Jon's review
The Eyes of the Dragon by Stephen King
Stephen King. For kids? Yeah, sometimes. Eyes of the Dragon is as close as King comes to being for all ages.
This is a shift from most of King's other writings, but carries much of King's traditional thematic and style. Stephen King's world is connected to our own and it's in that world that all his stories hang out, blending together in fascinating and engaging ways. One can't help but see the connections in Dragon to other books; The Stand, It, The Dark Tower. Maybe it's just that I really like Stephen King that I find these connections really interesting and cool.
Dragon is a fantasy tale of King Roland, his two sons, Peter and Thomas, and the magician Flagg. The characters have both their good and bad qualities and it's tough to dislike any of them. It's about good vs. evil, redemption, forgiveness, growing up, facing fears, righting wrongs and all those themes we like and are familiar with. It does move a bit slow in spots, ...more
This is a shift from most of King's other writings, but carries much of King's traditional thematic and style. Stephen King's world is connected to our own and it's in that world that all his stories hang out, blending together in fascinating and engaging ways. One can't help but see the connections in Dragon to other books; The Stand, It, The Dark Tower. Maybe it's just that I really like Stephen King that I find these connections really interesting and cool.
Dragon is a fantasy tale of King Roland, his two sons, Peter and Thomas, and the magician Flagg. The characters have both their good and bad qualities and it's tough to dislike any of them. It's about good vs. evil, redemption, forgiveness, growing up, facing fears, righting wrongs and all those themes we like and are familiar with. It does move a bit slow in spots, ...more
I find it interesting that, as you point out, King is a tireless crusader against the use of needless description, particularly of the adverb/adjective variety, yet it is in his "children's book" where he indulges them to a greater degree. I wonder if he thinks that the need for adjective/adverb-laden description is more necessary for a less-mature reader.
Tim, you're probably right about King's thinking. It's a trap that a lot of people fall into; they excuse weak writing as necessary for younger, less-mature readers. It's a mistake. I like King a lot, but he still has some problems. Thanks for the comment.
Yeah, it's been my experience that kids are, if anything, more capable of tapping into an author's message primarily on the basis of strong nouns and verbs. After all ,they're the most concrete words we have and those we first learn when we learn a language.
And as for complex messages being elusive to younger, less-mature readers, you've gotta love Dr. Seuss as the ultimate counter-example. Who makes the plight of the environment more accessible, Gore or the Lorax? Did any of the alarmist Cold-War writers make the futility of the arms race any clearer than The Butter Battle Book? Heck, racism looks more foolish in "The Sneetches" than in even good books like To Kill a Mockingbird. Sorry, this isn't a very King-related tangent, but I think your cogent observations about the lack of necessity for writing down to young readers makes it at least minimally apt.
