I dunno, but I don't have a problem doing that. Each book, while maybe not exactly stand-alone, is a complete book in my head.
I agree that each book can stand alone, and that some are better than others, but because of the entire scope of the story, I still love even my least favorite of the DT books more than any other single book (or other series, for that matter) that I've ever read.
I just finished a re-read of the series, and for the first year after VII was released, I did a non-stop re-read myself, so I understand what you're saying. The Gunslinger is the most flawed of the series, but to me, it is one of the most important parts of the overall story. I believe it was letting Jake fall that basically began to change Roland from the anti-hero he began the story as, to the hero he is at the end of DT VII.
Also, as Maerlyn said, it is the one that started my journey, so I'll always love it.
Of course, all this is just my opinion.
Donna
"What can I tell you, baby? I've always been bad."--Spike
I dunno, but I don't have a problem doing that. Each book, while maybe not exactly stand-alone, is a complete book in my head.
I agree that each book can stand alone, and that some are better than others, but because of the entire scope of the story, I still love even my least favorite of the DT books more than any other single book (or other series, for that matter) that I've ever read.
I just finished a re-read of the series, and for the first year after VII was released, I did a non-stop re-read myself, so I understand what you're saying. The Gunslinger is the most flawed of the series, but to me, it is one of the most important parts of the overall story. I believe it was letting Jake fall that basically began to change Roland from the anti-hero he began the story as, to the hero he is at the end of DT VII.
Also, as Maerlyn said, it is the one that started my journey, so I'll always love it.
Of course, all this is just my opinion.
Donna
And of course you're welcome to have your opinion, which is fine. I was only stressing that for the purposes of the poll we're asked to grade each book on its own merit, that is not taking into account any other and judging it strictly on what's between that one book's covers. Given that philosophy, I gave this one a 3. I'll give DT2 a 5, when the time comes.
I gave it a five, but that reflects my views of the original version of the book. I loved the book the first time I read it, flaws of a young writer and all. I felt the story itself was compelling enough to make up for any little issues here and there.
If I had to rate the Revised edition, it'd likely be a four, or possibly even a three.
I gave it a five, but that reflects my views of the original version of the book. I loved the book the first time I read it, flaws of a young writer and all. I felt the story itself was compelling enough to make up for any little issues here and there.
If I had to rate the Revised edition, it'd likely be a four, or possibly even a three.
Why such a drastic difference? Most people I think believe the Revised is a better book, not worse.
Why such a drastic difference? Most people I think believe the Revised is a better book, not worse.
Well, being on the opposite end of popular opinion is nothing new for me.
I don't find the revised better or even necessary. I didn't have issues in the first place with most of the things that he went back and "fixed." To me, it's the literary equivalent of something some bands do when they go back and re-record some of their classic songs. It's unnecessary and really just makes me appreciate the original that much more.
I understand King's desire to bring the first book in line with the continuity of the last three books, but he could have accomplished that by using an outline and not abandoning the original continuity in the first place.
Why such a drastic difference? Most people I think believe the Revised is a better book, not worse.
Well, being on the opposite end of popular opinion is nothing new for me.
I don't find the revised better or even necessary. I didn't have issues in the first place with most of the things that he went back and "fixed." To me, it's the literary equivalent of something some bands do when they go back and re-record some of their classic songs. It's unnecessary and really just makes me appreciate the original that much more.
I understand King's desire to bring the first book in line with the continuity of the last three books, but he could have accomplished that by using an outline and not abandoning the original continuity in the first place.
This, EXACTLY. I'd give the Revised a -7 if I could, because I freaking hate it when people go back and "fix" things that aren't broken.
"People, especially children, aren't measured by their IQ. What's important about them is whether they're good or bad, and these children are bad." ~ Alan Bernard
"You needn't die happy when your day comes, but you must die satisfied, for you have lived your life from beginning to end and ka is always served." ~ Roland Deschain
that for the purposes of the poll we're asked to grade each book on its own merit, that is not taking into account any other and judging it strictly on what's between that one book's covers.
I know...I'm trying. It's so hard for me. Objectivity is not a strong suit of mine. I agree on II. It's an excellent book!
Last edited by KaLikeAWheel; 11-18-2008 at 07:11 PM.
Reason: Formatting issues.
"What can I tell you, baby? I've always been bad."--Spike
And if there's inconsistency between the beginning and the end of a story as a result, shouldn't you revise it to bring it into greater continuity?
If your story is yet to be published and you feel you need to go back and make some changes once you reach the end, then yes, sure you should.
But if it's already out there, and the way you wrote it was the way you originally heard, divined, wrote the story, then that's the way it should stay imo.
Originally Posted by John_and_Yoko
I didn't notice anything "glaringly obvious" when I read the revised version, not that took me out of the story.
Well of course you didn't, you haven't read the original so you have no basis for comparison
Seriously, all that he did in the revised edition was insert the number 19 about 50 billion times...I didn't see the point at all (and I have read both )
And if there's inconsistency between the beginning and the end of a story as a result, shouldn't you revise it to bring it into greater continuity?
If your story is yet to be published and you feel you need to go back and make some changes once you reach the end, then yes, sure you should.
But if it's already out there, and the way you wrote it was the way you originally heard, divined, wrote the story, then that's the way it should stay imo.
Originally Posted by John_and_Yoko
I didn't notice anything "glaringly obvious" when I read the revised version, not that took me out of the story.
Well of course you didn't, you haven't read the original so you have no basis for comparison
Seriously, all that he did in the revised edition was insert the number 19 about 50 billion times...I didn't see the point at all (and I have read both )
First of all, what if J. R. R. Tolkien had done that with The Hobbit? The account of how Bilbo got the Ring would have been far inferior, I can say that right off, never mind inconsistent with The Lord of the Rings.... So I don't feel that argument holds any water. I mean, should he have changed the latter story to be consistent with the original account?
Secondly, I do know he did more than that in the revised edition (and I HAVEN'T read both), and I can only think of one change I don't particularly care for--namely, how
Spoiler:
Walter o'Dim faked the skeleton at the end. Why not use magic, even if you're going to have him be the same identity as Marten Broadcloak/Randall Flagg?
But for the other changes, I think they WERE necessary (heck, even Volume II was inconsistent with the original version--Volume II!) or at least better.
First of all, what if J. R. R. Tolkien had done that with The Hobbit? The account of how Bilbo got the Ring would have been far inferior, I can say that right off, never mind inconsistent with The Lord of the Rings.... So I don't feel that argument holds any water. I mean, should he have changed the latter story to be consistent with the original account?
You've lost me now...what if Tolkien had done what with The Hobbit? You sound like you're contradicting your original point there, which was that you think previous works should be revised if it makes them consistent with later works.
You've lost me now...what if Tolkien had done what with The Hobbit? You sound like you're contradicting your original point there, which was that you think previous works should be revised if it makes them consistent with later works.
Um, no....
Tolkien revised The Hobbit in 1951 to make it more consistent with The Lord of the Rings. Originally Bilbo won the ring in the riddle game--meaning Gollum was going to give it to him if he won--but not only is that inconsistent with its nature in the sequel, but I've read the original version of that chapter and it's not as good--at all--just by itself.
All that's left of that original version is the fact that Bilbo was said to have written that account in his memoirs within The Lord of the Rings, but Gandalf got the "real story" out of him.
Originally Posted by pablo
I agree on II. It's an excellent book!
)
You've lost me now...what if Tolkien had done what with The Hobbit? You sound like you're contradicting your original point there, which was that you think previous works should be revised if it makes them consistent with later works.
