PDA

View Full Version : Roland's choice *HARD spoilers*



Letti
10-21-2007, 03:15 PM
What would have happened if Roland had chosen Jake and he hadn't let him drop?
Would he ever been able to catch the Man in Black?
Would it have caused lots of changes?


I guess many of you think it was ka I can accept that let's try to play with the idea. ;)

!!! Spoilers all around below !!!

Darkthoughts
10-21-2007, 03:38 PM
I'm personally of the opinion that this is what Roland has to do to truly break the cycle.

Wuducynn
10-21-2007, 03:46 PM
I'm personally of the opinion that this is what Roland has to do to truly break the cycle.

I think its a big start. But there is another choice that he might have to make to break the loop.

Darkthoughts
10-21-2007, 03:51 PM
Agreed, for sure, but like you say - I think this is one of the most resonant choices.

Wuducynn
10-21-2007, 03:54 PM
It would show that he cares more about love and loyalty to someone than to the quest, far before his realization in DT7 when he wasn't going to let Jake make the sacrifice.

ManOfWesternesse
10-22-2007, 05:29 AM
Roland has to choose Jake, and damn the Tower if necessary. Personally I think that such a choice will not damn the Tower at all - it's all just a Glammer of Walter's, just another tug on Roland's lifeline. But even if it did damn the Tower - he still has to save him.

Storyslinger
10-22-2007, 05:34 AM
I think that Roland needed to let him drop, not that I wanted it to happen though. He needed to get Jake later in the quest, by drawing him. I think he would have lost Jake before he was able to Reach the Tower, this time for good, no coming back, an thus ends the cycle.

ZoNeSeeK
10-23-2007, 01:08 AM
But if you think about it, had he not let Jake fall, he would have continued on to the doorways even without Walter's prophecy - Walter didnt tell him where they were, and with Roland's faith in Ka he would have gone through them (why else were they there?) - he would have drawn Eddie and Susannah with Jake's help (and may not have lost his fingers).

They would not have had to use the speaking ring so Susannah would never have become pregnant with Mordred, and then the issues that arose from Mia and Black 13, with the ka-tet being split etc, wouldnt have occured. Their whole adventure in NYC would have been markedly different.

But who is to say what would have happened - its assuming that some other peril at the Western Sea or in Mir's forest wouldn't have arisen due to Jake's presence. Letting Jake fall (and Roland's consequent guilt, need for reunion and then love for him) is the driving catalyst for many of the plot structures that followed - and it also tested the mettle of Eddie and Susannah as ka-tet and Gunslingers in the efforts to get him back. Roland's character may never have grown if this didn't happen - Eddie's, Susannah's and Jake's feelings towards him may never have amounted to dinh. Perhaps it was crucial to the ka-tet's bonding for Roland to go through his personal crisis with Jake.

But on the other hand, logic could dictate that the ka-tet would have formed much more quickly and been far stronger with someone of Jake's talents with them from the start. Who is to say? I always thought it was foolish of Roland to sacrifice Jake because of a thinly believable promise from Walter. And he was duped, the stupid man, like he should have known he would have been by someone with Walter's abilities. Did he really think it was as simple as grabbing his robe and hauling his ass over for a beating?

Storyslinger
10-23-2007, 07:28 AM
:)

Well put ZOne

Jimmy
10-23-2007, 05:23 PM
But if you think about it, had he not let Jake fall, he would have continued on to the doorways even without Walter's prophecy - Walter didnt tell him where they were, and with Roland's faith in Ka he would have gone through them (why else were they there?) - he would have drawn Eddie and Susannah with Jake's help (and may not have lost his fingers).

They would not have had to use the speaking ring so Susannah would never have become pregnant with Mordred, and then the issues that arose from Mia and Black 13, with the ka-tet being split etc, wouldnt have occured. Their whole adventure in NYC would have been markedly different.

But who is to say what would have happened - its assuming that some other peril at the Western Sea or in Mir's forest wouldn't have arisen due to Jake's presence. Letting Jake fall (and Roland's consequent guilt, need for reunion and then love for him) is the driving catalyst for many of the plot structures that followed - and it also tested the mettle of Eddie and Susannah as ka-tet and Gunslingers in the efforts to get him back. Roland's character may never have grown if this didn't happen - Eddie's, Susannah's and Jake's feelings towards him may never have amounted to dinh. Perhaps it was crucial to the ka-tet's bonding for Roland to go through his personal crisis with Jake.

But on the other hand, logic could dictate that the ka-tet would have formed much more quickly and been far stronger with someone of Jake's talents with them from the start. Who is to say? I always thought it was foolish of Roland to sacrifice Jake because of a thinly believable promise from Walter. And he was duped, the stupid man, like he should have known he would have been by someone with Walter's abilities. Did he really think it was as simple as grabbing his robe and hauling his ass over for a beating?

*Applauds"

Well said sir. Though, I personally see nothing wrong with Roland being more Cort-esque to the new 'slingers, it might've toughened them up considerably more.

Storyslinger
10-24-2007, 05:34 AM
True, they may have been tougher, but in the end, ka's a wheel

not-man
11-14-2007, 01:08 PM
Change one thing, you change everything, but wouldn't there still be a paradox because of Jack Mort?

It wasn't just Walter, but also the oracle that said "Death, but not for you, gunslinger."

Killing Mort before he pushes Jake makes the paradox, so it doesn't matter that Roland dropped him. If he was with the ka-tet at door #3 he would have to disappear and be drawn again.

Matt
11-14-2007, 02:07 PM
great insight not-man.

I believe they could have simply skipped the ring of stones had Jake been already with them. But you are right, not dropping him would have changed everything.

Storyslinger
11-15-2007, 07:11 AM
Wow, when you think about it, that really would have f'd things up. Great post Not-man

Brice
11-15-2007, 07:17 AM
Maybe Roland really shouldn't have let Jake fall. Do you think it would have changed his quest if he kicked Jake down instead?

Storyslinger
11-15-2007, 07:19 AM
Yeah, he probably would have tripped and fell with him:lol:

Odetta
11-15-2007, 07:32 AM
I'm personally of the opinion that this is what Roland has to do to truly break the cycle.

I agree 100%

Wuducynn
11-15-2007, 08:53 AM
It would have been great if Roland had just come to the realization that it would be better if he just died with Jake and jumped with him to their deaths.

Letti
11-15-2007, 09:03 AM
It would have been great if Roland had just come to the realization that it would be better if he just died with Jake and jumped with him to their deaths.
But that person wouldn't have been Roland the gunslinger but someone else.

Wuducynn
11-15-2007, 12:24 PM
It would have been great if Roland had just come to the realization that it would be better if he just died with Jake and jumped with him to their deaths.
But that person wouldn't have been Roland the gunslinger but someone else.

If Los's spiders were able to bite King and turn him the "kas-ka Los" instead of the "kas-ka Gan", he could instill Roland with the idea that it would be better for him to jump and take Jake with him.

Matt
11-15-2007, 01:25 PM
**decides to never kid about a ritual suicide pact with Matthew** :ninja:

not-man
11-16-2007, 02:18 PM
I'm personally of the opinion that this is what Roland has to do to truly break the cycle.

I agree 100%

I agree that Roland won't drop him. Not that it will break the cycle.

If he doesn't drop him under the mountains, and Jake is with them at the doors, isn't he dropping Jake again by killing Mort? Granted he does it to save Susannah. But he has to sacrifice one of them at that door. If he saves Jake there by letting Mort live, he dooms Susannah. Oh yeah, and kills Jake.......

Wow this is making my head hurt

Matt
11-16-2007, 02:45 PM
This brings up the question of the original Jake. The one that died under the tires and again in under the mountains.

I believe the Jake that was saved was a different one. I wonder if the first was keystone Jake.

Daghain
11-16-2007, 02:47 PM
Hmmm. Now that's an interesting question. But if the first one was Keystone Jake, wouldn't he have been in the Keystone world, and then actually dead? Because once you die in the Keystone world you can't come back.

Matt
11-16-2007, 02:57 PM
Thats true, so perhaps the Dutch Hill Jake was keystone but that can't be unless the Eddie there was also Keystone.

That would also mean the...two at the end were not

Because Eddie never met keystone Jake if that was the case.

Darkthoughts
11-16-2007, 03:04 PM
I agree that Roland won't drop him. Not that it will break the cycle.

If he doesn't drop him under the mountains, and Jake is with them at the doors, isn't he dropping Jake again by killing Mort? Granted he does it to save Susannah. But he has to sacrifice one of them at that door. If he saves Jake there by letting Mort live, he dooms Susannah. Oh yeah, and kills Jake.......

Wow this is making my head hurt
Nope, you've lost me :lol:

Storyslinger
11-20-2007, 08:21 AM
By letting Mort live, only Jake will be affected. He pushed Susannah before ever seeing Jake. If he kills Mort, then Jake will never have come to Mid-World, so he'd have to go through the process of drawing him anyways

Sinistar
11-28-2007, 06:30 AM
I would have to say that if Roland chose Jake, there wouldn't be much of a story period because it would take away from the fact that Roland obsesses over finding the Tower. Although he subsequently finds his ka-tet, people that he loves, he lives in the past as we have seen. His main goal is avenging the fall of Gilead in some way, thus avenging the loss of a world that was "full of light and love".

Storyslinger
11-28-2007, 08:35 AM
I see you point, and it seems very likely that that is why he quests on

Matt
12-04-2007, 02:53 PM
I would have to say that if Roland chose Jake, there wouldn't be much of a story period because it would take away from the fact that Roland obsesses over finding the Tower. Although he subsequently finds his ka-tet, people that he loves, he lives in the past as we have seen. His main goal is avenging the fall of Gilead in some way, thus avenging the loss of a world that was "full of light and love".

Interesting observation--kind of a revenge motivation that I had not thought of.

Works well. :borg:

phenol
12-10-2007, 11:34 AM
I think Roland's choice to let Jake fall, and his mass murder earlier in the book, show some of his character flaws quite glaringly.

It was so terribly sad when he let Jake fall - I cried so much over it. I've already had the ending spoiled for me, and I have to say I agree that he won't escape the loop without choosing Jake. It would show a more caring, emotional character - perhaps redeeming him. I think the Tower dislikes being obsessed over if you will. It wouldn't mind Roland reaching it, but for Roland to do something like let Jake fall for the tower... Ka won't bring Roland to salvation that way.

Matt
12-10-2007, 12:01 PM
I totally agree phenol, great post.

I think Roland may have found something different at the Tower if he had not been so keen to sacrafice people to get there. The means do not justify the end sometimes and I believe Roland really didn't understand that.

TerribleT
12-10-2007, 01:54 PM
Ok, but if he doesn't sacrifice Jake, he never gets to the tower, and the world comes apart, because the breakers are already breaking down the beam. He has to catch the man in black in order to gain the information about the drawing. Without that he never gets Eddie, Susannah, or avenges Odetta/Detta. So he has to sacrifice Jake.

Wuducynn
12-10-2007, 01:58 PM
Ok, but if he doesn't sacrifice Jake, he never gets to the tower

How do you know this for sure?

phenol
12-10-2007, 02:06 PM
Ok, but if he doesn't sacrifice Jake, he never gets to the tower, and the world comes apart, because the breakers are already breaking down the beam. He has to catch the man in black in order to gain the information about the drawing. Without that he never gets Eddie, Susannah, or avenges Odetta/Detta. So he has to sacrifice Jake.

Ahh spoilers *hides*

LOL, just kidding. I don't mind too much.

That's the POINT though. Roland has to *accept* that he might have to damn the tower to do what's right if he ever wants to escape the loop. For him to see the tower, he has to happen upon it, not quest for it so hard that he hurts so many fellow people along the way.

Darkthoughts
12-10-2007, 02:29 PM
I agree. I don't believe not dropping Jake is a choice over reaching the Tower. I think it's the true path to the Tower.

Wuducynn
12-10-2007, 02:38 PM
Ahh spoilers *hides*

LOL, just kidding. I don't mind too much.

Got to be ever mindful of spoilers..especially in a topic that has in its heading "*HARD spoilers*".

phenol
12-10-2007, 04:09 PM
Ahh spoilers *hides*

LOL, just kidding. I don't mind too much.

Got to be ever mindful of spoilers..especially in a topic that has in its heading "*HARD spoilers*".

Yeah I know I should watch it until I finish.

I honestly don't mind too much - I don't think finding out a few things here and there will ruin my experience.

Wuducynn
12-10-2007, 04:16 PM
Well that was a pretty small spoiler so I wouldn't worry about it anyway.

MonteGss
12-10-2007, 04:25 PM
I agree. I don't believe not dropping Jake is a choice over reaching the Tower. I think it's the true path to the Tower.

Although I've never considered/believed this myself, it is a fascinating idea to think about. :cool:

Childe 007
12-10-2007, 09:46 PM
Jake had to die in the mountains. For the same reason that Isaac almost had to die on the altar; for the same reason that Iccarus did have to die in the clouds.

A Sacrifice is demanded. Belief IS demanded. And some gods are bloody.

And in the mountains Roland has allready sacrificed so much that he will let this child drop - his belief is in only himself and the thing that keeps him moving - and (as we saw in The Wizards Glass) - he will always make the sacrifice to attain "heaven" - The Tower.

He Must.

phenol
12-10-2007, 09:50 PM
Jake had to die in the mountains. For the same reason that Isaac almost had to die on the altar; for the same reason that Iccarus did have to die in the clouds.

A Sacrifice is demanded. Belief IS demanded. And some gods are bloody.

And in the mountains Roland has allready sacrificed so much that he will let this child drop - his belief is in only himself and the thing that keeps him moving - and (as we saw in The Wizards Glass) - he will always make the sacrifice to attain "heaven" - The Tower.

He Must.

If this is true, than I'm afraid our poor Roland is forever doomed :onfire:

For this tale I believe you're right. But not for the one that lets our hero pass on.

Jean
12-10-2007, 10:30 PM
Childe: Isaac example is that of not demanding any human sacrifices, from then forever, amen. If there is any analogy here, it's that Jake stayed alive. Proof of belief doesn't have to be as pagan and barbaric the next time it is needed.

Childe 007
12-10-2007, 10:51 PM
If you look - I said - Isaac had to almost...

And I'm sorry, Jean - but for any Great accomplishment - sacrifice is almost always demanded. That is one of those "life tenants" that I believe in. It may be great or small - but achievement without some form of sacrifice is only wellfare.

Abraham had to be willing to go the distance - he had no belief that God would renounce and save his son - he only had the faith to believe that if God demanded it - It had to be for the greater good.

Much as Roland would always see that letting that boy drop would result in the Greater Good.

Not just this time phenol - but forever - and ever - amen!

Jean
12-10-2007, 11:03 PM
If you look - I said - Isaac had to almost...

I noticed. It doesn't change my point. Isaac was not asked for a human sacrifice. It was clearly proven by the further development of the events.


And I'm sorry, Jean - but for any Great accomplishment - sacrifice is almost always demanded. That is one of those "life tenants" that I believe in. It may be great or small - but achievement without some form of sacrifice is only wellfare.

The meaning and contents of sacrifice are not the same every time. For example, sacrificing oneself is not the same as sacrificing an innocent child. Not letting Jake fall - renouncing the Tower - wouldn't be for Roland tantamount to sacrificing everything that he's been living for (with which he identifies; ultimately, himself)?


Abraham had to be willing to go the distance - he had no belief that God would renounce and save his son - he only had the faith to believe that if God demanded it - It had to be for the greater good.

Much as Roland would always see that letting that boy drop would result in the Greater Good.

I am sure any thought of "greater good" was the furthest possible from Abraham's mind (unless we understand the "good" very differently, of course). I also hope Roland will be able to abandon this idiotic notion sooner or later (moreover, that his overcoming this "greater good" dogma is the point of the story).

Childe 007
12-10-2007, 11:48 PM
The meaning and contents of sacrifice are not the same every time. For example, sacrificing oneself is not the same as sacrificing an innocent child. Not letting Jake fall - renouncing the Tower - wouldn't be for Roland tantamount to sacrificing everything that he's been living for (with which he identifies; ultimately, himself)?

Sacrificing One's Self - IS EASY! We do it for our children and grandchildren - forever and ever - amen. Sacrificing THEM - no parent could do without OVERPOWERING belief. And the only 2 real examples I can even think of are Abraham - who was willing - and by being willing was saved(?); and Roland who Did - Twice!


I am sure any thought of "greater good" was the furthest possible from Abraham's mind (unless we understand the "good" very differently, of course). I also hope Roland will be able to abandon this idiotic notion sooner or later (moreover, that his overcoming this "greater good" dogma is the point of the story).

Why else would he do it?

Because God Told him To?

Yes - that is exactly why he did it. And he did it with the FAITH that something good would come of it. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son - as "HIS FATHER" later did - because he believed in the Greater Good.

Just as Roland "believed' that the sacrifices he made were necessary.

Gain without sacrifice is welfare.

Darkthoughts
12-11-2007, 03:25 AM
ChildeProof of belief doesn't have to be as pagan and barbaric the next time it is needed.
Sorry Jean, couldn't you substitute the word pagan for christian? They are far more barbaric throughout their own history than those poor pagan scapegoats.


Yes - that is exactly why he did it. And he did it with the FAITH that something good would come of it. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son - as "HIS FATHER" later did - because he believed in the Greater Good.

Abraham was willing to murder his son because he believed it was for the good. If that actually really happened it wouldn't have been for the good either way. Can you imagine a child trusting an adult who was willingly about to sacrifice them, only to be halted at the last moment by a voice he hears in his head?:beat:

For that same reason, I think Roland must chose to save Jake. Roland sacrifices his obsession with the Tower in doing this (and it is an equal sacrifice, we've seen how the Tower has utterly ruled Roland's very existance.) He believes that by saving Jake he will not reach the Tower, though (I believe) the real consequences of that action would be Roland reaching a tower where there is real salvation for him at the top.

You see, in the story that we read - Jake never fully trusts Roland, because of his betrayal. Even in the moments when Jake utterly loves Roland, the thought is in the back of his mind; don't let me fall. It's mentioned repeatedly, and so much so that I think it's to drum home a point with the reader.

Jean
12-11-2007, 03:32 AM
ChildeProof of belief doesn't have to be as pagan and barbaric the next time it is needed.
Sorry Jean, couldn't you substitute the word pagan for christian? They are far more barbaric throughout their own history than those poor pagan scapegoats.
No, I couldn't. Neither word here is used as derogatory, but as merely technical terms. The idea of human sacrifice belongs to paganism, and is rejected by Christianity. Also, I understand that everyone is tempted to attribute to Christianity all faults of human race in its historical development, but please, don't let us get all anti-historical here.

Darkthoughts
12-11-2007, 03:57 AM
Paganism started as an agricultural religion, sacrifices were animal in the main. Jews and Christians on the other hand sacrificed/slaughtered entire cities because God told them to. I don't attribute anything to Christianity that it doesn't freely divulge in the bible.

I actually originally intended the comment in humour though :)

Jean
12-11-2007, 04:03 AM
I wouldn't say "Jews and Christians" as if it was the same, because the revolutionary role of New Testament isn't anything to spit on but you're right, let's bury this topic till we restart it in Religious Discussion thread (if we ever do, that is) http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif


Gain without sacrifice is welfare.
oh, I never said it should be without sacrifice. It's who is sacrificed we disagree on... also, it seems to me that the way you see it, it's rather fair exchange (something is sacrificed - something of equal value is gained); in other words, magic. I think it's another of those archaic (Lisa, I'll use this word if you prefer it, although it is far less specific or correct http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_tongue.gif) concepts Roland will have to overcome.

Darkthoughts
12-11-2007, 04:11 AM
I wouldn't say "Jews and Christians" as if it was the same, because the revolutionary role of New Testament isn't anything to spit on but you're right, let's bury this topic till we restart it in Religious Discussion thread (if we ever do, that is) http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

I only said Jews and Christians because in certain instances the New Testament is equally as bloody as the old. But yes, this is getting ot ;)

Jean
12-11-2007, 04:14 AM
Lisa, it's not blood we're talking about, it's what terms correctly apply to what in history of human thought and scholarly tradition. Everything in human history is bloody. ::shuts up::

Darkthoughts
12-11-2007, 04:22 AM
Everything in human history is bloody. ::shuts up::

Agreed. Although I wish you weren't shutting up, because I didn't understand the rest of what you were saying exactly :orely:

Jean
12-11-2007, 04:29 AM
I'm sorry if I am not very clear... I'm half asleep, and half going to work... should be hibernating, and can't... anyway, I wouldn't like this thread to go too far off topic, and something telling me we'll have plenty opportunity to get back to what we've touched upon. Plenty. [oh how I need a winking bearsmiley!!!]

TerribleT
12-11-2007, 05:58 AM
Ok, but if he doesn't sacrifice Jake, he never gets to the tower, and the world comes apart, because the breakers are already breaking down the beam. He has to catch the man in black in order to gain the information about the drawing. Without that he never gets Eddie, Susannah, or avenges Odetta/Detta. So he has to sacrifice Jake.

Ahh spoilers *hides*

LOL, just kidding. I don't mind too much.

That's the POINT though. Roland has to *accept* that he might have to damn the tower to do what's right if he ever wants to escape the loop. For him to see the tower, he has to happen upon it, not quest for it so hard that he hurts so many fellow people along the way.

Ok, but how are we to judge what is right? Is it better to sacrifice the world for the sake of one individual? Not only the world in which Jake and Roland exist, but ALL worlds. The tower is Roland's purpose, and it's basically his only purpose. Walters says so.

"Your mind. Your slow plodding, tenacious mind. There has never been one like it, in all the history of the world. Perhaps in the history of creation."

So which is the greater moral injustice, to allow the loss of Jake, or to allow the loss of all worlds.

Brice
12-11-2007, 06:09 AM
There are no greater moral injustices. Moral injustice is moral injustice...all the same.

Wuducynn
12-11-2007, 07:02 AM
If the horrid Gan wanted his knight to reach the Dark Tower he would have found a way for him to do it another way. The sacrifice of Jake is not a requirement to reach the Tower but a hurdle Roland is given to express his humanity by Gan.
He failed in this loop by letting him drop.

TerribleT
12-11-2007, 08:21 AM
If the horrid Gan wanted his knight to reach the Dark Tower he would have found a way for him to do it another way. The sacrifice of Jake is not a requirement to reach the Tower but a hurdle Roland is given to express his humanity by Gan.
He failed in this loop by letting him drop.

That's an assumption on your part, I, and Roland are dealing with the facts as we are aware of them....

1. There is a problem with the Tower and it needs to be saved.
2. In order to get to the Tower, Roland must get answers from the Man in Black.
3. If he attempts to save Jake, he will lose the Man in Black, and therefore not be able to save the Tower.

Let's go back to the moment of choice, when Roland chooses to let Jake go. Instead of jumping over Jake and grabbing the rock, now Roland reaches down and grabs Jake, the other side of the trestle collapses, and Jake and Roland are forced to turn around. The Man in Black is gone. Jake and Roland must face the slow mutants again, and IF they survive that encounter, then he must still find a way over, or around, the mountains. It's too late to save Eddie. (if Balazar doesn't get him the coke will). Too late to save Susannah/Detta/Odetta, and now what happens with Jack Mort. The idea that Roland has a choice of saving Jake or not saving Jake is a very pretty, and very idealistic, if not somewhat childish, notion. Roland has no choice but to drop Jake. I think he gains salvation in the fact that he saves Jake twice later in the Story. He also saves Eddie, Susannah, and kills Jack Mort, AND saves ALL worlds. Kills the Wolves, and on, and on, and on.

Brice
12-11-2007, 08:34 AM
If the horrid Gan wanted his knight to reach the Dark Tower he would have found a way for him to do it another way. The sacrifice of Jake is not a requirement to reach the Tower but a hurdle Roland is given to express his humanity by Gan.
He failed in this loop by letting him drop.

That's an assumption on your part, I, and Roland are dealing with the facts as we are aware of them....

1. There is a problem with the Tower and it needs to be saved.
2. In order to get to the Tower, Roland must get answers from the Man in Black.
3. If he attempts to save Jake, he will lose the Man in Black, and therefore not be able to save the Tower.

Let's go back to the moment of choice, when Roland chooses to let Jake go. Instead of jumping over Jake and grabbing the rock, now Roland reaches down and grabs Jake, the other side of the trestle collapses, and Jake and Roland are forced to turn around. The Man in Black is gone. Jake and Roland must face the slow mutants again, and IF they survive that encounter, then he must still find a way over, or around, the mountains. It's too late to save Eddie. (if Balazar doesn't get him the coke will). Too late to save Susannah/Detta/Odetta, and now what happens with Jack Mort. The idea that Roland has a choice of saving Jake or not saving Jake is a very pretty, and very idealistic, if not somewhat childish, notion. Roland has no choice but to drop Jake. I think he gains salvation in the fact that he saves Jake twice later in the Story. He also saves Eddie, Susannah, and kills Jack Mort, AND saves ALL worlds. Kills the Wolves, and on, and on, and on.

Perhaps Jake's sacrifice is only one way to the tower and also not the best way. There is also no reason to think that if Jake and Roland had to find some other way across the mountains he wouldn't have been able to save Eddie. Time is different in Roland's world. Years there could be just moment's in Eddie's or Detta/Odetta's or any of the other worlds. We really can't know if he saved Jake that all these other things would have happened.

TerribleT
12-11-2007, 08:37 AM
If the horrid Gan wanted his knight to reach the Dark Tower he would have found a way for him to do it another way. The sacrifice of Jake is not a requirement to reach the Tower but a hurdle Roland is given to express his humanity by Gan.
He failed in this loop by letting him drop.

That's an assumption on your part, I, and Roland are dealing with the facts as we are aware of them....

1. There is a problem with the Tower and it needs to be saved.
2. In order to get to the Tower, Roland must get answers from the Man in Black.
3. If he attempts to save Jake, he will lose the Man in Black, and therefore not be able to save the Tower.

Let's go back to the moment of choice, when Roland chooses to let Jake go. Instead of jumping over Jake and grabbing the rock, now Roland reaches down and grabs Jake, the other side of the trestle collapses, and Jake and Roland are forced to turn around. The Man in Black is gone. Jake and Roland must face the slow mutants again, and IF they survive that encounter, then he must still find a way over, or around, the mountains. It's too late to save Eddie. (if Balazar doesn't get him the coke will). Too late to save Susannah/Detta/Odetta, and now what happens with Jack Mort. The idea that Roland has a choice of saving Jake or not saving Jake is a very pretty, and very idealistic, if not somewhat childish, notion. Roland has no choice but to drop Jake. I think he gains salvation in the fact that he saves Jake twice later in the Story. He also saves Eddie, Susannah, and kills Jack Mort, AND saves ALL worlds. Kills the Wolves, and on, and on, and on.

Perhaps Jake's sacrifice is only one way to the tower and also not the best way. There is also no reason to think that if Jake and Roland had to find some other way across the mountains he wouldn't have been able to save Eddie. Time is different in Roland's world. Years there could be just moment's in Eddie's or Detta/Odetta's or any of the other worlds. We really can't know if he saved Jake that all these other things would have happened.


Again, an assumption on your part. I'm speaking of only what has been put forth in the book.

Wuducynn
12-11-2007, 09:05 AM
Listen Terrible, every time someone is going to post possibilities of things going differently than they did in the book are you going to post "assumption"?
The idea here is that Roland may not have to make the same choice to let Jake drop to reach the Tower. The whole thread and most "possibility" threads are supposition and aren't only going to go with what happened in the book but what could have happened.

TerribleT
12-11-2007, 09:08 AM
Listen Terrible, every time someone is going to post possibilities of things going differently than they did in the book are you going to post "assumption"?
The idea here is that Roland may not have to make the same choice to let Jake drop to reach the Tower. The whole thread and most "possibility" threads are supposition and aren't only going to go with what happened in the book but what could have happened.

My apologies, I will refrain from commenting again here.

Brice
12-11-2007, 09:16 AM
Listen Terrible, every time someone is going to post possibilities of things going differently than they did in the book are you going to post "assumption"?
The idea here is that Roland may not have to make the same choice to let Jake drop to reach the Tower. The whole thread and most "possibility" threads are supposition and aren't only going to go with what happened in the book but what could have happened.

My apologies, I will refrain from commenting again here.

No don't do that. It is just we tend to speculate a bit on possibilities. I mean we realize that they are assumptions, but that is the point. That is often the intent of some of these threads.

Wuducynn
12-11-2007, 09:17 AM
Perhaps Jake's sacrifice is only one way to the tower and also not the best way. There is also no reason to think that if Jake and Roland had to find some other way across the mountains he wouldn't have been able to save Eddie. Time is different in Roland's world. Years there could be just moment's in Eddie's or Detta/Odetta's or any of the other worlds. We really can't know if he saved Jake that all these other things would have happened.

Good questions, also it seems that the choice of letting Jake fall in favor of the hope of reaching the Dark Tower was one of Roland's biggest stumbling blocks in actually reaching the top of the Dark Tower.

Brice
12-11-2007, 09:21 AM
I see it almost like a RPG where Roland not only has to make a choice (i.e. :Whether to save Jake or not) right, but he must make every choice right in order to get the "best ending". I think one of those was that he should have saved Jake to save the tower.

Wuducynn
12-11-2007, 09:28 AM
Like the "Choose your Own Adventure" book series that was popular when we were kids. I wonder if its a process of re-finding his heart and soul that is true key to the top of the Dark Tower.
It sure seems like it, because he has progressed at the end and cared more about saving Jake than reaching the Dark Tower and now something that used to be left behind in the battlefield is with him on the quest.
Then theres always the hope that he falls in the chasm WITH Jake..but thats for another thread...

Matt
12-11-2007, 09:44 AM
Folks can post whatever they like in the thread. If Terrible wants to point out things are assumptions, that's cool.

If Matthew wants to assume a bunch of shit, thats cool too. :lol:

No reason for anyone to be stifled in a thread like this. :grouphug:

Wuducynn
12-11-2007, 10:23 AM
Hey, diplo-Matt, what do you think about Roland's choice to let Jake drop?

TerribleT
12-11-2007, 11:10 AM
No don't do that. It is just we tend to speculate a bit on possibilities. I mean we realize that they are assumptions, but that is the point. That is often the intent of some of these threads.

Thanks, but I probably shouldn't have been commenting in here to begin with. I reject the basic premise of the discussion. I don't think, given what Roland knew at the time, he had any choice.

Darkthoughts
12-11-2007, 11:17 AM
But TT, I would argue that what we are told in the book is not that Roland wanted to save all the worlds. Once the beams were made safe there was no reason for him to continue to the Tower. But he did, because all he wanted was to stand before the Tower. Either Eddie or Suze actually points this out and Roland agrees.

I've got to go out in a minute, but I'll find a quote to back this up tomorrow :thumbsup:

Brice
12-11-2007, 11:20 AM
No don't do that. It is just we tend to speculate a bit on possibilities. I mean we realize that they are assumptions, but that is the point. That is often the intent of some of these threads.

Thanks, but I probably shouldn't have been commenting in here to begin with. I reject the basic premise of the discussion. I don't think, given what Roland knew at the time, he had any choice.

Well, I see your point and I agree to an extent that with his knowledge at the time he made the only choice he could or at least the only one he believed he could make.

As Matt said though, anyone is welcome to post here pretty much anything they like and we're always interested in different perspectives. I truly hope you're enjoying the site. :)

Wuducynn
12-11-2007, 11:27 AM
I reject the basic premise of the discussion. I don't think, given what Roland knew at the time, he had any choice.

Do you think that Roland has no choices to do things different with each loop then?

Matt
12-11-2007, 11:36 AM
Hey, diplo-Matt, what do you think about Roland's choice to let Jake drop?

I've made that pretty clear already. I believe that not letting Jake drop is part of Rolands salvation.

Its a lesson in whats important in life. Sure, the universe hangs in the balance but a person cannot allow that as an excuse to become a monster.

The end should not justify the means.

TerribleT
12-11-2007, 11:37 AM
I reject the basic premise of the discussion. I don't think, given what Roland knew at the time, he had any choice.

Do you think that Roland has no choices to do things different with each loop then?

I don't think Roland is cognizant of any previous iterations. So while he might do things different in each, it would only be by accident. One thing that has occurred to me during this conversation is the notion of "ka like a wheel". Either way, I think at this point in the story, given the knowledge he has, he's always going to make the same choice. That knowledge being that there's a problem with the tower, and if he doesn't go there to fix it, all worlds will collapse, and crumble. It becomes a choice between the life of one innocent child, and all innocent children. Which really is the age old "life boat" debate.

Wuducynn
12-11-2007, 11:42 AM
I've made that pretty clear already.

Yeah, you did, but since I wasn't really paying attention to your posts I figured you should explain it again.

Matt
12-11-2007, 11:51 AM
:huglove:

You know how to make a guy feel good Matthew.

Wuducynn
12-11-2007, 11:51 AM
I don't think Roland is cognizant of any previous iterations. So while he might do things different in each, it would only be by accident. One thing that has occurred to me during this conversation is the notion of "ka like a wheel". Either way, I think at this point in the story, given the knowledge he has, he's always going to make the same choice. That knowledge being that there's a problem with the tower, and if he doesn't go there to fix it, all worlds will collapse, and crumble. It becomes a choice between the life of one innocent child, and all innocent children. Which really is the age old "life boat" debate.

When he lets Jake drop do you think hes really concerned about all the children in all the worlds or that he just reach the Tower to climb to its top?

TerribleT
12-11-2007, 11:51 AM
Hey, diplo-Matt, what do you think about Roland's choice to let Jake drop?


Its a lesson in whats important in life. Sure, the universe hangs in the balance but a person cannot allow that as an excuse to become a monster.

The end should not justify the means.

So do you believe we should not have nuked Japan?

TerribleT
12-11-2007, 11:53 AM
I don't think Roland is cognizant of any previous iterations. So while he might do things different in each, it would only be by accident. One thing that has occurred to me during this conversation is the notion of "ka like a wheel". Either way, I think at this point in the story, given the knowledge he has, he's always going to make the same choice. That knowledge being that there's a problem with the tower, and if he doesn't go there to fix it, all worlds will collapse, and crumble. It becomes a choice between the life of one innocent child, and all innocent children. Which really is the age old "life boat" debate.

When he lets Jake drop do you think hes really concerned about all the children in all the worlds or that he just reach the Tower to climb to its top?


He's sworn an oath to protect the tower, I think he only cares about being true to the face of his father.

Brice
12-11-2007, 11:57 AM
I reject the basic premise of the discussion. I don't think, given what Roland knew at the time, he had any choice.

Do you think that Roland has no choices to do things different with each loop then?

I don't think Roland is cognizant of any previous iterations. So while he might do things different in each, it would only be by accident. One thing that has occurred to me during this conversation is the notion of "ka like a wheel". Either way, I think at this point in the story, given the knowledge he has, he's always going to make the same choice. That knowledge being that there's a problem with the tower, and if he doesn't go there to fix it, all worlds will collapse, and crumble. It becomes a choice between the life of one innocent child, and all innocent children. Which really is the age old "life boat" debate.

See, if it came to a choice for me of not saving one child for the greater good or damning all of humanity I'd choose to save the child to save humanity.

Matt
12-11-2007, 12:02 PM
Hey, diplo-Matt, what do you think about Roland's choice to let Jake drop?


Its a lesson in whats important in life. Sure, the universe hangs in the balance but a person cannot allow that as an excuse to become a monster.

The end should not justify the means.

So do you believe we should not have nuked Japan?

Well, that's an interesting question. We're talking about a governments response to war and what I would personally do.

I know we nuked children at the end of World War Two and I'm not going to say we didn't have to.

I am just saying that I'm not sure that saving Jake would have ended the quest to save the tower. Or that the tower is anything more than Rolands own personal hell.

Like...save Jake and the tower is no longer falling kind of thing. Because the tower is about Roland.

I guess that's pretty much what Matthew said but longer. :lol:

Storyslinger
12-11-2007, 12:04 PM
Thats a good point, the tower is really just Rolands Journeys, and as long as the conflicts remain inside of him, tearing him down, the tower will continue to fall

Childe 007
12-14-2007, 09:31 PM
He's sworn an oath to protect the tower, I think he only cares about being true to the face of his father.

And here's the crux of the matter.

Just exactly how does he "be true" to the face of his father?

At This point in the Story - just exactly what does that mean?

TerribleT
12-16-2007, 06:49 AM
IMHO seeing through a sworn oath....as it relates to this particular topic.

Childe 007
12-18-2007, 08:32 PM
IMHO seeing through a sworn oath....as it relates to this particular topic.

OK - and slap me if I missed it - but just what's the oath he's sworn?

To reach the Tower? We discover in W&G that he was diverted from all else by "the grapefruit" - which showed him the Tower and (perhaps) his responsibilty to it. He implies and hints at many things that happened during that "Long Road Home" and Robin may reveal some of that to us soon; but was his pursuit of "the man in black" one of those things? Was "sacrifice" one of those things?

I think that maybe the chase; and the sacrifice of whatever he began to love in the "pursuit" of his revelation just became habits. He must chase because that is what he does - he must sacrifice - because (since Susan) that is what is demanded of him.

Just like that classic line from The Outlaw Josie Wales: "Everytime I get to likeing someone, they ain't around very long." - To which the wise indian chief replied: "I notice that when you get to disliking someone - they ain't around very long either."

At this point in the story - his life has been destroyed. His world has "moved on" - he chases - he sacrifrices. He niether likes or dislikes anyone. He kills anything and everything that gets in his way. Until the Way Station.

It's at that point that things change - every time.

TerribleT
12-19-2007, 04:17 AM
IMHO seeing through a sworn oath....as it relates to this particular topic.

OK - and slap me if I missed it - but just what's the oath he's sworn?

To reach the Tower? We discover in W&G that he was diverted from all else by "the grapefruit" - which showed him the Tower and (perhaps) his responsibilty to it. He implies and hints at many things that happened during that "Long Road Home" and Robin may reveal some of that to us soon; but was his pursuit of "the man in black" one of those things? Was "sacrifice" one of those things?

I think that maybe the chase; and the sacrifice of whatever he began to love in the "pursuit" of his revelation just became habits. He must chase because that is what he does - he must sacrifice - because (since Susan) that is what is demanded of him.

Just like that classic line from The Outlaw Josie Wales: "Everytime I get to likeing someone, they ain't around very long." - To which the wise indian chief replied: "I notice that when you get to disliking someone - they ain't around very long either."

At this point in the story - his life has been destroyed. His world has "moved on" - he chases - he sacrifrices. He niether likes or dislikes anyone. He kills anything and everything that gets in his way. Until the Way Station.

It's at that point that things change - every time.

*SLAP*

He says "I am sworn by my father's guns, and by the the treachery of Marten" during the prophecy of the oracle, which is also where he is told of his choice to save Jake, or to allow him to die.

Some, gunslnger, live on blood. Even, I understand, the blood of young boys.
May he not be spared?
Yes.
How?
Cease, gunslinger......
I'm sworn by my fathers guns.....


While he is speaking with the man in black, nearing the end of the long dark night, he says, "Understand what? My Purpose? You know that. To find the Tower is my purpose. I'm sworn."

Also during his palaver with the man in black he learns that to continue on his mission he must"Start wwest. Go to the sea...." This, as I've stated before, is also where he learns of his ability to draw, and of the Prisoner, and The Lady of the Shadows, and of his unique mind.

He MUST catch the man in black, in order to continue his quest for the tower. In order to do so, he must sacrifice Jake. It's really not a matter of habit, it's completely a matter of choice, and his internal struggle over this is repeatedly brought to light during The Gunslinger.

NeedfulKings
12-20-2007, 10:01 AM
I think it comes down to Roland's impatience as to why so many fell along the way. In The Gunslinger, you learn that this IS his quest and he'll do what it takes to reach his Tower. Yes, he could have saved Jake and (as earlier noted) taken the time to find another way over/under the mountains, but he didn't have that in his sights. He was always looking forward! Never back.

BTW, I think this thread, omong other things, contains many spoilers from the 6 books that follow. I don't want to be a spoiler police, but considering that we're discussing "ultimate" outcomes and differences, maybe this would be better served in the DTVII area.

Just my opinion. :D

jayson
12-20-2007, 10:31 AM
Yes, he could have saved Jake and (as earlier noted) taken the time to find another way over/under the mountains, but he didn't have that in his sights. He was always looking forward! Never back.


I disagree. To me it's pretty clear in The Gunslinger that Roland didn't just sacrifice Jake because he didn't pause to refelct on his options. On the contrary, he agonized over the decision, but knew that he had exactly two choices, the boy or the Tower. Whether he consciously knew it or not, Walter was his path to the Tower. Had he not caught up with him then, he very well could have wandered until he died. It's very easy to suggest he could find "another way" past the mountains, but would he have still been allowed to draw his three without the sacrifice of Jake? Likely not.

Wuducynn
12-20-2007, 10:56 AM
I disagree. To me it's pretty clear in The Gunslinger that Roland didn't just sacrifice Jake because he didn't pause to refelct on his options. On the contrary, he agonized over the decision, but knew that he had exactly two choices, the boy or the Tower. Whether he consciously knew it or not, Walter was his path to the Tower. Had he not caught up with him then, he very well could have wandered until he died. It's very easy to suggest he could find "another way" past the mountains, but would he have still been allowed to draw his three without the sacrifice of Jake? Likely not.

Do you believe Gan and the other gods of the White want Roland to win in his quest? Seems like there is an awful lot of evidence that they are willing to do what needs to be done to make sure he does, because of the stakes involved. It seems that if he didn't let Jake drop they would have helped Roland do what he needs to do.

TerribleT
12-20-2007, 11:04 AM
Yes, he could have saved Jake and (as earlier noted) taken the time to find another way over/under the mountains, but he didn't have that in his sights. He was always looking forward! Never back.


I disagree. To me it's pretty clear in The Gunslinger that Roland didn't just sacrifice Jake because he didn't pause to refelct on his options. On the contrary, he agonized over the decision, but knew that he had exactly two choices, the boy or the Tower. Whether he consciously knew it or not, Walter was his path to the Tower. Had he not caught up with him then, he very well could have wandered until he died. It's very easy to suggest he could find "another way" past the mountains, but would he have still been allowed to draw his three without the sacrifice of Jake? Likely not.

That's EXACTLY my take on it, from out here in Bizarro World ;)

jayson
12-20-2007, 11:08 AM
Do you believe Gan and the other gods of the White want Roland to win in his quest? Seems like there is an awful lot of evidence that they are willing to do what needs to be done to make sure he does, because of the stakes involved. It seems that if he didn't let Jake drop they would have helped Roland do what he needs to do.

It's a good question Matt, though I'm not sure my answer. For starters, I don't know how much I believe that there are other gods of the White. I believe there is a Gan [at least in as much as it being the overarching creative force of the world], but not so sure there are actual beings either watching or playing some role in how things turn out. If there were, sure, I believe they'd want to help Roland if they could [however, the metaphysics and "rules" of that would work is beyond me].

Wuducynn
12-20-2007, 11:15 AM
It's a good question Matt, though I'm not sure my answer. For starters, I don't know how much I believe that there are other gods of the White. I believe there is a Gan [at least in as much as it being the overarching creative force of the world], but not so sure there are actual beings either watching or playing some role in how things turn out. If there were, sure, I believe they'd want to help Roland if they could [however, the metaphysics and "rules" of that would work is beyond me].

Well I'm going by the series and the comics (which because of King's involvement in it I consider canon) which mentions multiple deities, but whatever you like Gan or the whole bunch, someone is trying to help Roland and his ka-tet to win through to the Tower, along with Los' and his various followers trying to keep him from doing so.
It seems to me if he had decided not to let Jake drop then they, it, whomever would have helped Roland find the way and draw who he needs to draw.

jayson
12-20-2007, 11:27 AM
Well I'm going by the series and the comics (which because of King's involvement in it I consider canon) which mentions multiple deities, but whatever you like Gan or the whole bunch, someone is trying to help Roland and his ka-tet to win through to the Tower, along with Los' and his various followers trying to keep him from doing so.
It seems to me if he had decided not to let Jake drop then they, it, whomever would have helped Roland find the way and draw who he needs to draw.

Certainly possible. I do agree that there is certainly something trying to make sure Roland reaches the Tower, and that something puts things/people in his path that help him achieve this goal. So, yes, I suppose now that I have thought it out, I do think he could have made it to the Tower had he not dropped Jake, but that the path may have been VERY different.

Good question Matt.

And for the record, I also consider the comics part of the canon.

Wuducynn
12-20-2007, 11:28 AM
*Puts it on record*

NeedfulKings
12-20-2007, 01:25 PM
Roland may have agonized over the decision between Jake and the Tower, but his choice to press on as opposed to go back was born of impatience, and maybe more importantly, self preservation.

DTVII (Series Ending) Spoiler:
In the next turn of the wheel he has the horn. I've always considered this a small token for an even bigger change in Roland. He will do things differently. His decisions (similar to the ones under the mountain) may change. These will affect his journey. Good or bad, it will be different.

I think the comic series does a LOT to fill in historical details, etc. I consider them reliable.

Wuducynn
12-20-2007, 01:45 PM
Roland may have agonized over the decision between Jake and the Tower, but his choice to press on as opposed to go back was born of impatience, and maybe more importantly, self preservation.

DTVII (Series Ending) Spoiler:
In the next turn of the wheel he has the horn. I've always considered this a small token for an even bigger change in Roland. He will do things differently. His decisions (similar to the ones under the mountain) may change. These will affect his journey. Good or bad, it will be different.

I think the comic series does a LOT to fill in historical details, etc. I consider them reliable.

Agreed completely Bill. No need to put spoiler tags in this thread since its already noted as a spoiler thread. Bitch.

jayson
12-20-2007, 01:47 PM
Roland may have agonized over the decision between Jake and the Tower, but his choice to press on as opposed to go back was born of impatience, and maybe more importantly, self preservation.

DTVII (Series Ending) Spoiler:
In the next turn of the wheel he has the horn. I've always considered this a small token for an even bigger change in Roland. He will do things differently. His decisions (similar to the ones under the mountain) may change. These will affect his journey. Good or bad, it will be different.

I think the comic series does a LOT to fill in historical details, etc. I consider them reliable.

Though I still disagree about Roland's motivation at that point, I agree completely with the rest of what you said.

NeedfulKings
12-20-2007, 01:51 PM
:lol: thanks, Crimson! My question is...is THIS a spoiler thread for the whole series or just the first book? In other words, if I have read The Gunslinger, but no others, can I safely come here to discuss?

Sincerely,
The Bitch

:P ;)

NeedfulKings
12-20-2007, 01:54 PM
As I ponder all of this, I think that most of Roland's selfish decisions are based on self preservation, more than anything else. Going back for Jake would have threatened his own existance. Why chance that for a boy? Even one he loved.

Wuducynn
12-20-2007, 01:54 PM
I see what you're saying...but how much worrying should everyone have to do about it? Really, if you're going on to a Dark Tower fan message board like this and haven't read The Gunslinger and don't want to be spoiled, you shouldn't be clicking this forum.

Wuducynn
12-20-2007, 02:00 PM
As I ponder all of this, I think that most of Roland's selfish decisions are based on self preservation, more than anything else. Going back for Jake would have threatened his own existance. Why chance that for a boy? Even one he loved.

It seems to me that in this loop he is still at that point more obsessed with the Tower and having that make his choices than love for Jake. Its not high morality of saving the universe but just that he wants to climb to the top of the Tower. Then at the end of the series he has changed to the point where he is willing to sacrifice his life and his quest for Jake, thats a big step for him and I'm betting his next loop will be a lot different, different choices because he is different.

Darkthoughts
12-20-2007, 02:09 PM
For possibly the first time ever, I agree with every single word you wrote above CK :D

Wuducynn
12-20-2007, 02:38 PM
For possibly the first time ever, I agree with every single word you wrote above CK :D

Oh, well this is the first time you've been completely sensible then!

Darkthoughts
12-20-2007, 02:39 PM
:lol:

DocPain
12-22-2007, 07:22 AM
I'm personally of the opinion that this is what Roland has to do to truly break the cycle.


**SPOILER**
I agree. There are obviously several things that he needs to do on that road. One of which is to get the horn, the other one is to keep Jake alive. What other ones have we observed from the stories?

Matt
12-24-2007, 10:06 AM
Perhaps finding a way to not murder the entire town of Tull?

MonteGss
12-24-2007, 02:49 PM
:lol:
So....that's a bad thing? :unsure:

Wuducynn
12-24-2007, 02:54 PM
In the case of Tull, it was only a good thing.

jayson
12-24-2007, 09:40 PM
He had no choice whatsoever in Tull. Kill or be killed.

Jean
12-25-2007, 04:12 AM
He had no choice whatsoever in Tull. Kill or be killed.
It is choice.

Míchéal
12-25-2007, 06:16 AM
He had no choice whatsoever in Tull. Kill or be killed.
It is choice.

oh...touche :rose:

jayson
12-25-2007, 10:35 AM
He had no choice whatsoever in Tull. Kill or be killed.
It is choice.

Yes, very clever. My point was and remains that if we are compiling a list of things Roland could have chosen otherwise and still pursued the Tower, the depopulation of Tull doesn't make the list. Roland could conceivably have not dropped Jake and kept going, albeit not in direct pursuit of Walter. Roland could have held onto his horn a bit tighter or picked it up when it fell and kept going. If Roland had not emptied his guns in Tull, he'd be dead.

Jean
12-25-2007, 10:53 AM
I know what you mean... I have been thinking about that for years, and I am still not sure the choice of death in Tull is not supposed to be the only step the way to he Tower would take next time. I am not sure it is, either, but I am still very far from asserting the Tull situation as "no choice" automatically.

jayson
12-25-2007, 11:04 AM
I see it as a grim but necessary choice. I'm not saying it doesn't and shouldn't haunt him, but I personally don't see what non-murderous options he had in that scenario.:shoot:

Brice
12-29-2007, 09:45 AM
I see it as a grim but necessary choice. I'm not saying it doesn't and shouldn't haunt him, but I personally don't see what non-murderous options he had in that scenario.:shoot:

Maybe if he'd done something different in whatever prior cycle or loop he'd have never gone to/through Tull at all.

jayson
12-30-2007, 05:39 AM
I see it as a grim but necessary choice. I'm not saying it doesn't and shouldn't haunt him, but I personally don't see what non-murderous options he had in that scenario.:shoot:

Maybe if he'd done something different in whatever prior cycle or loop he'd have never gone to/through Tull at all.

Certainly a possibility. I have no reason to believe the loops are similar [except for starting in the desert and ending at the Tower] so if you believe that each one effects the next it is possible Roland could have avoided Tull. Also possible it was Walter's idea to bring him there knowing what was likely to occur.

TerribleT
12-30-2007, 06:23 AM
I see it as a grim but necessary choice. I'm not saying it doesn't and shouldn't haunt him, but I personally don't see what non-murderous options he had in that scenario.:shoot:

Maybe if he'd done something different in whatever prior cycle or loop he'd have never gone to/through Tull at all.

Certainly a possibility. I have no reason to believe the loops are similar [except for starting in the desert and ending at the Tower] so if you believe that each one effects the next it is possible Roland could have avoided Tull. Also possible it was Walter's idea to bring him there knowing what was likely to occur.

Tull happened before the desert, so isn't it reasonable to assume that Tull is fixed? The loop only seems to occur from the time when Roland enters the desert.

Jean
12-30-2007, 06:43 AM
the events before the desert are changed, too (he has the horn which I assume he picked at Jericho Hill)

jayson
12-30-2007, 10:58 AM
the events before the desert are changed, too (he has the horn which I assume he picked at Jericho Hill)

precisely.

Matt
12-30-2007, 03:30 PM
but how is that possible? are we maybe to assume the loop is getting shorter?

hmmm...that's an interesting thought. Lets say this time he saves Jake (he has the horn too) and the next go around he starts after the desert on the beach.--Jakes with him

jayson
12-30-2007, 04:09 PM
but how is that possible? are we maybe to assume the loop is getting shorter?

hmmm...that's an interesting thought. Lets say this time he saves Jake (he has the horn too) and the next go around he starts after the desert on the beach.--Jakes with him

we also don't know what elements, if any, are the same each time he loops. maybe it's not a series of do-overs where roland gets to do the opposite of what he did the last time. it's just as likely the only thing that remains the same is that he is chasing Walter.

Matt
12-30-2007, 04:29 PM
Well, if we are going to assume anything can be different--I'm not sure even chasing Walter is a constant. However, if anything was, that would certainly be it. :lol:

jayson
12-31-2007, 04:14 AM
Well, if we are going to assume anything can be different--I'm not sure even chasing Walter is a constant. However, if anything was, that would certainly be it. :lol:

well given that walter in the revised version seems to know that roland is looping, it seems likely to me he is the constant starting point.

to me the loop goes...

phase 1 - chase walter
phase 2 - ?
phase 3 - breach Tower

Brice
12-31-2007, 04:25 AM
Yes, time needn't be linear there. By necessity if time and space vary in Roland's world, if it is in constant flux than nothing besides him chasing Walter through the desert can be guaranteed or relied upon. Even still we can only be certain of him chasing Walter through this loop and the last. Circumstances through other loops could differ greatly. I would guess though that most likely he would always be chasing Walter.

TerribleT
01-06-2008, 12:48 PM
Given the information available to you at the time, would you have dropped Jake?

Letti
01-06-2008, 12:51 PM
What's that information?

TerribleT
01-06-2008, 01:00 PM
What's that information?

Any and all information provided to Roland right up to the point where he actually drops Jake.

Letti
01-06-2008, 01:07 PM
What's that information?

Any and all information provided to Roland right up to the point where he actually drops Jake.

TerribleT, it might be very obvious to you but it isn't to me. Please let me know what you mean by that.

ATG
01-06-2008, 01:14 PM
Yes. Part of his information was echoes of memories of his other wheres and whens.

Letti
01-06-2008, 01:19 PM
Anyway it's a damn interesting thread. I cannot wait to see more answers here. :)

Matt
01-06-2008, 01:26 PM
I think we could probably debate what information exactly Roland had at the time he made that decision.

I'd like to think I could find a way that included not letting Jake fall but we have to consider the idea that if Roland had gone back for him, he would have fallen himself.

Perhaps that is the only way to redemption for him. Because there are other worlds than these after all. :ninja:

alinda
01-06-2008, 01:45 PM
Oh Matt :) thats just the answer.
"go then, there are other worlds"
afterall.

Letti
01-06-2008, 01:47 PM
As I know myself I wouldn't. Even if I knew how necessary it's.
But wko knows. Sometimes we can surprise ourselves, can't we?

timtempest6
01-06-2008, 02:32 PM
There was no choice it was KA. who knows how meny times he had droped him in his loop.

Letti
01-06-2008, 02:35 PM
Of course. He has no responsibility. It was ka.

TerribleT
01-06-2008, 02:38 PM
What's that information?

I am gonna change this, I put forth a bunch of info, but what I'd rather do is suggest that you read the Gunslinger up to that point.

TerribleT
01-06-2008, 02:40 PM
Of course. He has no responsibility. It was ka.

Not true, he understands the gravity of the choice, and his own responsibility in it. That's made VERY clear leading up to the event, and following it.

Letti
01-06-2008, 02:43 PM
What's that information?

1) The Tower served some critical purpose to Roland's world, and maybe more.
2) There was something wrong with the Tower.
3) It was his, and only his destiny to to find the Tower and fix it.
4) The man in black had information important to Roland in his quest for the Tower.
5) If he lost the man in black it may well doom his quest for the Tower.
6) Jake had to die in order for him to catch the MIB (The Oracle)

Do I understand it well that I would know more than Roland?
Even if I knew more even if I didn't - I wouldn't drop Jake.

1., Roland knew it from his childhood.
2., He knew it from his childhood.
3., He thought that before as well.
4., I am begging for those pieces of information!!
5., The keyword is "may". We can put the word "may" in every single sentence.
6., He would have caught the Man in Black anyway. Walter could have vanished anytime if he had wanted to but he didn't because he himself wanted that palaver with Roland.
So Jake was just a nice trap.
Or that's how I see it. :)

Letti
01-06-2008, 02:44 PM
Of course. He has no responsibility. It was ka.

Not true, he understands the gravity of the choice, and his own responsibility in it. That's made VERY clear leading up to the event, and following it.

I tried to be ironic in that post of mine. ;)

The way I see it "ka" can't be the answer to anything.

alinda
01-06-2008, 02:45 PM
Pfft, Letti behave you know you do not believe in ka

:fairy: lol





Of course. He has no responsibility. It was ka.

Letti
01-06-2008, 02:46 PM
Pfft, Letti behave you know you do not believe in ka

:fairy: lol





Of course. He has no responsibility. It was ka.

I am an open book to you, lady. :D

TerribleT
01-06-2008, 02:50 PM
What's that information?

1) The Tower served some critical purpose to Roland's world, and maybe more.
2) There was something wrong with the Tower.
3) It was his, and only his destiny to to find the Tower and fix it.
4) The man in black had information important to Roland in his quest for the Tower.
5) If he lost the man in black it may well doom his quest for the Tower.
6) Jake had to die in order for him to catch the MIB (The Oracle)

Do I understand it well that I would know more than Roland?
Even if I knew more even if I didn't - I wouldn't drop Jake.

1., Roland knew it from his childhood.
2., He knew it from his childhood.
3., He thought that before as well.
4., I am begging for those pieces of information!!
5., The keyword is "may". We can put the word "may" in every single sentence.
6., He would have caught the Man in Black anyway. Walter could have vanished anytime if he had wanted to but he didn't because he himself wanted that palaver with Roland.
So Jake was just a nice trap.
Or that's how I see it. :)

This is why I really didn't wanna go there, I do not wish to debate these points ad naseum, because I think it distract from what IS, and discusses what you wish to be. If you re-read the book to that point, you will know exactly what information Roland had when he made the decision to drop Jake. It appears as though I've allowed myself to be captured in a trap by you, in which we debate minor points, and ignore the overriding facts in the issue.

Letti
01-06-2008, 02:53 PM
Okay I will reread it but I have read it 3 or 4 times already. I am not a beginner. ;)

Anyway it's absolutely natural if we don't agree.

TerribleT
01-06-2008, 02:57 PM
Okay I will reread it but I have read it 3 or 4 times already. I am not a beginner. ;)

Anyway it's absolutely natural if we don't agree.

I apologize if I implied that in any way. I know you're FAR from it, I've read many of your posts, and find many of the questions you ask fascinating. I sincerely apologize if I offended you in any way.

Letti
01-06-2008, 03:21 PM
Okay I will reread it but I have read it 3 or 4 times already. I am not a beginner. ;)

Anyway it's absolutely natural if we don't agree.

I apologize if I implied that in any way. I know you're FAR from it, I've read many of your posts, and find many of the questions you ask fascinating. I sincerely apologize if I offended you in any way.

No, not at all.
We are here to share our thoughts and I am always excited when I see that I disagree with someone so much. It's great that we see the same things so different. I might be a perv but I enjoy it and I would really like to understand and see why the other thinks what he thinks. :D

TerribleT
01-06-2008, 03:23 PM
No, not at all.
We are here to share our thoughts and I am always excited when I see that I disagree with someone so much. It's great that we see the same things so different. I might be a perv but I enjoy it and I would really like to understand and see why the other thinks what he thinks. :D

:huglove:

Letti
01-06-2008, 03:28 PM
So... when I ask I don't wanna argue I am just interested in the answer. :)

And what about you? I guess I know your answer but would you drop him? Would you hesitate even for a moment?

Brice
01-06-2008, 03:54 PM
I would throw him off and kick him on his way down. :P




Not a chance.

jayson
01-06-2008, 03:58 PM
I doubt from my answers in some of the other threads that this will surprise anyone, but yes, if I were Roland, Jake would fall.

TerribleT
01-06-2008, 04:14 PM
In Roland's place, I would do exactly the same as he, with all of the same misgivings.

Matt
01-07-2008, 12:59 PM
From the last page, Letti mentioned Jake was in a trap which is exactly correct imo.

Jake was a trap from the beginning but I think the way out of that trap for Roland was to not let him die for the obsession.

Darkthoughts
01-08-2008, 04:48 AM
Indeed Matt!! And at last I have found some canon to back our point of view :thumbsup:

In The Dark Tower: The Complete Concordance, Robin Furth writes;

What Roland must learn, if the Tower's topmost door is to lead him to a final place of redemption, is forethought and respect for life. And these are the very two lessons which, over the DT series, he has struggled to learn.
She writes that by the time he reaches the Tower, in this loop, the man that dropped Jake and killed all the citizens of Tull (including Allie) without guilt, is gone. That he has learnt more on this loop than in any of the previous ones - which is why Gan grants him the horn - as a symbol of recognition.

Actually, I remembered that canon as being more specifically in favour of not dropping Jake - but I had a bit of a fever yesterday and either a) imagined it or b) marked the wrong page :lol:

TerribleT
01-08-2008, 05:19 AM
Indeed Matt!! And at last I have found some canon to back our point of view :thumbsup:

In The Dark Tower: The Complete Concordance, Robin Furth writes;

What Roland must learn, if the Tower's topmost door is to lead him to a final place of redemption, is forethought and respect for life. And these are the very two lessons which, over the DT series, he has struggled to learn.
She writes that by the time he reaches the Tower, in this loop, the man that dropped Jake and killed all the citizens of Tull (including Allie) without guilt, is gone. That he has learnt more on this loop than in any of the previous ones - which is why Gan grants him the horn - as a symbol of recognition.

Actually, I remembered that canon as being more specifically in favour of not dropping Jake - but I had a bit of a fever yesterday and either a) imagined it or b) marked the wrong page :lol:


Well I disagree with her too then :). I'm not enamoured with the concept that somehow Roland is going to find redemption, and stop looping. I'm not even convinced there were previous loops, or that there's any difference between the loops. I'll refrain from further comment about that for the time being. I'm going to finish re-reading the series, and the maybe have more comments. There's a lot that I don't remember regarding the horn, and the end of the series. At any rate, the question really hinged on what Roland knew at the time of his choice. My intent here was to purposely disregard all of the other Tower information, the comics, the remaining books in the series, and only deal with the time between "The man in black fled..." and "Go then, there are other worlds than these." Hence, "Knowing what Roland knew" Remember, none of that other stuff existed.

jayson
01-08-2008, 05:30 AM
I'm not enamoured with the concept that somehow Roland is going to find redemption, and stop looping.

Look T, we agree again.



I'm not even convinced ... that there's any difference between the loops.

And now, not. Well, that's a bit of a joke. I don't personally see any reason to believe the loops are the same at all other than they begin with chasing Walter and end at the Tower. It goes along with my views on the first part of what you said. I don't like seeing it as a series of do-overs that he has to get "right." For those that believe Roland must do things over differently to be released from the cycle, why does it only start over at the desert? Is everything he did to that point ok?

Darkthoughts
01-08-2008, 05:39 AM
Re-reading with a clear head is a good way to go :thumbsup:

I don't think it can be argued though that he'd never looped before though...
(DT7 spoilers)...














When he reaches his door at the top of the tower, the book reads:

He saw and understood at once, the knowledge falling upon him in a hammerblow...
How many times had he climbed these stairs only to find himself peeled back, curved back, turned back? ...
"Oh, no!" he screamed. "Please, not again! Have pity! Have mercy!"

As for it being different, I think all the previous loops were more or less the same, but he's given his symbol that the Tower appreciates he's learnt something this time.


R of G: Why the desert? Well, thats the point at which he realises he can attain the Tower, its no longer a dream, it becomes a reality. Therefore all decisions from that point on, he tries to justify in the Towers name, which is why I'd imagine the Tower has an "issue" with it :D

jayson
01-08-2008, 06:02 AM
Well, thats the point at which he realises he can attain the Tower, its no longer a dream, it becomes a reality. Therefore all decisions from that point on, he tries to justify in the Towers name, which is why I'd imagine the Tower has an "issue" with it :D

Seems as good a theory as any.

timtempest6
01-08-2008, 06:45 PM
Ok Ka aside, yes i would have let Jake fall. if i let my first true love burn in the name of the tower, why not

Matt
01-09-2008, 12:44 PM
That's a damn good point, its not like his hands weren't covered with blood already.

Letti
01-09-2008, 12:47 PM
A damn good point?
It's not about blood. Or death. But about... love. Yeah, I might sound silly but still.
If I let someone die who was important to me I can let everyone die around me because why not???
It's not clear to me. Where is the good point?

jayson
01-09-2008, 12:47 PM
Didn't she technically burn in the name of The Affiliation. It wasn't until he was in the Grapefruit that Roland's quest became the Tower. Before that he was just acting in the defense of Gilead and The Affiliation when he forsook Susan and went to fight at Eyebolt Canyon. Still, I often wish he'd saved Susan more than I wish he didn't drop Jake. At least Jake made it back to him.

TerribleT
01-09-2008, 12:48 PM
ahhhh geez, you're not really gonna get me started on THIS now are you? He did NOT allow Susan to burn at all, much less in the name of the Tower. Please don't put the responsibility for her death on Roland. It was Cordelia, and Rhea who were responsible for it. His quest for the Tower had yet to begin.

TerribleT
01-09-2008, 12:52 PM
Didn't she technically burn in the name of The Affiliation. It wasn't until he was in the Grapefruit that Roland's quest became the Tower. Before that he was just acting in the defense of Gilead and The Affiliation when he forsook Susan and went to fight at Eyebolt Canyon. Still, I often wish he'd saved Susan more than I wish he didn't drop Jake. At least Jake made it back to him.

Often? I pretty much ALWAYS wished he didn't allow Susan to die. For the record, he didn't ALLOW her to die, they were supposed to meet at an assigned time and place, and he was to return to Gilead with her, if memory serves me.

jayson
01-09-2008, 12:52 PM
T, I think you and I are the Roland of Gilead Defense Fund.

jayson
01-09-2008, 12:54 PM
Often? I pretty much ALWAYS wished he didn't allow Susan to die. For the record, he didn't ALLOW her to die, they were supposed to meet at an assigned time and place, and he was to return to Gilead with her, if memory serves me.

Your memory is correct. He, in my estimation, could not have prevented it. Still wish he'd ridden back into town to gun down Cordelia, but he was a bit too catatonic at the time.

TerribleT
01-09-2008, 12:58 PM
T, I think you and I are the Roland of Gilead Defense Fund.


:rofl: Yeah, I think you're right!!! What's REALLY cracking me up is that I hit submit reply, and looked up and your post was there. LMAO Neither one of us let that comment lie for long!!! Letti has joined forces with us too!!! YAY Letti, wlecome to the White!!!!!

Letti
01-09-2008, 01:03 PM
We don't agree about everything but I wouldn't like to get into off-topic even deeper so I say thank you sai. :)

TerribleT
01-09-2008, 01:04 PM
:rofl:

Wuducynn
01-09-2008, 01:10 PM
We don't agree about everything but I wouldn't like to get into off-topic even deeper so I say thank you sai. :)

I would love to get deep into your off-topic any day beautiful.

TerribleT
01-09-2008, 01:11 PM
:rofl: I'll bet she's blushing!!!!

jayson
01-09-2008, 01:12 PM
What's REALLY cracking me up is that I hit submit reply, and looked up and your post was there.

I got a kick out of that too. Great minds and all...

Letti
01-09-2008, 01:17 PM
:rofl: I'll bet she's blushing!!!!

I have known him for long so I am not. :D

Guys, let's go back to the topic, okay?
Dropping or not dropping. That's the question.

TerribleT
01-09-2008, 01:21 PM
:rofl: I'll bet she's blushing!!!!

I have known him for long so I am not. :D

Guys, let's go back to the topic, okay?
So, for me it's quite strange that someone finds this book boring but all the DT books are quite unique so it's not a shock if someone doesn't like one of them (or some of them).

I think you are thinking of a different thread. SEEEE CK I toldja she's flustered!!! C'mon, admit it Letti, you were blushing!!!!!!

Letti
01-09-2008, 01:24 PM
I don't want to disappoint you but I am not. Believe me. :)

And as I have mentioned it before...
http://www.jarrett-net.com/images/offtopic.gif

Matt
01-09-2008, 01:27 PM
Just one last thing, I didn't say it was his fault but I do think that Roland himself believe he sacrificed Susan for the Tower.

Now, back to the topic. :D

TerribleT
01-09-2008, 01:35 PM
I don't want to disappoint you but I am not. Believe me. :)

And as I have mentioned it before...
http://www.jarrett-net.com/images/offtopic.gif

:rofl:

Letti
01-09-2008, 01:38 PM
A cheerful man... :lol:

TerribleT
01-09-2008, 02:58 PM
[quote=TerribleT;88916]:rofl: I'll bet she's blushing!!!!

I have known him for long so I am not. :D

Guys, let's go back to the topic, okay?
So, for me it's quite strange that someone finds this book boring but all the DT books are quite unique so it's not a shock if someone doesn't like one of them (or some of them).

Well, i don't know if you noticed or not, but the topic you were originally trying to steer this thread back to, was not the topic of the thread. Not that it matters to me, mind you, but just sayin.... :couple:

Letti
01-09-2008, 03:22 PM
I have edited that post of mine already.

timtempest6
01-09-2008, 05:36 PM
Not just yet, seeing as how i brought it up i must defend my comment. Roland went into the pink one befor he went to eyebolt, and he was given a choice. read page 581 of the hardcover or chapter 10 sub 10. now i will try to stop siring the pot

sarah
01-10-2008, 11:51 AM
Ok, so I finally voted. I've been keeping track of this thread but unable to vote. I voted yes. Yes, I would have dropped Jake if I was Roland and his position.
It all worked out in the end anyways...right? :unsure: :lol:

Letti
01-10-2008, 01:01 PM
Ok, so I finally voted. I've been keeping track of this thread but unable to vote. I voted yes. Yes, I would have dropped Jake if I was Roland and his position.
It all worked out in the end anyways...right? :unsure: :lol:

What convinced you?

Matt
01-10-2008, 01:03 PM
Not just yet, seeing as how i brought it up i must defend my comment. Roland went into the pink one befor he went to eyebolt, and he was given a choice. read page 581 of the hardcover or chapter 10 sub 10. now i will try to stop siring the pot

Don't worry about the pot :lol:

I think that is a valid point, I thought I remembered him actively choosing the Tower.

Wuducynn
01-10-2008, 01:04 PM
I have a different perspective to give (as usual). What I would do, would be to lift Jake up so that he can get ahold of something and then begin to tickle him until he couldn't stand it anymore, laughing so hard, he has to let go and then fall to his death.
Thats what I would do if I were Roland.

sarah
01-10-2008, 02:33 PM
Ok, so I finally voted. I've been keeping track of this thread but unable to vote. I voted yes. Yes, I would have dropped Jake if I was Roland and his position.
It all worked out in the end anyways...right? :unsure: :lol:

What convinced you?


It wasn't so much as convincing as it was just thinking it through. I didn't want to jump in and vote without thinking about it first.

JQ The Gunslinger
04-29-2008, 06:32 PM
I would of let Jake drop if I was Roland at the time. Because in the beginning of the series/book he made crystal clear he will choose the tower over friends (he even says this at one point in the series, maybe not Gunslinger) I think later on the series he starts lovin his katet more than just pawns in Chess/Castle. But if I had his postion then, Jake would of been falling all the same.

MonteGss
04-29-2008, 10:30 PM
I have a different perspective to give (as usual). What I would do, would be to lift Jake up so that he can get ahold of something and then begin to tickle him until he couldn't stand it anymore, laughing so hard, he has to let go and then fall to his death.
Thats what I would do if I were Roland.

:lol:
Ok...so I know this was posted a while ago but I just saw it and thought it was pretty damned funny.
:lol:

blackrose22
04-30-2008, 01:36 AM
Roland might have thought well if doesn't die here Jake will die somewhere else down the line like all the people he knew and cared about. It was just one more life in the long line who had died on his quest for the tower. If he failed to reach the tower and prevent its destruction all life would die so he sacrificed Jake to prevent this. And as far as myself saving Jake I think self preservation would have kicked in and let him drop. Not much point in trying to save one and falling and dying yourself and then letting the tower and all known life be destroy for one moment of heroics.

The Walkin Dude
04-30-2008, 01:53 AM
Sorry, Jake's just gotta go. He'll come back anyhow.

Letti
04-30-2008, 05:43 AM
Sorry, Jake's just gotta go. He'll come back anyhow.
But at that time you cannot know that he will come back, sai.

Matt
05-01-2008, 03:29 PM
Somewhere back in this thread I said it was a "good point" that Roland had already let Susan die for the Tower, why not Jake?

I would personally not drop him no matter how bad off the Tower was (I believe this is the point of the story) but the good point I was talking about is that it wasn't a surprise that he would choose the Tower over Jake.

Even though that's a bad choice

Woofer
05-02-2008, 04:01 AM
Somewhere back in this thread I said it was a "good point" that Roland had already let Susan die for the Tower, why not Jake?

I would personally not drop him no matter how bad off the Tower was (I believe this is the point of the story) but the good point I was talking about is that it wasn't a surprise that he would choose the Tower over Jake.

Even though that's a bad choice


Do we really know that he let Susan die for the Tower, though? It's not as if the crystal showed him what was happening until it was too late. There might be something in the comics that I missed. I only own the first issue of the first arc, so I could be missing something critical. I think he believes that he let Susan die, but the way I read W&G is that by the time Roland saw what was going on, it was far too late to do anything. Events had progressed to the point that there was no saving anyone. It's not as if he dropped her.

I've not yet voted because I want to be sure that I understand the question. If I were Roland, of course I would let Jake drop. If I were me, I'm not sure I would be in exactly the circumstances that Roland was to face that choice. Walter would've been long dead. :shoot: Seriously, though, it would be a difficult choice, but you know... Jake was rather annoying in book one. :evil: :innocent:

Letti
05-02-2008, 04:03 AM
Why was Jake annoying to you?

Woofer
05-02-2008, 04:48 AM
It's more of a reflection on me than on Jake. I'm not a kid person. I'm so not a kid person that I made sure I won't ever have one. However, I understand exactly why he acted the way he did. He'd been through a great trauma, what with dying and all, and was going through another at the time. Knowing what we know now about Jake possessing the touch, he undoubtedly felt his impending second death. So while he was perfectly justified, I would've been hugely annoyed. I think I missed out on the patience gene. It is the reason that I chose not to go into teaching.

By the way, when I am around kids IRL, I do not show this. Well, as a rule. :evil: In fact, kids seem to love me. It's freaky. :unsure:

Go ahead. Pelt me with tomatoes.

Letti
05-02-2008, 05:01 AM
But Jake didn't act like a kid, did he? Not like a typical kid.

Woofer
05-02-2008, 05:08 AM
See, that's what I mean about it being more about me. He probably wasn't excessively whiny, and I do understand he certainly had reasons - unlike a kid crying over a dropped ice cream.

Letti
05-02-2008, 05:14 AM
See, that's what I mean about it being more about me. He probably wasn't excessively whiny, and I do understand he certainly had reasons - unlike a kid crying over a dropped ice cream.

I see, thank you for the explanation. :)

Jean
05-02-2008, 05:43 AM
Woofer: it must be that we're not human, neither of us... I don't like kids, either (though they do like me for some unfathomable reason); I do like to read about kids, though (for some other unfathomable reason), but I didn't like Jake anyway - he is my least favorite of the Ka-tet - maybe precisely because to my mind he was not depicted as a real kid. His horrible experience might indeed have had something to do with that - namely, that sai King tried his best to imagine a kid who would go through such set of circumstanses, and somehow failed, as a result presenting him as a conglomerate of kid and adult features

obscurejude
05-02-2008, 07:59 AM
Interesting points Jean. I have often felt that we (as the reader) being able to accept Jake as a gunslinger at the end of Wolves is a little premature. He is not my least favorite of the tet though.

SpektR
05-09-2008, 11:36 AM
goddamn! I think ill vacate till i finish the story. Bye

Matt
05-09-2008, 12:29 PM
hahahahahah

Probably a good idea SpektR--we should have some forums on whatever book you are up to though.

Ka-tet
05-09-2008, 01:25 PM
I cant answer. because i truly dont know.

Jean
05-09-2008, 10:36 PM
I cant answer. because i truly dont know.
I don't think we - any of us who voted - actually know; it's one of those questions that can't really be answered a priori, because no man knows himself so fully; moreover, the circumstances that would bring us to such a choice would change us and make us different from what we're now, sitting here and voting. More correctly, the question should be (I believe that's what is implied): what choice do you feel now you would make?

obscurejude
05-10-2008, 03:01 PM
I cant answer. because i truly dont know.
I don't think we - any of us who voted - actually know; it's one of those questions that can't really be answered a priori, because no man knows himself so fully; moreover, the circumstances that would bring us to such a choice would change us and make us different from what we're now, sitting here and voting. More correctly, the question should be (I believe that's what is implied): what choice do you feel now you would make?

Jean, while I absolutely love this answer, Scout is only 16. He's probably still sorting through a priori and sub priori epistemologies. :D

Jean
05-11-2008, 12:02 AM
obscure - I bet when you were 16, you already could find your way in complex things, whatever the terminology. (I wish you could have met Frunobulax when he was 16... where is he again, by the way???????)

Darkthoughts
05-11-2008, 05:10 AM
I voted no, but I'm sure you knew I would ;)

Woofer
05-21-2008, 04:24 AM
I still can't vote because there's no third option. If I were as Roland was, yes I would have dropped him. If I were me... I'd like to think not, but who knows truly?

Letti
05-25-2008, 12:49 AM
In fact we can know nothing truely.

Brice
05-25-2008, 06:23 AM
In fact we can know nothing truely.

Not even that. :P

mia/susannah
05-25-2008, 06:30 AM
Unfortunately, as much as I would not want to, yes, I think I would have to let Jake fall.

LemurJones
06-03-2008, 09:08 PM
The difference between Roland and me is that Roland let Jake fall because he wanted to see the tower. It's not like he really cared one way or the other that him seeing it would save it.

Whereas I wouldn't let Jake fall so that I could see something, even if it's the tower. If you believe in the White like Roland supposedly did, then you can't believe it's only for big things. The White goes all the way up and all the way down.

Maybe it's because my littlest brothers are getting to Jake's age, but if I wouldn't let them fall- even for the universe- then I wouldn't let some other child fall either.

Ves'Ka Gan
06-03-2008, 09:45 PM
I don't have children of my own, but my friends' children mean the world to me. Even some of them that I think are annoying little bitches, I just couldn't imagine letting them die.

Letti
06-05-2008, 10:52 PM
Maybe it's because my littlest brothers are getting to Jake's age, but if I wouldn't let them fall- even for the universe- then I wouldn't let some other child fall either.

Same here. My little brother is 10 years old and he is such a little angel. Nothing could buy me to drop him. That's how I feel.

Woofer
06-06-2008, 02:59 AM
Wow. This poll is literally 50/50.

My vote would have to be: I don't know. It would depend on the circumstances and who I am at the time.

But that option's not up there.

Letti
06-06-2008, 12:42 PM
Wow. This poll is literally 50/50.

My vote would have to be: I don't know. It would depend on the circumstances and who I am at the time.

But that option's not up there.

You know the circumstances, don't you?

John_and_Yoko
06-06-2008, 01:14 PM
I voted "no," but fear it may have been for selfish reasons....

Like I wouldn't want to live with the guilt if I didn't--even the guilt of pondering, even for an instant, the idea of leaving him if it meant catching up to Walter sooner (or weighing the merits and flaws of each decision logically before doing so, leaving him hanging while I did that).

But the part about Roland himself possibly falling disturbs me--I doubt if I'd have the courage to face that.... :(

Matt
06-06-2008, 02:20 PM
The difference between Roland and me is that Roland let Jake fall because he wanted to see the tower. It's not like he really cared one way or the other that him seeing it would save it.

Whereas I wouldn't let Jake fall so that I could see something, even if it's the tower. If you believe in the White like Roland supposedly did, then you can't believe it's only for big things. The White goes all the way up and all the way down.

Maybe it's because my littlest brothers are getting to Jake's age, but if I wouldn't let them fall- even for the universe- then I wouldn't let some other child fall either.

I believe this is the key to Roland getting out personally. And I wouldn't let him fall either. Not for any Tower anywhere. You sell yourself that way.

alinda
06-06-2008, 02:45 PM
After having adopted and rasied 3 boys on my own (special needs too)
I have on occasion (like after viewing the film The Good Son) had fantasy
dreams of dropping them off a cliff, but no I couldnt do it at all. ever, no matter what, even to my own death.

Darkthoughts
06-07-2008, 05:58 AM
I believe this is the key to Roland getting out personally. And I wouldn't let him fall either. Not for any Tower anywhere. You sell yourself that way.

me-----> :couple: <-----you

Woofer
06-10-2008, 04:04 AM
Wow. This poll is literally 50/50.

My vote would have to be: I don't know. It would depend on the circumstances and who I am at the time.

But that option's not up there.

You know the circumstances, don't you?

True, Letti, I know the circumstances within the book, but would they be the same if Roland's boots were on my feet (rubbing blisters, no doubt, as I'm certain they'd be too big (double entendres intentional)). What I mean is that if I were in Roland's place, then the circumstances at that moment could be completely different. I might've let Tull sooner or stayed with Brown longer.

Assuming, however, that the circumstances are the same and I am the person Roland was at that moment, then I'm sure I would. Assuming it's me walking that path, then I have no idea because I'm not sure we'd even be at that particular juncture.

All of which, of course, leaves me incapable of choosing yes or no for this poll!

:grouphug:

Mark
06-10-2008, 10:11 AM
I'd let him drop, even if knew everything afterwards. My personal belief is Jake has to fall for Roland to reach the tower, and if he doesn't fall, Roland will never reach his tower, which, in one way could be seen as redemption, as he'd never have to repeat the loses and such.

In another perspective, if Roland DOESN'T reach the tower, it will crumble anyway, so, Jake has to fall.

Ka-tet
07-17-2008, 04:01 PM
I cant answer. because i truly dont know.
I don't think we - any of us who voted - actually know; it's one of those questions that can't really be answered a priori, because no man knows himself so fully; moreover, the circumstances that would bring us to such a choice would change us and make us different from what we're now, sitting here and voting. More correctly, the question should be (I believe that's what is implied): what choice do you feel now you would make?

Jean, while I absolutely love this answer, Scout is only 16. He's probably still sorting through a priori and sub priori epistemologies. :D

I shall then make my choice then sai, no i would not have droped the boy. In my heart i do not think i could be able to cause the death of another human being.

Ka-tet
07-17-2008, 04:03 PM
I'd let him drop, even if knew everything afterwards. My personal belief is Jake has to fall for Roland to reach the tower, and if he doesn't fall, Roland will never reach his tower, which, in one way could be seen as redemption, as he'd never have to repeat the loses and such.

In another perspective, if Roland DOESN'T reach the tower, it will crumble anyway, so, Jake has to fall.


My friend the question is "knowing what roland knew" not being roland. Yes maybe Roland had to let the boy die to reach the tower but your not roland.

Could YOU have let the boy drop?

Letti
07-17-2008, 10:47 PM
I think if the question was "What would you do if you were Roland" it would get meaningless.

ManOfWesternesse
07-18-2008, 12:02 AM
My answer is No, I could not drop him.

Matt
07-22-2008, 02:08 PM
My answer is still the same. No way in hell I would drop him.

And I believe, after all these years, that is the point of the story.

Obsession is never good.

Brainslinger
07-28-2008, 09:53 AM
I wouldn't either. At least I hope not...

Even if the destruction of the universe was the other option... it would just seem something out there while the hanging boy was right here and now (to quote a certain furry friend from another book.)

Not sure if that paragraph makes sense... I could phrase things better sometimes.

And lets fact it, Walter is hardly the most trustworthy person in the world is he? If I were in Roland's shoes (and I understand this thread is about knowing in hindsight, but please bear with me) how would I know I'd get the information I required if I caught up with Walter anyway? Sure water(Walter)flows downhill etc, but even with hindsight I'm not sure Walter really gave much information away.

Mind you his information did lead to the doorways, and it's possible Roland might have taken another route from the place of bones... yet I can't help thinking his road would have still led to the beach. Even though it was a bit of a roundabout route.

Whitey Appleseed
12-24-2008, 06:04 PM
I hope never to be in such a situation. I voted no. (Evened up the vote.) Then I looked at the different versions again, original and revised. The choice definitely provided Roland with a different destiny,here the tracks had been worn away, under the sun of reason, and it was if they had never been. He didn't actually drop him, though, did he, he stepped over where Jake dangled, his legs carried him in a sudden leap through the entropy that held him, aboe the dangling boy... Yeah, okay, nitpicker's club, he did drop him.

What does the imagery suggest about his choice, though? The tracks ended there. They'd been pumping through the dark, on the track laid out for them, the track that was there, a predestination of sorts, symbolically if nothing else. Wouldn't the correct choice, if such a thing exists, to have taken up farming with Brown, in the desert? We know what would have happened if Roland would have stopped, grabbed Jake by the wrists, and pulled. It would have ended there. We'd be out a story, or a longer story, but the tracks still ended there.

Brainslinger
12-25-2008, 07:17 PM
We know what would have happened if Roland would have stopped, grabbed Jake by the wrists, and pulled. It would have ended there. We'd be out a story, or a longer story, but the tracks still ended there.

Well, he probably wouldn't have caught up with Walter if he'd rescued Jake. I'm not certain the quest would be up though. Walter gave hims some interesting information as to the nature of the Tower and the multiverse, but not a whole lot concerning his immediate quest (and he wouldn't need to understand all that to continue his quest.)

Of course Walter also told him to go to the beach where the drawing took place, so I suppose it's possible he might not have drawn the others. On the other hand, it's ka they should meet... so maybe he would have still made his way down there anyway. Water flows downhill.... etc.

Interesting food for thought.

Drawing of the Three and The Waste Lands spoilers:
I wonder what would have happened if he had still prevented Mort from killing Jake's younger self in those circumstances? Would his Jake have winked out? Would his memory have split again, Jakes' here, not here, requiring the whole rigmarole with the doorway later, pretty much as it happened? Hmmm.

Asharak
06-06-2012, 03:32 AM
10 pages, and nobody has mentioned the fact that the entire bridge was collapsing? As described Roland just barely got out in time before the entire thing fell into the abyss. If he had tried to save Jake he would have died as well, though emotionally it would have probably felt better to just try anyway.

I can’t really see how one single boys life could be worth the destruction of the tower, and by that extension all worlds and existence itself, past, present and future being destroyed.

Delah
06-06-2012, 12:46 PM
I always figured the bridge collapsed as a way to let the reader know that Jake was really dead -- otherwise, who's to say he couldn't just do a chin up and walk away later, off camera? Plus, if Roland doesn't spend however many moments agonizing over whether to bend over and pick Jake up, if he - theoretically -- picked Jake up immediately after he fell, he'd still have time to get to solid ground.

To answer the poll, no, I wouldn't have dropped Jake. To expand, I don't see it as a choice between the Tower (and infinite universes, blah blah) and the life of one boy. I did initially, but on re-reads I gained a different perspective. Roland's not trading Jake's life for saving the Tower or even seeing the Tower -- although that's what Roland tells himself. Roland trades Jake's life for a conversation with Walter. Roland knows the MIB has information about the Tower. He doesn't know what, he doesn't know how helpful it is, he doesn't even know who the MIB is, if he'll lie or tell the truth. He just knows the man has information he wants, information that may help him get to the Tower, and the MIB makes it clear that the price of that information, of any conversation, is Jake's life. And Roland decides to pay it. Well, Jake pays it, but you get the idea.

What continues to stun me on further re-reads of the series is how Roland, who is so practical and pragmatic, never actually realizes how royally he screws himself over by letting Jake die. If you choose -- somehow -- to disregard the morality of him allowing an 11 year old boy to die, the fact remains that once Roland gets his coveted conversation with Walter, its. virtually. useless. Like Bev Vincent says in The Road to the Dark Tower; once you funnel out the bull and the metaphysical history lesson, there is only one useful piece of information Roland gets out of his palavar with Walter -- go West. Hip hoo Ray. Roland let Jake die so that he could get Triple AAA approved directions to the Tower. Never mind that there are other parts of the series where Roland chooses directions at Random -- like in W&G, when they've fallen off the Beam -- and he chooses correctly. Never mind that there are only two choices of direction where Roland can go anyway. He's told to the West and he gets verification of what the oracle already told him -- that he needs three to reach the Tower. Of course, what the Oracle and Walter don't tell him is that Jake is one of those three.

I understand -- and its stated various times in later books -- that Roland doens't like to think about dropping Jake, and doesn't want to sit down and write out a pro/con list after he gets Jake back in TWL, but the fact remains that its a huge screw up and from a pragmatic, practical assessment, it gains him virtually nothing. he doesn't get any vital new, useful information on the Crimson King or the Wolves or the Tower itself. He doesn't get any new abilities -- the power of drawing is already in him, Walter says that. He gets the info on going west. I guess that's one for the pro column. But the negative consequences are so enormous: he loses the first member of his new ka-tet, he kills someone he loves on purpose, he creates the circumstances that lead to the later paradox, which eventually lead to him having to draw Jake again and therefore lead to Susannah, the speaking Ring and Mordred. And he damns himself. He gains virtually nothing. Killing Jake doesn't save the Tower; it doesn't get him to the Tower any sooner and it doesn't give him any essential information about the Tower or the journey there that Roland hadn't already heard before.

stone, rose, unfound door
06-11-2012, 02:41 PM
I agree with ManOfWesternesse that saving Jake would not damn the Tower. However, Roland never had to save Jake. He should have because he already loved Jake from the start, or he wouldn't have brought him along at all. Roland in TG was not exactly the sentimental type so why would he rescue Jake if he didn't feel that the kid could be important for him? This makes dropping Jake even odder, though.