The Gunslinger--Bracket 3 Runner-Up

[Daghain]

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.

[Brice]

I've gotta' agree with Jayson; IMO the revised was absolutely unnecessary.

[Letti]

I've gotta' agree with Jayson; IMO the revised was absolutely unnecessary.

it was guilt

[Brice]

What was? I don't follow, dear.

[Letti]

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*

[Darkthoughts]

Yep, I'm totally on the "the revised was unnecessary" band wagon

[John_and_Yoko]

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?)

[jayson]

Consequently I consider the Revised and Expanded Edition to be superior and don't intend to read the original at all.

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?

[John_and_Yoko]

Consequently I consider the Revised and Expanded Edition to be superior and don't intend to read the original at all.

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.

[jayson]

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.

[John_and_Yoko]

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.

*shrugs*

If I wanted that, I'd look at a list of the differences between the two, such as once existed on thedarktower.net....

You know, back when it was actually online?

[Daghain]

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?

[John_and_Yoko]

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?

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.

[mae]

I'm glad I have both versions, for completeness sake, but personally I only read the Revised.

[KaLikeAWheel]

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!

[Darkthoughts]

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.

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 )

[John_and_Yoko]

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.

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.

[Darkthoughts]

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.

[John_and_Yoko]

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.

[Matt]

So better that the Hobbit was revised?

[Darkthoughts]

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.

[John_and_Yoko]

@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).

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.

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. )

[Darkthoughts]

Curse you, you've spurred me on to a mission...sometime over the weekend I'll post the differences

[John_and_Yoko]

Curse you, you've spurred me on to a mission...sometime over the weekend I'll post the differences

Yay!

Seriously, thanks--I really would like to see them! Heck, even if I end up changing my mind it would still be neat to see exactly how he revised it!

[Jean]

But my main point still stands - as it is, the original Gunslinger is in no way inconsistent with the rest of the series.

That's the point I have always maintained, too.