PDA

View Full Version : Locations in the books - general thread



Mitchel
11-27-2009, 11:09 AM
If this has been discussed before, please point me to the thread or URL. Otherwise, I am hoping someone can offer an intelligent explanation for me;

I have a question about the Dark Tower series, which mainly ties into books I and II.

My question is this; Why does the sense of cardinal direction seem to be all messed up in these two books? Here's what I mean...

In Book 1: The Gunslinger, Roland, is on a southeast course after the Man in Black. His southeastern route is referenced to more than once during the story. It is also noted at the end of Book 1 that he has just crossed the Mohaine Desert, which is also odd, because earlier in Book 1, there is a reference made that the Mohaine Desert is west of Gilead, where Roland grew up. In fact, it's when he is describing the possibility of being sent west if he fails to best Cort, that he describes what lies to the west, and the Mohaine Desert is listed among those things that lie to the west. Yet, on his southeastern route from Gilead in Book 1, he crossed the Mohaine Desert to get to the mountains while chasing the Man in Black. How can the Mohaine Desert be to the east and west of Gilead unless it wraps around the south side of the region in a half circle and is huge?

Additionally, while Roland and Jake are crossing the desert along there southeast course, there is a reference made to the setting sun off to their left turning every sweat tear into a painful prism. This also doesn't make sense. If you're walking southeast, the setting sun would not be to your left. It would be to your right and to the rear, unless the sun sets in the northeast - which we know it does not, because at the beginning of book 2, after having his fingers and toe cut off while getting ready to move on, Roland looks back toward the "east from which he had come" and sees the rising sun over the mountains. This makes no sense also, because he didn't come from the east. He came from the west, or the north west, and was travelling to the southeast. So even though the sun is rising in the east as Roland begins to move on in the beginning of book two, it should be rising out over the sea somewhere, and not over the mountains behind him.

Which brings the next contradiction, the fact that he calls the sea the western sea. Again, if you're travelling southeast all though book 1, how do you reach the western sea?

So, he's on the beach, and he decides to turn North along the beach to pursue the tower. Fine, except on page 33 of book 2, as Roland begins his northern walk, it is narrated "the sea to his right and mountains to his left." If he is going north, that means west is to his left and east is to his right. This would be alright if not for the statements about the sun. If the sun comes up in the east, as he previously said, then again, it would be coming up over the water, not the mountains. If he is going north, and the mountains are on his left, then he did indeed come from the west, and not the east like the beginning of book 2 says.

Also keep in your mind that the Man in Black had told Roland to strike west and that the sea was 20 short miles. If Roland did do this, the direction of travel makes even less sense because; He came from the Northwest, traveled southeast, and then struck due west only to go north along the beach again... that's be like going back the way you came.

So what's the deal? Why is King's direction all messed up? Are these just mistakes or am I missing something?

Merlin1958
11-27-2009, 02:08 PM
You know for what its worth, I have always thought the directions in the book to be "akimbo". Its one of the few things that left me a bit "off" on the story and begging for maps, cause I often thought things weren't just "right" in that regard.

You have rather succintly illuminated that feeling, but I guess we just chalk it up to "literary Licsense". Blame Robin Furth I suppose LOL

Anyway, thx for confirming a long term suspicion!!!!!

Sam
11-27-2009, 02:21 PM
In reality, I think the directions are messed up because we are seeing the progression of an author who at the first of the Dark Tower saga hadn't learned to make better note of what he had written before. Remember that The Gunslinger was originally several short stories that turned into a novel. Each tale built onto the other, but they were written as individual stories. Plus he was still fairly new to writing and probably didn't take very goodnotes on which way Roland was going, so from time to time he made mistakes.

In the stories, it is said several times that the world had moved on and directions were different now. Also that distances had changed. Was it a way to deal with the goofs, sure, but it also added suspense since it ruled out things such as compasses for Roland and his ka-tet.

ChristineB
11-27-2009, 02:40 PM
I know I read somewhere about the fact the first couple books were not well edited. This was chaulked up to a small press publication.

It seems things like this are suppose to be found during the editing of a book and are when they are edited well. Not quite so with these books.

And what Sam said as to they dealt with the goofs later by saying the world had moved on. *shrug*

Mitchel
11-27-2009, 04:55 PM
Yeah, I suppose using the "world has moved on" argument is a way to deal with mistakes... but personally, I don't think it's a good one. Don't get me wrong, I love the story, but things like that mess with my flow, because they automatically come off as wrong subconsciously, and are confirmed by thinking it through. I also assumed - falsely perhaps - that the story was re-edited in its entirety when book 7 came out and King wrote his new introduction. I'm not criticizing the guy at all, but I hope he knows about this already if for no other reason except so that he knows.

In any case, I should have made an intro post first.

Hi, my name is Mitch, and I'm just some guy from North Dakota who likes Stephen King books. i h8 ppl hu rite lk tis, and I like Samuel Adams Black Lager. Glad to make your respective acquaintances.

BROWNINGS CHILDE
11-27-2009, 06:48 PM
i h8 ppl hu rite lk tis

You would just looove my daughter then. I also can't stand this. I think texting is making our children collectively stupid.

Mitchel
11-27-2009, 08:46 PM
i h8 ppl hu rite lk tis

You would just looove my daughter then. I also can't stand this. I think texting is making our children collectively stupid.


I couldn't agree more. It's gotten to the point I can't even read the comments on YouTube without risking the onset of a stroke... they're all so damn... dumb.

And you're right. It's the texting. It seems sad to me that technology has made us so lazy and impatient, our following generation can't even be bothered to capitalize "I" or be troubled to precede "u" with a 'y' and an 'o'.

Anyway... maybe that part of my personality is why things like the direction anomaly, mentioned in my opening post, bother me so much.

But back to the Tower. I'll be keeping my eye out for more of these oddities. I am just now, say 15%, into book 2. As it stands, I am going to pretend that in the beginning of book two, when it says Roland looked "back toward the east from which he came," and saw the sun rising over the mountains - I'm going to pretend that that part was a hallucination and that really the sun was rising out over the ocean. That way, when he heads north along the beach, having the "sea on his right and the mountains on his left" will make some sense.

All will be right in my mind again. :cool:

BROWNINGS CHILDE
11-27-2009, 09:11 PM
maybe....just maybe....the sun sets in the east on this level of the tower.

Coldalarm
11-28-2009, 02:55 PM
I think one of the above points truly sums it up.

The Gunslinger is a collection of short stories, later patched together as a novel, whereas the Drawing of the Three is the first true novel (as in it was written as a novel, and as a continuation of the story, I think) and that seems to explain it for me. The pace will have changed a lot simply due to this, as short stories tend to be written differently to a novel.

But hey, who knows? :)

Mitchel
11-29-2009, 06:07 AM
The sunset adjusts itself.

Considering my previous posts, listen to this:

Page 195 & 196 in book 2. Roland is talking to Eddie on the beach. Eddie turns to go up the slope where there will be fuel to make a fire. So he's going up, away from the water. At this point, Roland makes the wise crack about Eddies nobility and sense of purpose, and turns back to look at Roland. He gives Roland a terse reply, and turns back toward the slope, but not before Roland saw the last red rays of sunset reflected on his wet cheeks.

So now the sun is setting in the west, but the whole world doesn't make any sense. You can't be going north along a beach with the sun setting to the west over the water, and have the sea to your right (as said earlier). Plus he'd be going back to the way he came then. Back to the north west.

Anyone need an editor? I'm for hire. :dance:

Good story so far though - I'm hooked into it. I really liked the whole door thing and the descriptions of how Roland was able to take things back through to his world, like the tooter fish.

Delacroix
11-29-2009, 03:43 PM
Later, it's said that directions are as messed up as time. That's an effect of the Dark Tower going wrong.

It's the big excuse for all this incoherences.

Mitchel
11-29-2009, 04:00 PM
I have another question.

Are Walter and the Man in Black and Marten all the same people? Is this something I will find out later?

In book 1 the Man in Black swallowed Marten's soul (so it was said), and Walter was a monk???

BROWNINGS CHILDE
11-29-2009, 04:18 PM
I always thought of these as a dark version of the Holy Trinity. I considered them all the same entity.

Brice
11-29-2009, 04:58 PM
Your answers will come later on, Mitchel. :)

Letti
11-29-2009, 11:45 PM
I have another question.

Are Walter and the Man in Black and Marten all the same people? Is this something I will find out later?

In book 1 the Man in Black swallowed Marten's soul (so it was said), and Walter was a monk???

I am sure you don't wanna read spoilers, am I right?
The way to the Dark Tower is paved by many answers (but even more questions).

Welcome to the site. :rose:

overhoser
11-30-2009, 03:05 PM
I've also long wondered about this...some of the mistakes (such as NYC geography) are dismissed in later books as multiple worlds or shifting directions. But this particular question about the desert, mountains, and sea is actually addressed in the Concordance for volumes 1-4. In that book, there are maps of the journeys. The journey for the gunslinger moves southeast until he gets to the mountains, where it turns straight west. This allows ROland to turn north and have the sea on his left. This really bothered me for a long time, but I recently looked it up in the concordance. I will check again to be sure.

Mitchel
12-04-2009, 08:08 PM
I've also long wondered about this...some of the mistakes (such as NYC geography) are dismissed in later books as multiple worlds or shifting directions. But this particular question about the desert, mountains, and sea is actually addressed in the Concordance for volumes 1-4. In that book, there are maps of the journeys. The journey for the gunslinger moves southeast until he gets to the mountains, where it turns straight west. This allows ROland to turn north and have the sea on his left. This really bothered me for a long time, but I recently looked it up in the concordance. I will check again to be sure.

OK, but that means he's going back the way he came, which is just silly.

I know this is relatively unimportant to the scope of the story, but I like tearing it apart for the purpose of discussion - which is what these boards are for, am I right?

I'll tell you what, I am into book 3 now (Wastelands), and I have noticed a few other directional things that don't make sense... but to tell the truth, I lost my sense of direction after Roland, Eddie, and Susannah got to the clearing where they ended up killing Shardik (Mir), the bear.

In my minds eye, Roland almost had to be going southwest to begin with - not southeast - because like I said earlier, when he was talking about the possibility of getting set west before his battle with Cort, he was thinking of what lay to the west... and the dwellers, and the Mohaine desert were among those. So I'm thinking he was going southwest in book 1, made it to the sea, went north (which would mess up the sunrises and sunsets as they are described, I know), and then due west of the clearing where they killed the bear in order to find his portal.

That's as far as I am. But I was wondering if it would be illegal / or any type of infringement for you to post just the map images on here. I'd just like to see those maps... or if they are somewhere online, point me to a link???

If the Man in Black questions are answered later, then good, because I don't want to read spoilers.

Anyway, till later....

overhoser
12-05-2009, 08:47 AM
OK, the maps. While the one for the gunslinger solves its issues (for the most part), I'm afraid you'll be disappointed by the one for the wastelands....it does not show the journey from the beginning of the novel to shardik's lair. however, it appears that they must have traveled east through the woods, although it's possible that they continued north. This raises some other questions.

Roland talks about how he had seen maps of his world and the mohaine desert west of gilead to the western sea. He says the distance was about 1000 miles, but since the world is shifting or whatever, it took him twenty years to cross it. so, if ROland treveled west from gilead to the sea and if the travelers moved east through the woods from the sea, they would have had to cross all of in-world, past gilead to get to shardik's lair. otherwise, Roland likely would have encountered it already because it was between Gilead and the sea. Or at least heard more about it. TWL places the trip to Shardik at about 7 weeks, way shorter than twenty years, but long enough to cover 1000 miles moving at about twenty miles per day (a hell of a hike, but conceivable).

So, after all of that, here's my theory to explain it: while the world is expanding at the center (on latitude with gilead), it is narrowing at the top (and maybe bottom). like a circle being stretched in both directions, hence the shifting compass and growing/shrinking land area.

Now, for the maps. If these are illegal, someone let me know and I will remove them. Just in case....these maps appear in Stephen King's The Dark Tower: A Concordance by Robin Furth (2003), pp. 236-239. There is no credit for the drawing, so I'm guessing it was Robin Furth.

These images are big. I couldn't figure out how to specify the image dimensions here and didn't want to edit and re-upload them, so here are links to them:

This is the map for the revised Gunslinger, showing a south-southeast path. the original gunslinger had more of a direct south path:

gunslinger map (http://tardisadventure.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/gunslingermap.jpg)

This is the map for the wastelands. You'll notice the time in between books 2 and 3 is missing.

Wastelands Map (http://tardisadventure.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/wastelandsmap.jpg)

LadyHitchhiker
12-06-2009, 04:46 AM
I had no problem with the whole "world moving on" explaining changes of directions. I loved it.

overhoser
12-06-2009, 03:42 PM
I had no problem with the whole "world moving on" explaining changes of directions. I loved it.

I agree, it's a perfectly fine explanation for the shifting directions. But being able to see visuals of what is supposed to be happening is nice, especially when the descriptions seem contradictory. And also, at the point where I think Mitchell is reading, those explanations have not yet been given, with the exception of Roland talking about how long it took to cross the desert.

The question I'm interested in is what are the actual physical changes that are happening....they happen because the world is shifting, but what are those changes? I think the maps illustrate that problem.

In Gunslinger Born there are maps of Mejis and New Canaan. Running through Mejis is the Great Road. I may be mistaken, but doesn't Roland say the road they travel in the the wastelands is the remains of the great road? which means Lud is east of Mejis, which is further evidence that it took him twenty years to travel west to the Western Sea, but he and his Ka-Tet made it all the way back east past Gilead and Mejis in about 4 months tops? So, the shifting may be caused by the world moving on, but the shifting is not consistent...some areas are growing, but others are shrinking.

Does anyone know if there are larger, more definitive maps available, to the extent that that's possible?

pathoftheturtle
12-07-2009, 09:13 AM
King said that the DT series was originally inspired by Sergio Leone's westerns, and that he found it charming that his films had sometimes badly messed up American geography. To SK, that only added to the fantastic majesty of those epics, and created an otherworldly backdrop. The like "problems" in TDT were intentional.

Years ago, when I was a nerdy kid, I found a product for Star Trek fans, Mr. Scott's Enterprise blueprints. My father is a fan of that franchise, (he has many of the novels) and I told him that I'd really like to buy those blueprints. He just said, "Why? You can't build one."

A healthy view of good fiction is distinct from the hard approach that many take to reality.

***edit*** (Added 12-08-2009 -- )
Seriously, I think it's almost like saying, "Well, I kinda liked 'Salem's Lot, but I think it was too scary." lol, that's the whole point, ya kennit?
In TDT, you're supposed to feel disoriented when you notice those things, and feel as though absolutely anything might happen next.

overhoser
12-08-2009, 01:22 PM
Seriously, I think it's almost like saying, "Well, I kinda liked 'Salem's Lot, but I think it was too scary." lol, that's the whole point, ya kennit?
In TDT, you're supposed to feel disoriented when you notice those things, and feel as though absolutely anything might happen next.

I don't think you're comparative statement about Salem's Lot is anything like this discussion. Nobody has said that these questions cause them to dislike the books or that the books are too anything. In fact quite the opposite. The question asked in this thread is "This particular element of the story is confusing, I want to know more about it."

Based on your line of thinking, why bother to ask questions? Isn't the point of discussing a book to understand what's happening in the book? "It's happening because the author intended it" isn't a very satisfying or useful explanation.

It's a question that makes me want to know more about what is happening in/to Roland's world. The shifting directions and expanding world are an important piece of the story's mythology and I think saying it's like that to make the reader feel disoriented is a shoulder shrugging dismissal of that mythology.

Just because you are not concerned with or interested in this question does not make it a useless question.

Mitchel
12-08-2009, 03:36 PM
I am just getting to the part in book 3 where Jake is drawn. I fell behind in reading because I got really sick this week - got the flu or something - or maybe the Man in Black was trying to hold me up...

Anyway, you pretty much said it all, overhoser. I can't disagree with anything you said. The only thing I can say is those maps still seem funny to me. Even in the first one, Roland would have been back tracking and retracing his steps if we were to follow the descriptors in book 1 and 2.

I think I am going to devise my own map... I think I have an idea of how this fits together, and I'll submit it for your critique as soon as I finish....

Mitchel
12-08-2009, 05:55 PM
OK, you can use the magnifying glass symbol at the top right of the image to zoom and then drag to pan the image;

http://picasaweb.google.com/mitchel.berry/DarkTowerMisc#5413047868551069938

This is the map I just made.

It seems in book 3 they are still going southeast along the path of the beam. I decided that the 'western sea' is not an ocean, but a large ass sea just like the black sea or something like that... It's called the western sea because it is west of the nexus, west of the dark tower.

Anyway, the map maintains the integrity of traveling SE in book 1 and north along the beach into a clearing, and southeast again in book 3.

If anyone wants to save this image to their machine and do any re-editing, feel free. Just mail me a copy at mitchel.berry@gmail.com

overhoser
12-08-2009, 08:27 PM
Mitch - Nice work on the map....it definitely matches what seems to be described, if we throw the cardinal directions out, based on the fact that they are moving anyway. I like your idea of the Western Sea being more like a large lake than an ocean....like the Dead Sea. And I didn't even notice that the woods in both of Robin Furth's maps are the same. So, on your map, they stretch all the way across the top, which makes sense.

And the issue with the location of Gilead can be taken care of if we imagine Roland headed first west, and then SE, placing the events of the gunslinger almost directly south of Gilead, then the great road from Mejis (in W&G) can meet up with the road outside of Lud. The map in Gunslinger Born (which re-tells W&G) says that the desert is South of Gilead. This debunks my theory of how the world is growing/shrinking. I think it's more likely a more random expansion and shifting.

I use the cardinal directions here for our own reference, since they clearly are not relevant and always changing. And while this has no impact on the story, it's kind of neat to think about where everything is in relation to other events. And while the directions change, I don't think relative positions are changing. So the places in the stories can probably be stitched together, at least loosely. Maybe I'll think about doing that when I have more time...

And I understand that this is not reality and doesn't work the same way. But the presence of maps in the books and the way that they apparently fit together I think demonstrates that this question is worthwhile. People make maps of fictional lands all the time.

Mitchel
12-09-2009, 04:30 AM
Thank you.

My map doesn't account for the odd sun positions in book 2, i.e., when the sun rose on his left over the mountains (which wouldn't be the case normally) because yes, if there is some sort of magnetic breakdown as the world moves on, then the cardinal directions would indeed shift.... however, I don't think we can say that they shift THAT much, because there are several points where Roland or Eddie judge time by the sun, saying it's 'on the western', or by Old Star / Old Mother, etc... so there still must be some consistency to navigation.

At first I thought I could argue that if Roland's world is a microcosm of existence inside the makeup of the rose that Jake found in the vacant lot that day he skipped out on school (due to the 'sun' inside it, and Jake's feeling of need to protect it because it's "sick"), then maybe the directions and way the sun rises and sets would be different... but because of the fact that the "sun westering" is used more than once as a reference to getting late in the day, I have to assume that it rises in the east and sets in the west, same as here.

The map I made seems to fill the void as far as how the linearity of travel ties together, but doesn't account for those few other things. In the end, while it'd be nice to discover some explanation that covered all of this, I am thinking we have to chalk it up to poor editing. That bugs me a little, because if that's the case - and how old are books 1 and 2 - then that means a lot of time has gone by without King addressing this or having it brought to his attention. At least I haven't googled my way to a statement where he himself explains all the points brought up in this thread.

overhoser
12-09-2009, 01:17 PM
At some point, I believe in his preparation for Wizard and Glass, he hired Robin Furth as his research assistant. The two volumes of the concordance were her work for him to keep things straight. In the final four, or at least the final three, books he starts to explain some issues. The position of the sun I'm not sure is ever dealt with, but the others are. Not explicitly, of course, but through plot and additional details.

The original Gunslinger was written in the early 1970s and published in 1982. In 2003, once the rest of the story had been sketched out, a revised version was released. I have never read the revised version, maybe it fixes some of the problems you're having issues with.

But, take heart, he realized he needed to do a better job with what might be called continuity and hired Robin Furth for the purpose. This is why you can refer to any of her work as official (concordances, graphic novels).

pathoftheturtle
12-09-2009, 01:37 PM
Seriously, I think it's almost like saying, "Well, I kinda liked 'Salem's Lot, but I think it was too scary." lol, that's the whole point, ya kennit?
In TDT, you're supposed to feel disoriented when you notice those things, and feel as though absolutely anything might happen next.

I don't think you're comparative statement about Salem's Lot is anything like this discussion. Nobody has said that these questions cause them to dislike the books or that the books are too anything. ...Well, for the record, what I was responding to was things like these --
In reality, I think the directions are messed up because we are seeing the progression of an author who at the first of the Dark Tower saga hadn't learned to make better note of what he had written before. ...


I know I read somewhere about the fact the first couple books were not well edited. This was chaulked up to a small press publication.

It seems things like this are suppose to be found during the editing of a book and are when they are edited well. Not quite so with these books.

And what Sam said as to they dealt with the goofs later by saying the world had moved on. *shrug*


Yeah, I suppose using the "world has moved on" argument is a way to deal with mistakes... but personally, I don't think it's a good one. Don't get me wrong, I love the story, but things like that mess with my flow, because they automatically come off as wrong subconsciously, and are confirmed by thinking it through. I also assumed - falsely perhaps - that the story was re-edited in its entirety when book 7 came out and King wrote his new introduction. I'm not criticizing the guy at all, but I hope he knows about this already if for no other reason except so that he knows.

...Seriously. He does.


Based on your line of thinking, why bother to ask questions? Isn't the point of discussing a book to understand what's happening in the book? "It's happening because the author intended it" isn't a very satisfying or useful explanation.Depends on what you believe that the point of reading a book is. I'm always looking for the author's intentions, because that's what makes any story what is. Asking questions is good, if they're of the right kind. Don't you understand the difference between what's happening in these books and what happens in hard science fiction?


...It's a question that makes me want to know more about what is happening in/to Roland's world. The shifting directions and expanding world are an important piece of the story's mythology and I think saying it's like that to make the reader feel disoriented is a shoulder shrugging dismissal of that mythology.
...It's "a dismissal" (or, rather, a seeing through) of the myth in one definition of that word, but in the other definition, I think that my point is a total validation of the mythology of Stephen King.

myth /noun/ 1: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
2: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society

Books like The Stand, TDT, and It show that there are two ways of thinking, science and magic.

...Just because you are not concerned with or interested in this question does not make it a useless question.You're really putting words into my mouth, there. I am interested. No offense meant. What I'm saying is that being "bothered" by this is only to be expected, and that trying to make sense of it is hopeless. SK would laugh his head off.

overhoser
12-09-2009, 04:17 PM
what I was responding to was things like these

Fair enough. I was focused mainly on the theorizing about directions and hadn't really considered those quotes. I retract that comment.


I'm always looking for the author's intentions, because that's what makes any story what is.

Ah...now there's the rub. I agree with you that the directions function to disorient the reader. But, as someone that studies rhetoric and popular culture for a living, making any claims about the author's intention immediately draws a red flag from me. How can you know his intention? Are you him? Many people would say that even the author's understanding of her/his own intention is useless. What matters is how the book (or whatever) acts upon the audience or reader. There is a widely held belief (one that SK would likely agree with) that language (and, by extension, stories) uses the speaker, not the other way around.

And, as you've said and I agree with, the directions act to disorient the reader. When we are disoriented, the natural reaction is to attempt to re-orient ourselves. That's all I was attempting to do in my discussion.

When (if) I used the word "bothered" it wasn't bothered as in "I don't like that this is disorienting," but rather "This is something that draws my attention and makes me think." Kind of like Barthes's "punctum" in an image: something that is not necessarily important to the image, but nonetheless continually draws your eye and your thoughts.


Asking questions is good, if they're of the right kind.

If "How can we better understand how Roland's world works?" isn't a good question, what would the "right kind" be?


Don't you understand the difference between what's happening in these books and what happens in hard science fiction?

Yes, I understand the idea of literary genre quite well, thank you. I also understand the differences between them. Please don't patronize me.

The definition you provided of myth is fine, except it's not quite the same as my use of the term mythology. Mythology in the sense that I used it refers to the recurring/overarching elements that hold a fictional universe together. For example, abduction in the X-Files or time travel in Lost. Or, the opposition of science and magic to be found throughout King's work, as you mentioned. These elements are rarely definitively explained and act as catalysts for discussion and speculation among fans. Changing directions and distances are a major part of TDT's mythology and worthy of discussion and speculation.

pathoftheturtle
12-10-2009, 07:26 AM
Don't you understand the difference between what's happening in these books and what happens in hard science fiction?

Yes, I understand the idea of literary genre quite well, thank you. I also understand the differences between them. Please don't patronize me.It was a rhetorical question, my way of replying to your question about the point of discussing a book. I beg your pardon if I came across as being condescending.


... Changing directions and distances are a major part of TDT's mythology and worthy of discussion and speculation.
Agreed. :)

... If "How can we better understand how Roland's world works?" isn't a good question, what would the "right kind" be? ...How about "Can we better understand how Roland's world works, at all?" That is a more fundamental question, right? I hope it's clear, however, that I don't actually think that your question is not a "good" one. (Although it is a very hard one to explore in a non-spoiler thread.)

overhoser
12-10-2009, 10:18 AM
It was a rhetorical question, my way of replying to your question about the point of discussing a book. I beg your pardon if I came across as being condescending.


No problem, I'm over it. I also apologize if I came off rude, I shifted into defensive mode and probably shouldn't have.

That being done, I think we're now on the same page regarding the discussion.


How about "Can we better understand how Roland's world works, at all?" That is a more fundamental question, right? I hope it's clear, however, that I don't actually think that your question is not a "good" one. (Although it is a very hard one to explore in a non-spoiler thread.)

That is a more fundamental question, and a good one. I don't think we can better understand it, only pose theories that attempt to explain it. Not even Roland can explain Roland's world, which I think is wonderful. It allows us to come up with endless possible explanations. No theory will ever be complete or satisfactory, but it's fascinating to come up with them.

And you're right that it's tough to explore these questions without spoilers, I've had a hard time avoiding specifics about later information. But, as the the original poster continues to read, the discussion can continue to grow.

pathoftheturtle
12-10-2009, 11:17 AM
... I don't think we can better understand it, only pose theories that attempt to explain it. ... No theory will ever be complete or satisfactory, but it's fascinating to come up with them. ...
All too true... and pretty much exactly the way that I feel about this other subject --

...making any claims about the author's intention immediately draws a red flag from me. How can you know his intention? Are you him? ...

Mitchel
12-11-2009, 03:08 PM
Well, I ran across something that leaves me with no other conclusion thus far except for poor - very poor - editing.

We all know Roland's path is going southeast. That's been said in books 1 and 3 so many times it hurts. Yeah, I know, the golgatha, the beach, and that stuff in book 2 is still hazy... but all through book 1, he is going southeast. In book three, after the beach ordeal and all of that, he is going southeast again... when they find Shardik's lair, they discover the beam is going southeast. THE BEAM IS GOING SOUTHEAST. This is made clear.

So when I got to pages 566 and 567 of book 3, I was genuinely irritated by what I read;


Blaine is talking (page 566); YOU WILL NOTICE THAT OUR PATH KEEPS FIRMLY TO THE SOUTHWEST - ALONG THE PATH OF THE BEAM.

What the hell is this!?

On the VERY next page, 567, as they are leaving Lud, it's narrated; Ahead, the wall at the southeastern edge of the city was drawing closer.

C'mon now. Gimme' a break already.

echoRacer
01-24-2010, 03:08 AM
*Sigh*, the directions within TDT books are beyond understanding, i can't stand reading the parts in the Waste Lands about the train tracks near the Great Road where Patricia/Blaine travel, when they first reach the town along the road, it is said that the train line lies to the left of the road, whereas when the tet reach the bridge crossing into Lud, the track switches to the RIGHT side.

Claude Clay
02-01-2010, 08:17 AM
the man in the desert fled & conned and decieved....

rivers can jump out of their beds.....

Blaine the train is insane.....

...and from this you wish to make sense:doh:

perhaps cause my wife is directionally challenged
[points to the left and says go right:unsure:]
i let things of this nature in a story go by with a shrug--
either it will work itself out later or it makes no matter.
good luck to ua and enjoy the next 5 books.

varyar
02-07-2010, 10:56 AM
I posed this same question on another forum a while ago, and someone offered a theory that I rather like - the mountains that Jake and Roland go under, the ones with the Slow Mutants, are part of the Wasteland. The Mohaine Desert is the eastern fringe of the Wasteland, too. Later on, Blaine's route takes him over the mountains (maybe directly above one of the subterranean tracks that Roland and Jake come across), but the ka-tet doesn't see it since Blaine has shut down transparent mode by then.

It looks something like this very rough map:

http://file.walagata.com/w/varyar/Mid-World_Geography_Possible_Fix.png

pathoftheturtle
02-08-2010, 02:12 PM
That's a cool map.

Still... Though there is definitely some illogic in the directions, which has Blaine or the beam crossing Roland's earlier path somewhere, I think I prefer that to deciding that the waste lands could be survivable.

Mattyhav
06-24-2010, 07:04 PM
Hello everyone, I'm new too.... and actually, this thread convinced me to register. So, appropriately, this is where I will write the baptismal first comment.

Okay, so I read in some book review (maybe nytimes?) of The Dark Tower that, without posting spoilers!, how Stephen King brought DT to a close revealed the series as his 'grand thesis on the act of writing.'

Mitchel, finish the series soon, because this will be more interesting with ultimate perspective, but: I think the various cardinal shifts in direction could be thematically attributed to not only, yes, a writer's tendency to lose track of his story (written worlds are constantly "moving on," because they exist in our minds), but also the new perspective you bring to a novel every time you pick it up. Roland journeys to the Way Station -- you put it down and go to work -- Roland and Jake continue, on a slightly different mental path than before because you stopped reading. Of course nobody can keep track of what's north and south and southwest (or east?). It's all in your imagination. And what a shaky landscape that is.

Brice
06-25-2010, 04:59 AM
Hello everyone, I'm new too.... and actually, this thread convinced me to register. So, appropriately, this is where I will write the baptismal first comment.

Okay, so I read in some book review (maybe nytimes?) of The Dark Tower that, without posting spoilers!, how Stephen King brought DT to a close revealed the series as his 'grand thesis on the act of writing.'

Mitchel, finish the series soon, because this will be more interesting with ultimate perspective, but: I think the various cardinal shifts in direction could be thematically attributed to not only, yes, a writer's tendency to lose track of his story (written worlds are constantly "moving on," because they exist in our minds), but also the new perspective you bring to a novel every time you pick it up. Roland journeys to the Way Station -- you put it down and go to work -- Roland and Jake continue, on a slightly different mental path than before because you stopped reading. Of course nobody can keep track of what's north and south and southwest (or east?). It's all in your imagination. And what a shaky landscape that is.

...and then there's King's past alcohol/drug use. :lol: He may just have not noticed till too late....and then his mistakes became intentional.

LineofEld
06-25-2010, 11:56 AM
Brice- I believe that is the ultimate answer.

Brice
06-25-2010, 04:08 PM
:D

Nozzala
07-21-2010, 08:02 PM
Hey guys! I'm going to New York for the first time, and of course I thought of The Dark Tower series. I was wondering if any of the places mentioned in the book (although I know fictional) would be worth stopping by? Has anyone done this, maybe just taking a picture by the street signs? Am I the only super nerd? :)

Brice
07-21-2010, 09:57 PM
No, somewhere around here there are some pretty amazing pics of some nonfictional places in NYC. :)

tipp-ed off
07-22-2010, 02:50 PM
Being the visual person I am I get disoriented trying to imagine locations and destinations in the Dark Tower. Maybe a lot has to do with typos and bad editing like when Eddie is walking north along the sea and the mountains are on his left? Or when Blaine states that his route will travel south-west along the beam? I understand that direction, like time, is in a state of flux. South might become slightly south-east for example. And that the landscape seems to be stretching with the deterioration of the beams, but I can't believe that directions have completely flip-flopped. All world used to contain maps as Roland once said and I tried to come up with the way of the Gunslinger for Books 1-3. Some things kind of through me off like when in Tull Roland could see the path of the beam in the sky. I'm not the best artist and its definitely not to scale, but I through a quick draft together of how I might see it in my head. Could use some help if you guys see anything different.
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m79/tipp-edoff/DarkTowerMap-1.jpg
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m79/tipp-edoff/DarkTowerMap-1.jpg

Randall Flagg
07-22-2010, 03:39 PM
Nice. FYI, Golgotha is misspelled.

tipp-ed off
07-22-2010, 03:58 PM
Nice. FYI, Golgotha is misspelled.

ahhhh. stupid MS paint! Thanks

John_and_Yoko
07-22-2010, 04:14 PM
If it's any help, The Dark Tower: The Complete Concordance has maps of All-World, and it seems to suggest that the path that Roland traced in The Gunslinger is parallel to the path of the Beam, but further southwest. This would mean that there was no crossing of the path of the Beam, but rather that Roland went southwest, then turned right and made a "U-ie" (however you spell that) and went in the opposite direction, more northward (possibly northwest?) to find the doors, and then ended up further north than he'd started out when he came to the portal.

Dean
07-23-2010, 12:49 AM
About 6 or 7 years ago I saw on ebay someone selling a Dark Tower book and with it he was giving away some exclusive photo he took of the exact location where the :rose: was located. He said it was something to behold, yet did not explain or show the photograph, unless you won the auction you didn't see it obviously. I've always wondered what that picture was of. Did King take a real life NY monument and play off it?

fivethirtytwo
07-23-2010, 02:13 AM
Nozzie:

Go to www.darktowercompendium.com and scroll down to the bottom of the homepage. There is a snippet that says
"Ever wondered what the real vacant lot in New York City looks like? Click the picture and find out!"

The pictures are old and I can't vouch for the authenticity, but mayhap you could update them for us and post here?

tipp-ed off
07-23-2010, 01:52 PM
If it's any help, The Dark Tower: The Complete Concordance has maps of All-World, and it seems to suggest that the path that Roland traced in The Gunslinger is parallel to the path of the Beam, but further southwest. This would mean that there was no crossing of the path of the Beam, but rather that Roland went southwest, then turned right and made a "U-ie" (however you spell that) and went in the opposite direction, more northward (possibly northwest?) to find the doors, and then ended up further north than he'd started out when he came to the portal.

I guess I missed this original thread. Maybe Roland and Jake didn't cross the beam. But I kinda like the idea that they crossed near the oracle and the first speaking ring and proceeded under the mountains never seeing the mono track above. I also like the idea that the slow mutants may be refugees from the wastelands or they were slowly poluted over the years by the contaminated River Send.

Nozzala
07-25-2010, 01:04 PM
Wow! That's freakin' sweet! I will surely have to try to make it there, and if I do, I will post pictures here :excited:

Letti
07-25-2010, 11:26 PM
Wow! That's freakin' sweet! I will surely have to try to make it there, and if I do, I will post pictures here :excited:

Please do. It's my big dream to go there one day. :)

velcro_fly
07-26-2010, 09:02 PM
If you try using Google Earth and go to street level, it has some cool views certain spots.