It is still fun to consider though; the book has a good, simple plot with a group of decent characters. I couldn't help but to find myself wishing that I could have thought up of this plot. If I did, what would I do with it?
I've dabbled with fantasy stories before. In fact, reading The Eyes of the Dragon, I wondered if King's experience mirrored my own when I wrote The Garrison, which was my first foray into the fantasy genre. It also has a pretty simple plot. Even the character archetypes are similar, especially in regards to the classic good-vs-evil setup.
From my own experiences and the way my imagination bends, here's how The Eyes of the Dragon would have probably been if I had written it. I would never suggest that I could make it a better book than King did; it's purely a fun thought exercise, thinking about how I'd handle the plot and characters.
Spoilers for the book are ahead.
Original Synopsis: In the kingdom of Delain, an evil magician named Flagg plots to murder King Roland. Roland is a rather crude man, but he married a lovely woman and they had two sons. At some point, Queen Sasha died. Roland took a great liking to his son Peter, and Peter was sizing up to become the next best choice to be heir to the throne. Thomas, however, felt shunned, and every attempt he made to win his father's affections failed. One day, Flagg showed Thomas a secret area behind a stuffed dragon's head, allowing him to spy on the King's chambers through the eyes of the dragon. Inevitably, Flagg manages to poison Roland, and Peter takes the blame for it. Peter is imprisoned in the Needle (a tall stone tower) for life. Thomas becomes the new King, and he sucks at it. For the next so-many years, Delain goes through a troubled time, full of awful taxes, endless executions, and misery. For the whole time, Peter sets up an elaborate plan to escape from the Needle by convincing the higher-ups to give him napkins with every meal (which is important to him, because Sasha taught him the importance of civility through the use of napkins), and a dollhouse which has an actual working loom. It takes Peter years to gather enough thread and spin it through a really tiny loom to make a thin rope, which he can use to climb down from the tower (and the rope is made of tough stuff). Meanwhile, Peter's best friend, his butler, and an exiled lady with an awesome dog figure out the truth of what happened, and conspire to free Peter. After a lot of running around, they eventually coordinate with Peter to rescue him. Flagg figures out what's happening, and starts a rampage up the tower to slay Peter. Peter makes his escape; Flagg busts into the cell all Jack Torrence style, and sees that the rope won't hold. He sits there and lets Peter fall, not realizing that Peter's buddies were at the base of the tower with a huge pile of napkins ready for him. Peter lands safely. Everybody heads to the king's sitting room to grab Roland's bow and arrow, and are confronted by Flagg, who turns out to be some kind of wicked demon. Thomas confesses that he saw Flagg kill Roland, and uses the bow and arrow to shoot the bad guy. Flagg vanishes, Thomas and Peter make up, Peter becomes the rightful king, and it's a right happy ending. Thomas leads a party to confront Flagg, but the narrator doesn't get into what happens, leading us all to wonder when the sequel will be made.
What Would I Have Done?
- First and foremost, the prose of The Eyes of the Dragon is very unique. King words everything in the book as if he's the storyteller telling you a story before you go to bed or something. Thus, he addresses himself in first-person, he addresses the readers at times, and he's able to draw comparisons between real-world modern things and things in Delain. Personally, I found a few parts to be a bit awkward because of this, although it does have the merit of matching up with the story's content well. If I wrote the book, my prose would probably be more straightforward, omitting anything that says "I" or "you." There wouldn't be a storyteller's voice to guide the readers; I prefer to let the story and scenery speak for itself.
- One of my complaints about King in general is that he sometimes describes things in too much detail, and the trend occurs in this book sometimes, often because of the prose described above. With his storyteller's voice, he dives into great detail about how people in Delain do certain things, or what the significance of other things are. Some of the asides are important for the plot and themes, but there are instances where it's not necessary. I don't think I'd go into nearly as much detail or digression as King does; I'd describe something once, then move on.
- Flagg is pretty much revealed to be the villain from the start; the book makes no pretense about who he is. He becomes a villain we can love to hate, but the disadvantage I see is that there's missed potential for suspense and mystery. I believe the book could have left Flagg's involvement with Roland's murder a secret up until the end, which would leave the characters/readers to wonder more about who it could have been. Flagg's interactions with Thomas could have painted him as a seemingly good-natured fellow, but it could have been quite the twist to reveal that he's really a demonic, immortal puppet-master. There might even be a chance to mess around with reader's heads by focusing on Peter's thoughts; suppose he has a guilt complex, which would lead readers to think he really did murder Roland, which would make the twist around Flagg more surprising. As it is, there is no twist; you know Flagg did it the whole time, and I feel it's a little less interesting that way.
- Knowing me, Flagg would probably have some kind of crazy magic that allows him to summon fireballs in his hands and throw them at people. Or lightning. Or maybe he could levitate stones and hurl them. Maybe he has astral projection powers, or can shapeshift, or something else cool. The man's a demon, after all, the possibilities should be endless.
- One of the biggest things about Flagg, however, is that his motivation was always ambiguous. Without motivation, Flagg never becomes much more than a one-dimensional evildoer. I believe the book suggests that Flagg wants to control the way the country's being run, maybe to spread evil around and stuff, but the question of "why" never does get answered. If it was me, I'd like to answer the "why," perhaps by suggesting that Flagg wants power of his own, or maybe he wants a country of his own, or maybe he gets pleasure from spreading misery, or (what I might do to broaden things up) maybe he's working for someone or something else (like, the Devil perhaps?). In any case, there could have been more to him.
- I'd prefer to keep the narrative linear. For the first chunk of the book, King doesn't just tell the story, but diverges into multiple flashbacks to explain how the two princes grew up, what they learned, what their experiences with their parents were, and so on. Because he revealed that Flagg was evil and Roland dies, there's no build-up to the regicide; the story seems to meander up to that point. In fact, as the first huge plot twist, I think it might be better to start with the regicide, as the story's hook, and then use flashbacks through Peter's or Thomas' thoughts to reveal all the necessary details.
- At some point, it looks like Delain has a resistance movement, because people can't put up with Thomas' s&#t forever. It never materializes into full-blown conflict. If I wrote this story, it probably would have; if there's a chance to show some street-level strife and misery, I could have the unrest slowly reach a boiling-point until full-blown revolution happens. I think these types of scenes would be exciting, especially in the midst of Peter's escape.
- Peter's actual escape is whimsical, but it's probably not the route I would have taken. Possible alternatives to creating a rope from the threads of thousands of napkins could be:
- Peter got to beat the snot out of Beson expertly; with those skills, Peter probably could have lured a guard in, beat him up, dressed up in his armor, and walked out like he owned the place.
- Peter did find a loose brick in the floor of his cell, which had some hidden stuff in it. Who's to say that he couldn't have found other cool stuff behind the bricks in his cell? What if Peter pulled out some more bricks and found the skeleton of somebody who was bricked in, with maybe a possible way out?
- If there is a stronger resistance movement, and they become dedicated to freeing Peter, they could start finding ways to communicate with Peter discretely (as some characters did in the book anyway for certain things). They could organize a daring breakout operation.
- Classic prison break scenario: Peter find a tool (like a spoon) and digs his way out little by little.
- The book ends happily enough, but doesn't really provide closure in regards to Flagg, who just escapes and is said to be confronted later on by Thomas and the gang, but no details are given. We don't even know if Thomas was successful. In the Stephen King universe, you can assume that maybe something happened that caused Flagg to be banished from Delain to either our world (as he did in The Stand, and was nuked in the end) or in the world of the Gunslinger.. If I was writing this story, I would be compelled to write the full Thomas-vs-Flagg journey and battle; it could be enough to constitute a whole new novel (and maybe that was King's intention at first), but I see the potential for a lot of peril, more worldbuilding, and the possibility of having a grand finale as the climax.
First-Person POV Alternative
I could also see the book working in the first-person point-of-view, most likely from the perspective of Peter. Writing in first-person will limit the scope greatly - I wouldn't have been able to write scenes with Flagg or Ben or the other characters when they're alone - but this does have the advantage of getting inside Peter's head, and emphasizing the breakout from the Needle as the source of all the conflict. The book could be engaging if it dwelled on Peter wondering who was responsible for Roland's murder and why he was wrongfully imprisoned. Once he makes his escape, there could be a whole new act to the story where he has to find out the truth, and possibly evade authorities. I could even see such scenes emphasizing other aspects of the story; Peter's interaction on the street could show how kingly he can be, while his observations could hint at how bad of a ruler Thomas is. The story's conclusion would still work well in Peter's perspective.
Conclusion
If I wrote The Eyes of the Dragon, chances are that it would be vastly different than what King wrote. By my hand, the prose would be totally different (for better or for worse, you decide), and above all, the narrative and the way the story unfolds would be different. I'd be more interested in trying to keep the reader invested by mixing up the timeline a little, so that the reader would be hooked by a more fast-moving plot, and would have to keep reading to get the details and answers to any unanswered questions. In spite of that, I probably would have focused a lot more on Peter's imprisonment and escape, and probably a bit more on Thomas' and Flagg's oppression and their effects on the kingdom. Chances are that I'd pump it up with more fighting and combat, especially if I were to make the people of Delain revolt. And, I'd be interested in writing what happens to Flagg after all this.
I see a lot of exciting potential in such a project, but as it is, King's final product is perfectly fine as it is; the man excelled by focusing not on the plotting and conflict as I would have, but through characterization. He was clearly most interested in giving a strong motivation and background to his characters - so much so that it sucks up half the book. Even though it may have stalled the plot a little, he made a fine story as it is. It's fun to think about the alternative directions, but there's no beating Mr. King.
