin anyways. I guess that's how the Church actually gets ya.

King Connections: Derry again.

It's a solid short story. 4 stars.

Ayana

This is a nice story about people performing miracles, without understanding them, simply because they can. I love the revelation at the end that despite witnessing all these miracles, the military man the guy talks to is an atheist. That raises a LOT of questions for me. Or if I'm being honest, answers them. 4 stars.

A Very Tight Place

King has talked about going for the gross-out before, but this has to be the single grossest thing he's ever written. Unlike the grossness of "Rage", "It", or "Dedication" it freaking WORKS, and is effective, and makes the story harrowing and weirdly funny.

Grunwald is one of King's better villains. It's amazing he's as crazy and evil as he is in a story this short. King has centered entire novels around less memorable bad guys.

Pretty great. Also super gross. Can't forget that bit. 5 stars.

This comic book adaptation of Stephen King's frightening short story from "Just After Sunset" is weirdly better than the original story. I didn't see the "Mobisode" adaptation, but it's my understanding the comic covers stuff not seen in either. The prologue for instance, which is way cool, and raises a buncha questions.

King Connections: Chester's Mill from "Under The Dome".

The artwork by Alex Maleev is purely gorgeous. The people look like real people. This is what modern comic books look like? Holy cow, am I humbled.

Writer Marc Guggenheim counts the number of words in his afterword to make sure they are a big round number. Clever.

Great stuff. 4 stars.

The art is so photorealistic it's freaking me out.

We finally get N's real name (Nathan Nance) and the prologue with Norma Acker gives us a LOT of needed context too. That's estate lawyer's note at the beginning struck me as just about the most coldblooded thing I ever did read. Maybe Shakespeare's suggestion about what to do with all the lawyers was actually onto something.

This is unsettling in a way none of the other comics based on King's stuff is. I believe it is the BEST comic book adaptation of his work as well. 5 1/2 stars.

Bonsaint fighting the urge to look back... and losing, very much reminds me of the Biblical story of Lot's Wife. It's temptation that leads to our damnation, even if the temptation is of a mundane, insignificant thing. And speaking as someone who suffers from OCD myself, I recognized the disorder entirely through that parable. King isn't just channeling "The Great God Pan". All throughout mythology there have been parables and fables of someone being tempted to look back causing their ruin, and what else would you call the temptation of a mundane action for no reward other than an obsessive-compulsive ritual?

I wonder how deep King thought about this when writing the story, or if he understood he didn't just tap into dark forces here. He tapped into great psychology. Which I find notable and rare because King's previous takes on psychiatry were almost always biased negatively. King has a strong fear and mistrust of head shrinkers that's made certain elements of his work more unpleasant than it would be than someone who didn't seem opposed to the idea for most of his career.

Yes, in this story King's psychiatrist Bonsaint is a failure. But as N's daughter notes, he tried. And was damned for having tried and winds up later cursing N's name via misspelled diary entries.

I love the part of his counting the number of words in each journal entry, and I loved that in the short story too. King obviously did a TON of research on OCD to understand how mundane many of our rituals actually are. I never suffered from THAT one, but I've done stuff as equally pointless (if not quite so detail-oriented). Folks with OCD are often good at math for this reason. I'm not, and after reading this, I consider that a blessing.

King's short story was already pretty amazing. But the comic is so great because it clearly lays out to the reader how and WHY it is so with context we were not allowed in the original story. I disagree with the notion that it is impossible for an adaptation to improve on the source material. Strongly. But with perhaps the exception of "Stand By Me" being better than the overrated "The Body" (which I haven't seen in a long time so I could be wrong), both miniseries and movie versions of "IT" (which barely count in my mind since "IT" was a terrible book to begin with), and hell, "Silver Bullet" (I'll give the movie that one over "Cycle Of The Werewolf" unconditionally, but it WAS also written by King), there aren't a ton of King adaptations better than King's books. Certainly this is the only comic book adaptation that is. It's pretty amazing. 5 stars.

This is the only issue with a parental advisory and it deserves it.

The end of the novel is ambiguous and makes the reader uncomfortably fear the worst. The end of the comic goes a bit beyond its timeframe and confirms the worst DID happen. And yet, as far as I'm concerned, that doesn't mean the danger has passed, or that the damage has finished / been entirely contained. The shocking horrible ending is the worst case scenario. But it might not be over. Seriously. How does Charlie picture the police crime scene is gonna wind up? Possibly didn't think that all the way through.

I have taken shots at a LOT of fiction whenever a mass shooting is portrayed. It's not entertaining, and spoils whatever enjoyment I had been having in a given movie or TV show. For some reason, the horror of the scene in comic book form isn't necessarily lessened, but it's tolerable. And maybe even more frightening in some respects because a bit of it is left up to my imagination. But I have nothing but good things to say about this specific horrible ending.

Best King comic book adaptation ever. What a shocker. 5 stars.

Where do I begin?

I guess the elephant in the room is that this is probably King's most political novel, at least until "Holly". And many of the sites I post these reviews on don't allow discussions of politics. I'm going to ask for a little grace and understanding from the moderators of those sites. And as far as posters on those sites go, let's not make a federal case of anything, all right? If I reach a conclusion you don't agree with, that's fine. I'm not looking to start a flame war.

Caveats out of the way. This is one of King's hardest books for me to read. Not just because it's over a thousand pages long. Truthfully, even then it feels like a taut, gripping read. No, the problem is that it's one of King's most enraging books. With the exception of "IT" and well, "Rage", "Under The Dome" pisses me off like little else King has written. The difference there is "IT" and "Rage" pissed me off for the wrong reasons (child orgies and school shootings). "Under The Dome" pisses me off for the right ones. It's King taking a righteous political stand, and it's effective as hell. But I have to say with around 15 years of hindsight, although the book feels timelier than ever, because it feels timely it also makes me feel it was probably a little bit unfair when it came out.

The book was King lambasting the incompetence of the Bush Administration. Big Jim Rennie was based on Dick Cheney. The idea behind the book is wondering what would happen if an administration that corrupt and incompetent were put in charge of a REAL life and death crisis. I know Bush botched 9/11, but this is King putting a hat on that. I'll talk a little further about how effective the book is as a liberal outrage machine (pretty damn) but although it feels more current than EVER, real-world current events make me feel like King didn't really understand the Bush Administration or why it was actually bad. I would believe Dick Cheney is a power hungry sociopath. But still Liz Cheney stood against Trump and up for Democracy after January 6, with the full support of her father. I see a LOT of Trump in Rennie as the dangerous demagogue who is SO obviously full of it and you can't believe how many people are falling for his repulsive and stupid shtick. But even though I hate Dick Cheney, and yeah, think he's probably evil, the truth is, on some level, he did want what was best for the country. Even if he only out to enrich himself and his friends with his evil policies, standards did exist for him in a way they do not for Trump. I feel like after having lived through this exact scenario for REAL, Cheney is getting a raw deal.

I appreciate King's role as a liberal gadfly. But while I definitely think Rennie is far too harsh an allegory for Cheney in hindsight, I think Andy Sanders is far too soft a comparison for George W. Bush. All of this compliments I just grudgingly handed Cheney go for Bush Jr. too. But... But... King has said he wrote Andy as hapless as he did because he felt sorry for Bush on some level, and felt he had good intentions, but was in over his head. I dispute the notion that Bush ever had good intentions. Sanders comes across as a sincere guy who genuinely wants to help people. Again, while acknowledging Bush had some standards of decency current Republicans lack, I do want to point out that Bush's personality was mean-spirited and that of a fratboy butthole. Whatever sympathy King felt for him being in over his head is another reason King often misses the forest for the trees in his political opinions. Bush was no hapless innocent. He may have been somewhat dumb and uncomplicated, but he was also petty and mean. So, yeah, no Uncle Stevie. Political allegory fail there, although the difference being than it wasn't just bogus with 15 years hindsight, it was bogus back in 2009 too.

Before I talk about what the book did right, I'm gonna mention its last failing. Maybe you'll think this specific failing helped me out as a writer, but really, it didn't really have much to do with how I approached Gilda And Meek. I didn't actually learn anything from King's mistake here, because it always seemed evident, and not something I needed to find out for myself. I already knew this bit.

But I think like all liberals 15 years ago, King earnestly wants to assure his conservative readers he doesn't hate ALL Republicans and desperately tries to create a "good" Republican in Julia Shumway to contrast her with Rennie. Because of the shots Gilda And Meek And The Un-Iverse takes at Republicans, that's partly why Bernadette Anderson is the way she is. Somebody I don't agree with politically, but somebody who is wholly consistent in those beliefs, even if they are inconvenient to her at various points. But the thing is I always have Bernadette say and do various conservative and Christian things. Barbie's recurring joke to Shumway is that she doesn't sound like a Republican. That's a damn failing. If the only way King could portray a moral Republican was by not having her act like a Republican, Shumway is not a complimentary character at all, or for that matter remotely successful as a contrast character. Her portrayal is a huge failing.

Time to talk about the good. I worry about this a bit. The book has SO much in it to praise and get worked up over I'll spend 8 hours on this review if I'm not careful. I want to get to everything I either loved or that resonated with me, but I don't wanna be here all day either.

Bold opinion: Stephen King has never created a character I hated more than Big Jim Rennie. Annie Wilkes and Brady Hartsfeld were both pretty bad, but literally EVERYTHING Rennie does is bad. I recognize Trump rather than Cheney because Rennie has no redeeming qualities. Barbie at one point seems to be getting mad because Rennie supposedly isn't stupid, and is still pulling the crap he is. I dispute the notion he isn't stupid. If King was trying to convince me he wasn't, every single thing he did wouldn't have been as damaging to himself and everyone else as it was. It's like King was writing about Cheney without realizing he was really writing about Trump 10 years in the future. The novel feels timelier than ever. But its timeliness makes it feel more unfair than ever too.

The first chapter of his hanging up on the army guy and then suggesting for no reason terrorists might be involved makes him a very easy character to hate. The fact that nothing he says or does is right, and that he's so rude and repulsive to everyone makes people falling for it even more inexcusable than if he had charisma. Again, a better slam at Trump than Cheney.

Speaking of which, the allegory for climate change, and that we all only have one Dome, so we can't afford to destroy it also feels more timely than ever.

Joe McClatchey shows that King digs and venerates smart kids. They are portrayed as cool rather than nerdy for being smart. I recognize Mark Petrie from "'Salem's Lot" there, as well as Luke Ellis from "The Institute". King does not believe smart and precocious kids in genre are something to be ashamed of or avoided. He believes in putting in the effort to make them cool and interesting so the reader won't be annoyed with them. Which is the right mindset, and he's usually successful there.

I have to say, and you'll probably call me crazy. But King sort of portrays the burgeoning insane fellowship, friendship, and romance (?) between Andy Sanders and Chef as somewhat comical (and considering it's based on viewing meth as a religious gateway I see why) but I dunno, I also find it incredibly sad and moving. Sanders has essentially lost everything he's ever loved and held dear, but Chef's madness has given him a renewed purpose. It's arguable he's the only person who died in the Dome who died happy and fulfilled. The love there between them both feels legit and genuine to me. Which, yeah, admittedly makes it funny and subversive. And real too. Don't forget real.

The stuff with Junior and his "girlfriends" and the gang-rape of Sam Bushey under the chapter titled "N'yuck, Nyuck, Nyuck" makes Under The Dome one of the darkest and most unpleasant King books of all time. The scary thing is this is done by people instead of supernatural monsters. Bushey's reactions during and after the rape is some of the most credible stuff King has ever done about the subject, and this is a guy who essentially spent the mid-90's sticking up for battered women. There is something raw and powerful here while she shoots Georgia Roux in the face, and after Roux shrieks she takes it back, the ridiculousness of the moment is built into both the horror and the tragedy.

I love the character of Thurston Marshall. Mostly because he's freaking well-rounded. I have a sneaking suspicion King himself doesn't like him. But what's cool is he impresses other characters that DO wind up liking him. He's sort of an insufferable prig. Who's heart is in the right place, and is freaking useful. I love that notion.

Rusty Everett's fight with his wife Linda over Barbie's innocence over the things he was being framed for again felt more true today than it did back in 2009. I recognize the fact that political disagreements in 2023 have destroyed families in their toxicity. I feel like the political message of Gilda And Meek And The Un-Iverse would have gone over better during the Bush Administration. While it's being used to critique Trump I very much feel the allegory is a failure there. In a lot of ways "Under The Dome" is the opposite. It doesn't feel true to life about what the Bush Administration was really like, but feels spot-on for the Trump years King couldn't even imagine at this point. If I could have traded Gilda And Meek being completed in 2009 for King publishing "Under The Dome" in say, 2018, I would have. Both political allegories seem to be badmouthing the wrong things at the times they were released.

My favorite narrative touch of the entire book (and this might go down as one of my favorite narrative touches of King's entire career) is when Joe promises his mother he will be careful, and she makes Rusty promise there will be no bloodshed, and the chapter ends with Joe saying "No blood". The next two word title page is "Blood Everywhere". THAT? THAT? Is everything I try to be in my writing. I love King's books, but I read very little in them that I personally aspire to. THAT level of genius is something I wanna do all day every day.

I mentioned Big Jim has no redeeming virtues. It's true. But it's not like he doesn't have interesting facets. Like why he loves girl's basketball. Something tells me King himself is a fan, and for the same reasons. There is a little too much knowing in King about the girls supposedly taking losing personally. That's an observation of a dude who watches and enjoys that sport for a messed up reason. Takes one to know one.

Similarly, the fact that Junior Rennie is a necrophilliac is appalling enough, but the fact that King makes him genuinely care about the well-being of the kids Alice and Aiden makes me unhappy for making me have sympathy with this monster. King knew which buttons to push there.

Speaking of which, the soldier Ames taking a vested interest in the kid Ollie surviving was great. In my head he adopted him after the story was over.

That's another thing. I felt the book ended too quickly. For a novel that long, I would have appreciated an Epilogue set a few months later telling us where the characters ended up after the Dome lifted, and specifically the nation's true reaction to Rennie's evil once they got the full story. Rennie wanted to be on the cover of Time Magazine. Did he actually get there for infamous reasons?

The stuff in the bunker with Carter and Rennie was kind of annoying because while I agree that the entire situation was Rennie's fault, Carter specifically chose to back that wrong horse. Little late to blame the obviously crooked and evil guy for being crooked and evil. Rennie is a special level of suck in that scene too, even for him. He blames everybody else for his own problems. I hate Rennie because he is the kind of blasphemer who unironically compares himself with Christ, which zero awareness that that is what he is doing.

I'm going to end this review by going off on a little bit of tangent. But I think it's necessary. Have you ever seen the TV show based on this book? It is pure crap. And indefensible. Not only does it botch every message King tried to preach, but it gutlessly avoids any appearances of political partisanship, which is insane, and totally on-brand for network television. But what I can't forgive is that the show was one of the worst written TV shows on the air at the time. There moments that are so bad I laughed. Stay away from that crap. If you have a strong stomach, the book is the truly interesting political allegory. It's a good read. But it will piss you the hell off. But at least it will piss you off for the right reasons. 4 1/2 stars.

These four novellas are essentially King exploring the dark side of human nature, and in many cases, making us question what we ourselves would do in similar horrible circumstances. Certainly the book is hardly King's lightest read, and yet unlike the Bachman stuff I feel "Big Driver" and "A Good Marriage" actually have merit from a moral standpoint. Both stories feature woman facing horrible men and making tough choices on how to survive them. King's Boogeymen in this story are all ordinary men. The banality of the evil of "1922" suggests we as a gender really need to get our crap together. And maybe King detailing reasons why that is, and raising the ethical dilemmas he does, is the first step for us recognizing that fact and someday getting better. Lord knows the King who wrote these stories is not the same person who wrote the exploitational stories he did in the 1970's and 80's. And I appreciate them for that, as dark and horrible as they are. There is a basic dark truth in the things King explores now that simply did not exist for crap like "Rage" back in the day. King is less interested in exploring human monsters these days and more in exploring how brave people stand against them and fight back. And that's the correct mindset. Collection Overall: 3 1/2 stars.

1922

King has certainly written stories with more loathsome protagonists than Wilfred James. But I think Wilf is the worst to be given the first person narrator treatment. The guy makes my skin crawl.

I hate him for so many reasons. The most obvious being that the reason he had for killing his wife and ruining his son's life was outright stupid. The book jacket says the story raises questions for the reader about how far they would go in a similar scenario which is balderdash. I wouldn't entertain committing murder for such a dumb reason. I will agree with the book jacket that the other stories in the book are great ethical dilemmas about right and wrong the reader can envision happening to themselves. But this? Wilf's horrible situation is entirely of his own making.

The second worst thing about Wilf is that he's self-aware. He's knows what he's doing. The Conniving Man persona shows his dishonest manipulations of his son and the law were all premeditated. The ending is great and suggests he's both insane and an unreliable narrator. But I believe the fact that he convinces his son to murder his mother because she'll send to to school in Chicago with black n-words says there is no part of this chump I will ever feel sorry for.

The Sweetheart Bandits is both a dumb and funny idea and of course it goes far worse than you'd expect for such a dumb and funny idea.

King Connections: Hemingford Home, Nebraska can be seen in a few King tales including "The Stand" and "IT".

It's a well-written yarn, but I don't think it has the merit Big Driver and A Good Marriage do. Both those stories raise good ethical quandaries. Wilf is just a repulsive, manipulative, pathetic, stupid man. 2 1/2 stars.

Big Driver

This is a great revenge thriller because of the ethical questions raised. What is Tess' responsibility to the women in the pipe? If she reported this, because she's slightly famous, the tabloids would savage her, wouldn't they? How does it make remote sense that Big Driver wasn't in on it at the end? These aren't questions that usually pop up for cozy mystery writers, and although I hated to see Tess suffering and violated, she's stronger for asking them and coming to the right conclusions.

The idea that the tabloids would do that to her felt extremely credible. And I'll give King this. While this is something all women already know, this is not an insight that should be readily apparent to a male writer. The fact that King knows it is a point in his favor.

The point against him? King tells the "Because they won't f-wording LISTEN" joke AGAIN. Obviously because on some level he himself finds it funny. My praise for him on the subject matter remains a bit measured for that reason.

King Connections Of Note: Inside View.

Very satisfying revenge story. Tess is a pretty cool character and I enjoyed spending time with her and the voices in her head. I think we'd all be able to process things better with those kinds of voices in our heads. They certainly solved the mystery for HER at least. 4 1/2 stars.

Fair Extension

The jacket calls the story nasty and funny, and it is. But as loathsome a character as Streeter is, the thing I think is cool about the story is that it subverts the entire trope of the deal with the devil. Streeter does not have to remotely suffer damnation himself, and Elvid deals him squares, and delivers everything he promises. Weirder still, nothing later comes back to bite Streeter in the ass. The fair extension deal is the antithesis of the Monkey's Paw.

King Connections: Derry and its landmarks, including the Barrens, are mentioned, as is Juniper Hill. Streeter mentions Mrs. Denbrough, but if it's Bill's mother he's talking about, she must have been ancient in 2001. All of these things are from "IT".

Nasty as hell. And interesting for having a devil that deals square. 3 1/2 stars.

A Good Marriage

The story is equal parts appalling and riveting. Darcy and Holt Ramsey's cat and mouse at the end is why I read fiction, and Stephen King in particular. It's just amazing.

I want to talk about the real-world controversy the novella and the movie based on it sparked. King based Bob Anderson and his Beadie serial killer persona on Dennis Rader, the BTK killer. A LOT of people did not believe that Rader went around killing people for 16 years and that he wife never knew. King however believed her story, and sort of did this one as a thought experiment on how that could happen, and what the Good Wife would be going through if and when she learned the truth. King basically treated Rader's wife as a real, sympathetic person, while the rest of the media and society in general treated her with disdain and disgust.

And yet, Rader's daughter criticized King and accused him of exploiting her father's story and his victims. As far as the real-world controversy goes, I'm on King's side. Lord knows that man he written a TON of material he should be apologetic over, but the idea that he's getting crap from Rader's daughter for essentially defending her mother? Just no. Do you know what actually exploited Rader's victims? Rader. With every taunt he sent to the police and the press. I resent the hell out of Rader's daughter acting like she is in the position to claim the moral high ground over King about this specific thing. King's a likeable guy. I never heard his reaction to the controversy but if I found out he apologized in hindsight, that would be in character for him. But he shouldn't be apologetic for writing a story defending her mother from the rest of the world believing she was an enabling monster. For crying out loud, I find her protestations utterly vulgar.

Did I mention it was a damn good read? Shocking and harrowing with a satisfying ending? Because it was. 4 1/2 stars.