What would have happened if... ?

[Renee]

I don't expect any responses to this because I'm pretty sure no one ever responded to anything else I've posted, which is ok. Its kinda like you all have your little Dark Tower community and there are still some outsiders, but meh.

I finished the book (or series, how ever you choose to look at it) earlier this summer and obviously became obsessed with it. I'd read quite a few of King's novels prior to the Dark Tower, but I guess looking at all 7 installments and how heavy they were ... it was a bit overwhelming, demanding and jarring and I just never got around to it. Now, I'm unemployed and I have all kinds of time on my hands, so ... yeah, I read them all in about a month haha :)

Anyways, the reason for posting this was more for me than anyone or anything else ... I'm horrible at keeping secrets and not being able to contain my thoughts sometimes. When I finished the book, I know a lot of people were upset with the ending, but I think I kinda got it. I mean, this is his magnum opus and he's repeatedly said that the first line of the Gunslinger just caught him and stuck, so to me it seemed fitting and understandable that he'd end it with the way it began. But my first response when I realized he was back in the desert was "What if this is a perpetual "Groundhog's Day" for Roland?" I mean, he's done some really shitty stuff, not always on purpose, but still - killed his own mother, sacrificed Jake, sacrificed EVERYTHING, all in the name of the Dark Tower. What if ka is waiting for him to get it right? I just kept thinking of Bill Murray waking up to "I Got You Babe" LOL I know it sounds ridiculous, but come on. Roland is, to an extent, a fairly predictable guy. He'll do anything to get to the Dark Tower. He keeps starting over in the desert when he reaches the Tower, so what if ka is trying to get him to change something - change everything.

What I'm going to say next is MIND BLOWING (to me lol) and therefore requires the dramatic space ...


What if Roland didn't let Jake drop?

Think about it. Jake hanging over the abyss? It was just Walter's spin on Rhea of the Coos illusion that tricked Roland into killing his mother. Those doors would have been on the beach either way - the palaver with Walter, it was basically him getting his fortune read. And it was Walter just making Roland squirm a bit more with guilt for killing a boy who loved him.

All I'm saying is ... what if someone (preferably King, but I dunno if he'd do it) started a new book, after the incident at the abyss, but instead of letting Jake fall, Roland saves him? What if ka put Roland on a path that would, of course lead him to the Deans and Oy and Devar-Toi and everything else, but just with new, updated directions? What if him saving Jake lead him to an additional door where ... maybe, where his original ka-tet (Alain and Cuthbert) was?

I dunno. It was just something rolling around in my head since I finished the book. Its a great series ... there are a lot of grammatical errors (lol) within the installments, but I remember in one of his forewards King said something about New Yorkers please forgive him for his geographical errors and later on it turned out those geographical errors (like where Co-Op City really was) were part of the book, the different levels of reality and whatnot. Imagine writing a masterpiece like this and being able to say that most, if not all, the errors you made were crucial to how the book ended. That's a lovely trick on King's part lol

[Brice]

Hi, Renee! I don't really have alot of time right now so, i'm just gonna address your very first point for now. There really are no outsiders unless they choose to be such. Stick around and post and you'll find most of us highly receptive to others. You've made two posts. You probably should give us a chance to reject you before you decide we will. :P For now I'll refer you to your favorite DT quote.

[Letti]

I don't expect any responses to this because I'm pretty sure no one ever responded to anything else I've posted, which is ok. Its kinda like you all have your little Dark Tower community and there are still some outsiders, but meh.

It's really not about our little Dark Tower community and I do know how you feel. I remember being a newbie. It was horrible. :) But that's not the case now. Most of us have been talking about DT topics for more than 5 years. Although the Dark Tower is the deepest book I have ever read still many of the people come to the point when they don't feel like talking about every aspect of the book anymore.
And as much as I see this is your second Dark Tower related post. Give us more from you, we are totally eager to meet new DT junkies, believe me. :)

There are some really kickass threads about the ending here on this site in the Dark Tower 7 section and if you look around there you will see that you are not alone with this idea however they are MANY interpretations.
For my part I think
at this loop he still let Jake drop but I think every loop is different and the only way to break the curse he is in to choose Jake over the Tower.

[Brice]

Letti is wise and says what i would say much better than i ever will.

[OchrisO]

I always figured it was a sort of cycle that he would repeat until he changed some stuff. I thought that the time depicted in the book was where he started making some right choices, though and that is why he finds the horn. I figure this time through, he will have the horn with him and it will remind him of his previous losses and make him choose differently. One of those has to be his letting Jake drop. He will think of the horn, remember when all of his friends died before and not want it to happen again.

[Brice]

Maybe not this time, but sometime.

[ur2ndbiggestfan]

I actually never thought about it that way before (letting or not letting Jake drop). But I read the books YEARS apart and not all in one reading, so that may have had something to do with it. It's an interesting point though, and maybe if I had thought about it the ending wouldn't have been so unsatisfactory to me.

However, I still pretty much disliked the last 3 books for their style, turns of phrase, etc. I've read the first 4 at least twice each. Renee, you ALMOST make me want to read them all in a row now to see if doing that will make me enjoy the saga more. We'll see... and thanks for the thought provoking points you've made.

[Brice]

It is definitely time for a reread.

[Chap]

Welcome aboard Renee!
Don't let the community scare you, it's a wonderful bunch of people. (well, except Brice. he's kinda scary :nope: )
I recently came back to this site after a long hiatus, and I can relate to how it is to be new. Just keep posting, both in DT threads and off topic sections, and you'll soon be one of us :borg:

as for the topic, I think the horn must have some huge significance to why he repeats, and what he should do. It's the only thing that changed from the first (or is it?) time around, so it has to mean something.
Maybe each "run" changes Roland a little to the core, and makes him care less for the tower and more for his companions. Maybe he's meant to reach it with the full Ka-tet to bring balance to Ka, or whatever :lol:

[Renee]

I meant no offense by my crabby comment about "outsiders" and the the DT community. Someone replied with saying that they'll refer to my favorite DT quote, which is of course Cort's "Fault always lies in him weak enough to lay blame." I'm not blaming anyone for anything - although valid points were brought up that I only posted a couple times before this so ... that's my fault. I just wasn't sure that regulars on here would read a thread by someone who isn't quite a regular :) No harm, no foul ... No bounce, no play in other words. Great advice.

Anyways, if I'm being completely and 100% honest ... I COULD NOT understand Browning's poem. I cheated and looked up the Sparknotes summary on it. I get that King was trying to follow the poem throughout the book; in my opinion, he got off subject quite often and (I hate saying this because it sounds so critical and mean) it kinda looked like he forgot that he started this based off of the poem and towards the end it was like "Oh, shit how can I incorporate the poem back into this, when I've already jumped so far off base?". Don't get me wrong, I love the book, but that's just my opinion. I'll have to do another read through, but in Wizard and Glass, where Roland primarily talks about his experience with Alain, Cuthbert, and Susan in Madras I don't remember seeing anything about Cuthbert's horn in there - I could be wrong tho. I have a horrible memory and to be fair there were thousands of pages lol But to me, the whole thing with the horn - it just seemed like a last minute "Oh damn I forgot to mention this" thing.

I saw someone else on here said something about the tone and style of the last three books - I agree. They were so much different then the first four. I think if King would have stuck with the flow he was following - even though it got off base from the Browning poem - I think he could have really blown all of our minds. I dunno. I put a lot of (sometimes too much) thought into things - kind of what Roland's father said about Roland in regards to the riddles haha

It really is just stuck in my head - if he pulled Jake up from the abyss, ditched his palaver with Walter, and headed for the beach anyways - what would happen? I keep thinking that Roland and Jake would both know that their path has changed dramatically. Dreams are a big deal in the series and I just keep wondering, also, what if they start having dreams of a door (a different door) that would lead Roland back to before the battle on Jericho hill. What if old, ancient Roland saw himself - warned himself. Its very Groundhog's Day/Back to the Future lol

[Chap]

The horn was mentioned many times throughout the series. Maybe not in Wizard and Glass (haven't read it in ages), but several other times. They lost the horn at Jericho Hill (I think), so Roland didn't bring it to his journey towards the tower.
Yet, the second (?) time around the horn is right there with him. So something changed, which some think could mean that the story the books tell isn't Roland's first time.
I think the horn is crucial to understanding what happens. Not the horn itself, of course, but how he suddenly has it with him.

[Letti]

Anyways, if I'm being completely and 100% honest ... I COULD NOT understand Browning's poem. I cheated and looked up the Sparknotes summary on it. I get that King was trying to follow the poem throughout the book; in my opinion, he got off subject quite often and (I hate saying this because it sounds so critical and mean) it kinda looked like he forgot that he started this based off of the poem and towards the end it was like "Oh, shit how can I incorporate the poem back into this, when I've already jumped so far off base?". Don't get me wrong, I love the book, but that's just my opinion. I'll have to do another read through, but in Wizard and Glass, where Roland primarily talks about his experience with Alain, Cuthbert, and Susan in Madras I don't remember seeing anything about Cuthbert's horn in there - I could be wrong tho. I have a horrible memory and to be fair there were thousands of pages lol But to me, the whole thing with the horn - it just seemed like a last minute "Oh damn I forgot to mention this" thing.

Roland does talk about the horn before book 7 and the significance of it. He was deeply ashamed of himself that he didn't take it from his dying friend Cuthbert. I think he talks about it in WaG or in WotC.

I think King never really wanted to follow that poem precisely. That poem was the kiss of the muse so it's really important, it was meant to be some kind of a thread... but not a strict one.

[flaggwalkstheline]

hi renee! welcome to the site

you'll notice that the more you talk/ think about the ending of dt7 the further down the rabbit hole it goes and the crazier it seems
it's a regular subject here and it seems to lead into big questions about free will, god/gan, destiny and time travel
the fact that it can do that to one's brain is the very reason I like it so much

so to your question about "what if Roland didn't let jake drop?"

A certain dark wizard already created that paradox
there was a boy/there wasn't a boy

[Chap]

Agreed Letti :couple:
I have never, and will never, see the books as a "novelization" of the poem. Childe Roland ... is inspiration, maybe the spark that got the wheel turning. But it's not the wheel itself.

[ur2ndbiggestfan]

The only types of poems I understand are the ones that start, Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, I like Stephen King, How about YOU?

By the way, GROUNDHOG DAY is, believe it or not, on my top 10 best movies of all time list.

[Letti]

The only types of poems I understand are the ones that start, Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, I like Stephen King, How about YOU?

By the way, GROUNDHOG DAY is, believe it or not, on my top 10 best movies of all time list.

We have a poet here. :) Great.
I am crazy about Groundhog Day. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen it.

[DoctorDodge]

you'll notice that the more you talk/ think about the ending of dt7 the further down the rabbit hole it goes and the crazier it seems
it's a regular subject here and it seems to lead into big questions about free will, god/gan, destiny and time travel
the fact that it can do that to one's brain is the very reason I like it so much

You have no idea how much I think about that kind of stuff. Not just with the Dark Tower, but also in general. Well, when I say "in general", I mean as a source for writing. I think long and hard for ages about how different choices can change someone's life so radically, especially when matters of time are concerned. (For this obsessive thinking, I blame two sources: one, The Waste Lands and the paradox of Jake, and two, It's a Wonderful Life. Maybe one particular audio story from my favourite show, too.)

It's funny how you can come up with huge, epic ideas on a daily basis, but writing a story like that can be a real bastard! Why I have so much respect for King, especially with The Waste Lands: it's only a part of the story, and yet it's still treated wonderfully.

Anyway, as for Roland not letting Jake fall...god, that's a tricky one. Gonna have to waste some more time theorising on that little nugget. Thanks, renee! (No really, thanks, as you may have guessed, I always love obsessing over neat little ideas and theories like this! Welcome to the board!)

[Jean]

as far as Roland's not letting Jake fall is concerned, I don't think it would ever come to this

The Roland who doesn't let Jake fall is a different kind of person than the one who killed the whole population of Tull, kids including. If he does the latter, he does the former. If he does not kill them in Tull, he just dies there. The Tull, not the Jake incident, is the turning point.

What will happen if he chooses to die in Tull is an entirely different question, the one I've already tried to answer somewhere (if it wasn't at .net, that is).

[DoctorDodge]

Holy shit, bears, that's a very excellent point. Of course now I'm wondering what would have happened if he had never lost his fingers in book 2, as really thinking about it, that could've been another significant turning point for the character, only this time for the better: his lost fingers may have reminded him that he was still human, that he wasn't invincible as he seemed to be when he was firing his guns, but a man of flesh and blood. What would have happened if he hadn't fallen asleep on the beach, or slept higher up, if he had never lost his fingers? Would that have changed him? He would've still been dependent on Eddie for guidance in New York, but not as totally dependent as he was. I don't know, maybe it wouldn't have been that much different after all, but still, I've gotta wonder about this kind of stuff.

[Delah]

Well, one major difference would that, if Roland doesn't drop Jake, than we don't get any Mordred/Mia. There's no reason for the ka-tet to go into the 2nd speaking ring in the Waste Lands except to get Jake back, so unless King invented another reason, that path would significantly alter Roland's trip to the Tower.

As for Roland's fingers, maybe if he doesn't drop Jake, he doesn't lose them. If he doesn't go on his long strange trip with Walter, he's not too exhausted to climb further up the beach -- or, if he's got Jake with him, maybe he uses the Touch to figure out something is wrong with sleeping that close to the shore. Regardless, I do believe that Roland not dropping Jake would change a huge amount of the story. It is the correction Roland needs to make.

I've always seen this decision by Roland, dropping Jake, as the key decision he makes, the major one that would change the series and Roland's path, and I thought King made that clear throughout the entire series. I've never seen Tull as important as Jake's death under the mountains, which is referenced and discussed and mentioned time and again by various characters throughout the series, unlike the massacre in Tull. I do remember wondering why Jake's death damns Roland (Roland's words) when killing the kids in Tull does not, but King does declare that Roland was initially "fun to saddle up with" and write about, evidently including Tull ... and says that it is Roland's betrayal of Jake that makes him not like Roland as a character anymore.

[Merlin1958]

I, personally, have always felt that Roland dropping Jake in the mountains was not germaine due to the time travel paradox's. However many feel otherwise. Somehow, and I can't identify it, I think something else in his journey is the "key" choice he has to make to finally break the "loop". But hey, that's just me!!!

[pathoftheturtle]

We love newbies here. This has quickly turned into one of the most spirited DT discussions I've seen in quite a while. Seems like that's how we do it: counting on fresh blood to make the regulars feel like talking about every aspect of the books again. Thanks for your interesting questions.


... (I hate saying this because it sounds so critical and mean) it kinda looked like he forgot that he started this based off of the poem and towards the end it was like "Oh, shit how can I incorporate the poem back into this, when I've already jumped so far off base?". ...I think maybe there is some validity in this impression. IMO though, it's only the first book that was really close to the spirit of the poem. Perhaps King was somewhat locked into a different style once he had made a name for himself, one that's kind of at odds with Browning's ambiguity.
Roland does talk about the horn before book 7 and the significance of it. He was deeply ashamed of himself that he didn't take it from his dying friend Cuthbert. I think he talks about it in WaG or in WotC.I'm just about completely certain that it was not WaG. Maybe WotC. Probably SoS.
as far as Roland's not letting Jake fall is concerned, I don't think it would ever come to this

The Roland who doesn't let Jake fall is a different kind of person than the one who killed the whole population of Tull, kids including. If he does the latter, he does the former. If he does not kill them in Tull, he just dies there. The Tull, not the Jake incident, is the turning point.

What will happen if he chooses to die in Tull is an entirely different question, the one I've already tried to answer somewhere (if it wasn't at .net, that is).I remember at least one example on .net, but this way of putting that... :orely:

[Brice]

I meant no offense by my crabby comment about "outsiders" and the the DT community. Someone replied with saying that they'll refer to my favorite DT quote, which is of course Cort's "Fault always lies in him weak enough to lay blame." I'm not blaming anyone for anything - although valid points were brought up that I only posted a couple times before this so ... that's my fault. I just wasn't sure that regulars on here would read a thread by someone who isn't quite a regular :) No harm, no foul ... No bounce, no play in other words. Great advice.

Anyways, if I'm being completely and 100% honest ... I COULD NOT understand Browning's poem. I cheated and looked up the Sparknotes summary on it. I get that King was trying to follow the poem throughout the book; in my opinion, he got off subject quite often and (I hate saying this because it sounds so critical and mean) it kinda looked like he forgot that he started this based off of the poem and towards the end it was like "Oh, shit how can I incorporate the poem back into this, when I've already jumped so far off base?". Don't get me wrong, I love the book, but that's just my opinion. I'll have to do another read through, but in Wizard and Glass, where Roland primarily talks about his experience with Alain, Cuthbert, and Susan in Madras I don't remember seeing anything about Cuthbert's horn in there - I could be wrong tho. I have a horrible memory and to be fair there were thousands of pages lol But to me, the whole thing with the horn - it just seemed like a last minute "Oh damn I forgot to mention this" thing.

I saw someone else on here said something about the tone and style of the last three books - I agree. They were so much different then the first four. I think if King would have stuck with the flow he was following - even though it got off base from the Browning poem - I think he could have really blown all of our minds. I dunno. I put a lot of (sometimes too much) thought into things - kind of what Roland's father said about Roland in regards to the riddles haha

It really is just stuck in my head - if he pulled Jake up from the abyss, ditched his palaver with Walter, and headed for the beach anyways - what would happen? I keep thinking that Roland and Jake would both know that their path has changed dramatically. Dreams are a big deal in the series and I just keep wondering, also, what if they start having dreams of a door (a different door) that would lead Roland back to before the battle on Jericho hill. What if old, ancient Roland saw himself - warned himself. Its very Groundhog's Day/Back to the Future lol

Renee, if I came across at all harsh or unkind in my post it wasn't intended so.

[OchrisO]

I meant no offense by my crabby comment about "outsiders" and the the DT community. Someone replied with saying that they'll refer to my favorite DT quote, which is of course Cort's "Fault always lies in him weak enough to lay blame." I'm not blaming anyone for anything - although valid points were brought up that I only posted a couple times before this so ... that's my fault. I just wasn't sure that regulars on here would read a thread by someone who isn't quite a regular :) No harm, no foul ... No bounce, no play in other words. Great advice.

Anyways, if I'm being completely and 100% honest ... I COULD NOT understand Browning's poem. I cheated and looked up the Sparknotes summary on it. I get that King was trying to follow the poem throughout the book; in my opinion, he got off subject quite often and (I hate saying this because it sounds so critical and mean) it kinda looked like he forgot that he started this based off of the poem and towards the end it was like "Oh, shit how can I incorporate the poem back into this, when I've already jumped so far off base?". Don't get me wrong, I love the book, but that's just my opinion. I'll have to do another read through, but in Wizard and Glass, where Roland primarily talks about his experience with Alain, Cuthbert, and Susan in Madras I don't remember seeing anything about Cuthbert's horn in there - I could be wrong tho. I have a horrible memory and to be fair there were thousands of pages lol But to me, the whole thing with the horn - it just seemed like a last minute "Oh damn I forgot to mention this" thing.

I saw someone else on here said something about the tone and style of the last three books - I agree. They were so much different then the first four. I think if King would have stuck with the flow he was following - even though it got off base from the Browning poem - I think he could have really blown all of our minds. I dunno. I put a lot of (sometimes too much) thought into things - kind of what Roland's father said about Roland in regards to the riddles haha

It really is just stuck in my head - if he pulled Jake up from the abyss, ditched his palaver with Walter, and headed for the beach anyways - what would happen? I keep thinking that Roland and Jake would both know that their path has changed dramatically. Dreams are a big deal in the series and I just keep wondering, also, what if they start having dreams of a door (a different door) that would lead Roland back to before the battle on Jericho hill. What if old, ancient Roland saw himself - warned himself. Its very Groundhog's Day/Back to the Future lol

Renee, if I came across at all harsh or unkind in my post it wasn't intended so.

Stop lying to the girl, she is already wary of us.

[Brice]

I meant no offense by my crabby comment about "outsiders" and the the DT community. Someone replied with saying that they'll refer to my favorite DT quote, which is of course Cort's "Fault always lies in him weak enough to lay blame." I'm not blaming anyone for anything - although valid points were brought up that I only posted a couple times before this so ... that's my fault. I just wasn't sure that regulars on here would read a thread by someone who isn't quite a regular :) No harm, no foul ... No bounce, no play in other words. Great advice.

Anyways, if I'm being completely and 100% honest ... I COULD NOT understand Browning's poem. I cheated and looked up the Sparknotes summary on it. I get that King was trying to follow the poem throughout the book; in my opinion, he got off subject quite often and (I hate saying this because it sounds so critical and mean) it kinda looked like he forgot that he started this based off of the poem and towards the end it was like "Oh, shit how can I incorporate the poem back into this, when I've already jumped so far off base?". Don't get me wrong, I love the book, but that's just my opinion. I'll have to do another read through, but in Wizard and Glass, where Roland primarily talks about his experience with Alain, Cuthbert, and Susan in Madras I don't remember seeing anything about Cuthbert's horn in there - I could be wrong tho. I have a horrible memory and to be fair there were thousands of pages lol But to me, the whole thing with the horn - it just seemed like a last minute "Oh damn I forgot to mention this" thing.

I saw someone else on here said something about the tone and style of the last three books - I agree. They were so much different then the first four. I think if King would have stuck with the flow he was following - even though it got off base from the Browning poem - I think he could have really blown all of our minds. I dunno. I put a lot of (sometimes too much) thought into things - kind of what Roland's father said about Roland in regards to the riddles haha

It really is just stuck in my head - if he pulled Jake up from the abyss, ditched his palaver with Walter, and headed for the beach anyways - what would happen? I keep thinking that Roland and Jake would both know that their path has changed dramatically. Dreams are a big deal in the series and I just keep wondering, also, what if they start having dreams of a door (a different door) that would lead Roland back to before the battle on Jericho hill. What if old, ancient Roland saw himself - warned himself. Its very Groundhog's Day/Back to the Future lol

Renee, if I came across at all harsh or unkind in my post it wasn't intended so.

Stop lying to the girl, she is already wary of us.

No, it's absolutely true. Now if i come across at all harsh or unkind in my posts to Chris it is sincerely my heartfelt intent. :D

[OchrisO]

I meant no offense by my crabby comment about "outsiders" and the the DT community. Someone replied with saying that they'll refer to my favorite DT quote, which is of course Cort's "Fault always lies in him weak enough to lay blame." I'm not blaming anyone for anything - although valid points were brought up that I only posted a couple times before this so ... that's my fault. I just wasn't sure that regulars on here would read a thread by someone who isn't quite a regular :) No harm, no foul ... No bounce, no play in other words. Great advice.

Anyways, if I'm being completely and 100% honest ... I COULD NOT understand Browning's poem. I cheated and looked up the Sparknotes summary on it. I get that King was trying to follow the poem throughout the book; in my opinion, he got off subject quite often and (I hate saying this because it sounds so critical and mean) it kinda looked like he forgot that he started this based off of the poem and towards the end it was like "Oh, shit how can I incorporate the poem back into this, when I've already jumped so far off base?". Don't get me wrong, I love the book, but that's just my opinion. I'll have to do another read through, but in Wizard and Glass, where Roland primarily talks about his experience with Alain, Cuthbert, and Susan in Madras I don't remember seeing anything about Cuthbert's horn in there - I could be wrong tho. I have a horrible memory and to be fair there were thousands of pages lol But to me, the whole thing with the horn - it just seemed like a last minute "Oh damn I forgot to mention this" thing.

I saw someone else on here said something about the tone and style of the last three books - I agree. They were so much different then the first four. I think if King would have stuck with the flow he was following - even though it got off base from the Browning poem - I think he could have really blown all of our minds. I dunno. I put a lot of (sometimes too much) thought into things - kind of what Roland's father said about Roland in regards to the riddles haha

It really is just stuck in my head - if he pulled Jake up from the abyss, ditched his palaver with Walter, and headed for the beach anyways - what would happen? I keep thinking that Roland and Jake would both know that their path has changed dramatically. Dreams are a big deal in the series and I just keep wondering, also, what if they start having dreams of a door (a different door) that would lead Roland back to before the battle on Jericho hill. What if old, ancient Roland saw himself - warned himself. Its very Groundhog's Day/Back to the Future lol

Renee, if I came across at all harsh or unkind in my post it wasn't intended so.

Stop lying to the girl, she is already wary of us.

No, it's absolutely true. Now if i come across at all harsh or unkind in my posts to Chris it is sincerely my heartfelt intent. :D

I finally feel special for once in my life. Turns out it is sort of a cold and dark feeling.

[Brice]

:lol:

[SalSolomon]

Roland letting Jake drop is a pivotal moment in the saga. If Jake is still alive when they reach the doors on the beach, what happens when Roland enters Jack Mort? Does he still stop Jake's death? After all, Jake will be right next to him. And if Jake's death is not prevented, he won't go meet Cal Tower, but the 2 books, or see the rose. I think Jake was fated to die (Ka). His rebirth at the waystation ended by his fall into the abyss. Roland stops his death at the hands of Mort and then he dies crushed under the car.

[pathoftheturtle]

I think Jake was fated to die (Ka).Not sure that's what ka means. But if you're right, then the big question is whether Roland was fated to go back. Do you think he has any chance to get out of it?

[SalSolomon]

I can see two possibilities: first, Roland will always go back because the world(s) will always need renewal and the White always needs defending. It may be a little different each time (the horn) but it is Roland's destiny to go back and not remember. Second, that the OP's Groundhog Day analogy is the right way to look at it. He has to go back until he gets it right. What does it mean to get it right? I don't think it's possible for us to know with the info we have. Maybe saving Jake is the key. Whatever Roland needs to fix probably has to at least begin in the first book, otherwise, why would that be where he goes back to? For example, it's not to save Susan Delgado, because he doesn't return that far. It can't be Tull, because he doesn't return that far either. I'm rethinking it this morning and it might have to be Jake.
In the first book, he lets Jake drop because to him, the Tower is everything, and even a boy he comes to love must be sacrificed for the tower. Later in the series (after being haunted by letting Jake drop) Eddie asks why the ka-tet can't detour around the Calla and go direct to the Tower and Roland says something like "If we do that we'll never get within a million miles of the Tower." It's almost like he has come to realize that you can't sacrifice the White, love, and light all in the name of the Tower, you have to seek the Tower while defending those things.

[grobblewobble]

Well, one major difference would that, if Roland doesn't drop Jake, than we don't get any Mordred/Mia. There's no reason for the ka-tet to go into the 2nd speaking ring in the Waste Lands except to get Jake back, so unless King invented another reason, that path would significantly alter Roland's trip to the Tower.

As for Roland's fingers, maybe if he doesn't drop Jake, he doesn't lose them.

This was just what I was going to say. I imagine that if Roland would've had Jake with him at the beach, Jake would probably have woke him up just in time to prevent the lobstrosities from harming him.

I don't really agree that the Tull massacre implies that Roland is too selfish to save Jake. Tull was an act of self defense. Leaving behind Jake was not.

[Merlin1958]

Don't look now, but you got yourself a valid thread, my dear!!!

[Girlystevedave]

as far as Roland's not letting Jake fall is concerned, I don't think it would ever come to this

The Roland who doesn't let Jake fall is a different kind of person than the one who killed the whole population of Tull, kids including. If he does the latter, he does the former. If he does not kill them in Tull, he just dies there. The Tull, not the Jake incident, is the turning point.

What will happen if he chooses to die in Tull is an entirely different question, the one I've already tried to answer somewhere (if it wasn't at .net, that is).

You just made my head spin. I thought I had come to grips with Roland's fate and was convinced that Jake was the turning point. I never thought of this before. :doh:

I need to do a re-read. :lol:

This is a great discussion. :)

[mtdman]

as far as Roland's not letting Jake fall is concerned, I don't think it would ever come to this

The Roland who doesn't let Jake fall is a different kind of person than the one who killed the whole population of Tull, kids including. If he does the latter, he does the former. If he does not kill them in Tull, he just dies there. The Tull, not the Jake incident, is the turning point.

What will happen if he chooses to die in Tull is an entirely different question, the one I've already tried to answer somewhere (if it wasn't at .net, that is).


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but iirc the Tull incident happens BEFORE Roland comes back into the loop. We see Roland in DT7 popping into the desert at the point where "The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed." Then Roland goes on to meet up with the farmer and tell him the story of Tull. Tull happens before Roland pops back into the cycle, and when we come into the series in The Gunslinger, it's already happened. We see it in flashback. If what you're saying were true, the cycle cannot end.

IMO, for Roland to break the cycle, he has to find a way to save the Tower without using his friends as pawns. That means no dropping Jake, etc. I don't know if that's possible. Will the tower fall without Roland's intervention? Can Roland stop the attacks on the tower without being a huge dick and taking his friends for granted and using them? Seems to be an impossible task to me. It's kind of a catch 22. He's obsessed with the Tower, and treats all his friends that way and uses them because of his obsession. Yet without that obsession, can the Tower be saved?

[Jean]

the Jericho hill battle too happened before; still something obviously had changed. I am not sure about the nature of the loop at the moment. There may be more catches 22 than one.

[pathoftheturtle]

There is no loop.
It's a lie, a metaphor; Stephen King couldn't tell what really happened. It's this world and we, the readers, that are not prepared for ultimate redemption.

[Jean]

There is no loop.
It's a lie, a metaphor; Stephen King couldn't tell what really happened. It's this world and we, the readers, that are not prepared for ultimate redemption.
Oh, I agree. I've always maintained that he is a visionary, and only vulgarizes his visions by awkward attempts at explanation (It, The Library Policeman and, to a lesser extent, Under the Dome being the most notorious examples). Don't think it's a metaphor, though; a metaphor is only one step away from allegory, and there surely is nothing more vulgar than that?

[pathoftheturtle]

Oh, I agree. I've always maintained that he is a visionary, and only vulgarizes his visions by awkward attempts at explanation (It, The Library Policeman and, to a lesser extent, Under the Dome being the most notorious examples). Don't think it's a metaphor, though; a metaphor is only one step away from allegory, and there surely is nothing more vulgar than that?↑ Very much so. ↑ It, I don't find vulgar. Under the Dome, I'm just now near finishing.
But are you agreeing he vulgarized DT7 by awkward attempts at explanation, or not agreeing? The Rose and Tet Corp are but one half step from allegory, I wot.

[Jean]

I think TDT is an absolute harmony of form and essence - the essence is largely unspeakable, unconceivable, thus the form is so eclectic, with its abysmal pitfalls, quasi-postmodern elements, the dreamlike Gunslinger and seemingly incongruous Childe Roland poem, the commonplace love story and the controversial inclusion of self, etc etc etc - every aspect of the shape seems to scream, "the content doesn't fit into anything consistent or even palatable". So even the apparent allegories might be but desperate attempts at translating a meaning that doesn't fit into any previously known shape; failing to create new shapes (don't know if it is humanly possible, probably not for one man, and not within a lifetime), he pours new wine into old wineskins, and the skins burst. Not that it is a bad thing, either.

[pathoftheturtle]

Agreed, and agreed. Kind of what I was trying to say, yes. I'm still not convinced that he should have died at Tull, (or sure that that's wrong) but I do think that expecting "the loop" to follow straight logic is futile, (much less the mind of Gan) so, that doesn't settle that question for me, either.

[Merlin1958]

Agreed, and agreed. Kind of what I was trying to say, yes. I'm still not convinced that he should have died at Tull, (or sure that that's wrong) but I do think that expecting "the loop" to follow straight logic is futile, (much less the mind of Gan) so, that doesn't settle that question for me, either.

OK Path, my new obsession, your avatar!!!! "Passion of Christ" or Jesus Christ, Superstar"????????

[blavigne]

Agreed, and agreed. Kind of what I was trying to say, yes. I'm still not convinced that he should have died at Tull, (or sure that that's wrong) but I do think that expecting "the loop" to follow straight logic is futile, (much less the mind of Gan) so, that doesn't settle that question for me, either.

OK Path, my new obsession, your avatar!!!! "Passion of Christ" or Jesus Christ, Superstar"????????

I am curious too! I can tell you it is not Ted Neely Jesus Christ Superstar. That is one of my all time favorites ever, great movie, great on stage too.

[pathoftheturtle]

What? What are you guys talking about? The Cupid painting I had up yesterday? Or my current Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan Kenobi image? Just getting in on feev's Star Wars trend...
.. and you know, I frequent the sig/av thread, too.

[DoctorDodge]

Holy shit...

...Obi-Wan is the Jesus of the Star Wars universe! *Mind blown*

[blavigne]

What? What are you guys talking about? The Cupid painting I had up yesterday? Or my current Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan Kenobi image? Just getting in on feev's Star Wars trend...
.. and you know, I frequent the sig/av thread, too.

Ooops caught me out, I don't dislike Star Wars but not a fan either. I confess, I have only seen the very first movie all the way through. :)

[beam*seeker]

Roland has to let Jake drop or give up the quest. He is the Sacrifice. It wouldn't be much of a sacrifice if it didn't hurt or put him into damnation. Isn't this the Roland that believes the ends justify the means? Which is why the sacrifice actually changes him and he decides afterwards that he will not let Jake drop again (and redeems himself in the DoTT.) It is through the sacrifice that he is redeemed from damnation and is "saved" and therefore worthy of the Tower. I definitely agree with the Christ analogy.

[pathoftheturtle]

There are some things that can't be changed. According to certain reports in the books, that includes the timeline of King's world. But there is a basic contradiction between this idea and the changing destiny of Roland via the Dark Tower. This parallels the blurry line between fiction and reality. If there can be a world where Roland never let Jake drop, then shouldn't there be a world where that's what the young SK wrote? What would that do to his career? Would Jake still have had to sacrifice himself to save the writer later? Yet if that world shall/does/already has come into existence somewhere sideways in time, why does this world we live in still need to exist? Just what is the difference between that chaos which the Crimson King seeks to bring about with no Tower and what the multiverse is WITH the Tower? According to DT7, SK would have died if the ka of the rational world had its way, so apparently "ka of the rational world" is not what "the Purpose" means. The Tower can stand on magic alone. But, even though most of us cannot go back in time, (or, perhaps, it's just that we should not do so) there are some things, somehow, that can be changed.

[Bev Vincent]

Here's another "what would have happened if" question that just occurred to me as I near the end of the series yet again. Of course, there's no definitive answer, but I'd like to hear your theories.

What would have happened to the ka-tet if Stephen King died in 1999?

Would they stop existing? Or would they just cast about aimlessly without doing much or getting anywhere? Would they just sit around waiting to be "told" what to do next? Though they rely on King to tell their story, they have lived beyond anything he ever wrote. When Roland and Eddie visit him in Maine, he hasn't written anything beyond the Gunslinger stories and even in 1999 he hasn't written about them going to visit him. So they seem to have the ability to exist above and beyond the written story.

I don't think they would stop existing, because someone else (e.g. Joe) could pick up the story, but I can't help wondering what it would be like for them for God to die.

Things that make you go hmmmmm...

[pathoftheturtle]

"Six Characters in Search of an Author"

[John_Kenton]

Seems to me as dizzying as to speculate about cosmology and what was before the beginning... but I remember at one time during the seven books I started thinking about that 1990s computer game, The Neverhood. Had a lot of fun playing that one, and it gave me a similar sense of wonder as reading DT. Come to think of it, I guess they would exist anyway, because it is the tale, not he who tells it... and if King is right in saying the creative process is more like digging up stories that are already there instead of creating out of nothing, that would mean the characters are there as well, don't you think? They might just not be as... bright and detailed as they are.

[Bev Vincent]

The Crimson King seems to think that he needs to stop King from writing Roland's story, though.

[pathoftheturtle]

I think it's the reading, not the writing. All actions are connected in the course of many universes. So it's like, they keep existing, but no matter what they do to the CK, it doesn't change the future of our world as long as not enough people hear about it: for whatever reason, that would allow some alternate course of events or other that eventually lets the CK win anyway... and if the Tower falls in the future, then the past doesn't exist.

[pathoftheturtle]

Or I could be wrong. Was that not what you wanted for this topic?

A key and still not totally clear question, IMHO, Mrs. Tassenbaum's -- How is it Stephen King gets to decide the fate of existence, anyway? lol

And another thing still confuses me: she asks that question while taking Roland from Stephen King's neighborhood to Moses Carver's neighborhood, in DT7, to an office where Carver mentions Odetta; we see that Odetta lived in the world which King lived in. In DT2, we see that the young Odetta lived in the world which Jack Mort lived in, and that later, Jake Chambers also lived in the world which Mort lived in. Then in DT3, we see that Jake lived in the world which the young Eddie Dean lived in. But in DT6, we see that Eddie did not live in the world which King lived in. So is the Jake in DT6 a different Jake? And if he is, where's he going when he leaves the bookstore? Is there a different Eddie for him to follow? Or what?

[beam*seeker]

Or I could be wrong. Was that not what you wanted for this topic?

A key and still not totally clear question, IMHO, Mrs. Tassenbaum's -- How is it Stephen King gets to decide the fate of existence, anyway? lol

And another thing still confuses me: she asks that question while taking Roland from Stephen King's neighborhood to Moses Carver's neighborhood, in DT7, to an office where Carver mentions Odetta; we see that Odetta lived in the world which King lived in. In DT2, we see that the young Odetta lived in the world which Jack Mort lived in, and that later, Jake Chambers also lived in the world which Mort lived in. Then in DT3, we see that Jake lived in the world which the young Eddie Dean lived in. But in DT6, we see that Eddie did not live in the world which King lived in. So is the Jake in DT6 a different Jake? And if he is, where's he going when he leaves the bookstore? Is there a different Eddie for him to follow? Or what?

Damn it, this is making my brain hurt.

[Darkthoughts]

I've merged these threads to create a general "what if" thread :)

[rouchken]

First off: hello people. I'm currently in my 10th reread of the series (just can't get enough of it) and even now new ideas come to mind.

I'm currently at the point where I consider the death of Jake as an indicator to the real turning point.
After all, Ka is a wheel, is it not ?
And it is not the first time that Roland lets his son die, is it not ? :)

So in short: for me WaG is the pivotal book and the death of Susan (and the moment where Roland says he chooses the Tower over Susan) is the keymoment. I believe that from that moment forth, Roland is damned. After all: sacrifying your love & unborn child for the tower (even if Roland did not suspect Susan to die) kinda makes you a son of a *
Killing your 2nd son makes it worse, that's true. But not killing him does not make up for the death of the other 2.

Choosing Jake over the tower would however indicate his attempt for redemption (and partially admitting his obsession with the tower is wrong) and I believe that this would impact the night in which the story of Susan is told.
That night is a magical night (there are multiple indicators for this) and even the past can change in Rolands world.

So what if the saving of Jake (and the events that follow) would lead to Roland realizing that sacrifying Susan was wrong and that this would lead to Rolands past being altered ?
After all, maybe it is not Rolands task to reach the tower, but the task of Rolands son ? (as Mordred also attempted)

Of course, this would cause some paradoxes: if Roland does not choose the tower, but saves Susan, then DT1-7 would never happen, meaning the story of Susan would never be retold in that magical night etc etc... :)

But nevertheless: for me the choice Tower-Susan is the turning point.
* After that choice, everything went wrong: Susan was killed, Roland killed his mother, he lost his first ka-tet @Jericho hill, ...
* the book is literally in the middle of the series: 3 books before, 3 after.
* the story itself serves little to no purpose in advancing the plotline. It's a great story, with great characters, but does it help the ka-tet reach the tower ? Not explicitly in my opinion, so there has to be another purpose for this story. Why is this story more important than Jericho hill, the fall of Gilead or the hundred other adventures Roland has encountered during his life? Again: turning point imho.

[Xile]

Self-note: Stay away from this thread at 6:19am before first cup of joe.

[Brice]

Conversely you could start the coffee pot earlier. :)

[Xile]

haha Brice. Really man? Really?

[Brice]

:lol:

[Drifter13]

wow this is my first visit to this site and i must say i dig it. in response to the what if question: if jake never fell then he would have never had to go through the house on dutch hill and bring his charlie the choo choo book and his dads ruger. and he would have never met calvin tower. the implications of this are pretty heavy i think? thats why i love the dark tower series, it can go any which way u want it to