The Official End Thread

[LovesSweetExile]

Yeah I know what you mean, but it still doesn't make any sense the Tower would keep looping him, unless, when it very first happened, the first time the Tower was saved, perhaps Gan wouldn't let Roland move to the end of the clearing unless he proved himself worthy? hmmm, but isn't wanting to save the Tower worthy enough cause?

[Brainslinger]

Yeah I know what you mean, but it still doesn't make any sense the Tower would keep looping him, unless, when it very first happened, the first time the Tower was saved, perhaps Gan wouldn't let Roland move to the end of the clearing unless he proved himself worthy? hmmm, but isn't wanting to save the Tower worthy enough cause?

Not if he did it with the wrong attitude. I.e. did he save the Tower because he wanted to save the whole of creation, or did he save it just so he could go to the top and see what is there?

I think actually it was a bit of both, but there seems to be a great emphasis on the latter as shown in his palaver with the folks of the Tet corporation. Also he entered the tower leaving a gun, the sigul of the closer of doors and the entrance instead of blowing the horn (which he had effectively cast aside).

I see the horn and the gun as being two necessary but thematically opposing parts of what it is to be a gunslinger. The Gun represents the killing side. The horn represents reliance and ka-tet (I.e. you blow a horn as a rallying call to bring others to your aid.)

I think he learnt a lot this cycle round. He learnt to rely on his ka-mates and learnt to love again, but he still entered the Tower with only the sigul of death. He still has a long way to go. (That's not to say having the horn oo-er will be enough next time, but it's a step up.)

[Bev Vincent]

My take: He saves the Tower by freeing the Breakers. He rids Mid-World of an insane and powerful schemer by reaching the Tower and defeating the Crimson King. At that point, his job is done -- he should turn away and find something else to do for the rest of his life. I always imagined him going back to the Calla and hooking up with Rosalita. His fatal error every time is to have the gumption to go into the Tower. To presume that he can know the unknowable. Hubris gets him every time, so far.

[Sickrose]

My take: He saves the Tower by freeing the Breakers. He rids Mid-World of an insane and powerful schemer by reaching the Tower and defeating the Crimson King. At that point, his job is done -- he should turn away and find something else to do for the rest of his life. I always imagined him going back to the Calla and hooking up with Rosalita. His fatal error every time is to have the gumption to go into the Tower. To presume that he can know the unknowable. Hubris gets him every time, so far.

I like this idea, a lot. It hadn't occurred to me before, but it does make sense. If he doesnt go up the tower - why would he - then he wont be sent back. He can still about himself etc

I have always thought, Roland is sent back, not just to find redemption and pick up the horn but because the tower isnt safe in the world as it is. He may have got rid of the breakers, but the world Eddie etc came from looks like it will still go the way of the old ones with the nuclear weapons that destryed the world. Instead of trying to find the reason for everything, the world should live side by side with majic or unknowable. Till this happens, the tower isnt safe and Roland goes back. Maybe if Edie had ben the only one standing and had gone up the tower, maybe he would be sent back?

[Bev Vincent]

To me, picking up the horn is part of his "redemption." It's a sign that he's a slightly better incarnation of himself. His eye isn't so much on the big prize in the distance that he doesn't notice the small but important things going on around him.

[Canada]

I always thought (and this is wishful thinking because it just makes more sense to me like this) that when Roland was "sent back" as it were, the world he ventured into would be different this time around. Major things like Lud, Sombra, and the Crimson King would remain constant, but perhaps his tet would consist of different people, they would come across completely different towns, Mordred wouldn't be born, etc. because the actual Multi-Verse never "reset". Roland is simply "Held" until a time when he can be "reset" himself and plunged back into the world. The multi-verse is most likely cyclical, and very very old, and Roland just keeps getting reset and put back later and later in the Multiverse's life. That would be why he has to keep saving the tower, maybe in the next cycle it won't be from breakers, but something else will be threatening it.

I feel like Roland is the tower's constant champion, always saving it, yet never saving himself. Gan is trying to "reward" Roland by giving him all these chances to redeem himself (yeah I know, a crappy reward, but bear with me.) because when he's redeemed he can die and then go to the multiverses' version of heaven, instead of hell. (As a side note, this also means that, yes, I think Roland can indeed be killed by his enemies at any time during any "loop" and since he has not redeemed himself, would go to hell. Plus, that theory just makes him seem that much cooler since that means he's gone through an undefined number of huge quests without dying.)

So...TLDR: Roland has to keep saving the tower from new dangers, and Gan is trying to "reward" him with redemption.

Or,

Roland is simply dead and in hell, because as we can see from Everything's Eventual, in that short story about

Spoiler:

the catholic woman who died on that airplane and has to keep reliving driving around in a car with her husband,( lol, forgot the actual name of the story, sorry),

King pretty much says (pretty sure in the afterword) he always thought of hell as a place where people repeat certain parts of their lives forever. But then that would mean we read a 7 book saga about something that never happened or mattered, and that's not something I want to think about, lol.

[Brainslinger]

I always thought (and this is wishful thinking because it just makes more sense to me like this) that when Roland was "sent back" as it were, the world he ventured into would be different this time around. Major things like Lud, Sombra, and the Crimson King would remain constant, but perhaps his tet would consist of different people, they would come across completely different towns, Mordred wouldn't be born, etc.

Concerning the tet mates (and I know your post wasn't primarily about that) I actually think he always pulls the same people. Or at least versions of them, possibly from other worlds. I remember a particular passage where Roland considers the fact that nothing but death can break Ka-tet. He then goes on to say that Cort thought not even death would...

That suggests to me it will always be the same people and also explains the deja-vu the others experience later in the series. It might also explain what happened to the keystone version of Susannah and Jake since our versions are not from that world.

Anyhoo... sorry a bit off topic, but all related to the loop etc. And I think his trust in his ka-tet are key to his redemption, something he figured out this loop, hence his reward of the horn.

[pathoftheturtle]

...Or,

Roland is simply dead and in hell... But then that would mean we read a 7 book saga about something that never happened or mattered, and that's not something I want to think about, lol.

Why not? Because it would equal a waste of the precious time of us who are alive and do matter?

So we all know the point of the story, Roland finds the horn, repeats his quest blah blah blah finally does everything 'right' and finds redemption...so, what then?

Are we meant to believe that Rolands quest has nothing to do with saving 'everything' but just a personal gain?

The Tower doesn't want to be saved? Gan doesn't care either way? as long as Roland finds redemption, then everything's fine and dandy? sorry, but no, thats ridiculous, unless you take the side story of SK himself being Gan or Gans secretary seriously (implying that it really was all just fiction, nothing before the events of the mohaine desert actually occurred) why wouldn't Gan or the Tower take more serious steps to help itself and help Roland save the Tower? If the Tower is falling, why in gods name would it take its own resources, magic and energy to waste on torturing Roland by looping his quest over and over? IT DOESN"T MAKE SENSE !

I had to take the ending with a pinch of salt, but if we're all honest, can't we agree that we find the ending made no sense whatsoever and was thoroughly confusing and disappointing?

Have you read The Colorado Kid?

Roland sets out on his quest because he believes that there may be something fundamentally wrong with creation. Are we supposed to believe that the only real problem is this idea of his? Not necessarily. Does it make sense for Gan to deal with him in this way? Not really. I think that was intentional. I believe that King indeed knows well enough how to write a proper romantic epic, where order is restored and heroes reach their just rewards. However, what he chooses is to write horror. I myself happen to believe that all the problems of life do have rational solutions, but I realize that not everyone shares my religion. Some actually find real life to be thoroughly confusing and disappointing. What I think is that what King thinks is that this depiction of things is truer to the actual contradictions he sees in real experience than are most other myths. What we have, in Roland’s Horn, is intimation that God just might have taken care of absolutely everything, but probably has not.

To me, picking up the horn is part of his "redemption." It's a sign that he's a slightly better incarnation of himself. His eye isn't so much on the big prize in the distance that he doesn't notice the small but important things going on around him.

Important from our small perspective. The question (for Roland) is what objective validity that has. If there is a nexus of size, so that the chaos of the subatomic serves a purpose relevant to human-level values, yet that purpose is unknowable, then what difference does it make? I've heard some say that the Crimson King continues to exist because there must be evil, always. That's horrible. Are we made to suffer? What is redemption, what is its value? Can one even know, ever? Why not? Can one even ask, or is the very concept of meaning simply meaningless? Is the unexamined life the best that we can hope for?

[Seneschal]

i suppose this is a more appropriate place for a post i made earlier, though as we know from the dark tower it's all connected anyway.

but i digresss.... i maintain that once the tower/keystone world is saved once, it is saved infinitely. the fact that keystone world cannot deviate from linear time is the "key" to saving the tower itself. it is said more than once that the rose in the vacant lot of keystone world actually IS the dark tower, not merely a representation of it like in other worlds (hence the reason destroying the rose in the keystone world would bring an end to all things...) once roland saves it once, it is just SAVED. time only moves forward in that world, the one that matters. every iteration of the loop--through all world, mid world, and end world where roland is on his quest--is merely another alternate reality, one step further away from the actual occurrence of him saving the tower (and all the incidents that led to that end).

at least, this is how i sleep at night.

[pathoftheturtle]

... take it a step forward...theoretically, the loop we saw may not truly have even been the time that he actually saved the keystone/tower.

Or another step forward ... there may not truly have even been any keystone tower which needed to be saved at all.

[Seneschal]

If there is a nexus of size, so that the chaos of the subatomic serves a purpose relevant to human-level values, yet that purpose is unknowable, then what difference does it make? I've heard some say that the Crimson King continues to exist because there must be evil, always. That's horrible. Are we made to suffer? What is redemption, what is its value? Can one even know, ever? Why not? Can one even ask, or is the very concept of meaning simply meaningless? Is the unexamined life the best that we can hope for?

these questions, really dig way deeper than merely the dark tower obviously.

the part where we all get tripped up is rooted in the human condition of having to define good and evil. yin and yang, white and black (or red in this case), are nothing more than our own definitions based on experience. there's only a such thing as the word daylight because there is a darkness. but to say which one is good and which one is evil is an exercise in futility, as both simply ARE. they cannot exist without the other.

think of it like this, if the wind blew all the time and at the same speed forever, we wouldn't need to define it any further. people would never say, "its windy today!" no one would get annoyed with the wind, you would think someone crazy for even talking about the wind. boat trips would never be cancelled, certain places would always be cold, and hats would likely all have straps on them. who knows, maybe its always blowing at 140mph, but having known no different our perception about it would be a far cry from what it is currently. the good vs. evil question is the other side of that same coin. we have things that we define as "this is good" and "this is bad". but ultimately, it all comes down to our perception of events on a daily basis, and what we allow to happen within our own little world. some events, with or without our judgement of them, will happen anyway. (ie, devastating hurricanes are not evil, they just are).

[Seneschal]

... take it a step forward...theoretically, the loop we saw may not truly have even been the time that he actually saved the keystone/tower.

Or another step forward ... there may not truly have even been any keystone tower which needed to be saved at all.

precisely!

..and my brain hurts.

[pathoftheturtle]

If there is a nexus of size, so that the chaos of the subatomic serves a purpose relevant to human-level values, yet that purpose is unknowable, then what difference does it make? I've heard some say that the Crimson King continues to exist because there must be evil, always. That's horrible. Are we made to suffer? What is redemption, what is its value? Can one even know, ever? Why not? Can one even ask, or is the very concept of meaning simply meaningless? Is the unexamined life the best that we can hope for?

these questions, really dig way deeper than merely the dark tower obviously.

the part where we all get tripped up is rooted in the human condition of having to define good and evil. yin and yang, white and black (or red in this case), are nothing more than our own definitions based on experience. there's only a such thing as the word daylight because there is a darkness. but to say which one is good and which one is evil is an exercise in futility, as both simply ARE. they cannot exist without the other.

think of it like this, if the wind blew all the time and at the same speed forever, we wouldn't need to define it any further. people would never say, "its windy today!" no one would get annoyed with the wind, you would think someone crazy for even talking about the wind. boat trips would never be cancelled, certain places would always be cold, and hats would likely all have straps on them. who knows, maybe its always blowing at 140mph, but having known no different our perception about it would be a far cry from what it is currently. the good vs. evil question is the other side of that same coin. we have things that we define as "this is good" and "this is bad". but ultimately, it all comes down to our perception of events on a daily basis, and what we allow to happen within our own little world. some events, with or without our judgement of them, will happen anyway. (ie, devastating hurricanes are not evil, they just are).

You are wrong in presuming that we all get tripped up in the same way. Believe it or not, I have heard what you are saying before. I'm sure that SK has, as well, and I think that you are also wrong to say that the questions I posed dig deeper than The Dark Tower. You sound like Louis Creed in early chapters of Pet Semetary; "Nothing could be more natural than death." Aside from you yourself happening to believe that the concept of evil is purely a subjective one, do you have any evidence that this is how TDT is best interpreted?

[Seneschal]

i wasnt saying anyone was wrong, i merely meant that some of the questions you ask will delve further into people's beliefs than the realm of the Tower...

what i posted are my beliefs. but to think that you are not tripped up by your own perceptions is a bit odd i think. you may be able to see a lot of sides of a lot of things, but somewhere along the line, your own experiences always influence your thought. thats all i was really getting at.

[pathoftheturtle]

Nah. I'm just a bit more blunt about it.
No offense intended, though, and none was actually taken on my part.

[Seneschal]

Nah. I'm just a bit more blunt about it.
No offense intended, though, and none was actually taken on my part.

I didnt take any either, but i actually thought somehow i offended you when really i was just expressing deep interest in the very questions you were posing.

[pathoftheturtle]

... i maintain that once the tower/keystone world is saved once, it is saved infinitely. the fact that keystone world cannot deviate from linear time is the "key" to saving the tower itself. it is said more than once that the rose in the vacant lot of keystone world actually IS the dark tower, not merely a representation of it like in other worlds (hence the reason destroying the rose in the keystone world would bring an end to all things...) once roland saves it once, it is just SAVED. time only moves forward in that world, the one that matters. every iteration of the loop--through all world, mid world, and end world where roland is on his quest--is merely another alternate reality, one step further away from the actual occurrence of him saving the tower (and all the incidents that led to that end).

at least, this is how i sleep at night.

This is also pretty thought-provoking in its way. I'll try to further respond later. Have you read this thread yet?

[Avin_River]

Hey all. I'm new here and this may be an old topic as far as I know, if it is I cry your pardon Has anyone else made the choice not to read the end of the last book? I've read the series about five times and always chosen not to follow into the tower. Not a big deal except that I haven't found anyone else who has made the same choice AND my hubby thinks I'm crazy. Anyone? Thanks! Avin

[turtlex]

Hey Avin - Welcome to the site. We actually have a couple of existing threads that discuss the ending of the series.

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

and

The Official End Thread

there's also the What did you feel when you read the last line thread.

[Erin]

Hey Avin! Welcome!

I have a friend who actually didn't read the very end as well!

However, for myself, there was NO way I'd have ever been able to stop, knowing there was more story. I'm far too curious.

[pathoftheturtle]

Hey Avin - Welcome to the site. We actually have a couple of existing threads that discuss the ending of the series.

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

and

The Official End Thread

there's also the What did you feel when you read the last line thread.

Spoiler warnings. All of these are about the part of the ending that you didn't read.
To answer your question: Yes, some other people have posted here about doing that, er, not doing that. Some finally did finish. I can't remember who said that they still hadn't, or where those comments are, offhand...

[pathoftheturtle]

I just feel like the supposed moral of the series is self-contradictory. We're led to believe that Roland is being punished for putting self-image ahead of real philanthropy, yet at the same time, the punisher is assuming that his personal development matters more than any issues of general progress.

[mystima]

This is just an opinion here, just some thoughts as to why some of the things he said at the end might be the reason for it....remember just an opinion not fact.

At the time that King was in the process of writing his epic story, he had a major traumatic incident happen to him. A lot of fans were worried they would not get to see Roland reach the tower. During the time he was recuperating from the accident, he was bombarded by letters from all kinds of people. A death row inmate and a very sick elderly woman, just to name a couple begged him to tell them what the ending was so that they could go on from this world knowing what happened. In my opinion he wrote the last three books in a hurry because: 1) he was not sure if he would be able to due to said accident. 2) people were clamoring for an ending to the story, and he was trying to accommodate them and in doing so, we have the last three books that we have. 3)And last he said something somewhere that he was planning on making the end of the story have the last sentence the same as that of the very first sentence of the very first book. The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

[johnnyonthespot1]

So... I just finished reading DT7 for the first time. I was completely enthralled by this book. It was action-packed, major characters died heartbreaking, sacrificial deaths, and had perhaps as much plot as all the other books combined. I was loving it.

I took many deep breaths before reading the "final" chapter, "The Crimson King and the Dark Tower." I had been reading for the series for six months, and now the moment of truth had finally arrived! During that time, I was thinking to myself, "What is going to happen when the gunslinger finally reaches his goal? How do I want this story to end?"

And I was truly horrified and profoundly disappointed by how the final showdown unfolded.

I am no writer. I am no Stephen King. I do not have the breadth nor depth of imagination to conceive of, or write this entire series. And I will be grateful for the journey I have taken in reading these books. But I can certainly think of a better confrontation for the ending of Roland's quest. We know that a movie/TV series is being developed, and comics are well underway, and to some extent, they will change the way events transpire. Even the "resumption" Coda seems to allow for some flexibility in the story.

So here is how I would tell the story of the final showdown if I were directing/writing these movies and comics. And minus the

Spoiler:

Patrick Danville stuff and the sneetch-throwing,

this is what I pictured happening in my mind before I read that final, fateful chapter...

SPOILER: Incorporates some elements of the ending of DT7

Remember the prophecy that Mordred would kill his own father? Well, he has two fathers, Roland and the Crimson King, right? Also, Roland cannot kill the Crimson King with his gun since he is now "undead." And going into a fight, Roland usually has a plan to outwit his enemies. Here's an ending that takes all of that into account.

Let's pick things up in DT7 at the point where Oy sacrifices himself so that Roland can kill Mordred. Roland buries Oy. Patrick Danville and Roland reach the top of the hill where they catch their first full glimpse of the Dark Tower. Roland lays down the handles of the cart, and in the cart we see Mordred's monstrous, limp, charred body.

The Crimson King curses Roland, throws his sneetches and Roland fends them off, just like in the actual story. Danville finishes his drawing, adds the rose-juice/blood coloring and the picture comes alive, just like in the real story.

At this point, Roland reaches through the picture, grabs the Crimson King, and pulls himself through the paper onto the balcony of the Dark Tower where the Crimson King is perched. (Alternately, Roland pulls the Crimson King OUT of the picture and onto the pyramid of rocks behind which he is hiding.) In any case, Roland is using Danville's creation to draw himself/Crimson King - not to another world, but - to another location within Canka No Rey, which is, after all, "End-World/All-World."

Roland and the Crimson King grapple, wrestle, an epic battle ensues. The Crimson King wounds Roland grievously as they fall from the Dark Tower to the ground below. All seems lost. But Roland has one last trick up his sleeve.

As the Crimson King closes in on Roland's face to devour his enemy, Roland clenches his two-fingered hand, which is holding Mordred's (head/spider leg/heart/whatever) and shoves it into the Crimson King's mouth. The Crimson King leers at Roland, then bites down with savage force, taking off Roland's hand at the wrist. The Crimson King reels back, stunned by the poisonous flesh in that (head/spider leg/heart/whatever). He convulses, then liquefies or crumples or explodes in a shower of gore.

The Crimson King is dead. The prophecy of Mordred's patricide has been fulfilled. And Roland, even without his gun, has outwitted his enemy and prevailed. Roland has killed with his eye, his mind, his heart. He has not forgotten the face of his father.

Roland dismisses Patrick Danville.

Then, holding his wounded arm, he hobbles to the foot of the Dark Tower, lays down his gunna, and croaks the names of those he has met and sacrificed along his journey. The doors open, and he drags himself through them.

And you can leave it at that, or just continue the story from there more or less as King wrote it. You may say that this is a typical Hollywood showdown between good guy and bad guy, but it certainly takes into account some of the things I thought were foreshadowed earlier in the book, but never came to pass in King's telling of the story.

I'm not sure how I feel about the final ending (the "resumption" Coda), but it was fitting and I can live with it. But the showdown with the Crimson King was profoundly disappointing... so I'll live with my own version of that story until Stephen King, Ron Howard, Robin Furth or someone else comes up with something better.

I'm curious as to what you thought when you read the final showdown with the Crimson King. Did you like it? Did you despise it? Would you have done it differently, if anything?

[flaggwalkstheline]

you just finished the book, perhaps you should give yourself some time to think about it prior to so swiftly passing judgement

it's been like 7 years since the book came out and we're STILL arguing about dt7 here