Yes
No
I don't think he is a wild card, because his purpose is evil. The wild card of insomnia was Ed Deepnau, because he didn't have any. Walter has one; doom. Those who are evil are doomed in Stephen King's novels. Except for Needful Things. I think as long as we have money and desire to own what is rightfully ours, there will always be a Mr. Gaunt somewhere out there...
I actually wonder if Mr. Gaunt was Flagg...
Ed Deepnau was himself doomed and had carried out evil acts upon him wife and was planning an act of great evil when he was barely stopped by Ralph and Lois.
'Wild Cards' are very rare and valuable. The Crimson King wanted Ed just because of that, he could be 'bent' to whatever purpose the CK wanted, like a human skelaton key.
Patrick Danville for reasons unknown to us could not be killed by anyone serving EITHER the Random or the Purpose...remember, Ralph himself has to severe his connection with whatever purpose he served to save Helen's daughter.
As for for Flagg being Gaunt, I really don't think they are the same fellow, but they are cut from similar material. Remember in 'Needful Things' Alan was givien a glimpse of what Gaunt really was, and that included images of a medieval peddler. Gaunt is very probably a 'Long-timer'.
If you look in DT7, there's a little blurb about how a new shop has opened in Maine. It's called 'Answered Prayers'...and I bet the renter is Leland Gaunt.
I just thought that's what Walter did while he was 'away' so to speak. When he's not destroying entire worlds, he is out as Leland Gaunt, who is destroying communities and taking souls for the Crimson King. The reason I considered it is because he is a demon, very much in the same image as Flagg, however I agree it is unlikely.
I never thought the Castle Rock stories connected to TDT, but it looks like Alan used the power of the WHITE to repel 'The Gaunt Thing..."
There's three roaming 'long timers' if you consider Anton from 'Storm of the Centuary'.
I thought the movie was ok, but the bad guy didn't scare me. The demon was stupid; I never would have bought anything he said nor have given my kid to him. There are many 'long timers' to read of, not all are evil. I think the demons are actually just barely old enough to be considered as such, save for the Red King. I believe the Turtle is much older :p
I believe King likes to exaggerate the evil when he speaks of them being demons. Sometimes I think he is being quite literal (as in the case of Mr. gaunt). Sometimes, I think it is only a suggestion of character...
Marten is the ageless stranger and a creature from the prim, if walter/flagg had been marten he would have seen to it that roland was killed in Mejis. the whole reason he was sent there is to that marten wouldn't kill him. flagg is a human imbued with powers, a wizard. the ageless stranger/marten is a demonOriginally Posted by Letti
If that's the case, then why does Walter tell Roland during their palaver in the golgotha that he came to his mother as Marten? ("There is a truth you always suspected, is it not?")Marten is the ageless stranger and a creature from the prim, if walter/flagg had been marten he would have seen to it that roland was killed in Mejis. the whole reason he was sent there is to that marten wouldn't kill him. flagg is a human imbued with powers, a wizard. the ageless stranger/marten is a demon
"May your luck rise, Roland" -Cuthbert Allgood
Because King made the revised edition with extra-cheese, that's why.
What?
"May your luck rise, Roland" -Cuthbert Allgood
the revised version is superior, it fits more with the rest of the books in the series, its basically the same treatment george lucas gave the original star wars trilogy, except yaknow, actually better
if the worlds gonna end then let's get it over with, i got shit to do
Now that I re-read the past three posts I see what path of the turtle is saying.
Thanks, FWTL.
"May your luck rise, Roland" -Cuthbert Allgood
It doesn't, really. If you read the Revised and then the next three books, there's a lot of jarring stuff that doesn't fit.
For example, at the end of the Revised Gunslinger, Roland A.) Knows that Walter is Marten and B.) Suspects that the skeleton in the golgotha is not real and that Walter is alive. Yet in the next three books Roland believes that Walter is dead and is a seperate entity from Marten.
Or Roland thinking about the Beast and Maerlyn in later books when Walter tells him that it's Legion and the Crimson King.
Or, heck, not ONCE in the entire series during the countless scenes in which Roland and co. discuss the significance of 19, does Roland even mention the events concerning Walter and Allie. "Oh, that 19 number? Well, back in Gilead, 19 was a euphemism for the afterlife and when Allie mentioned it to Nort he drove her insane by telling her what was waiting for her when she died."
...huh?
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
...And when the oracle told Roland that 3 was the number of his fate, was it ever clunky to have her then throw in "Another number comes later."
Still, all of this indeed isbasically the same treatment George Lucas gave the original Star Wars trilogy.
The 19 business was definitely clunky in its retro-induction. It was kinda stupid even in the books where it's actually from.
I like to keep Flagg in my mind as just a bit more than a Man, not some kind of demon. It's hard to reconcile that he is Marten and Walter, but from just reading the novels he could even be Farson and others. I like that the lore and chronology is so liquid in the King multiverse, and I stopped expecting absolute answers from his stories years ago.
It's exactly like what George Lucas did, right down to Allie asking Roland to shoot her instead of Greedo shooting first....And when the oracle told Roland that 3 was the number of his fate, was it ever clunky to have her then throw in "Another number comes later."
Still, all of this indeed is
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
Actually, Roland starts acting like Walter is dead but still has doubts whether he is or not - he's undecided. But even in the revised Gunslinger he talks of Walter in the past tense (ie like he's dead).For example, at the end of the Revised Gunslinger, Roland A.) Knows that Walter is Marten and B.) Suspects that the skeleton in the golgotha is not real and that Walter is alive. Yet in the next three books Roland believes that Walter is dead and is a seperate entity from Marten.
And Roland always treats each persona of Flagg seperately unless specifically listing his names together, even in the last 3 books. For example, when Callahan tells of his encounter with Walter, Roland and the ka-tet talk solely about Walter.
Thats only one short scene:Or Roland thinking about the Beast and Maerlyn in later books when Walter tells him that it's Legion and the Crimson King.
"Walters veiled words about a Beast and someone he called the Ageless Stranger."
Maerlyn is never mentioned in the discussion of his palavar, only the phrase "Ageless Stranger" is used which jogs Susannah to be reminded of Merlin and King Arthur.
The use of the word "Beast" is the only contridiction that the revised throws up really. But if the other books are revised too, replacing "Beast" with "King" will be an easy thing to do.
He doesn't mention alot of other 19 events either.Or, heck, not ONCE in the entire series during the countless scenes in which Roland and co. discuss the significance of 19, does Roland even mention the events concerning Walter and Allie. "Oh, that 19 number? Well, back in Gilead, 19 was a euphemism for the afterlife and when Allie mentioned it to Nort he drove her insane by telling her what was waiting for her when she died."
In the original we learn explicitly that Marten is dead. The Man in Black has eaten his soul, the Man in Black delievered him to Roland to kill, etc. Yet in the second book Roland believes he will see Marten in the near future. The original was full of mistakes and false starts and - crucially for me - not well written. In fact, The Gunslinger used to be one of my least favorite King books and I felt it to be a disappointment when compared to the other 3 books (at the time, the only ones I'd read). I read the revised and now its one of my favorite stories - the writing has been cleared up, it flows soooo much better, and it is no longer jarring when I read the series in order.
I do believe the revised to be an improvement over the orginal.
He's not so much as undecided as he is strongly suspicious that Walter laid a fake skeleton in his place to fool him. King would have been much better off rephrasing it to make it look ambigous to the reader but not necessarily to Roland and then have Walter reveal later on what was up. That way it wouldn't go from "Walter's alive--no he's dead--no, wait he's alive and I knew it all along". The fact that Walter was alive and Marten to boot should have been a revelation late in the series and be a surprise to Roland as well as to the reader.Actually, Roland starts acting like Walter is dead but still has doubts whether he is or not - he's undecided. But even in the revised Gunslinger he talks of Walter in the past tense (ie like he's dead).
This is of course, ignoring the fact that resurrecting Walter serves no conceivable purpose. Seriously, I have no idea why King would go to such great lengths to tie in Walter to Marten/Flagg when he did fuck-all in the final book besides being Mordred Num Nums.
I'm pretty sure in the final books (and it's been a while since I reread the series) that Roland thinks "Walter, who was calling himself Flagg now" and etceteras when thinking about his nemesis.And Roland always treats each persona of Flagg seperately unless specifically listing his names together, even in the last 3 books. For example, when Callahan tells of his encounter with Walter, Roland and the ka-tet talk solely about Walter.
But this one--that the Land of Nineteen is the Land of Death, and that saying "Nineteen" will unlock the secrets of death and drive you insane--is a pretty big event. I mean, when Roland and the Ka-tet are wondering about the significance of 19 and why it pops up all the time, you'd think Roland would remember how important it was. Just like how he has know idea who the Crimson King is in book IV despite knowing legends about him as a child in the final book.He doesn't mention alot of other 19 events either.
Honestly, a lot of the errors in the first book I really didn't notice going on--with the exception of Farson, maybe. However, the changes in the Revised do give a disjointed feel in correlation with the next three.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
Roland has his doubts but cant prove them one way or the other. Roland finds out he is indeed alive in book 4.He's not so much as undecided as he is strongly suspicious that Walter laid a fake skeleton in his place to fool him. King would have been much better off rephrasing it to make it look ambigous to the reader but not necessarily to Roland and then have Walter reveal later on what was up. That way it wouldn't go from "Walter's alive--no he's dead--no, wait he's alive and I knew it all along". The fact that Walter was alive and Marten to boot should have been a revelation late in the series and be a surprise to Roland as well as to the reader.
This is of course, ignoring the fact that resurrecting Walter serves no conceivable purpose. Seriously, I have no idea why King would go to such great lengths to tie in Walter to Marten/Flagg when he did fuck-all in the final book besides being Mordred Num Nums.
Rereading the original Gunslinger its becomes painfully apparent why such changes were needed. For one thing, Marten was dead in that book. The Man in Black had eaten his soul, the Man in Black had delievered Marten into Rolands hands at some undisclosed point in their past. Yet in the next 3 books Roland strangely starts believing he is going to meet Marten again and finally does in book 4. And not only that, in the palavar we learn that Walter was the one who took Rolands mother through Marten, that it wasn't Marten himself. We learn that Walter was the one who made and broke his father. Yet in the next 3 books, all of these deeds aren't Walters, they are Martens. The only way to clear this up without more extensive rewrites is to combine the characters.
Well, that would fall under "specifically listing his names together". In the Callahan example, when talking about Walter they only refer to him as "that guy Walter." Another example is that when Roland thinks back to his days in Gilead he only refers to "Marten the Enchanter" and none of his other names.I'm pretty sure in the final books (and it's been a while since I reread the series) that Roland thinks "Walter, who was calling himself Flagg now" and etceteras when thinking about his nemesis.
But Roland simply doesn't think its worth sharing. It more or less tells us what Roland thinks of 19 in book 5:But this one--that the Land of Nineteen is the Land of Death, and that saying "Nineteen" will unlock the secrets of death and drive you insane--is a pretty big event. I mean, when Roland and the Ka-tet are wondering about the significance of 19 and why it pops up all the time, you'd think Roland would remember how important it was. Just like how he has know idea who the Crimson King is in book IV despite knowing legends about him as a child in the final book.
As for knowing who the Crimson King is....well the truth of the matter is he doesn't. Sure, he knows of the Crimson King, he knows legends and knows that he's evil. But he doesn't know who he is....even in the last 3 books he's coming up with ideas:"Yet Roland, who believed in omens and portents as routinely as Eddie had once believed in lightbulbs and Double-A batteries, had a tendency to dismiss his ka-tets odd and sudden infatuation with the number."
As the series goes on he learns more about him."Who is he?"
"I dont know, Roland said. "Only that he bides far east of here, in Thunderclap or beyond it. I believe he may be a Guardian of the Dark Tower. He may even think he owns it."
It's like when Susannah asks Roland what the Eye sigul means. Roland doesn't tell her anything even though he knows its Farsons sign, which he finally gets round to tell her further on in the same book. He keeps things to himself.
As you say, Farson is a town in the original. Farson is a man in the next 3 books.Honestly, a lot of the errors in the first book I really didn't notice going on--with the exception of Farson, maybe. However, the changes in the Revised do give a disjointed feel in correlation with the next three.
Marten is dead in the original. Marten suddenly become a very live threat again in the next 3 books.
Marten is protrayed to be Walters inferior - Walter cant even send him Rolands vision without turning Marten into a drooling fool. Yet this is very different to the Marten protrayed in the next 3 books.
Walter is the one who takes Rolands mother, not Marten (though its implied Walter uses Martens body). This is completely at odds with what Roland talks about in the next 3 books.
The Ageless Stranger is explicitly stated to be called Maerlyn. The next 3 books explicitly tell us Maerlyn isnt the Ageless Stranger.
Alain is called Allen.
England exists in Mid-World which is at odds with everything we ever learn about Mid-World.
When Roland's father returns to Gilead after Roland becomes a gunslinger he is killed....directly contridicting the events of Wizard and Glass.
Etc. There are lots and lots and lots of contridictions in the original book.
And like I said, the main reason - the best reason - the revised is much better is due to the writing. It flows much better with the rest of the series, even if you just want to take the next 3 books into consideration, never mind the 3 after that.
No, it was lame. When I first started the series I already knew that Walter and Flagg were the same person and I'd heard that he met an anticlimactic end, but I was still expecting him to actually do something in the series before that happened. I don't see any reason why Flagg couldn't have survived until near the end of the book and been Roland's final obstacle before reaching the Tower and the Crimson King. It would have made more sense and been more thematically satisfying than the emotion vampire who came out of nowhere and almost killed Roland. As it is, all the foreshadowing in The Gunslinger and Wizard and Glass ("Before reaching the Tower you must kill the Ageless Stranger," "Next time I won't leave," "We'll meet Flagg again in Thunderclap") was for nothing. LAME.
by in the begining, do you mean "in the unrevised version"? cause yeah they are a lot more seperated in that, the revised one, not as muchDid you even read my initial post?
In the beginning of the series WALTER and MARTEN are two seperate characters unrelated to Flagg. It was only until the fourth book in the series that Marten became Flagg, and it was only until King finished the series that he resurrected Walter and made him yet another alias of Flagg.
So when I say, "Was Flagg needed?" I am referring to Flagg as Flagg only. Not Walter or Marten, who could have easily been seperate characters and were seperate characters for a good chunk of the series.
if the worlds gonna end then let's get it over with, i got shit to do
I voted yes.I fall under the group of people who have read for many years about Flagg and I have felt his presence in many of Kings books so I feel that without a doubt he was needed in TDT.I personaly like most of the stuff written about him in this series and I don't mind at all the plot twist of all 3 being Flagg.All of that would have been a much easier pill to swallow if that stupid spider didn't take him out as easy as he would a mutie animal roaming around Thunderclap.So in my opinion where sai King failed with Flagg was his demise.He was much to powerful a character to be defeated by a spider boy who was weak and shitting himself.Yes i feel like Flagg was necessary.My gripe is with Modreds character,always will be, and that is a different topic.Good food for thought though
I like this thread.
Suppose that all worlds, all universes, met at a single nexus, a single pylon, a Tower.
i think the fact that in the end flagg was a humbug in the truest sense makes him just that much more badass
if the worlds gonna end then let's get it over with, i got shit to do
Why do you think he was just a humbug (or bumhug)?
Roland would have understood.
I'm confused by this quote as well.
This is my blog/page:
www.facebook.com/thespermwhaleandbowlofpetunias
This is my donation page:
https://www.razoo.com/br/causes/Maje...h-Resorption-1
because in the end it turned out that though he had some power, his whole satanic facade was mostly a monstrous bluff! if that isn't hardcore then i don't what isWhy do you think he was just a humbug (or bumhug)?
if the worlds gonna end then let's get it over with, i got shit to do
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
