ESTE LIBROMEEN-CAN-TÓ! A veces, la gente tenía cosas raras.Lo terminé con una sonrisa. Fue como un helado de frutilla con salsa y frutillas y crema y compartido con la persona que te gusta. Sí, así se sintió. La historia no parece nada del otro mundo, y sin embargo, cuánto me gustó. Tenemos a Roland, un rey simplón y "patizambo"; a su hijo mayor, el príncipe Peter, buen mozo, inteligente y honesto; a su hijo menor, Thomas, celoso, inmaduro y temeroso; y, finalmente, a la estrella de la noche, el mago oscuro Flagg. (SÍ, EL MISMO FLAGG QUE The Stand!!) La cuestión acá es que, como todo mago oscuro, Flagg quiere traerle desdichas a su reino, y provoca la muerte de Roland, encubriéndola para que parezca que fue Peter el culpable. Thomas, conocedor de la verdad, deja que su hermano sea encarcelado y recibe la corona en su lugar. Conflicto de hermanos, una tapadera para los verdaderos planes de Flagg. Sí, no es original. Pero lo que hace a este libro uno muy bueno no es la historia. Es la...Este libro no parece de King, y aun así, es tan de él como cualquier otro. King toma la voz narradora de un cuentacuentos de época que hace que me den ganas de ir hasta donde vive (probablemente en Maine, todos sus libros mencionan esa ciudad) y abrazarlo. Al principio parecía que se detenía en cosas que no interesaban o que no hacían a la historia, y uno las leía con humor, pero al final todo cierra, todo encuadra, y te das cuenta de que King realmente es el master of storytelling. La sencillez, la comodidad al narrar, y sin embargo, cuánto te hace sentir, y cuánto más te hace querer saber sobre lo que sucedió con sus personajes al terminar el libro. Ahora dejad que, en un abrir y cerrar de ojos, pasen de largo muchos años, pues una de las mejores cosas que tienen los cuentos es lo rápido que puede transcurrir el tiempo sin que nada notable esté sucediendo. En la vida real nunca es de ese modo, y probablemente sea un buen síntoma. El tiempo solo pasa veloz en las historias, y ¿qué es una historia sino una especie de gran cuento en el que los siglos fugaces son sustituidos por años fugaces?Bastante. Aunque perdonado porque se trataba de un libro para niños y dedicado a su hija - lo cual, NO LES DA TERNURA?? La historia en sí, poca. Pero el título me parece de lo más original. No quiero decirles por qué lleva ese nombre pero es casi tan crucial como los personajes de Thomas y Peter. (view spoiler)[Arranqué pensando que lucharían contra un dragón, jamás de los jamases creí que se trataría de esa cabeza embalsamada... (hide spoiler)]
Once upon a time, in the kingdom of Delain far away.... Seriously, why didn't this book started that way? I can hear someone in the background barfing at the cheesiness of it but this chick right here lives for that kind of beginning in fairytales. ESPECIALLY in a Stephen King's book. The Eyes of The Dragon is all things fantasy. Something I have never read from The King of Horror. It's always a big fun to read an author stepping out of his usual comfort zone. And King nailed it!This book may be purely set in a fantastical world but it does has King's usual grit, and lo and behold! The villain in the story is Flagg himself. Part time Royal Advisor, Part time Dark Magician. He whispers into King Roland The Good's ears, making him do as he[Flagg] bids. In a way, Flagg has the upper hand in controlling the whole kingdom. He is practically the ruler. When Peter was born, First son to Queen Sasha and Roland, Flagg felt that his lifelong plans will be thwarted. He sought to destroy the perfect prissy boy and leave the throne ready for his weak-willed little brother, Thomas. The better to control Delain and lead the kingdom into years of bloodshed.I fucking love this book. For so long, I've been searching up and down for a decent fairytale. I loaded myself with Young Adult fairytale retellings hoping it will sate my thirst but even those still left me empty. Meanwhile, this isn't decent. It's fucking great, more like.I love how it's written. (Duh, It's King!) The writing didn't peeved me off the way it did to some people. In fact, I'm really comfortable with Stephen King writing in the narration of a Storyteller. It's like he's directly talking to the readers and it made me feel more connected. I can find no flaws in this book. Good writing? Check.Solid characterization? Check.Amazing, spot on world building? Check.High dosage of tensions? Check.Legit villain? Check.Originality? Check.CHECK. CHECK. CHECK .CHECK.My nitpicky brain shut down and for once, I was actually reading words without a pause. I was reading in enjoyment. And that was so fucking great. I didn't miss out on the fact that one of the characters here is named after King's own daughter, Naomi. It's so sweet that he wrote this book for his little girl. That explains a lot of things to me because in some cases, I felt that things were toned down slightly here! I need more grit though and definitely more of Flagg. MORE. 5 stars.
What do You think about The Eyes Of The Dragon (1993)?
I understand that this was many readers' first King book. I understand that this book rests in the hearts of thousands. I understand this is meant to be a fairytale, and that I am not the target audience. I understand all that and I still choose to hate this book. How'd Bobby Brown put it... "It's my prerogative." The Eyes of the Dragon was slightly more bearable this go around because Laddie from Perfect Strangers read it to me, and I highly suggest you take the same route when/if you decide to tackle this lesser-known fantasy novel. Bronson Pinchot's performance is fantastic, and lends entertainment value to some of the most boring shit King has ever written. There are only three major scenes in the book, and the plot doesn't even begin until a hundred pages in. That would be fine if this book was six- or seven-hundred pages long. But no. It's 380 pages long, with artwork and big-ass font to make the book seem thicker than it actually is. This book ties in very loosely to the Dark Tower books. Delain is mentioned in several DT novels, and Thomas and Dennis's names are dropped in The Waste Lands, but overall, I feel that this one happens outside of Mid-World, in perhaps another inscape that resides off to the side, much like our own whens. In summation: Not quite Young Adult because there's no trials-of-youth theme and nowhere near the quality of King's adult fiction, The Eyes of the Dragon is pretty much impossible to categorize in the King-verse. Recommended to King completionists only.
—Edward Lorn
I have terrific memories of reading this book. As my brother and I left our sisters house one summer afternoon, she shoved this book into my hands and told me I'd like it. On the forty-five minute drive back to our house I started reading it out loud to my brother. By the time we got home we were both hooked. We took turns reading out loud to each other, doing voices for the different characters and the narator until we finnished it. The experience was almost like that of William Goldman, when his Florentine father read him S. Morgenstern's The Princes Bride as a boy. Not a bad way to spend a weekend with your brother, eh? I didn't know it as I began reading in the car to my brother that the language is that of it being spoken, not written, and thus demands to be read aloud. King tells a vibrant story filled with invention, more so than in his other works. He uses trophy heads, doll houses, butlers and napkins in surprising ways. His characters are a diverse set of good and decent people from peasants to royalty that always try to do the right thing, but still find themselves manipulated by a magician's evil schemes. King is a master of tone. The imagery shifts between the creepy, the comic and back to the horrific so fluidly, that it's like a meal where each bite is a new tase, and each one as delicious as the last. King has also raised the use of forshadowing to high art, turning the literary device from what's usually fleeting and vague passages into bold narative flourishes that always keeps you on your toes. The Eyes of the Dragon is one of the few books I've read that I can't praise highly enough. It may not strike the same chord with everyone as it did with me, but it's still one of those books that reminds us why we read and tell each other stories in the first place.
—Evan
You're so welcome, Brian. I didn't read it at the target age, either. I think I was late teens-early teens. I've read it twice, as well, and IMO, only gets better with age.
—Brian
