Why couldn't the Beast be the Crimson King?

[CyberGhostface]

Why did King feel the need to change the Beast to the Crimson King in the Revised?

Throughout the course of the series and related novels, the CK is known as Los, the Lord of the Spiders, the Aballah and the Kingfish. Surely one extra alias wouldn't be that hard to stomach, would it?

Would it have been that hard to write in "The Crimson King, also known in certain parts as the Beast" in a later novel?

[Letti]

IMHO he changed it because he felt like changing it. And it might be all.

[pathoftheturtle]

Maybe another example of getting carried away with the whole "ease new readers into it" strategy. That didn't seem to really be very thoroughly planned.

[CyberGhostface]

IMHO he changed it because he felt like changing it. And it might be all.

I'm sure George Lucas felt the same way.

[Letti]

IMHO he changed it because he felt like changing it. And it might be all.

I'm sure George Lucas felt the same way.

When? :)

[CyberGhostface]

When he revised the first three Star Wars films. Hell, what King did with Roland shooting Allie is pretty much the same exact thing Lucas did with Han Solo and Greedo.

[Letti]

Oh, I see.
I didn't know there were revised SW movie parts.

[disel24]

:pirate:Personally I'm still bothered by how Walter was dispatched after making much ado about him and turning it to nothing.

I don't think he REALLY considered what he was doing in all honesty. I think he was still in a haze after the accident.

[CyberGhostface]

Oh, I see.
I didn't know there were revised SW movie parts.

George Lucas was very notorious for basically "redoing" the Star Wars films in the the last decade or so--I.E. adding more CGI and special effects, but also changing stuff that ended up pissing off a lot of the fans.

**SPOILERS**


One of the more infamous changes was with Han Solo and Greedo, a bounty hunter--in the original version, Han Solo shot Greedo unprovoked to sort of show him as cold and amoral. Over the films, he essentially redeemed himself and became more human.

When George Lucas redid the film, he edited the scene to make Greedo shoot first and miss at point blank range.

Here's how it was in the original (both clips are near the end):

YouTube- Han shot first - Star Wars

and in the redo:

YouTube- Star Wars-Greedo Vs. Han

So basically this was a way of softening Han's character by merely shooting in self defense thus making him less hard and his character arc less effective.

This is pretty much what King did with Allie. Whereas in the original he shoots her out of instinct when she's used as a human shield while she goes "No don't shoot!" In the redo, King comes up with this half-assed "Land of 19" crap in which Walter drives Allie insane, so now Allie goes "Oh, Roland! Shoot me! I can't bear to live!" and what Roland does now is essentially putting her out of her misery. So again. Something colder and darker is softened to make Roland more likeable and sympathetic--even though the whole point of the series is largely Roland discovering his humanity and trying to redeem himself. In the first book, he's pretty much a bastard.

Another thing Lucas did was redo scenes so he could make his first films linear with his "prequel" trilogy--here's one of the more grievous examples. I think it speaks for itself.

Original:

YouTube- Return of the Jedi - Sebastian Shaw as the ghost of Anakin

Revised:

YouTube- Re-Mastered Ending to episode VI


Again, similar to how King felt the need to comb through the Gunslinger and add references and nods to later books in the series and adding in the name of the Crimson King at every available opportunity.

So in my mind what King and Lucas did to their works in "revising it" are both very alike.

[pathoftheturtle]

I'm glad that you spelled all of that out. I see that you meant it for Letti's benefit, but otherwise I might never have realized that I do not agree with you quite as much as I thought I did.
...in the original version, Han Solo shot Greedo unprovoked to sort of show him as cold and amoral. ...I never saw Solo as amoral. My problem with the revision has always been that I believed that it was already clear enough that he acted in self-defense.However, when it comes to --
YouTube- Return of the Jedi - Sebastian Shaw as the ghost of Anakin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S2auEHR4rg)

versus

YouTube- Re-Mastered Ending to episode VI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6NYswem3as&feature=related)What can I say?It would be cooler if he CGI'd Sebastian Shaw into the prequels. :lol:

Anyway, I imagine that when SK sat down to revise DT1 that, yes, he thought something like, "I didn't really know precisely what it was that I was foreshadowing when I wrote this stuff about Maerlyn and the Beast. I ought to make it less obscure now that I do." At that time, I believe he was still thinking that he would eventually redraft the later volumes, as well. So, okay, the final result is kind of corny... perhaps. Why should "the Beast" have been retained, though? That would not make much difference, would it?

[CyberGhostface]

So, okay, the final result is kind of corny... perhaps. Why should "the Beast" have been retained, though? That would not make much difference, would it?

I just found the references to the Beast to be far more effective and scarier. Like, "To speak of the Beast is to speak of the ruination of one's soul" and then King changed it to "To speak of the things in end-world..." It's not a disastrous change--IMO The Land of 19 with Allie and (in retrospect) making Walter Marten were disastrous--but it's more like, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" The Beast was fine as it was, and it would have taken minimal effort for King to say that the Beast was another name for the Crimson King in a later volume.

IMO, it would be like if Lost revised the first season to add in that The Smoke Monster was really the Man in Black as opposed to revealing it later on.

That, and considering the Crimson King's existence isn't "revealed" to Roland until Book IV, I don't see why King should retcon that Roland knows who he is in the first book.

Of course, then in DT7 Roland says he knew about the Crimson King since he was a child. :panic:

[alinda]

Roland knowing about CK is strange isnt it?
All incantations of RF /Marten and the like
aside I often thought that with out the
addition of the wee spider boy it all could
have been so different.

[Foghorn]

when reading the DT series from mismatched books as I did before the last three books were released, I really was annoyed by the ever increasing number of names given to any one bad guy, it got really confusing, and is, to this day, something that I haven't sorted out entirely.

[CyberGhostface]

when reading the DT series from mismatched books as I did before the last three books were released, I really was annoyed by the ever increasing number of names given to any one bad guy, it got really confusing, and is, to this day, something that I haven't sorted out entirely.

Good to know I'm not alone on that. :)

[Letti]

when reading the DT series from mismatched books as I did before the last three books were released, I really was annoyed by the ever increasing number of names given to any one bad guy, it got really confusing, and is, to this day, something that I haven't sorted out entirely.

Yeah, it's confusing but it's very life-like as well. I mean people love giving names to big people, or to the people they think big or powerful. Just think about politicians.

[Empath of the White]

It wouldn't have bothered me had he given the King another nickname. Of course, Dandelo could have also served as the Beast. Odd's Lane was like one big trap, so in a way King could have easily given Dandelo that role. Or even Mordred. As I read WOTC and SOS, I began to view Mordred as an anti-christ like figure.

[Roland of Gilead 33]

i wonder why he changed that as well? i'd love it if someone asked him sometime why he changed what he did. since he changed the town of "Farson"

to a man later on i can see & understand that change. but than if you really think about it, it i don't think would have mattered cause if 'Farson" was a great man but some people anyways, it would make sense if they named a town after him. or is this just me?