Hablemos de ABISMOS.

 El sabio Google, entre tantas otras, ofrece la siguiente definición del concepto abismo: "diferencia u oposición muy grande entre cosas, personas o ideas de modo que no hay conexión entre ellas". Esa fue mi impresión al leer esto.

A pesar de haber leído El pistolero y quedar completamente desconcertado, decidí seguir dándole una oportunidad a esta saga que, seamos honestos, si no fuera del gran King, la hubiese abandonado. Pero luego llega este libro, que se ubica siete horas después de su predecesor, aparentemente, tiempo suficiente para hacer que cada componente que odié del primer libro se transforme y me haga amar este segundo. ES QUE SON COMO EL AGUA Y EL ACEITE: 

1. La narración poética del primer libro parecía muy profesional y todo, pero no entendía absolutamente nada (tenía que releer muchas frases y hacía de un libro corto extremadamente pesado); en cambio, en este libro, volvemos a una narración clara, fresca y llevadera.
2. La trama en esta novela está completamente definida: entendía lo que leía y cuáles eran los objetivos, además de ser increíblemente interesante… pero en El Pistolero nada de eso pasaba, trama indefinida, demasiado corto como para dejar algo en claro y muchas más preguntas que respuestas. 
3. Los personajes son QUERIBLES. Cuando leí el primero, me costaba visualizar a Roland como protagonista, pero en esta entrega su desarrollo es mucho más efectivo, del rechazo pasó hasta a generar risas. Ni hablar de sus peculiares compañeros. 

Por si no quedó claro>>>> La llegada de los tres SÍ funciona como un inicio prometedor a La Torre Oscura.

➤ "No cometas el error de poner tu corazón al alcance de su mano."

Los nuevos personajes son INCREÍBLES: la historia que cargan, la complejidad de sus características, y su oscuridad (que es bastante en todos los casos), fueron clave a la hora de enriquecer la historia. Ni siquiera me imaginaba que iba a reír tanto con este libro, en especial por las palabras de Detta y la interacción de Roland en nuestro mundo. Si me pongo a pensar, en realidad, no hubo nada de trama respecto a la búsqueda de la torre, pero la estructura de la novela es eficiente, mantiene el entretenimiento: la idea de las puertas y sus conexiones a otros mundos/épocas es interesante.

➤ "Hay gente que necesita gente que la necesite."

Muy entretenida y dinámica, la segunda entrega de La Torre Oscura promete y anuncia lo que será un recorrido interesante, un recorrido, al cual, estoy dispuesto a transitar. Siendo sinceros, hasta hace unas horas estaba entre 4 o 4.5 estrellas, pero cada vez que pienso en la historia, me gusta más y más, ¿¡o acaso estoy manifestando inconscientemente mi odio/decepción con el primer libro y quiero marcar una diferencia!? ¿Acaso…? Paren, ¿en qué momento la reseña se convirtió en un psicoanálisis? Lo que sea, pero este libro no será el último que lea de esta saga.

Update: there were always a few details in my review that bugged me a lot. Now when I am back in the b̶o̶r̶e̶f̶e̶s̶t̶ incredibly important quest that is going to the Dark Tower for reasons, I thought I’d just tweak this one. Nothing really new here!

I did give up on this book twice before, but this time I finished the quest. Question is: do I go on the e-x-t-e-n-d-e-d journey, or is my goal already met? To be honest (never a good start of a review, right?); if it wasn't the King that penned these I'd be off like a rocket. As it is, I do find grains of King awesomeness here and there. And I so like the idea that there is some thread/connection running through so much of King's works and I also think he considers this his 'magnum opus' and I've read almost everything else and I so want to find those connections and Easter eggs and...

...at the same time, what I dislike about fantasy comes through all so much and all the time...

I have yet to read a fantasy novel (and trust me, if the tower is to be climbed, the remaining 6 books are most likely the last in the genre I'll ever read) that does not strike me as childish and 'simple'. Storylines are very fairytale/legendary/religious with lots of quests, righteousness and things falling into place oh so tidily.

I'm actually having a hard time understanding how this fits in to King's output - it was published in 1987, same as Misery and The Tommyknockers, two very good (albeit not top) King novels - and compared to those, this is lightweight stuff. And if you protest that (most likely knocking my old 'guilty pleasure' Tommyknockers) I'm afraid you have read this with rose-tinted glasses. Let me explain why:

- Wait, before I do that - there is surely going to be some (minor) spoilers below, so please be warned -

First: this book is so much written to be part of a much longer work and that makes a lot of the suspense disappear. Also, and worse, some happenings are so awfully dragged out that I seriously contemplated skipping pages ahead and see if the story was stuck at the same place (Eddie in the airplane loo comes to mind - a few pages skipped during that situation would have been hard to detect). Another thing: Roland trying words from the world as we know it is just too darned cute, isn't it? Otherwise, he speaks impeccable English. Actually, the only character who speaks something else is Detta. And that's good - because how would we ever separate her from her 'other self' Odetta? A dual-split-personality-where-none-knows-the-other. You know, there are none. And yes, I realize this is fantasy, but the intention of clashing fantasy with the real world is that the real world stays real. Otherwise it's fantasy meets fantasy, and that's not too much fun.

I've always had a hard time with one character in a story speaking in phonetics - I understand that means said character speaks 'differently' - but does this imply that the rest speaks 'written language'? That's strange thought - especially in this, when Roland knows few of the words and expressions of the 'modern' world.

Talk about not knowing expressions; that Eddie and Odetta/Detta are picked up from different times is illustrated by Eddie (1987) not recognizing Odetta's (1964) expressions at all: "Philosophy and metaphysics may not be your bag, Eddie[...]" "What do you mean, my bag? What’s a bag?" Yeah, what's a bag in 1987? We haven't had bags since the 70s!

And, even further, what ever could the expression mean?? Apart from 1987 being the year when Lloyd Cole & the Commotions released the great album 'Mainstream', featuring the single track "My Bag" (as in "my thing"). Hm.

Oh, I just have to tell you a funny story; the last time I saw Lloyd, he performed acoustic with a 'small ensemble'. In one interlude, he was tuning his guitar patiently and thoroughly and one hopeful fan shouted "My Bag!". Lloyd looked up and said: "Do you really think I'd go through all this trouble for that?"

OK, where was I? Yeah, silliness! OK, when Eddie is supposed to smuggle the drugs, that's just wrong on every level. The big-shot drug dealer is worried he's got caught, that he's working with the authorities or that he's just ditched all his drugs. Yet, when Eddie says he can deliver, none of this means anything, but the guy gets obsessed with discovering his implied magic trick. Why would he ever make Eddie strip, cavity search him and all the rest? And why does Eddie take this route? Why not just keep quiet, enter the bathroom, produce half the stash and then name his demands? This whole (_impossibly long_) scene is just a mess and so bloody unlikely my fillings hurt.

And then there's the silly mistakes that I kept getting hooked up on - with regards to the standing of the book and the series, I really can't be the first to notice, but I guess it's forgiven. It does make me think that it's very unlike King to make them though.

When Roland enters 'the Pusher' he gets two cops after him. In what seems like a great opening, we flash forward years to when these cops come to think of him, one when watching "Terminator" (who apparently speaks exactly like Roland, which would make his a horribly broken-Austrian English using odd words. Still, his talk is described nothing like Detta's...). The other one remembers the encounter when seeing a machine playing tic-tac-toe with his two sons, 'years later'. Only that, in the next instance, thought of robots and machines playing tic-tac-toe 'went out of his mind', because things starts happening. Which is strange, because the robot thing was only ever in his partner's mind (years in the future) and only the machine was in his (but years in the future).

And what was the whole plan with getting the cops to the gunshop? Other than fleshing out the page count yet again? All Eddie’s odds where better sans cops, really.

The end suspense is also messed up because the Gunslinger leaves Eddie at guard and as far as he should know that's where he is. But then, when time gets dire, he somehow knows that Eddie's to be lobster food at sunset. Another silly mistake that should have been caught in proofreading and very unlike King.

Some bits I liked (the cramped space 'True Romance' style gunfight that some hail, was not one of them) but I still hesitate about going on. The next book is awfully thick looking and expectations are low...