User Profile

An enjoyable story about an iconic character. Definitely worth reading if you were ever enthralled by the creepiness and tenacity of Tarkin from the original Star Wars.

Structurally, the novel does a good job of going back and forth between Tarkin's relatively new assignment as the director of a secret project to build a new weapons platform (wonder what THAT could be…) and his coming of age on the Outer Rim planet of Eriadu. Without giving spoilers, I will say that I enjoyed how the two storylines merged at the end, with Tarkin both embracing the lessons he learned as a teenager and young man while still being able to move out of his provincial homeworld and gain glory and renown for both himself and those upon whom his success reflects. Not that they were good lessons, per se, but they certainly were…effective.

Luceno is a competent storyteller and craftsman. There were handful of spots where the wording might have been refined (e.g., one sentence that read something like "Tarkin's followers followed him…"), but on the whole I like what he did with the story. He was able to keep the pace flowing, while still offering insight into Tarkin's mindset and thought process. There was one point where I thought the depiction of Tarkin might be a little too Thrawn-like (from the EU books – I still haven't read the newer canon [b: Thrawn|31140332|Thrawn (Star Wars Thrawn, #1)|Timothy Zahn|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1468787895s/31140332.jpg|51766424]), strategically speaking, but I am happy to say that Luceno maintains the essence of who Tarkin is throughout the story.

The only book I have read by Luceno before is [b: Catalyst: A Rogue One Novel|29662066|Catalyst A Rogue One Novel (Star Wars)|James Luceno|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1509729394s/29662066.jpg|50028005]. I would recommend reading Tarkin before that one, given some obvious (at least, after you read them) connections, rather than in the order I did.

I really wanted to finish this before the new year, say true, but it was not meant to be.

There's probably something that could be said about the metafictional aspects – perhaps something akin to Heinlein's ideas of "pantheistic solipsism" and "world as myth" – of the later books of the Dark Tower series, but I'm not sure there's much value in saying it. There is too much nodding and winking to one's self (almost literally, in a few spots), and there are far too many words expended in finishing this tale: Their inflationary nature devalues the parts of the story that were worth anything to begin with.

I will begrudgingly admit that I like the ending, the true ending that is, not the several false ones. It doesn't make up for the terribleness of the movie that came out last year, but it does allow for a certain circularity that beckons "many minds and hands," to borrow a Tolkienian phrase.

It was good to have read it, but having read it, I do not anticipate ever wanting to read it again.

My appreciation for this book has grown since I first read it. After [b:The Gunslinger|43615|The Gunslinger (The Dark Tower, #1)|Stephen King|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1375776480s/43615.jpg|46575], I think this is my favorite book in the series.

Most of the story is told in flashback to the days immediately after Roland first became a gunslinger, when he and two companions – Cuthbert and Alain, of whom we've heard mention of in the books before now, but without any detail – are sent to a small town far from the city of Gilead where Roland's father and the other gunslingers are trying desperately to keep their land from falling to the Good Man, John Farson, and his increasingly powerful army. As such, it is basically a western-romance-mystery with a fairly tightly woven plot (despite its length) and plenty of insight into the development of Roland's character, complete with the impetus for his pursuit of the serially eponymous Dark Tower and the tortured memories of those he has left in the wake of his pursuit.

I'm also happy because the first part of the book fairly quickly resolves one of the most annoying elements of the entire series for me (at least, to this point), Blaine "the Pain" Monorail. I mean, it's a serviceable device for getting Roland and his ka-tet much further along the Path of the Beam than they otherwise would, but man, I just hate that stupid contraption. And Little Blaine was the most annoying aspect of it all.

At any rate, I remembered liking this story from my first read through years ago, but this time around I was a little surprised at how much I liked it. If you can make it through [b:The Waste Lands|34084|The Waste Lands (The Dark Tower, #3)|Stephen King|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1389762449s/34084.jpg|1810634], which is my least favorite of the Dark Tower books (up to this point), don't stop. I promise Wizard and Glass is definitely worth the effort.

I'm working my way through the series again in preparation for the upcoming film continuation of the story.

While I generally like The Drawing of the Three, the primary thing that knocks a star off it for me is its dependence on the rest of the series – in particular, the future stories – for its significance. Yes, the things that happen to the characters in this book are important, but to me the story seems more concerned with manipulating Eddie and Susan (and to some extent Roland) like chess pieces to get them into position for future elements of the overarching Dark Tower saga than anything else. In this sense, the story has a much more noticeable self-awareness (or self-importance, even) than [b: The Gunsliner] had.

Which is to say that I still feel essentially as I did in my 2008 review of this book. It is possible to read and enjoy The Gunslinger as a fairly standalone story, in which we enter Roland's pursuit of The Man in Black mid-chase and then exit with Roland essentially walking off into the sunset. When it's over, you can set The Gunslinger down and reflect on it, wonder about it, be satisfied by it. Drawing, on the other hand, almost compels you to immediately begin [b: The Waste Lands|34084|The Waste Lands (The Dark Tower, #3)|Stephen King|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1389762449s/34084.jpg|1810634] right away, because it's essentially a setup rather than a story of its own. Despite being the second book in the series, it's essentially the opening chapter of a story in which the main character(s) gather up their belongings to set out on a trip, but haven't actually begun the trip yet.

I also forgot how quickly Eddie and Susannah fall in love. Not a huge deal, but given how much King likes to elaborate on everything else, it's a little jarring.

Anyway, I do like the story, even if it's not as tightly focused as the first book. I like Eddie, I like Odetta/Detta/Susannah, and I even like the red herring of Jack Mort, when Susannah is the actual third person drawn. We get some good depth to Roland, as well, especially in the patience department, which is not something that comes through in The Gunslinger (in fact, quite the opposite at times). Obviously, it's a necessary book to get through for anyone planning to read the rest of the series, and it does its job admirably, even if it can't really stand on its own.

Now, on to the next book…

Note: A longer version of this review appears on Steemit.

[a: C. S. Lewis|1069006|C.S. Lewis|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1367519078p2/1069006.jpg] once wrote that "you must not believe all that authors tell you about how they wrote their books" ("It All Began with a Picture" in [b:Of Other Worlds: Essays and Stories|242144|Of Other Worlds Essays and Stories|C.S. Lewis|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1328876442s/242144.jpg|529086]). Had Kaminski applied the same principle to directors and the films they create, he could have covered his "secret history" of the first six Star Wars films in about 1/3 of the pages.

To give props where they are due, Kaminski clearly did his homework. His citations are copious, and he clearly spent a lot of time working through the various sources to which he had access in an attempt to create a narrative surrounding the development of the Star Wars franchise. From commonly known sources, such as [a:J.W. Rinzler|20015|J.W. Rinzler|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1501966233p2/20015.jpg]'s [b:The Making of Star Wars|35419|The Making of Star Wars (Star Wars The Making of, #1)|J.W. Rinzler|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1454013920s/35419.jpg|35354] and [a:Dale Pollock|170191|Dale Pollock|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]'s [b:Skywalking|294823|Skywalking The Life And Films of George Lucas|Dale Pollock|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1348961195s/294823.jpg|286076], to much more esoteric fare such as long-forgotten interviews and even commentaries from the laserdisc, Kaminski has sifted through a lot of material to make his case.

Which is a big part of the problem. Kaminski's overall goal with this book is to show that George Lucas did not have the complete Star Wars saga written out before he created the original film, as the director sometimes claimed, both publicly and privately. To achieve this goal, Kaminski takes the approach of gathering everything he can find, tacking it up on a wall like an erstwhile detective trying to find a serial killer even though he's been kicked off the force, and then gesturing madly to anyone who happens to stumble upon his obsession while yelling, "See!? SEE!?!"

Yes. I see. But so what?

As Kaminski shows, Star Wars has been retconned over and over, so why should it be surprising that Lucas retconned the story of its creation as well? Furthermore, why does that matter? The story of the Star Wars saga's creation is interesting, but the story of its creator's beliefs about that creation is less interesting. Kaminski tries to do double duty by showing the "real" history of how Star Wars is created, and then proving that it differs from some (but not all) of Lucas's statements about that story. In attempting to serve two masters, Kaminski's work becomes less convincing, not the less so because in some parts of the book he seems to forget one or the other purpose altogether. Had he simply stuck to a sort of biography of Star Wars rather than trying to convince readers that George Lucas is a liar he would have produced a much better (and shorter) book. Heck, he could have even relegated the liar argument to an appendix – Bendu knows there's enough of them – and still come out better for it.

In addition to the argumentative problems of the book, it is rife with technical errors:

- Missing punctuation

- two types of notes (footnotes and endnotes) with no noticeable distinction between their use

- Date formatting – e.g., the use of "of" when citing a month and year, frequent (but inconsistent) use of ordinals on days, occasionally abbreviated years ('74 instead of 1974)

- Grocer's apostrophes

- Dangling modifiers – e.g., p. 78: "Like the film’s connection to Joseph Campbell, it was one trumpeted by the intelligentsia after the film became popular in an attempt to explain the success through more scholarly influence." – the "it" refers to the claim that the concept of “the Force” was derived from the ideas of Carlos Castaneda (outlined on the previous page)

- Awkward phrasings – e.g., p. 91 "Luke has self-trained himself"


- Misspellings:

-- He uses "mis-en-scene" instead of "mise-en-scène" every-freakin'-time!

-- On p. 380 he uses "Aura Sing" and "Aurra Sing" in the same sentence!

-- He refers to the "Clone War" (no "s") animated series

- A poorly generated index that clearly used a simple search of the text – for example, the index entry for E.E. Smith does not include references on pp. 59, 84, etc. because they use different forms of his name.

In addition, there are plenty of instances where Kaminski simply exhibits poor writing habits. For example, there are about 50 "most important moments" in the various Star Wars movies. Likewise, nearly every science fiction author he cites as an influence on Lucas is "one of the most important" in all of science fiction history. Kaminski apparently misunderstands what a superlative actually is, and it quickly becomes difficult to understand what he believes are truly seminal moments, influences, etc. on the Star Wars films, and what are merely notable. He seems unable to realize that things can be influential without overstating their importance.

My biggest gripe with Kaminski's work, however, is that even as he makes his argument about Lucas's inconsistent portrayal of the development of the Star Wars films, he fails to see how Lucas himself offers an explanation for that very inconsistency. As a film student, Lucas started out making abstract films, focusing on images rather than dialogue (which he has long been criticized as a weak point of his) or even story. As in C. S. Lewis's "It All Began with a Picture," so it was with Lucas – and for Lucas, it never stopped being about the picture. As the picture shifted from one film to three films to six, and at times potentially more, so did his description of it. Yes, the things Lucas said about how many scripts he had written or how many pages he had drafted were false in a number of cases. But none of that was ever the point for him. It was always about the process, the stitching together of images and the final products – if he didn't have it all written down ahead of time, who cares?

Anyway, as I said above, Kaminski should be given credit for the extent of his research. The book is repetitive and too long by half (or more), but it is nonetheless something that any serious Star Wars scholar should tackle at some point. If nothing else, the bibliography at the end is a good place to check for sources you might not have known about before.