PDA

View Full Version : Why did Roland let the ... go?



Letti
12-22-2010, 07:36 AM
I am rereading DT7 (it is tearing my heart apart so I need to put it down time to time) and I am at the part where Roland and Jake try to find the guards who didn't get killed in the face to face battle.

Jake himself is surprised to see that Roland doesn't kill the rest of them. They can go.
Right now I cannot put it anywhere.
Why did he do it?

I have 2 options in my head:
- He didn't feel like killing. His ka-brother was dying and well.. he was moved by that too much. He might have been tired of death. Giving or receiving.
- It was a some kind of punishment. They had nowhere to go so only death, slow death was waiting for them out of Algul Siento.

What do you think?

blavigne
12-22-2010, 08:09 AM
I am rereading DT7 (it is tearing my heart apart so I need to put it down time to time) and I am at the part where Roland and Jake try to find the guards who didn't get killed in the face to face battle.

Jake himself is surprised to see that Roland doesn't kill the rest of them. They can go.
Right now I cannot put it anywhere.
Why did he do it?

I have 2 options in my head:
- He didn't feel like killing. His ka-brother was dying and well.. he was moved by that too much. He might have been tired of death. Giving or receiving.
- It was a some kind of punishment. They had nowhere to go so only death, slow death was waiting for them out of Algul Siento.

What do you think?

I think that it was both of the reasons above. Being tired of killing while one of his own lay dying and at the same time he wasn't really showing mercy as like you said there was nowhere to go and worse yet, no purpose other than waiting for death.

blavigne
12-22-2010, 08:13 AM
By the way, I know what you mean. I am so heavy hearted sometimes....................I only hope that Roland finds his peace someday.

Jean
12-22-2010, 09:10 AM
the first reason seems valid to me, and very important, too

turtlex
12-22-2010, 11:09 AM
I agree with the first notion, Letti.

I never felt Roland killed for killing sake. To defend, to protect, to eat, yes - but not just because he could. That wouldn't be honorable.

pathoftheturtle
12-22-2010, 11:19 AM
I agree with the first notion, Letti.

I never felt Roland killed for killing sake. To defend, to protect, to eat, yes - but not just because he could. That wouldn't be honorable.I agree. He often shows mercy when possible. I think that's a frequently overlooked point of his character.

Merlin1958
12-22-2010, 05:26 PM
When he allows "Revenge" or "Retribution" or even "Regret" to excuse his killing, he's strays that much farther from the path of the Tower.

Jean
12-22-2010, 11:33 PM
precisely

blavigne
12-23-2010, 05:29 AM
When he allows "Revenge" or "Retribution" or even "Regret" to excuse his killing, he's strays that much farther from the path of the Tower.

You nailed it. :)

Merlin1958
12-23-2010, 08:18 AM
When he allows "Revenge" or "Retribution" or even "Regret" to excuse his killing, he's strays that much farther from the path of the Tower.

You nailed it. :)

I know, I'm a peach ain't I? LOL LOL

That was one of my better posts!!!


:wtf:

Brainslinger
12-28-2010, 04:16 PM
I agree with the first notion, Letti.

I never felt Roland killed for killing sake. To defend, to protect, to eat, yes - but not just because he could. That wouldn't be honorable.

Generally, I'd agree, but when his blood is up he can be ruthless. Just look at the town he levelled in The Gunslinger for example. Sure the people were insane but that didn't stop him shooting people who turned tail. I'm not so sure that if the events of Algul Siento had occurred in that time period that he wouldn't have gunned down the guards anyway. So I agree with Jean that it was an important transition for the character.

I mostly think he was just tired of all the killing though. And heartsick concerning Eddie.

On another but related note, I'm also curious at the depiction of the low men and taheen in these last books. While they are mostly evil, they don't seem to be as irredeemable, genetically predisposed to evil, if you like, as Tolkien's monsters (orcs, and trolls, etc.) Even characters like Pimli (or was it Finli? I know one was human, one a ferret taheen, but I forget which was which) show three dimensional characteristics.

Letti
12-29-2010, 05:19 AM
I agree with the first notion, Letti.

I never felt Roland killed for killing sake. To defend, to protect, to eat, yes - but not just because he could. That wouldn't be honorable.

What about Tull?

In fact when I read that Roland and the other gunslingers had been roaming around to find the guards who were on the ground but still alive to end their misery with a bullet Tull came to my mind. I found it interesting and very touching how natural it was for all of them to show mercy however the dinh of the tet had forgotten the meaning of the word for long.

pathoftheturtle
12-29-2010, 11:57 AM
I still think of Tull as self-defense.

I agree with the first notion, Letti.

I never felt Roland killed for killing sake. To defend, to protect, to eat, yes - but not just because he could. That wouldn't be honorable.

Generally, I'd agree, but when his blood is up he can be ruthless. ...Naturally. Instinct is powerful.

Merlin1958
12-29-2010, 03:54 PM
I'd like to chime in here, but not sure if I have the words to express my thoughts properly. Here goes anyway. Back before Jake, Roland was solely a "Gunslinger". Always treated differently than anyone else in the community because of what he represented, how he was trained and what he was capable of. After Jericho Hill and the subsequent events, for the first time in a long time he began to realize what it was like to "not be alone" and to have others to consider. I suppose this could be likened to "Jules" in Pulp Fiction being "caught in a transitional stage". After the debacle with Jake, I think Roland started to think about himself in another light. As a person again, if you will. That transition carried through the Drawing and all the subsequent events.

Tull preceded that phase and was strictly instinct over thought. Reflex, if you will and at that stage Roland had no more control over it than breathing. Does that make any sense?

Letti
12-29-2010, 11:22 PM
It totally does, Merlin. And I agree with you.

RainInSpain
12-30-2010, 02:49 AM
Yes, Merlin, what you said definitely makes sense - I think you worded it very well. I agree with you and Letti.
I wonder what it must have felt for Roland to realize that having emotional attachment to other beings was not an obstacle to his quest, and that it did not make him weaker. More vulnerable, yes, but not weak.

Jean
12-30-2010, 04:41 AM
More vulnerable, yes, but not weak. This.

Letti
12-30-2010, 06:09 AM
Yes, Merlin, what you said definitely makes sense - I think you worded it very well. I agree with you and Letti.
I wonder what it must have felt for Roland to realize that having emotional attachment to other beings was not an obstacle to his quest, and that it did not make him weaker. More vulnerable, yes, but not weak.

I am not absolutely sure that he realised that.

pathoftheturtle
12-30-2010, 01:17 PM
Cooperating with your mates always was a part of gunslinger training, wasn't it?

Merlin1958
12-30-2010, 02:21 PM
Cooperating with your mates always was a part of gunslinger training, wasn't it?

I don't think being able to work cooperatively relates to developing the bonds of friendship. Plus, it only really applied to other Gunslinger's right? His original Tet was all Gunslinger's. Jake, Odetta and Eddie were regular folk that he later trained to be Gunslinger's. The friendship came first. IMHO

Merlin1958
12-30-2010, 03:39 PM
Speaking of Jake/Roland, do you guys all feel that was a "game-changing" error on Roland's part? Something that lead to his "Re-Boot" at the end rather than some sort of closure at the top of the tower? I know a lot of folks generally feel that way, but the more I think about how that whole plot-line played out I just don't think so. I don't want to prejudice you with my thoughts on the subject yet, but I'd love to hear what you guys think.

(Letti, I hope I'm not thread-jacking here it just popped into my head. If I am let me know and I'll delete it)

pathoftheturtle
12-31-2010, 07:41 AM
Cooperating with your mates always was a part of gunslinger training, wasn't it?

I don't think being able to work cooperatively relates to developing the bonds of friendship. ...So, then, it was only the latter that he mistook for "an obstacle to his quest"?

RainInSpain
01-02-2011, 11:16 AM
Not just friendship: love and pity, too. Any feeling that implies at least some degree of selflessness for the sake of someone else, not some great goal/purpose.

pathoftheturtle
01-02-2011, 11:44 AM
But what is the purpose of someone else? If we want people to be selfless only if their selflessness directly benefits people who we can identify with, then isn't that just selfishness on our part? It's easy to claim that the highest value is community when the community is who you happen to be.

Jean
01-03-2011, 02:46 PM
But what is the purpose of someone else?
None. That is why selflessness for their sake is the only truly selfless act.

pathoftheturtle
01-03-2011, 03:35 PM
...selflessness for the sake of someone else, not some great goal/purpose.But what is the purpose of someone else? ...
None. That is why selflessness for their sake is the only truly selfless act.Well, if that's why, then wouldn't a selfless act be even more true if it were on behalf of something which has even LESS purpose?

RainInSpain
01-03-2011, 04:16 PM
But what is the purpose of someone else? If we want people to be selfless only if their selflessness directly benefits people who we can identify with, then isn't that just selfishness on our part? It's easy to claim that the highest value is community when the community is who you happen to be.

It's a matter of perspective. Saying that Roland regained (some of) his humanity does not equal saying that he became more virtuous or more noble or that he did the objectively right thing. It only means that he acquired or got back a quality that is important to us. Who's to judge what's more selfish: betray someone who loves you and who you love, or betray a greater purpose?

Delah
01-05-2011, 10:10 AM
*Skirting around the discussions of virtue and perspective and going back to the Original Question*:

I don't see Roland's letting the guards go as motivated by mercy even if its a merciful act. I agree with the previous posters that argued that Roland is simply too exhausted and heartsore to care about them and knows that Thunderclap will kill them all anyway. I find it hard to believe Roland's feelings on Low Men would have changed so much in two days. Remember Roland's actions a few days before when the ka-tet reuinites behind the Fedic Door? Then Roland deliberately *goes out of his way* to gun down the low men who chased Jake from the Dixie Pig. The guards are really beneath Roland's notice at this point in Algul Siento.

pathoftheturtle
01-05-2011, 04:27 PM
*Skirting around the discussions of virtue and perspective and going back to the Original Question*Good idea. :thumbsup:

But what is the purpose of someone else? If we want people to be selfless only if their selflessness directly benefits people who we can identify with, then isn't that just selfishness on our part? It's easy to claim that the highest value is community when the community is who you happen to be.

It's a matter of perspective. Saying that Roland regained (some of) his humanity does not equal saying that he became more virtuous or more noble or that he did the objectively right thing. It only means that he acquired or got back a quality that is important to us. Who's to judge what's more selfish: betray someone who loves you and who you love, or betray a greater purpose?That's very diplomatically stated. There's certainly much in favor of what you guys are saying.

Maybe we should consider even more comparable instances to get perspective on this decision. Like, why did Roland let the breakers go? Again, I don't think that he's generally so very unforgiving.

Delah
01-05-2011, 05:26 PM
Maybe we should consider even more comparable instances to get perspective on this decision. Like, why did Roland let the breakers go? Again, I don't think that he's generally so very unforgiving.

There are two other instances (in the series, not counting the Little Sisters of Eluria) with Roland displaying a similar mercy: In Lud, he doesn't shoot Tilly (one of the Grays) when she begs him not too and in the Calla he doesn't kill Slightman, mainly because Jake implores him not to.