I don't know about you, but when I hear the phrase "eater of worlds" I immediately think of Galactus. The two have just become synonymous in my mind. As it was established in an earlier article, Galactus is not the only one to don the title. Within the Kingverse, not one, but two entities have donned the name of "eater of worlds", It and the Crimson King.
The term is becoming so common I'm surprised that partisans haven't used the term on either our previous or current president. George Bush, eater of worlds or Barack Obama, eater of worlds; it's no less goofy than the anti-christ or Hitler comparisons (seriously people it's called Godwin's Law).
I digress. The odd thing is that none of these entities actually lives up to the title. Galactus comes close. He doesn't "eat" the planet like you and I eat a sandwich, rather, he converts the planet to a specific type of energy and absorbs it. The eating is in more of a metaphorical sense.
The Crimson King wants to wipe out the multiverse and bask in the chaos, but he never made any mention of eating anything. Calling him "the destroyer of worlds" I think is a more fitting title, given his ultimate goal.
It has the potential to be a world spanning threat, but it seems more than happy to just lurk in the sewers of a small Maine town, picking people off as it needs. If It really wanted to eat the world, it would've. Instead, It made a home for itself underground for eons, occasionally popping up every 30 years or so. You could call It an eater of people or children, but not worlds.
The one "eater of worlds" that actually did just that is the Langoliers. Ironically, they don't take the title. Of course, they are only in the story for a couple of pages so there isn't much time to go into detail. They don't really seem all that sentient either. They're alive, but they just do what they do with no other concern besides getting everything consumed.
I wonder if the Crimson King would've been mad that It took his title. Unlike Flagg, It seemed to be doing its own thing with no interest in the tower, but it would've made for an interesting conversation.
So, there you have it, a brief rundown on the eaters of worlds, a vast majority of which are involved in works of Stephen King. I wouldn't be surprised if other series used the title to describe some arch-villain. It does have a certain ring to it, I'll admit. It's not like Highlander, where there can be only one, but sometimes there are other terms that are just as effective and sometimes more apt.
The term is becoming so common I'm surprised that partisans haven't used the term on either our previous or current president. George Bush, eater of worlds or Barack Obama, eater of worlds; it's no less goofy than the anti-christ or Hitler comparisons (seriously people it's called Godwin's Law).
I digress. The odd thing is that none of these entities actually lives up to the title. Galactus comes close. He doesn't "eat" the planet like you and I eat a sandwich, rather, he converts the planet to a specific type of energy and absorbs it. The eating is in more of a metaphorical sense.
The Crimson King wants to wipe out the multiverse and bask in the chaos, but he never made any mention of eating anything. Calling him "the destroyer of worlds" I think is a more fitting title, given his ultimate goal.
It has the potential to be a world spanning threat, but it seems more than happy to just lurk in the sewers of a small Maine town, picking people off as it needs. If It really wanted to eat the world, it would've. Instead, It made a home for itself underground for eons, occasionally popping up every 30 years or so. You could call It an eater of people or children, but not worlds.
The one "eater of worlds" that actually did just that is the Langoliers. Ironically, they don't take the title. Of course, they are only in the story for a couple of pages so there isn't much time to go into detail. They don't really seem all that sentient either. They're alive, but they just do what they do with no other concern besides getting everything consumed.
I wonder if the Crimson King would've been mad that It took his title. Unlike Flagg, It seemed to be doing its own thing with no interest in the tower, but it would've made for an interesting conversation.
So, there you have it, a brief rundown on the eaters of worlds, a vast majority of which are involved in works of Stephen King. I wouldn't be surprised if other series used the title to describe some arch-villain. It does have a certain ring to it, I'll admit. It's not like Highlander, where there can be only one, but sometimes there are other terms that are just as effective and sometimes more apt.
No comments:
Post a Comment