Original or Revised, if you HAD to choose

[pathoftheturtle]

I have not read all the comics, so can someone answer this for me?

How do we know that Roland's ancestors didn't sail west across the Western sea to the land where we find Roland, thus making it the Western sea?

Yes, if the sea was named the Western Sea that doesn't have to mean it was west of Gilead.

Roland had already travelled far from Gilead to reach the Mohaine... going westward all the time. And I am sorry for stirring up the geography (off)topic.

[Ka-Shume]

I just recently started The Gunslinger for the second time (having finished the series in November of last year =D) and I know that the version of it I read this time was different than last. The one I read this time was a paperback with the Tower on the front, the one I read before showed Roland and David on the cover.

One specific thing in the one I read the first time was that the man in black whispers in Allie's ear "19" and he does not do this in the one I just previously read.

So which is the revised?

[ManOfWesternesse]

So which is the revised?

The one where he whispers "19" is the revised.

[CyberGhostface]

The Revised also has an introduction from King that the original didn't.

[Letti]

And I guess the revised must be longer.

[Centipede]

Too little, too late, to add a comment here, but I would agree that the original is far superior. It is a dark, mysterious world, and beautifully written. Book I is more about mood; Book II is about action; Books III and on are very poorly written and for some reason obsessed on putting the world of The Dark Tower together with every other book King has written. Dinosaur Sr is right -- the revised is like adding CG Jawas into the text: jarring and forced (anyone remember King's lame reference to AC/DCs "Who Made Who" in the opening chapters of The Stand? It is that kind of stupidity that you run into with Dark Tower I revised).

[Letti]

Too little, too late, to add a comment here, but I would agree that the original is far superior.

It's never late to add such a comment.

[pathoftheturtle]

...the original is far superior. It is a dark, mysterious world, and beautifully written. ...

Here, I will just agree that you do make a pretty good point about the revised. Your summation of the nature of the rest of the series was striking enough to me, though, that I've commented futher on it on a more appropriate thread. Please check it out.

[CrimsonMordred]

Though I have not thoroughly read the second edition, the first edition was my first full Dark Tower read, and some of the omitted parts were the most interesting parts, especially when they talked about the beast that guarded the tower, my imagination ran free on that one. That change to the actual Dark Tower was the worst in my opinion!

[candy]

i am just re-reading the original version. Its been years since i read this one as i lost it in one of my countless moves. I have read the revised version a few months ago, so i am hoping its close enough so i can spot the differences, but enough time has passed for it to be a new story for me. (i read it years ago and prefered it to the revised, so i am interested to see if my preference is still the same)

As an aside, my sister number 1 has just finished the wastelands. One of the major reasons for her not starting the series earlier was her reluctance to read the original gunslinger (sister number 2 and dad both refuse to pick the series back up because of the same reason - all three gave it a try but gave up as they didnt like the style of writing) but i persuaded sister number 1 to give the revised a go, and she loved it. She has read up to the wastelands in 2 weeks.

The thing is; sister number 1 is an english lecturer, which makes me wonder?

[RainInSpain]

I'm of course ages late to this poll, but still I voted. For the original, because that's the book that affected me and captivated with its mystery.
True enough, the revised version is easier to read, but some things sure seem superfluous.
My pet peeve is

Spoiler

when Roland takes the mescaline pill - the revised says that before taking it he rolled it in his fingers that would soon be gone

Why add this? To make people who would otherwise not buy the next book, do so out of simple curiosity

Spoiler

what happened with his fingers?

[Brainslinger]

I'm of course ages late to this poll, but still I voted. For the original, because that's the book that affected me and captivated with its mystery.
True enough, the revised version is easier to read, but some things sure seem superfluous.
My pet peeve is

Spoiler

when Roland takes the mescaline pill - the revised says that before taking it he rolled it in his fingers that would soon be gone

Why add this? To make people who would otherwise not buy the next book, do so out of simple curiosity

I doubt it. It's a little thing King often does, providing a little spoilerific foreshadowing. Usually it's all happens within the same novel though. It's just in this case the novel is in multiple volumes, but I'm sure it wasn't done for marketing reasons.

Spoiler

what happened with his fingers?

Do you really want me to tell you?

Spoiler:

If you read the next book Drawing of the Three

, you will find out very soon. I'd recommend it, it's a great read. Dad-a-chuk!

[Letti]

I'm of course ages late to this poll, but still I voted. For the original, because that's the book that affected me and captivated with its mystery.
True enough, the revised version is easier to read, but some things sure seem superfluous.

For me it's not easier at all, moreover.. but it might be easier for a new reader.

[candy]

I'm of course ages late to this poll, but still I voted. For the original, because that's the book that affected me and captivated with its mystery.
True enough, the revised version is easier to read, but some things sure seem superfluous.

For me it's not easier at all, moreover.. but it might be easier for a new reader.

i think, to those of us who read the original certain phrases do jar. There was another one

Spoiler:

talking about the horn

that kept annoying me on the re-read of the revised

but i believe the reason he did the revised version was for the new readers, not for us. I think i read somewhere that he didn't much care what the original readers of the Dark Tower thought of the revised version as we had read the books anyway - but he wanted to get new readers to read them. At the time i remember being really mad that we (the loyal few) could be cast aside so easily. But now, i can say i am glad he did it as i have got sis number 1, hubbie and ......... now my dad all readin the gunslinger after putting down the original version.

So as much as it jars on me to read the revised (poss more so after my re-read of the original) i am also happy as i have more people in my immediate circle who i can have discussion with

[RainInSpain]

Do you really want me to tell you?

Heh, no need (but thanks for offering) - read and re-read all 7 books many times (dear hubby is about to gag me for quoting at every opportunity )
It's just that for me this particular phrase was sticking out like a sore thumb in the revised edition. Other revisions/additions - not so much.

For me it's not easier at all, moreover.. but it might be easier for a new reader.

I think so, too - also, for new readers it brings DT1 closer to the later volumes. I've never even owned/read a revised edition until 2 weeks ago - did not want to "spoil" my feel of the original.

[pathoftheturtle]

...this particular phrase was sticking out like a sore thumb ...

[RainInSpain]

Yeah, yeah
But it did stick out

[BillyxRansom]

I've only read parts of the Revised edition, and I still like the original better. Its rough edges is what gets me. It makes it feel way more dreamlike.

[Brice]

[RainInSpain]

more dreamlike.

Exactly!
Adding too many details takes away this quality - while that's exactly what captivated many readers.

[pathoftheturtle]

This debate reminds me of another one from way back when: America elects a King

[RainInSpain]

Yep. Ours here just has a little less publicity.

[Brainslinger]

I think I prefer the revised, or at least I did. I'm a bit of a sucker for extra material.

That being said, much of that material did seem a bit superfluous. I'm thinking particularly of the 19 stuff. I liked it. Found the scene very interesting, almost goose-pimply. However, I can't help thinking... why was Roland so dismissive of the 19 stuff in Wolves of the Calla? Obviously the real reason is that King wrote the revised version after the last three books, but from an in-universe point of view it made little sense. Sure, Roland had been through so much at that point, and he might have just forgotten... but I don't buy that. He might not have loved Allie, but his encounter with her certainly made a strong impression on him. (Apart from all the jiggling about I mean. Oo-er matron!)

It's curious that by adding stuff to bring it more in line with the later books, King created a new contradiction. Okay 'contradiction' is probably too strong a word as Roland's forgetting is possible, he being very much a man of the moment (most of the time) but it creates questions certainly. And that's not the only stuff in the revised version that does.

[Did-a-chick? Dum-a-chum?]

I prefer the original over the revised

I've only read parts of the Revised edition, and I still like the original better. Its rough edges is what gets me. It makes it feel way more dreamlike.

Yes, very much THIS

[Roland of Gilead 33]

1stly i love the original, but to be fair i haven't read it since prolly the 90's. so my thoughts on it may change. i have read the revised edition as well.

it was i think too slow.i can't recall if the original version was like that or not? but my guess is the number 19 being forgotten by "Roland" was really for one reason, in 'Wizard & Glass" as you all know i'm currently reading. "Roland" is trying to think of Riddles to tell 'Blaine' & he does 50 or more
it really never says on how many it was. just guess work on i think "Jake's" part?

anyways he comments on how the day before or 2 days ago he would have said he knew thousands of Riddles but they just escaped his mind.
& he made a comment that perhaps he is moving on..? so my guess is that's what happend to him, he started to slowly move on as the world around him did.

i think it makes some sense to go back & fix the original if 'The beast' isn't in any of the other "DT" books. my guess? either he forgot he had put the 1st book way back when. or he just couldn't think of what to do with that character? or any idea he had just didn't work. so he changed that in the original book.

as for my point it making sense, i just meant that it did fit in the later books. & the funny thing is, people here would prolly be complaining if he hadn't released that version. i know i would be complaining about it. my question is did he do a revision of "DT2" or "DT3" ? at some point?

cause they if i'm not mistaken also mention the character "The Beast" i just finished "DT3" a week or so ago & they mention 'The Beast" so did he change that yet?