Whose responsibility was...

[Whitey Appleseed]

Posted this on another thread and I ought to add it here, as well. Roland did see the potential of Marten in himself. On the drop, with Susan, during the blood kiss, “She was, at least for the moment, no longer her own mistress; she might consequently be his. He could do to her what Marten had done to his own mother, if that was his fancy.” W&G, chap vii/section 9/p270. Not that I want to, but it is part of the story, as King wrote it. I don't think it's a tiny similarity, do you?

[Jean]

taking it into consideration that Roland's experience in everything concerning relations between sexes was very limited, and that the memory of Marten and Gabrielle loomed very large in his immature mind, I think it's only natural that their example leaped to his mind at the slightest pretext. I wouldn't attach too much importance to this, or coclude that there really were any similarities.

[jayson]

I agree Jean. Roland was a 14 year old boy who had exactly two memories involving sex, his night with the whore in Gilead and catching his mother and Marten. That conceivably would make for much of Roland's associations of sex with "what Marten did to mother". As much as he could act as an adult in many situations other 14 year old boys couldn't, Roland was in many ways a just another confused teenage boy when it came to sexual things.

[Jean]

That conceivably would make for much of Roland's associations of sex with "what Marten did to mother".

this perfectly resumes what I was trying to say!

[Whitey Appleseed]

Yeah, okay, the teenage angle explains why he was unable to forgive his mother. His control over his teenage hormones is an adult response. The text says, “She was, at least for the moment, no longer her own mistress; she might consequently be his. He could do to her what Marten had done to his own mother, if that was his fancy.”

I'm wondering how significant the word "consequently" is in this case? The story continues, "The thought broke his passion apart, turned it to coals that fell in a bright shower, winking out one by one in a dark bewilderment..."

I know you're not saying that what Marten and Gabrielle did is not without significance. What is significant, I think, is the struggle Roland has with love and how that struggle affects his decision later, the Tower, or Susan. Susan thanked him a bit later, for not taking what he could. Given that later on he does take Susan and her him, considering his initial reaction, as well as Susan's initial response, "if you really do love me, don't let me dishonor myself. I've made a promise. Anything might come later, after that promise was fulfilled, I suppose..." is their being together in harmony with the rose?

[Jean]

Hardly anything about young Roland is in harmony with the rose. The question whether or not what he and Susan did was 100% kosher, and the question whether or not there is any analogy to Marten&Gabrielle story, are, I believe, different.

[Whitey Appleseed]

Meaning not on this thread, or something, huh? I don't see how they are different, considering the text provided. Susan didn't want Roland to cause her to dishonor herself, much as Gabrielle dishonored herself by following her desire for Marten. Given the text provided by King, that "Anything might come later, after that promise was fulfilled, I suppose..." Susan's words, I'll hazard again that Roland does hold some responsibility for her death in the end.

No matter, I'll still sleep at night, with the question unsettled. As Roland said to Jake, "Yet here we are, and ka stands to one side and laughs."

[Jean]

There are no two things, or lines or events, between which similarities couldn't be found. Likewise, we could say, for example, that what Blaine does to Lud only echoes what Roland did to Tull, or that Walter dies like Eddie (both believing to have won, and underestimating the adversary). Similarities are heuristically helpful unless they are absolutized and obscure the differences, or else they might distort the essense.

[Whitey Appleseed]

Yeah, you betcha! Couldn't have said it better myself! Theorizing diaspora, adjudicating hybridity.

[jayson]

Please clarify Whitey. I'm not sure I see either one of those in Jean's contention.

[Whitey Appleseed]

Please clarify Whitey. I'm not sure I see either one of those in Jean's contention.

I'm still trying to figure out what either one of us said...give me time.

[Brice]

[Jean]

I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I am a foreigner, and sometimes it is easier for me to use a long word than to look for short ones; please tell me which of them caused difficulty, I'll try to replace it.

I'll try to put it in other words now: to understand a thing better, you can compare it with another - known - thing; in this way, both finding similarity and finding differences is very helpful for deeper understanding. Depending solely on similarity or solely on difference may, however, make the phenomenon or event in question lose some essential features, which will obscure the understanding, not facilitate it.

Actually, it was only theorizing around the two quite concrete examples I gave:

There are no two things, or lines or events, between which similarities couldn't be found. Likewise, we could say, for example, that what Blaine does to Lud only echoes what Roland did to Tull, or that Walter dies like Eddie (both believing to have won, and underestimating the adversary).

[alinda]

I am so in love with this conversation, I'm finding the on line dictionary very useful
presently, thank you for the opportunity to increase my vocabulary.

[Whitey Appleseed]

You gotta remember, Jean, I'm a carpenter and shifting from hammer and nails to ideas takes time. I think I get what you're saying now. Sorta like, yeah, you don't want to install the pink shutters against the purple siding, go with the white, everything goes with the white...wait now, that might work, actually. Bad example.

Anyway, I see nothing that diminishes the tale if Roland/Susan is compared/contrasted/whatever with Marten/Gabrielle. Considering the text given, the dialogue of the characters, how could anyone not see similarities 'tween the two? Your examples could be talked about, as well, and I figured from an earlier post you were telling me to stay on thread...does Roland own some blame for Susan's death...I think that was the thread opener...mind boggled...rubbing furiously at left temple...many other functions...what's that noise that Andy and Blaine make?

As for obscuring the understanding...dunno...said elsewhere that on initial read, Roland seemed like a giant...could do no wrong...and on initial read, I saw no fault with Roland and Susan slip sliding away. Now, I'm second-guessing that thought, questioning it, as well as seeing the Marten/Gabrielle affair as it was...for two years...while on the initial read, perhaps I read those words but thought of it as a one-time deal.

[Kes]

Not to lose the current thread of the conversation, but to answer the original question...

I don't think you can hold Roland "responsible" for Susan's death...where there things he could have done/not done that might have changed the outcome? Well, perhaps. Perhaps not, Ka being what it is...

You could suggest that Susan was equally responsible for her own death. She was told to go West to Gilead and didn't. She chose to remain and free Roland and company. Had she left them to their own devices and found her way to Stephen Deschain it might be Roland's son we would be reading about.

I think that Roland certainly takes on the responsibility for Susan, after the outcome. And I think the reason he does is that he realizes that he WOULD have risked her to gain the Tower and that once he realized what his quest was, no woman or child could have kept him from it. And knowing that he was everything to her, while she was but a part of who he was creates him in the feeling of responsibility. But to say that his direct actions anymore than anyone else's caused her death...well, I can't go there.


As to the Roland/Susan and Marten/Gabrielle connection, the problem is that we don't know enough about Marten and Gabrielle and what their connection was...Was it a love match? Or was it a powerful man manipulating a lonely woman? Did Marten dishonor Gabrielle or did she dishonor herself? Is cuckholding someone, having an affair with a married woman the same as wooing a young girl away from becoming the mistress of a married man when the whole price of the bargain still hasn't been met?

There is some sort of a hint in DT7

Spoiler:

where we are treated to a vision in one of the rooms where Roland most certainly connects sex and his mother quite clearly and to his absolute terror. Does this show some connection in Roland's mind between Susan and Gabrielle, as has been suggested?

[AIMB]

ooooh! I was the 19th vote for Ka!

Anyways I think it was just something that happened because of small (and not so small) choices made by a number of people. That's what was so sad about it, if one person had just done one thing different.

[pathoftheturtle]

Ha ha i'm cool with blaming Ka

How can you blame something that's so untouchable?

Well, then, maybe we should come right out and ask about Gan.

...It all had to happen to start off the quest to the tower.

If that is true, could we say that the Tower knew it?

This is a real horror story if Gan planned everything.

[Letti]

This is a real horror story if Gan planned everything.

For me it sounds like a bad comedy.

[Jean]

bears are inclined to feel the same

[pathoftheturtle]

A real horror story or a bad comedy... either way, it's Stephen King.

[Jean]

petitio principii?!

[candy]

Ha ha i'm cool with blaming Ka

How can you blame something that's so untouchable?

Well, then, maybe we should come right out and ask about Gan.

...It all had to happen to start off the quest to the tower.

If that is true, could we say that the Tower knew it?

This is a real horror story if Gan planned everything.

and this is a surprise to you? don't you find that god/gan/ the turtle has a sick sense of humour and / or fair play when you see whats going on in the world?

I blame Ka and i believe it was fate that led to susan's death, i also partly blame roland as he lost sight of his fathers face (his mission) and he failed to protect the people around him, if he had done the job that was set or even taken his head out of his arse for one moment he may well have saved susan, but i don't think that was ever meant to happen - Ka.

i do blame the townsfolk but not as much, if you have ever read the papers you all know how easy it is to get caught up in a witch hunt.

as for cordelia/rhea yes they instigated this, but i also feel that if they hadn't something else would have done and susan would still have died. ka

[pathoftheturtle]

Thank you, candy; that's close to what was trying to say. I do not find, ultimately, that God is sick, but it is no surprise to me when people do feel that way. I see what's going on in this world.

More interesting to me at the moment, however, is that while you do not feel that Roland or any of the other characters are excusable, you believe in ka.

Jean, you know what my basic position really is, if you'd like to get formal.

[Jean]

sure, but since you know what mine is, you will understand that I couldn't help making a little cheap jab