That Thing, You Can Only Talk About If You've Finished the Series

[Darkthoughts]

Hey Welcome to the site!

Now, don't be put off by the length of this thread but your questions - which don't really have any solid answers, only speculative ones - are being discussed here: http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/...ead.php?t=1778

On the last two pages of the thread I've posted a summary of the topics that have been discussed so far and your questions are pretty common discussion themes

As for "why Roland?" I think that's because of his heritage - he is the last Gunslinger and therefore it's his responsibility to perform the quest as Gan sees fit.

[The King of Kings]

Very good, my apologies.

[The King of Kings]

The biggest question that plagues my mind is: what is the Tower's/Gan's motive in all this? It's saved essentially, so why is this force making him repeat life over and over again?

[alinda]

merge? good and valid questions King, there are very interesting
theories around, read on! Oh Welcome to the site!

[obscurejude]

The biggest question that plagues my mind is: what is the Tower's/Gan's motive in all this? It's saved essentially, so why is this force making him repeat life over and over again?

Scroll back and respond to the previous posts specifically. The topic has been discussed at great length. I think you'll find it enjoyable.

Also, check this thread out. We talk a lot about the metaphysical forces of Roland's world here:

http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/...ead.php?t=2262

[The King of Kings]

Respond to what post?

I haven't really seen my question discussed in this thread. There was one semi-answer I thought and that was to save Roland's soul but I don't understand why Roland's soul needs saving and what has he done to tarnish his soul that he hasn't already made up for by the time he reaches the room at the top.

[Darkthoughts]

Did you not find Roland's lack of empathy and consideration for anything but his goal of reaching the Tower questionable?

[The King of Kings]

It was pretty clear (based on how I read it, anyways) that by the end of the books he would have gladly given his life for any of his ka-tet, especially Jake.

Yeah I totally agree he was pretty ruthless in the very first book at the beginning, but by the end of the series he had grown a considerable amount in terms of being able to love and trust others I thought. Enough, at the very least, to merit a vacation from the Tower instead of having to do it all over again.

[Darkthoughts]

I agree for Jake's death he would have traded places, but I also think he wouldn't have freely acted any differently (his past actions up to that point) had he been given the choice - and perhaps that is the point Gan is making, ie - until you behave differently from this point in time you have to repeat.

[The King of Kings]

We're his past actions up to that point really that bad though? Yeah he massacred a town when he could have chosen to just leave, but hey who can say no to that?

I agree that Gan wants him to do something differently, or else he wouldn't have sent him back (or maybe he's just malicious, who knows). A problem I have with that is, what's the point of the journey and doing things differently if you are just going to forget it at the end? Are you really going to be 'growing' if you have to forget everything good that's happened and you have to start back at square 1?

[Darkthoughts]

I can think of loads more stuff he did other than Tull...dropping Jake for one

There are also alot of instances where Roland acknowledges to himself, in a situation where people are perceiving him as being courageous or helpful, that he is only doing it because it aids his journey to the Tower and that he would sacrifice the relevant person/people should the need arise.

I actually don't have a problem with him forgetting each time, because it wouldn't really be a test if you knew how you were meant to behave in order to achieve your goal in the correct manner. I think Gan's point is that Roland needs to become more human/humane by virtue of his own free will. Sometimes I'm not sure that the Tower is ever in danger, on some levels I think it's a sort of purgatory and that Roland can only escape when he chooses to save himself instead of sacrificing his humanity for the Tower.

But I only think that sometimes

[jayson]

There are also alot of instances where Roland acknowledges to himself, in a situation where people are perceiving him as being courageous or helpful, that he is only doing it because it aids his journey to the Tower and that he would sacrifice the relevant person/people should the need arise.

Of course that brings up the question of what Roland's journey to the Tower is really about. If it is indeed about saving the entire multiverse from collapse, is it really so terrible for Roland to sacrifice a single person to save the entire world? Is any one life more important than all life? I don't necessarily know that there is a single correct answer to that kind of ethical question, but if Roland is actually saving the universe it's one that must be asked.

[Brice]

There are also alot of instances where Roland acknowledges to himself, in a situation where people are perceiving him as being courageous or helpful, that he is only doing it because it aids his journey to the Tower and that he would sacrifice the relevant person/people should the need arise.

Of course that brings up the question of what Roland's journey to the Tower is really about. If it is indeed about saving the entire multiverse from collapse, is it really so terrible for Roland to sacrifice a single person to save the entire world? Is any one life more important than all life? I don't necessarily know that there is a single correct answer to that kind of ethical question, but if Roland is actually saving the universe it's one that must be asked.

In my opinion yes, there is a single correct answer to that (YES, i do realize how fucking arrogant that is ): Every life is equal to the whole of humanity.

[jayson]

So if Roland for instance saved Jake instead of King and the whole universe collapsed that would be worth it?

[Brice]

absolutely

[Darkthoughts]

Yes, I was discussing this in the pub last weekend (hey, we can get drunk and be deep y'know! ) And I think it's an interesting paradox - because sacrificing one to save many doesn't really make sense when you boil that logic down...quantity doesn't necessarily take precedence as far as I'm concerned.

[The King of Kings]

If the saving one person from death will cause the entire universe to fail, I think it would be pretty irresponsible on Roland's part to choose the one person.

But that also begs the question...

He let Jake die the first time. When he got his second chance with Jake, it was pretty clear he would never let that happen again and that he would gladly lay down his life for Jake's (or any of the tet).

Isn't that truly redemption?

[jayson]

If the saving one person from death will cause the entire universe to fail, I think it would be pretty irresponsible on Roland's part to choose the one person.

I agree. In fact, I'd consider calling it selfish. What is the real point of saving the one person you care about if all life in the universe will be extinguished shortly thereafter? So you saved your loved one for what? A few more days? A week? Whoo hoo.

[Jon]

Thinny/David

Any body know where he is?

His phone number hasn't worked in quite some time.

There is a chance I could POSSIBLY find him VIA a third party... maybe.

[darktowerbondsman]

(Repeated from other thread, thought it would be relevent outside discussion just about the Horn of Eld)

Hello Fellow Tower Fans,

I've never posted to your site before, in fact I'm just taking it all in for the first time this morning. I'd like to offer my interpretation of King's story here as no one else seems to share my thoughts.

I'm sorry if I beat around the bush a bit but I promise this will end up being about the Horn.

Please keep in mind I just discovered these books last year. I was just reading "The Gunslinger" on the 4th of July, and last night I finally (whew!) finished "The Dark Tower VII". It was recommoned to me (and I did) to pepper in "The Stand", "Salem's Lot", and "The Talisman", all before the last of the series.

Robert Browning's poem is very key here as well, and while it can be a chore to digest poetry for some people, I think King used this as a map to his story the whole way through. So you almost need to read it once.

What a set of books, I'm almost speechless.

I've seen a lot of people focus on how many loose ends King leaves over the course of the books. For the amount of subject matter present in all these books I think he did as best he could, after all, this story was like a living thing that had to change over the years just as I'm sure the writer himself did. Despite all the titles of all these books, King's focus (and moral tale) was of Roland from beginning to end, as many stories have a tradition of ending where they started.

Because of this focus, and his obvious lone destiny with the Tower at the end (If the Crimson King only knew!), I think we can catch some clues that King has left for us to find.

Roland needs a Key for the Tower right? And it's an artifact of Eld. Everyone assumes it's Roland's Gun, it's mythical barrel made with the metal of Arthur Eld's sword Excaliber itself... but... it's not Excaliber itself.

Fantastical? Sure! Awesome? Hell yeah? Best damn gun in any universe? I'd set my watch and warrent by it. Tower Key... no. It's been changed, alterered, given a whole new life in the killing chambers of line after line of gunslingers. Not just that but it's a fragment. Think past Roland's guns back to the first few books, in Gilead's day I'm sure there were more than just two of these guns. I'm no master of Metallurgy, but the inside of a gun barrel isn't THAT much metal. One giant mythical sword melted down may supply as many as 20 guns with near holy properties.

Now think of his other gun left with Susannah, this is a good clue. When she finally get's beyond the door it's trash, used up... wet. It's hard but despite the stories behind that gun, it's tossed in the waste basket.

So the gun is not the Key, but the Tower opens for him, why? Because Roland and the Tower are Destiny (Ka). He is meant for the Tower and the Tower is meant for him, it has to open. This is where he and he alone must go time after time after time "delah" (Roland shows this with deja`vu), it's a story of this man's moral character as well as being a character in a book. As in the "Talisman", Roland is Stephen King's Twinner of another world, in other worlds they share a HUGE link. As the writer has grown, so has he made Roland grow as a person.

The Horn is a gift from Gan like it or not. Roland has made this journey so many times, and is so very tired. But this last time he shared his journey with us his readers, and this time... this time he did everything the right way... so why repeat it again?!? Well, Roland's story is not like a video game, it's personal growth and emotional development, not do this, do that quests. In this cycle for the first time I'm sure many things happened, like him truely loving his family, and other touchy stuff do ya ken it?

Problem is his story is a broken Paradox. No matter that he got it right at the end of our story, he had not the Key to the door, and thus back to the desert he went to repeat the journey once more. The Horn of Eld, being a true artifact of Arthur Eld is the real Key. But not the key to the Tower, for it opens anyways, but the true key to the Gunslinger's door at the top, the one marked "Roland".

We know time is stretched out and generally messed up in this story, but Roland apparently gains near 1000 years while wandering the desert in this tale but seems not to notice it. I think this is the last huge clue King gave us long ago and he ties in here, this is like a "flex time" where he starts over so many times but the world keeps moving on. Destiny keeps him pumping and makes him whole every time, but it's in the damn desert, way to late to get the Horn back in his possession.

That's why I think Gan rewarded him with the Horn. This time Gan wants him to repeat process with the horn at his side, so he may finally go to the clearing at the end of his path when he gets to the top this final time.

Okay that's a lot to spit out and I tend to jabber, so chew on those thoughts and see if they feel right.

[The King of Kings]

Very solid analysis, but I have a problem.

With The Dark Tower series, it's not the ending that matters -- it's the journey. Having said that, I think that the reason Gan is making him repeat his journey is because he hasn't gotten a full character development yet in some arena (which your guess is as good as mine, because I think his character grew dramatically, well worth getting the clearing at the path, or at least a mini vacation).

Because of this, I think the horn will represent that last bit of character devleopment. Maybe one day he'll be going through his purse, see it, and then he will remember what its like to love and to trust and mayhap he won't be so distrusting and maybe he will love his tet more or something.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like my answer that much better either because it assumes that he didn't make a big enough transformation. I thought it was pretty clear he would have died for anyone of his tet and that is the biggest transformation of all compared to the way he was at the beginning.

You're assumptions are 100% spot on I believe though, I just think that requiring the horn for a reason such as unlocking a door would be a bit cheap. Amazing conclusion drawn either way!

[Brice]

Yes, I was discussing this in the pub last weekend (hey, we can get drunk and be deep y'know! ) And I think it's an interesting paradox - because sacrificing one to save many doesn't really make sense when you boil that logic down...quantity doesn't necessarily take precedence as far as I'm concerned.

For me, that's a part of it. Quite simply I believe all things reflect on all other things. I even extend this to what I would consider the most despicable people. Their lives are equal to the best of us.

If the saving one person from death will cause the entire universe to fail, I think it would be pretty irresponsible on Roland's part to choose the one person.

But that also begs the question...

He let Jake die the first time. When he got his second chance with Jake, it was pretty clear he would never let that happen again and that he would gladly lay down his life for Jake's (or any of the tet).

Isn't that truly redemption?

In a way I think it is, but I consider it irresponsible to choose at all in such a situation.

If the saving one person from death will cause the entire universe to fail, I think it would be pretty irresponsible on Roland's part to choose the one person.

I agree. In fact, I'd consider calling it selfish. What is the real point of saving the one person you care about if all life in the universe will be extinguished shortly thereafter? So you saved your loved one for what? A few more days? A week? Whoo hoo.

The thing is there is no real way in real life to know how many will or won't die in any given situation...even a potentially world/universe destroying situation. In the story it works, but in reality we can expect survivors to most scenarios. So, if it's worth it to let someone you love die to save say a million people it would seem the same applies if it's only gonna' save two...and what if it will only save one person? How does one make such a choice at all. Surely most people wouldn't choose a single stranger's life over the life of one they love in most situations, so what's the magic number? How many lives does the life of one person you love equal? How many have to be at risk to make it best to save the most people. I fear for our (nonexistent) souls if we make such choices.

[Brice]

Thinny/David

Any body know where he is?

His phone number hasn't worked in quite some time.

There is a chance I could POSSIBLY find him VIA a third party... maybe.

I'll try to see what I can find...no promises.

[jayson]

The thing is there is no real way in real life to know how many will or won't die in any given situation...even a potentially world/universe destroying situation. In the story it works, but in reality we can expect survivors to most scenarios. So, if it's worth it to let someone you love die to save say a million people it would seem the same applies if it's only gonna' save two...and what if it will only save one person? How does one make such a choice at all. Surely most people wouldn't choose a single stranger's life over the life of one they love in most situations, so what's the magic number? How many lives does the life of one person you love equal? How many have to be at risk to make it best to save the most people. I fear for our (nonexistent) souls if we make such choices.

While I tend to agree with respect to real life situations, at least in terms of what I believe I would do if faced with such a choice, I don't know that the same holds true for Roland. His is a fantastical situation for sure, but it is nonetheless true that he does face the extinction of all lives if he doesn't complete his quest. Like I've said before, there really is a Tower and there really is a CK trying to bring it down. It's an interesting ethical hypothetical.

[Darkthoughts]

I think though, within the context of DT, that Roland dropping Jake wasn't about sacrificing one to save many - it was to do with Roland's goal of reaching the Tower, which as we learn, he isn't doing for the good of the universes, but through his own selfish desire.