I loved it - 5
I liked it - 4
Average - 3
Only so-so - 2
I didn't like it - 1
Never Read
"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
It was guilt to revise the Gunslinger. Maybe it doesn't sound good in English.
I mean to me it sounds really light to say "the revised was absolutely unnecessary.".
Does it make some sense this time? *unsure*
Roland would have understood.
Yep, I'm totally on the "the revised was unnecessary" band wagon
I've never understood the purists.
When you're writing a story, especially one that's so long and involved as The Dark Tower, inevitably things are going to change vis-a-vis the way you originally intended it. To do otherwise is to DICTATE, which kills the story. You can't be a dictator, you have to let it flow, and if that means abandoning some original ideas, then so be it. Otherwise the story is lifeless and suffers as a result. Stephen King has himself said that he's the medium through which the story is told, as it ought to be for any story.
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?
Consequently I consider the Revised and Expanded Edition to be superior and don't intend to read the original at all. (I mean, really, Roland reading a magazine? Are you crazy?)
I am not trying to change your mind or start a lengthy debate, but I'm not sure how you can declare one book superior to another while claiming not to have read one of them. I'm not suggesting reading the original Gunslinger would change your opinion one iota, but without having read both of them, how can you really make such a declaration?
I can't, and I didn't. I said I "consider" the revised version to be superior.
Anyway, others have done the opposite--so in love with the original they won't even read the revised version.
I'm primarily going by what I do know about the original, as well as Stephen King's own assessment. It sounds WAY inconsistent with the other volumes, and not just the last three.
Anyway, I don't even know how I'd go about getting a copy of the original in the first place--I wouldn't want to keep it, as there'd be no point.
I'd like to think that if I started the series in the era of the Revised edition I'd still like to read the original at some point at least as a historical curiosity to see where the series began.
Well, I have read both and I still think the original is better. I think the changes in the Revised are glaringly obvious and take the reader right out of the story. And, I don't think they are necessary. Besides, as far as I'm concerned, once it's published, it's done. *shrugs*
And hey, don't we have a thread for this discussion somewhere?
"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
Probably, so I'm only going to say one more thing on the subject:
I didn't notice anything "glaringly obvious" when I read the revised version, not that took me out of the story.
And from what I've heard about them, they ARE necessary.
Anyway, I've heard of "first edition, second edition," etc., and at least it's Stephen King himself revising it, and not someone else.
Anyway, end of off-topic.
I'm glad I have both versions, for completeness sake, but personally I only read the Revised.
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.
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, howSpoiler: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.
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.
So better that the Hobbit was revised?
The kindness of close friends is like a warm blanket
Ohhhhh! Ok, fair enough I can't compare that myself having not read the original. But my main point still stands - as it is, the original Gunslinger is in no way inconsistent with the rest of the series. Infact, it could be argued that what is inconsistent is that Walter and Marten are the same person which is not apparent in either versions of The Gunslinger.
@Matt: Yes, even without The Lord of the Rings I think the revised account is better (with the possible exception of Bilbo's pity on Gollum, which dragged that chapter out a little).
What about Roland reading a magazine in a world where paper is a scarce commodity? Or Alain's name being different? Granted, not having read the original, I don't know too many more of the changes made (which is why I wish thedarktower.net were still up), but I do remember hearing about those, and those are DEFINITELY inconsistent.
(And as for The Hobbit, I have The Annotated Hobbit which is how I was able to read the original account--in other words, I don't actually have the original 1937 edition of the book. )
Curse you, you've spurred me on to a mission...sometime over the weekend I'll post the differences