Originally Posted by
BobbyOodle
I prefer the original, only because it makes Roland out to be more of a hardass, emotionless prick than it does in the revised edition.
Also, just a side-note, since the Gunslinger was originally a series of publications in a magazine, and was just thrown together for the book, each section feelings longer and more spread out than it was.
I liked this because some may see it as a short start to an epic series, but in reality, with the gaps and how slow the read was, it truly set up for the rest of the series, and feels longer than the 300ish pages it was.
I agree. The original had a much more obtuse and amoral context on Roland's shooting of Allie. Remember, she was Sheb's "shield
and sacrifice", and I think it meant that he was counting on Roland hesitating for even just a little (against an onrushing psychotic mob, even one armed with essentially only melee weapons, a second's hesitation could turn into a fatal misstep in close quarters) because he had come to know Allie in more ways than one during his short time in Tull...but guess what, Roland reacted instantaneously, just like that. It also says a lot about the depth of training Roland had from childhood. He was the last of his kind, the last of a world and a civilization the people of Tull could not even imagine, and yet they were trying to kill him. Could he somehow pacify and awe them into submission by expounding on long-gone virtues and sights and principles that only he remembers now? Could he make them see and feel the weight of his lineage and the long legacy behind his guns? No. So he lets his hands speak, since they're the most eloquent body parts he has anyway, at least in that situation.
In short, how do you prove to your enemies that you're better? According to Roland in the original, you kill them all and be the last man standing. Amoral to the core.