Scan barcode
rockatanskette's review against another edition
challenging
dark
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
1.0
This is my first Stephen King novel and honestly? Not impressed.
There's an intriguing plot somewhere, I think, but it's hard to tell with Stephen King's raging boner in the way. I'm usually not one to care about sexual content in books, but it frustrates me when it's extraneous, distracting, and, in this case, intensely sexist. Almost every woman mentioned is described only by her sexual appeal to the main character and his own mother is defined entirely by her sexual (note: not even romantic) relationships with his father and a secondary character. If that wasn't bad enough, King sets various women up as sexually open and then calls them whores (whorish also seems to be a favorite adjective for describing even random, unnamed women). It reminds me of a John Berger quote:
"You painted a naked woman because you enjoyed looking at her, put a mirror in her hand and you called the painting 'Vanity,' thus morally condemning the woman whose nakedness you had depicted for your own pleasure."
There are two or three women mentioned who aren't defined by sex; they're cooks and maids. So do with that what you will.
It's not even the sexual part of it mostly, it's sometimes just bizarre references to genitalia. King describes Roland's balls like the meme about men writers describing breasts. At one point, I read the line "His loins were suddenly filled with light, a light that was soft yet hard" and groaned so loudly my mom asked me if I was in pain. I was.
I'm trying to decide if the questions left open are compelling enough to read the rest of the series, or if I'm just going to Google it to sate what little curiosity I have. I'm leaning toward the latter. There's only so many apparently sentient dicks I can take.
There's an intriguing plot somewhere, I think, but it's hard to tell with Stephen King's raging boner in the way. I'm usually not one to care about sexual content in books, but it frustrates me when it's extraneous, distracting, and, in this case, intensely sexist. Almost every woman mentioned is described only by her sexual appeal to the main character and his own mother is defined entirely by her sexual (note: not even romantic) relationships with his father and a secondary character. If that wasn't bad enough, King sets various women up as sexually open and then calls them whores (whorish also seems to be a favorite adjective for describing even random, unnamed women). It reminds me of a John Berger quote:
"You painted a naked woman because you enjoyed looking at her, put a mirror in her hand and you called the painting 'Vanity,' thus morally condemning the woman whose nakedness you had depicted for your own pleasure."
There are two or three women mentioned who aren't defined by sex; they're cooks and maids. So do with that what you will.
It's not even the sexual part of it mostly, it's sometimes just bizarre references to genitalia. King describes Roland's balls like the meme about men writers describing breasts. At one point, I read the line "His loins were suddenly filled with light, a light that was soft yet hard" and groaned so loudly my mom asked me if I was in pain. I was.
I'm trying to decide if the questions left open are compelling enough to read the rest of the series, or if I'm just going to Google it to sate what little curiosity I have. I'm leaning toward the latter. There's only so many apparently sentient dicks I can take.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Sexism, Gun violence, and Violence
Minor: Sexual violence
More...