What would have happened if... ?

[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.

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

[Brice]

[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.

I need to do a re-read.

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.