The Gunslinger--Bracket 3 Runner-Up

[Aaron]

http://www.thedarktower.org/gallery/data/510/medium/GUNSLINGER_face.jpg
The Dark Tower: The Gunslinger
Donald M. Grant, 1982


Bracket #3

Voting for this Book is Closed

Final Average Score:
4.186440678


Bracket Runner-up! The Gunslinger will advance to Round 2

[Daghain]

I gave this one a 3. It was good, but in the grand scheme of things I may never have read the series if I hadn't picked up DTII.

[mae]

A 3 here as well.

[The Lady of Shadows]

i gave it a 4 based on my reading the revised. it would have been a 3 if i had ranked it on the original. you know, i can't wait to see how the votes go on this one considering it's how the journey begins. :lol:

oh, and aaron? kudos on the explanation at the side. appreciated that a lot! :rose:

[Beta Ray Bill]

I gave it a 5. Best out of the series in my opinion.

[KaLikeAWheel]

I gave it a five, as well. I read the original version when it was first released to the mass market. I was already a King fan, but it was so not what I had come to expect from King, that I was totally intrigued and couldn't wait for the rest of the story.

I think, overall, when voting for the DT books, I'm going to have a really hard time separating the books from the whole story.

Donna

[mae]

I think, overall, when voting for the DT books, I'm going to have a really hard time separating the books from the whole story.


I dunno, but I don't have a problem doing that. Each book, while maybe not exactly stand-alone, is a complete book in my head. Sure they all blend in, and with me especially, since I'm reading each volume in succession, one after the other, non-stop. But there are clear differences between each one, and I did my own ranking in another thread here, so I won't repeat myself, but I'll just say, as it pertains to DT1, I felt it was a good book, but nothing spectacular. I gave it a 3 not even because it's not one of my favorite DT books overall (because we're judging each book here on its own merit), but because it felt uneven. And that's understandable, since it was written over a large period of time, and is not technically a novel. but a novella collection.

[fernandito]

I ♥'d it.

[sarah]

a five for me. This was my favorite book for a long time. This was the gateway to Roland and it was the book that sucked me in.

[Sam]

This was actually one of my LEAST favorite King story that I finished. (There are only a very few that I have not finished because I didn't like the story.) I'm giving this one a two. That may seem harsh to those who loved it, but I had to force myself to finish it. The only reason I did finish was because my brother had read DT II and told me the story got a lot better. I haven't read the revised story yet.

[John_and_Yoko]

This was actually one of my LEAST favorite King story that I finished. (There are only a very few that I have not finished because I didn't like the story.) I'm giving this one a two. That may seem harsh to those who loved it, but I had to force myself to finish it. The only reason I did finish was because my brother had read DT II and told me the story got a lot better. I haven't read the revised story yet.

The revised one is better.

[Letti]

If I could I would give it 10.

[KaLikeAWheel]

I dunno, but I don't have a problem doing that. Each book, while maybe not exactly stand-alone, is a complete book in my head.

I agree that each book can stand alone, and that some are better than others, but because of the entire scope of the story, I still love even my least favorite of the DT books more than any other single book (or other series, for that matter) that I've ever read.

I just finished a re-read of the series, and for the first year after VII was released, I did a non-stop re-read myself, so I understand what you're saying. The Gunslinger is the most flawed of the series, but to me, it is one of the most important parts of the overall story. I believe it was letting Jake fall that basically began to change Roland from the anti-hero he began the story as, to the hero he is at the end of DT VII.

Also, as Maerlyn said, it is the one that started my journey, so I'll always love it.

Of course, all this is just my opinion. :)

Donna

[Jean]

Voted "2"; it was saved from "1" by Jake's New York story, and to a lesser extent by the hanging of Hax

[ManOfWesternesse]

This was a 5 for me. I tend to generally ignore the fact it was revised - otherwise it would only be a 4.9

[Darkthoughts]

I agree with Jean, my favourite part was Jake's tale. However I gave it a 3.

[stone, rose, unfound door]

I gave it a 5. I liked everything in this one and I never get bored, however many times I read it.

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

Gave it a 5. I have read this story more than any other book. At least 4 times, as I reread each of the previous books as the new ones came out. Until Wolves that is. The final two came quickly enough, that I did not feel compelled to reread the series before starting the new book.

[turtlex]

Though it's not my all time favorite inthe series ( I think that would have to be Drawing of the Three ) - I had to give this one a 5. I did love it.

[mae]

I dunno, but I don't have a problem doing that. Each book, while maybe not exactly stand-alone, is a complete book in my head.

I agree that each book can stand alone, and that some are better than others, but because of the entire scope of the story, I still love even my least favorite of the DT books more than any other single book (or other series, for that matter) that I've ever read.

I just finished a re-read of the series, and for the first year after VII was released, I did a non-stop re-read myself, so I understand what you're saying. The Gunslinger is the most flawed of the series, but to me, it is one of the most important parts of the overall story. I believe it was letting Jake fall that basically began to change Roland from the anti-hero he began the story as, to the hero he is at the end of DT VII.

Also, as Maerlyn said, it is the one that started my journey, so I'll always love it.

Of course, all this is just my opinion. :)

Donna

And of course you're welcome to have your opinion, which is fine. I was only stressing that for the purposes of the poll we're asked to grade each book on its own merit, that is not taking into account any other and judging it strictly on what's between that one book's covers. Given that philosophy, I gave this one a 3. I'll give DT2 a 5, when the time comes. :)

[jayson]

I gave it a five, but that reflects my views of the original version of the book. I loved the book the first time I read it, flaws of a young writer and all. I felt the story itself was compelling enough to make up for any little issues here and there.

If I had to rate the Revised edition, it'd likely be a four, or possibly even a three.

[mae]

I gave it a five, but that reflects my views of the original version of the book. I loved the book the first time I read it, flaws of a young writer and all. I felt the story itself was compelling enough to make up for any little issues here and there.

If I had to rate the Revised edition, it'd likely be a four, or possibly even a three.

Why such a drastic difference? Most people I think believe the Revised is a better book, not worse.

[jayson]

Why such a drastic difference? Most people I think believe the Revised is a better book, not worse.

Well, being on the opposite end of popular opinion is nothing new for me. :lol:

I don't find the revised better or even necessary. I didn't have issues in the first place with most of the things that he went back and "fixed." To me, it's the literary equivalent of something some bands do when they go back and re-record some of their classic songs. It's unnecessary and really just makes me appreciate the original that much more.

I understand King's desire to bring the first book in line with the continuity of the last three books, but he could have accomplished that by using an outline and not abandoning the original continuity in the first place. :lol:

[Aaron]

I gave this one a five. It was the book that changed my life, quite literally. :)

[Unfound One]

I gave it a four - it definitely got me interested in Roland's story, but DTII got me hooked.

[Daghain]

Why such a drastic difference? Most people I think believe the Revised is a better book, not worse.

Well, being on the opposite end of popular opinion is nothing new for me. :lol:

I don't find the revised better or even necessary. I didn't have issues in the first place with most of the things that he went back and "fixed." To me, it's the literary equivalent of something some bands do when they go back and re-record some of their classic songs. It's unnecessary and really just makes me appreciate the original that much more.

I understand King's desire to bring the first book in line with the continuity of the last three books, but he could have accomplished that by using an outline and not abandoning the original continuity in the first place. :lol:

This, EXACTLY. I'd give the Revised a -7 if I could, because I freaking hate it when people go back and "fix" things that aren't broken.

[Brice]

I've gotta' agree with Jayson; IMO the revised was absolutely unnecessary.

[Letti]

I've gotta' agree with Jayson; IMO the revised was absolutely unnecessary.

it was guilt

[Brice]

What was? I don't follow, dear.

[Letti]

It was guilt to revise the Gunslinger. Maybe it doesn't sound good in English.
I mean to me it sounds really light to say "the revised was absolutely unnecessary.".
Does it make some sense this time? *unsure*

[Darkthoughts]

Yep, I'm totally on the "the revised was unnecessary" band wagon :cool:

[John_and_Yoko]

I've never understood the purists.

When you're writing a story, especially one that's so long and involved as The Dark Tower, inevitably things are going to change vis-a-vis the way you originally intended it. To do otherwise is to DICTATE, which kills the story. You can't be a dictator, you have to let it flow, and if that means abandoning some original ideas, then so be it. Otherwise the story is lifeless and suffers as a result. Stephen King has himself said that he's the medium through which the story is told, as it ought to be for any story.

And if there's inconsistency between the beginning and the end of a story as a result, shouldn't you revise it to bring it into greater continuity?

Consequently I consider the Revised and Expanded Edition to be superior and don't intend to read the original at all. (I mean, really, Roland reading a magazine? Are you crazy?)

[jayson]

Consequently I consider the Revised and Expanded Edition to be superior and don't intend to read the original at all.

I am not trying to change your mind or start a lengthy debate, but I'm not sure how you can declare one book superior to another while claiming not to have read one of them. I'm not suggesting reading the original Gunslinger would change your opinion one iota, but without having read both of them, how can you really make such a declaration?

[John_and_Yoko]

Consequently I consider the Revised and Expanded Edition to be superior and don't intend to read the original at all.

I am not trying to change your mind or start a lengthy debate, but I'm not sure how you can declare one book superior to another while claiming not to have read one of them. I'm not suggesting reading the original Gunslinger would change your opinion one iota, but without having read both of them, how can you really make such a declaration?

I can't, and I didn't. I said I "consider" the revised version to be superior.

Anyway, others have done the opposite--so in love with the original they won't even read the revised version.

I'm primarily going by what I do know about the original, as well as Stephen King's own assessment. It sounds WAY inconsistent with the other volumes, and not just the last three.

Anyway, I don't even know how I'd go about getting a copy of the original in the first place--I wouldn't want to keep it, as there'd be no point.

[jayson]

I'd like to think that if I started the series in the era of the Revised edition I'd still like to read the original at some point at least as a historical curiosity to see where the series began.

[John_and_Yoko]

I'd like to think that if I started the series in the era of the Revised edition I'd still like to read the original at some point at least as a historical curiosity to see where the series began.

*shrugs*

If I wanted that, I'd look at a list of the differences between the two, such as once existed on thedarktower.net....

You know, back when it was actually online? :(

[Daghain]

Well, I have read both and I still think the original is better. I think the changes in the Revised are glaringly obvious and take the reader right out of the story. And, I don't think they are necessary. Besides, as far as I'm concerned, once it's published, it's done. *shrugs*

And hey, don't we have a thread for this discussion somewhere?

[John_and_Yoko]

Well, I have read both and I still think the original is better. I think the changes in the Revised are glaringly obvious and take the reader right out of the story. And, I don't think they are necessary. Besides, as far as I'm concerned, once it's published, it's done. *shrugs*

And hey, don't we have a thread for this discussion somewhere?

Probably, so I'm only going to say one more thing on the subject:

I didn't notice anything "glaringly obvious" when I read the revised version, not that took me out of the story.

And from what I've heard about them, they ARE necessary.

Anyway, I've heard of "first edition, second edition," etc., and at least it's Stephen King himself revising it, and not someone else.

Anyway, end of off-topic.

[mae]

I'm glad I have both versions, for completeness sake, but personally I only read the Revised.

[KaLikeAWheel]

that for the purposes of the poll we're asked to grade each book on its own merit, that is not taking into account any other and judging it strictly on what's between that one book's covers.



I know...I'm trying. It's so hard for me. Objectivity is not a strong suit of mine. :D I agree on II. It's an excellent book!

[Darkthoughts]

And if there's inconsistency between the beginning and the end of a story as a result, shouldn't you revise it to bring it into greater continuity?
If your story is yet to be published and you feel you need to go back and make some changes once you reach the end, then yes, sure you should.
But if it's already out there, and the way you wrote it was the way you originally heard, divined, wrote the story, then that's the way it should stay imo.


I didn't notice anything "glaringly obvious" when I read the revised version, not that took me out of the story.
Well of course you didn't, you haven't read the original so you have no basis for comparison :lol:

Seriously, all that he did in the revised edition was insert the number 19 about 50 billion times...I didn't see the point at all (and I have read both ;) )

[John_and_Yoko]

And if there's inconsistency between the beginning and the end of a story as a result, shouldn't you revise it to bring it into greater continuity?
If your story is yet to be published and you feel you need to go back and make some changes once you reach the end, then yes, sure you should.
But if it's already out there, and the way you wrote it was the way you originally heard, divined, wrote the story, then that's the way it should stay imo.


I didn't notice anything "glaringly obvious" when I read the revised version, not that took me out of the story.
Well of course you didn't, you haven't read the original so you have no basis for comparison :lol:

Seriously, all that he did in the revised edition was insert the number 19 about 50 billion times...I didn't see the point at all (and I have read both ;) )

First of all, what if J. R. R. Tolkien had done that with The Hobbit? The account of how Bilbo got the Ring would have been far inferior, I can say that right off, never mind inconsistent with The Lord of the Rings.... So I don't feel that argument holds any water. I mean, should he have changed the latter story to be consistent with the original account?

Secondly, I do know he did more than that in the revised edition (and I HAVEN'T read both), and I can only think of one change I don't particularly care for--namely, how Walter o'Dim faked the skeleton at the end. Why not use magic, even if you're going to have him be the same identity as Marten Broadcloak/Randall Flagg? But for the other changes, I think they WERE necessary (heck, even Volume II was inconsistent with the original version--Volume II!) or at least better.

[Darkthoughts]

First of all, what if J. R. R. Tolkien had done that with The Hobbit? The account of how Bilbo got the Ring would have been far inferior, I can say that right off, never mind inconsistent with The Lord of the Rings.... So I don't feel that argument holds any water. I mean, should he have changed the latter story to be consistent with the original account?
:unsure: You've lost me now...what if Tolkien had done what with The Hobbit? You sound like you're contradicting your original point there, which was that you think previous works should be revised if it makes them consistent with later works.

[John_and_Yoko]

:unsure: You've lost me now...what if Tolkien had done what with The Hobbit? You sound like you're contradicting your original point there, which was that you think previous works should be revised if it makes them consistent with later works.

Um, no....

Tolkien revised The Hobbit in 1951 to make it more consistent with The Lord of the Rings. Originally Bilbo won the ring in the riddle game--meaning Gollum was going to give it to him if he won--but not only is that inconsistent with its nature in the sequel, but I've read the original version of that chapter and it's not as good--at all--just by itself.

All that's left of that original version is the fact that Bilbo was said to have written that account in his memoirs within The Lord of the Rings, but Gandalf got the "real story" out of him.

[Matt]

So better that the Hobbit was revised?

[Darkthoughts]

Ohhhhh! Ok, fair enough I can't compare that myself having not read the original. But my main point still stands - as it is, the original Gunslinger is in no way inconsistent with the rest of the series. Infact, it could be argued that what is inconsistent is that Walter and Marten are the same person which is not apparent in either versions of The Gunslinger.

[John_and_Yoko]

@Matt: Yes, even without The Lord of the Rings I think the revised account is better (with the possible exception of Bilbo's pity on Gollum, which dragged that chapter out a little).


Ohhhhh! Ok, fair enough I can't compare that myself having not read the original. But my main point still stands - as it is, the original Gunslinger is in no way inconsistent with the rest of the series. Infact, it could be argued that what is inconsistent is that Walter and Marten are the same person which is not apparent in either versions of The Gunslinger.

What about Roland reading a magazine in a world where paper is a scarce commodity? Or Alain's name being different? Granted, not having read the original, I don't know too many more of the changes made (which is why I wish thedarktower.net were still up), but I do remember hearing about those, and those are DEFINITELY inconsistent.

(And as for The Hobbit, I have The Annotated Hobbit which is how I was able to read the original account--in other words, I don't actually have the original 1937 edition of the book. :blush:)

[Darkthoughts]

Curse you, you've spurred me on to a mission:lol:...sometime over the weekend I'll post the differences :thumbsup:

[John_and_Yoko]

Curse you, you've spurred me on to a mission:lol:...sometime over the weekend I'll post the differences :thumbsup:

Yay! :D

Seriously, thanks--I really would like to see them! :) Heck, even if I end up changing my mind it would still be neat to see exactly how he revised it!

[Jean]

But my main point still stands - as it is, the original Gunslinger is in no way inconsistent with the rest of the series.
That's the point I have always maintained, too.

[Tiffany]

I liked the original better. I didn't hate the revised...just liked the original better. I liked the mystery and intrigue of it.

I voted 5. No other book, ever in life, has hooked me so completely from the very first line to the very last.

[Brice]

My initial reaction when the revised came out was :excited: then I read it and went back and read the original again. I really think King made the wrong decision on this one. He really should have walked away from the pen/pencil/computer that day.

[Letti]

My initial reaction when the revised came out was :excited: then I read it and went back and read the original again. I really think King made the wrong decision on this one. He really should have walked away from the pen/pencil/computer that day.

And on the following day just to be on the safe side. ;)

[Brice]

Yes, absolutely. :couple:

[Melike]

If I could I would give it 10.

Me, too. :thumbsup:

[wiccangdess13]

I liked the original Gunslinger. But I have also read the revised Gunslinger and was highly disappointed in the changes King made to adapt it to the later books. It just made it so trivial by changing the original work that brought him to the later books/stories in the 1st place. Like how Steven Deschain was originally refered to as Roland the elder not Steven.

[Aaron]

Meh, the changes amounted to so little, and they werent rather significant...I don't see that it was a big deal one way or the other. I don't feel that it so much changed the story as it gave a bit more detail and tied it in a bit better with the backstory given in Wizard and Glass. It is like what King says about his books that are adapted into films. If you don't like it, big deal. The original work will always exist for you to enjoy.

That was the biggest reason that I combined both versions into just one listing for the vote. There is no sense in having two stories that are nearly identical compete with each other. Though I do think that we need to set up a comparison page in the manner that the old .net site had. If nothing else, I think that the conversation in this thread shows it is something desirable.

*has someone perfect in mind for the project* :evil:

[John_and_Yoko]

Meh, the changes amounted to so little, and they werent rather significant...I don't see that it was a big deal one way or the other. I don't feel that it so much changed the story as it gave a bit more detail and tied it in a bit better with the backstory given in Wizard and Glass. It is like what King says about his books that are adapted into films. If you don't like it, big deal. The original work will always exist for you to enjoy.

That was the biggest reason that I combined both versions into just one listing for the vote. There is no sense in having two stories that are nearly identical compete with each other. Though I do think that we need to set up a comparison page in the manner that the old .net site had. If nothing else, I think that the conversation in this thread shows it is something desirable.

*has someone perfect in mind for the project* :evil:

I second the motion! :D

[Brice]

...and who is it?

*waits*

[wiccangdess13]

So if I have to rate them all I would have to say DT III Wastelands #1, DT IV Wizard and Glass #2, DT V Wolves of the Calla #3, DT VII The Dark Tower #4, DT I Gunslinger(original) #5, DT VI Song of Suzannah #6, DT II Drawing of Three #7, Little Sisters #8 and revised Gunslinger #9 because it wasn't necessary.

[Matt]

This entire forum is for voting on which King book overall is best.

Love your rating system but feel free to vote on the individual books out in the forum if you would like.