I’ve thought of that before, though most of the time, I tend to believe that there’s a lot of resemblance between each cycle. There is no proof of that, but it is somehow so suggested that it is hard to convince ourselves that nearly everything is always different. It is true, though, that both laws of the Keystones could stand with no paradox if the quest continually involves different particulars. That would mean that, in the future, the rose will face new threats, which is possible even if the threats in fact are not simply staged by Gan; some part of the Crimson King probably does still have freedom of action. In this case, though, it is no wonder that the two Jakes ( LOL: “The Two Jakes” :LMAO ) *ahem* …that the two Jakes merge. Only one set of adventurers are needed for the particular crisis which we saw involving SK; Roland might not be pointlessly repeating himself in alternate dimensions, but that would be just what other people in them would be doing if there still were such semi-independent echoes.
With this theory, tho, I have to wonder; could Roland’s father have lived longer on a previous occasion? Did Cuthbert visit King before Jericho Hill, or does the past of Mid-World sometimes change more drastically than to allow so simple an addition as Roland’s possession of the Horn? When Steven was dealing with the Torens of New York, it would make some sense if Roland had meanwhile been interacting with Sai Robert Browning.
Thanks. I dunno, man. That may be a poor comparison, actually; Roland can’t erase such symptoms, but Roland isn’t God. Before thinking in terms of power limits, I tend to ask what moral concerns Gan may be bound by. Beneath the physical effects of drug addiction, there’s the so-called mental habit; I think that what you’re getting at is just a person’s right to their free will. Gan probably could take that away, but then the person would no longer really be a human individual. Thus, our plot analysis should focus on whether that is truly Gan’s defining motive, and whether the cycle really does avoid such violation of Roland’s autonomy and, lest any of this prove to be some kind of hypocritical elitism, simultaneously avoid all violation of the autonomy of any other soul affected by it. Yes, the first question should be whether Roland does need any kind of intervention at all, but then it IS also important to decide exactly what kind is best. Of course it matters how Gan acts; if Roland were just like Eddie then just literally holding his hand, or giving tough Cort-like supervision such as Roland did, would seem to be far more efficient than upending the time-space continuum. Are you trying to suggest that Roland would never listen to any tangible manifestation of the Supreme Being under any circumstances? The character appeared to have quite a bit of self-awareness, actually; it’s not as though he were completely without conscience. Examples like what he did with Eddie seem to show that he does respect free will in a proper degree for others, so, then, what more secrets of the universe might Gan be trying to protect?
If Stephen King believes that inconsistency don't matter when you're laying down a moral, then I'd say that it is him who's guilty of the sort of short-sightedness he projects onto the readers. It's a good point that putting too much priority on reason can be destructive, but I don't think that I could buy it if he's implying that making sense is always inhumane.
In short, I doubt that those who obsess over their own obsessiveness really make much progress. I regard it as religious fallacy that God supports such vicious circles. We have to be quite careful about where to draw the lines between the claim that Roland has to deal with his own problems and the claim that he has to receive some intervention, if we're to avoid some major contradiction.