Locations in the books - general thread

[Mitchel]

Thank you.

My map doesn't account for the odd sun positions in book 2, i.e., when the sun rose on his left over the mountains (which wouldn't be the case normally) because yes, if there is some sort of magnetic breakdown as the world moves on, then the cardinal directions would indeed shift.... however, I don't think we can say that they shift THAT much, because there are several points where Roland or Eddie judge time by the sun, saying it's 'on the western', or by Old Star / Old Mother, etc... so there still must be some consistency to navigation.

At first I thought I could argue that if Roland's world is a microcosm of existence inside the makeup of the rose that Jake found in the vacant lot that day he skipped out on school (due to the 'sun' inside it, and Jake's feeling of need to protect it because it's "sick"), then maybe the directions and way the sun rises and sets would be different... but because of the fact that the "sun westering" is used more than once as a reference to getting late in the day, I have to assume that it rises in the east and sets in the west, same as here.

The map I made seems to fill the void as far as how the linearity of travel ties together, but doesn't account for those few other things. In the end, while it'd be nice to discover some explanation that covered all of this, I am thinking we have to chalk it up to poor editing. That bugs me a little, because if that's the case - and how old are books 1 and 2 - then that means a lot of time has gone by without King addressing this or having it brought to his attention. At least I haven't googled my way to a statement where he himself explains all the points brought up in this thread.

[overhoser]

At some point, I believe in his preparation for Wizard and Glass, he hired Robin Furth as his research assistant. The two volumes of the concordance were her work for him to keep things straight. In the final four, or at least the final three, books he starts to explain some issues. The position of the sun I'm not sure is ever dealt with, but the others are. Not explicitly, of course, but through plot and additional details.

The original Gunslinger was written in the early 1970s and published in 1982. In 2003, once the rest of the story had been sketched out, a revised version was released. I have never read the revised version, maybe it fixes some of the problems you're having issues with.

But, take heart, he realized he needed to do a better job with what might be called continuity and hired Robin Furth for the purpose. This is why you can refer to any of her work as official (concordances, graphic novels).

[pathoftheturtle]

Seriously, I think it's almost like saying, "Well, I kinda liked 'Salem's Lot, but I think it was too scary." lol, that's the whole point, ya kennit?
In TDT, you're supposed to feel disoriented when you notice those things, and feel as though absolutely anything might happen next.

I don't think you're comparative statement about Salem's Lot is anything like this discussion. Nobody has said that these questions cause them to dislike the books or that the books are too anything. ...

Well, for the record, what I was responding to was things like these --

In reality, I think the directions are messed up because we are seeing the progression of an author who at the first of the Dark Tower saga hadn't learned to make better note of what he had written before. ...

I know I read somewhere about the fact the first couple books were not well edited. This was chaulked up to a small press publication.

It seems things like this are suppose to be found during the editing of a book and are when they are edited well. Not quite so with these books.

And what Sam said as to they dealt with the goofs later by saying the world had moved on. *shrug*

Yeah, I suppose using the "world has moved on" argument is a way to deal with mistakes... but personally, I don't think it's a good one. Don't get me wrong, I love the story, but things like that mess with my flow, because they automatically come off as wrong subconsciously, and are confirmed by thinking it through. I also assumed - falsely perhaps - that the story was re-edited in its entirety when book 7 came out and King wrote his new introduction. I'm not criticizing the guy at all, but I hope he knows about this already if for no other reason except so that he knows.

...

Seriously. He does.

Based on your line of thinking, why bother to ask questions? Isn't the point of discussing a book to understand what's happening in the book? "It's happening because the author intended it" isn't a very satisfying or useful explanation.

Depends on what you believe that the point of reading a book is. I'm always looking for the author's intentions, because that's what makes any story what is. Asking questions is good, if they're of the right kind. Don't you understand the difference between what's happening in these books and what happens in hard science fiction?

...It's a question that makes me want to know more about what is happening in/to Roland's world. The shifting directions and expanding world are an important piece of the story's mythology and I think saying it's like that to make the reader feel disoriented is a shoulder shrugging dismissal of that mythology.
...

It's "a dismissal" (or, rather, a seeing through) of the myth in one definition of that word, but in the other definition, I think that my point is a total validation of the mythology of Stephen King.

myth /noun/ 1: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
2: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society

Books like The Stand, TDT, and It show that there are two ways of thinking, science and magic.

...Just because you are not concerned with or interested in this question does not make it a useless question.

You're really putting words into my mouth, there. I am interested. No offense meant. What I'm saying is that being "bothered" by this is only to be expected, and that trying to make sense of it is hopeless. SK would laugh his head off.

[overhoser]

what I was responding to was things like these

Fair enough. I was focused mainly on the theorizing about directions and hadn't really considered those quotes. I retract that comment.

I'm always looking for the author's intentions, because that's what makes any story what is.

Ah...now there's the rub. I agree with you that the directions function to disorient the reader. But, as someone that studies rhetoric and popular culture for a living, making any claims about the author's intention immediately draws a red flag from me. How can you know his intention? Are you him? Many people would say that even the author's understanding of her/his own intention is useless. What matters is how the book (or whatever) acts upon the audience or reader. There is a widely held belief (one that SK would likely agree with) that language (and, by extension, stories) uses the speaker, not the other way around.

And, as you've said and I agree with, the directions act to disorient the reader. When we are disoriented, the natural reaction is to attempt to re-orient ourselves. That's all I was attempting to do in my discussion.

When (if) I used the word "bothered" it wasn't bothered as in "I don't like that this is disorienting," but rather "This is something that draws my attention and makes me think." Kind of like Barthes's "punctum" in an image: something that is not necessarily important to the image, but nonetheless continually draws your eye and your thoughts.

Asking questions is good, if they're of the right kind.

If "How can we better understand how Roland's world works?" isn't a good question, what would the "right kind" be?

Don't you understand the difference between what's happening in these books and what happens in hard science fiction?

Yes, I understand the idea of literary genre quite well, thank you. I also understand the differences between them. Please don't patronize me.

The definition you provided of myth is fine, except it's not quite the same as my use of the term mythology. Mythology in the sense that I used it refers to the recurring/overarching elements that hold a fictional universe together. For example, abduction in the X-Files or time travel in Lost. Or, the opposition of science and magic to be found throughout King's work, as you mentioned. These elements are rarely definitively explained and act as catalysts for discussion and speculation among fans. Changing directions and distances are a major part of TDT's mythology and worthy of discussion and speculation.

[pathoftheturtle]

Don't you understand the difference between what's happening in these books and what happens in hard science fiction?

Yes, I understand the idea of literary genre quite well, thank you. I also understand the differences between them. Please don't patronize me.

It was a rhetorical question, my way of replying to your question about the point of discussing a book. I beg your pardon if I came across as being condescending.

... Changing directions and distances are a major part of TDT's mythology and worthy of discussion and speculation.

Agreed.

... If "How can we better understand how Roland's world works?" isn't a good question, what would the "right kind" be? ...

How about "Can we better understand how Roland's world works, at all?" That is a more fundamental question, right? I hope it's clear, however, that I don't actually think that your question is not a "good" one. (Although it is a very hard one to explore in a non-spoiler thread.)

[overhoser]

It was a rhetorical question, my way of replying to your question about the point of discussing a book. I beg your pardon if I came across as being condescending.

No problem, I'm over it. I also apologize if I came off rude, I shifted into defensive mode and probably shouldn't have.

That being done, I think we're now on the same page regarding the discussion.

How about "Can we better understand how Roland's world works, at all?" That is a more fundamental question, right? I hope it's clear, however, that I don't actually think that your question is not a "good" one. (Although it is a very hard one to explore in a non-spoiler thread.)

That is a more fundamental question, and a good one. I don't think we can better understand it, only pose theories that attempt to explain it. Not even Roland can explain Roland's world, which I think is wonderful. It allows us to come up with endless possible explanations. No theory will ever be complete or satisfactory, but it's fascinating to come up with them.

And you're right that it's tough to explore these questions without spoilers, I've had a hard time avoiding specifics about later information. But, as the the original poster continues to read, the discussion can continue to grow.

[pathoftheturtle]

... I don't think we can better understand it, only pose theories that attempt to explain it. ... No theory will ever be complete or satisfactory, but it's fascinating to come up with them. ...

All too true... and pretty much exactly the way that I feel about this other subject --

...making any claims about the author's intention immediately draws a red flag from me. How can you know his intention? Are you him? ...

[Mitchel]

Well, I ran across something that leaves me with no other conclusion thus far except for poor - very poor - editing.

We all know Roland's path is going southeast. That's been said in books 1 and 3 so many times it hurts. Yeah, I know, the golgatha, the beach, and that stuff in book 2 is still hazy... but all through book 1, he is going southeast. In book three, after the beach ordeal and all of that, he is going southeast again... when they find Shardik's lair, they discover the beam is going southeast. THE BEAM IS GOING SOUTHEAST. This is made clear.

So when I got to pages 566 and 567 of book 3, I was genuinely irritated by what I read;


Blaine is talking (page 566); YOU WILL NOTICE THAT OUR PATH KEEPS FIRMLY TO THE SOUTHWEST - ALONG THE PATH OF THE BEAM.

What the hell is this!?

On the VERY next page, 567, as they are leaving Lud, it's narrated; Ahead, the wall at the southeastern edge of the city was drawing closer.

C'mon now. Gimme' a break already.

[echoRacer]

*Sigh*, the directions within TDT books are beyond understanding, i can't stand reading the parts in the Waste Lands about the train tracks near the Great Road where Patricia/Blaine travel, when they first reach the town along the road, it is said that the train line lies to the left of the road, whereas when the tet reach the bridge crossing into Lud, the track switches to the RIGHT side.

[Claude Clay]

the man in the desert fled & conned and decieved....

rivers can jump out of their beds.....

Blaine the train is insane.....

...and from this you wish to make sense

perhaps cause my wife is directionally challenged
[points to the left and says go right]
i let things of this nature in a story go by with a shrug--
either it will work itself out later or it makes no matter.
good luck to ua and enjoy the next 5 books.

[varyar]

I posed this same question on another forum a while ago, and someone offered a theory that I rather like - the mountains that Jake and Roland go under, the ones with the Slow Mutants, are part of the Wasteland. The Mohaine Desert is the eastern fringe of the Wasteland, too. Later on, Blaine's route takes him over the mountains (maybe directly above one of the subterranean tracks that Roland and Jake come across), but the ka-tet doesn't see it since Blaine has shut down transparent mode by then.

It looks something like this very rough map:

[pathoftheturtle]

That's a cool map.

Still... Though there is definitely some illogic in the directions, which has Blaine or the beam crossing Roland's earlier path somewhere, I think I prefer that to deciding that the waste lands could be survivable.

[Mattyhav]

Hello everyone, I'm new too.... and actually, this thread convinced me to register. So, appropriately, this is where I will write the baptismal first comment.

Okay, so I read in some book review (maybe nytimes?) of The Dark Tower that, without posting spoilers!, how Stephen King brought DT to a close revealed the series as his 'grand thesis on the act of writing.'

Mitchel, finish the series soon, because this will be more interesting with ultimate perspective, but: I think the various cardinal shifts in direction could be thematically attributed to not only, yes, a writer's tendency to lose track of his story (written worlds are constantly "moving on," because they exist in our minds), but also the new perspective you bring to a novel every time you pick it up. Roland journeys to the Way Station -- you put it down and go to work -- Roland and Jake continue, on a slightly different mental path than before because you stopped reading. Of course nobody can keep track of what's north and south and southwest (or east?). It's all in your imagination. And what a shaky landscape that is.

[Brice]

Hello everyone, I'm new too.... and actually, this thread convinced me to register. So, appropriately, this is where I will write the baptismal first comment.

Okay, so I read in some book review (maybe nytimes?) of The Dark Tower that, without posting spoilers!, how Stephen King brought DT to a close revealed the series as his 'grand thesis on the act of writing.'

Mitchel, finish the series soon, because this will be more interesting with ultimate perspective, but: I think the various cardinal shifts in direction could be thematically attributed to not only, yes, a writer's tendency to lose track of his story (written worlds are constantly "moving on," because they exist in our minds), but also the new perspective you bring to a novel every time you pick it up. Roland journeys to the Way Station -- you put it down and go to work -- Roland and Jake continue, on a slightly different mental path than before because you stopped reading. Of course nobody can keep track of what's north and south and southwest (or east?). It's all in your imagination. And what a shaky landscape that is.

...and then there's King's past alcohol/drug use. He may just have not noticed till too late....and then his mistakes became intentional.

[LineofEld]

Brice- I believe that is the ultimate answer.

[Brice]

[Nozzala]

Hey guys! I'm going to New York for the first time, and of course I thought of The Dark Tower series. I was wondering if any of the places mentioned in the book (although I know fictional) would be worth stopping by? Has anyone done this, maybe just taking a picture by the street signs? Am I the only super nerd?

[Brice]

No, somewhere around here there are some pretty amazing pics of some nonfictional places in NYC.

[tipp-ed off]

Being the visual person I am I get disoriented trying to imagine locations and destinations in the Dark Tower. Maybe a lot has to do with typos and bad editing like when Eddie is walking north along the sea and the mountains are on his left? Or when Blaine states that his route will travel south-west along the beam? I understand that direction, like time, is in a state of flux. South might become slightly south-east for example. And that the landscape seems to be stretching with the deterioration of the beams, but I can't believe that directions have completely flip-flopped. All world used to contain maps as Roland once said and I tried to come up with the way of the Gunslinger for Books 1-3. Some things kind of through me off like when in Tull Roland could see the path of the beam in the sky. I'm not the best artist and its definitely not to scale, but I through a quick draft together of how I might see it in my head. Could use some help if you guys see anything different.

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m...TowerMap-1.jpg

[Randall Flagg]

Nice. FYI, Golgotha is misspelled.

[tipp-ed off]

Nice. FYI, Golgotha is misspelled.

ahhhh. stupid MS paint! Thanks

[John_and_Yoko]

If it's any help, The Dark Tower: The Complete Concordance has maps of All-World, and it seems to suggest that the path that Roland traced in The Gunslinger is parallel to the path of the Beam, but further southwest. This would mean that there was no crossing of the path of the Beam, but rather that Roland went southwest, then turned right and made a "U-ie" (however you spell that) and went in the opposite direction, more northward (possibly northwest?) to find the doors, and then ended up further north than he'd started out when he came to the portal.

[Dean]

About 6 or 7 years ago I saw on ebay someone selling a Dark Tower book and with it he was giving away some exclusive photo he took of the exact location where the was located. He said it was something to behold, yet did not explain or show the photograph, unless you won the auction you didn't see it obviously. I've always wondered what that picture was of. Did King take a real life NY monument and play off it?

[fivethirtytwo]

Nozzie:

Go to www.darktowercompendium.com and scroll down to the bottom of the homepage. There is a snippet that says
"Ever wondered what the real vacant lot in New York City looks like? Click the picture and find out!"

The pictures are old and I can't vouch for the authenticity, but mayhap you could update them for us and post here?

[tipp-ed off]

If it's any help, The Dark Tower: The Complete Concordance has maps of All-World, and it seems to suggest that the path that Roland traced in The Gunslinger is parallel to the path of the Beam, but further southwest. This would mean that there was no crossing of the path of the Beam, but rather that Roland went southwest, then turned right and made a "U-ie" (however you spell that) and went in the opposite direction, more northward (possibly northwest?) to find the doors, and then ended up further north than he'd started out when he came to the portal.

I guess I missed this original thread. Maybe Roland and Jake didn't cross the beam. But I kinda like the idea that they crossed near the oracle and the first speaking ring and proceeded under the mountains never seeing the mono track above. I also like the idea that the slow mutants may be refugees from the wastelands or they were slowly poluted over the years by the contaminated River Send.