The Gunslinger Journal #4

I have finished my first small leg of the Dark Tower journey; completing book 1, The Gunslinger.  It is a difficult journey for me.  First, it is quite different than I remember it.  Is that because I first read it via Stephen King’s audio version?  This time I read the revises with George Guidall.

Not Love At First Sight:

I still find the story hard to follow, confusing and at times down right frustrating.  It is not love at first sight.  I think I will buy the old tapes of King reading the story.  It would seem that with the major clean up King did to this story, it would be smoother.  But still, it is such a strange novel.  The action is slow, the characters are mostly unlikeable (I’m sorry) and the ideas seem incomplete.

Bev Vincent said the novel had a “dry, dark tone” that turned many away.  He also notes, “King’s revisions createa more internally consistent series of books for newcomers to the series.”

But just because it is not love at first sight does not mean I do not like the novel.  I do.  First, I know the series gets better!  Second, there is a flavor to both the book and the character Roland that is kind of fun.  He may not be immedately likeable – in the sense that I identify deeply with him – but he does possess traits that are fun.  Roland is stoic, strong, determined and pretty mean.  If he needs to take down the entire town of Tull to accomplish his mission, down they will go!   But he is charming, in a Clint Eastwood sort of way.  You don’t want to be on Roland’s bad side – or, get in his path to the tower.  Roland is a man driven by a single passion, to reach the Dark Tower.

There is another reason I find this book difficult – it requires scholarship.  This is not a novel to be read and enjoyed and tossed aside.  It has to be thought about, mulled over, studied.  For me that sometimes feels like work!  I spend my day as a preacher studying implications and meanings of Scripture.  Stephen King is not Scripture – he’s literature – but in this instance, literature meant to be taken at a deeper level.  A surface reading will miss a lot of what King is setting up.  So, my laziness in just wanting to read a good novel makes me a little shy when approaching this book.

Spiritual Symbolism:

Sin and Redemption: Here’s what I realized reading this time, Roland is a hero in search of redemption.  Not a new theme at all, but something I had somehow missed.  We’re not really supposed to identify or like Roland when we first meet him.  He is a man on a noble mission, but he is personally broken.

As the first segment in a redemption story, The Gunslinger goes to some pains to reveal Roland’s imperfections.  I’m working to avoid the word “sinner” – but there it is!  Roland is the sinner.  The Tower story runs like a long version of Pilgrims Progress.  He is a man bearing a great burden (very great burden!).

I’m not sure this analogy should be pressed hard, since I don’t think it was not in King’s minds eye when he wrote the book.  Is it fair to apply imagery beyond the authors intent?  I’m not sure.  But I can’t unsee some of this.

Themes from Christianity in particular play throughout the first novel, and become stronger toward the end.  It starts with evil being chased through the desert – the bad guy wears black!  Who is this man in black?  Flagg?  A servant of Flagg?  Walter O’Dim is. . . ?  Actually, it’s unclear in this novel.  

LEGION:
The man in black claims to serve a leader named “Legion.”  Not a reference to ancient Rome, but to the Biblical demoniac Jesus encountered.  Christ was confronted by the demon posessed man and demanded his name.  “Legon, because we are many.”  The demons begged Christ not to bring them into judgment before the appointed time (Judgment day).  Jesus honors the demons request, exorcizing the man – but instead of setting the demons lose on the earth, he sends them into a herd of nearby pigs.

JUDAS?: At first the sacrifice of Jake seems to be something like Abraham’s preparation to sacrifice his son Isaac.  Both know it will happen, yet like Abraham and Isaac they journey on. But Jake is not an Isaac at all.  He is not a willing sacrifice for Roland's tower!  Anything but.

Roland assures Jake of his protection, but later fails to save him.  Roland falls into the realm of betrayer in this novel.  Is he like a Judas then?  Not really.  Because what happens is unplanned.  Roland is aware things might go that way, but works to avoid a situation where he might have to sacrifice the boy.  When he is confronted with the options – boy or tower – he isn’t given time to think this through.  He acts on instinct, not deliberation.  This act will be something he is given opportunity to redeem later in the series.

GOLGOTHA: The man in black brings Roland to a place of bones – Golgotha.  This is the name of the place where Christ was crucified.  It is here that the man in black hopes to convince Roland to turn away from the dark tower.

The Gunslinger and the man in black have a final conversation that rambles into total confusion – Our universe could be nothing but a blade of grass, cut away and now dying.  What would you find if you came to the end of the universe, drilled a hole in the wall of the universe. . . what is on the other side?  This kind of talk goes on and on – stuff you expect to hear being tossed about in a dorm room full of seminary students.

Creation:
When Roland falls into a trance, the Biblical metaphors return.  He sees the man in black as the creator, and experiences creation as the man in black calls forth light and planets.

“The universe was void.  Nothing moved.   Nothing was.”
Compare to Genesis 1:2, “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep” only, instead of the Spirit of God hovering, Roland and the man in black are hovering.  It is not God who will call forth creation, but the man in black.

“Let us have light,” the voice of the man in black said nonchalantly, and there was light.   The gunslinger thought in a detached way that the light was good. (p.283, unrevised)
“God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good,” Gen. 1:3-4

So what is the vision?   It is meant to scare Roland off his quest.   (I’m not sure why the man in black doesn’t just kill Roland – but I’m sure that’s just a very primitive thought, right?)  The man in black wants Roland to be aware that there are things taking place beyond his understanding – things he cannot grasp.  Roland is unworthy to carry out the mission of the dark tower.

When Roland invokes the Name – seemingly as a curse – the man in black pulls away.
“Jesus no more no more no more–”
“The voice of the man in black whispered silkily in his ear: “Then renege.  Cast away all thoughts of the Tower.  Go your way, gunslinger, and save your soul.”

Bev Vincent argues, “At one point, the narration seems to expand beyond Wlater to some greater being, never identified, perhaps the Voice of the Turtle.  Later, in the presence of Black Thirteen, Roland will understand that he was sent todash by the residual effects of that Wizard’s orb, which was recently in Walter’s hands.” (The Road To The Dark Tower, p.44)

BEAST:
The man in black speaks of a “Beast” who guards the dark tower.  The idea of a “beast” who stands guarding a mighty tower (like tower of Babel) which connects all civilization is a Biblical one.  Does King intend this?  I think he does.  Revelation centers on an end time war between the Beast and the Lamb.

The Beast is the Crimson King.  This was a change King made when he revised.  (See the portion below on “intentional” as to why he might use “beast” for the first draft.)

Flagg:
Is Walter O’Dim really Randall Flagg?  Yes.  But there are problems with this!  In the original version, it seems pretty clear that after the long conversation and the passage of ten years, the man in black is nothing but a pile of bones.

“The remains of the wood he had carried had turned to ironwood, and the man in black was a laughing skeleton in a rotting black robe, more bones in this place of bones, one more skull in golgotha.”

The question in the first edition of the novel would have been: How did the man in black die?  Roland shot at him several times, but he seemed to be unharmed.  Unless he died, and it was Walter’s ghost.  King revises this to make it clear that this is nothing but a trick by the man in black.

INTENTIONAL?

So, does King intend to make all these Biblical references?  I think so.

Though the gunslinger bears the marks of a young writer – it also shows the workings of a young man who still possesses a working knowledge of Scripture.  Or, to put it this way: The Stephen King who wrote the Gunslinger had been to church and listened to sermons more recently than the Stephen King who finished the Gunslinger.  The Gunslinger sports the knowledge of a person who has been churched.

Take for instance the title “Beast” which is later changed to Crimson King.  The younger King is more familiar with the idea of a great Beast, because it is a symbol from Christianity.  Later he uses Crimson King, as this more directly ties things to the great evil in his novels.

I think (think) he is throwing everything he has at the reader, hoping some of the symbolism will stick.  And some of it does.  Why the strange creation sequence?  I’m not completely sure.   Does Roland carrying wood to the place of bones supposed to be symbolic? – like Isaac carrying wood, or Christ carrying a cross?  Probably not.  But maybe!

Fantasy mirrors the Biblical genre of Apocalyptic.  Used in Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Revelation, it is quite different from the novel form of the genre such as “the Stand” or “The Road.”  Biblical Apocalyptic uses symbolism to paint pictures of the future.  It draws on previously used symbols, sometimes reinterpreting them, to tell the story of redemption.  In many ways, the gunslinger falls into this genre.  It is not just an end of the world book – but a highly symbolic book.  The problem with such a thing is the same one that Bible students encounter; knowing which elements the writer intended as symbol and which he intends to be read at a simple surface level reading.

What Is The Tower?

When Roland catches the man in black he shoots at him.  The man in black suggests that it is not a good idea to kill the person who has the answers he seeks.  They go to a campfire, where the man in black cooks a rabbit – Roland eats jerky.

If the end is supposed to provide answers, it does not.  What is the dark tower?  The axis of many universes – endless worlds.  The tower is the “nexus of time.”  It’s a good answer to stave off the reader.  Truth is, the reader (me) is a little suspect that at this point Stephen King has no idea what the dark tower is!  Saying is the “nexus of time” or “the nexus of size” make it worth pursuing without a lot further explanation of exactly what in the world is going on.

Here’s the thing: The Dark Tower itself, at least in this novel, is nothing more than what Alfred  Hitchcock would call a “McGuffin.”  A McGuffin is a devise that simply moves the plot forward, it doesn’t matter what it is.  If it’s a spy story, the McGuffin is the needed papers.  In this case, it is the mysterious tower.

I think The Dark Tower itself is a mystery to both writer and reader in this first installment of The Dark Tower.  The writer is driven by the concept, not fully aware of what it is or why Roland must reach it.