PDA

View Full Version : Randall Flagg - discussion of the character and his many guises



Pages : [1] 2

CyberGhostface
12-12-2007, 09:19 PM
After reading the series, did you have a little more sympathy for Walter than you did when you began?

He wasn't born pure evil like the Crimson King or Rhea, he had a really horrific thing happen to him when he was young, and he still had remnants of humanity left to him. And there's of course his scene with Callahan, which to me sticks out as probably one of his best moments in the series.

It doesn't balance all the evil things he's done but it does tip the scales slightly.

Daghain
12-12-2007, 09:27 PM
Nah, I had no sympathy for him. People have gone through far worse things than he ever did, and turned out okay. Although to his credit, you never hear him use that as an excuse for who he is.

So, no, not sympathy, but maybe some sort of understanding. I think Walter is one of few characters in the entire series that truly knows and understands his true nature, and goes with it.

sarah
12-12-2007, 09:30 PM
no, i don't. He chose his path. He could have changed his path at anytime but went forward as he was. Don't get me wrong, I love the charcter of walter, I just don't see him as sympathic.

Jean
12-13-2007, 02:23 AM
what the ladies have said

MonteGss
12-13-2007, 04:41 AM
I like the character but I have no sympathy for him. I think I would like him less if I did. I think I have more sympathy for the Spider-Bitch Mordred more than I do for Walter.

jayson
12-13-2007, 04:47 AM
Honestly, yes. Only for a moment, and only for Walter Paddick the boy. Walter the man, not at all.

Storyslinger
12-13-2007, 06:35 AM
Though I may have disagreed with the way the man lived his life, I felt sympathy for the way the man met his end. I was a shameful way to go, and as I've said before, one I would change if given the chance. Do I think the man deserved to die, of course, he was a vile murdering traitor. Just not in the way he went.

Matt
12-13-2007, 09:15 AM
I'm not sure he was a sympathetic character but I did feel for him. In the way you feel for a shark caught in a fish net.

CyberGhostface
12-13-2007, 10:35 AM
I think I have more sympathy for the Spider-Bitch Mordred more than I do for Walter.

Because he suffered? Walter suffered as well. Becuase he had moments of humanity? Walter had moments of humanity as well.

King paid more attention to the "Boo hoo, Mordred is all alone" subplot and only gave Walter one sentence about his personal trauma. Had King focused a bit more on Walter's childhood and his rape he'd probably get a bit more sympathy.

And at the very least, Walter wasn't born evil. The first thing Mordred did was and eat and kill his own mother, a mother who gave up her immortality for a chance to raise and love him. I don't see how you can get more horrific than that.

Wuducynn
12-13-2007, 10:38 AM
The first thing Mordred did was and eat and kill his own mother

That was a very touching scene...I'm getting a little vaklempt....

She-Oy
12-13-2007, 10:48 AM
no, i don't. He chose his path. He could have changed his path at anytime but went forward as he was. Don't get me wrong, I love the charcter of walter, I just don't see him as sympathic.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

CyberGhostface
12-13-2007, 11:03 AM
We know very little about Walter's life from his childhood to where he is today. I don't think he said "I'll become evil". It was probably a gradual process.

Darkthoughts
12-13-2007, 12:07 PM
The point I think maer and She Oy are making though is that, even if you are a victim of something as horrific as child abuse - you don't have to let that govern the path in life you will take.

You can chose to say "This has happened to me, but i won't remain a victim of my past." Whereas Walter seemingly thought "This has happened to me, now everyone that crosses my path shall suffer, as I have suffered." I think you need to be of tht sort of mindset to begin with, to make those sorts of choices.

Wuducynn
12-13-2007, 12:29 PM
Let me throw something else out there..maybe his rape has zero to do with his lifes choices and he just over a period of time realized that most folk need a serious, righteous fucking over and he was glad to oblige. It could be as simple as that.

Storyslinger
12-13-2007, 12:30 PM
Let me throw something else out there..maybe his rape has zero to do with his lifes choices and he just over a period of time realized that most folk need a serious, righteous fucking over and he was glad to oblige. It could be as simple as that.

Here, here!

:thumbsup:

jayson
12-13-2007, 12:36 PM
Let me throw something else out there..maybe his rape has zero to do with his lifes choices and he just over a period of time realized that most folk need a serious, righteous fucking over and he was glad to oblige. It could be as simple as that.

Hear him very well. It's a bit too easy methinks to write off Walter as a victim. I could just as easily believe Walter was just a dick, and rape or not, would have grown up to become the mega-dick he became.

Matt
12-13-2007, 12:37 PM
I'm just glad you didn't say he was raped by a megadick :rock:

Darkthoughts
12-13-2007, 12:39 PM
Don't encourage him! *slaps Story* :D

Storyslinger
12-13-2007, 12:41 PM
:beat:

Darkthoughts
12-13-2007, 12:41 PM
I think you need to be of tht sort of mindset to begin with, to make those sorts of choices.


Hear him very well. It's a bit too easy methinks to write off Walter as a victim. I could just as easily believe Walter was just a dick, and rape or not, would have grown up to become the mega-dick he became.
I said that too ^_^

jayson
12-13-2007, 12:43 PM
I think you need to be of tht sort of mindset to begin with, to make those sorts of choices.


Hear him very well. It's a bit too easy methinks to write off Walter as a victim. I could just as easily believe Walter was just a dick, and rape or not, would have grown up to become the mega-dick he became.
I said that too ^_^

Yes, yes, you rule Lisa.:thumbsup:

CyberGhostface
12-13-2007, 12:55 PM
The point I think maer and She Oy are making though is that, even if you are a victim of something as horrific as child abuse - you don't have to let that govern the path in life you will take.

You can chose to say "This has happened to me, but i won't remain a victim of my past." Whereas Walter seemingly thought "This has happened to me, now everyone that crosses my path shall suffer, as I have suffered." I think you need to be of tht sort of mindset to begin with, to make those sorts of choices.

True, but its not always that easy. Walter was (presumably) living all alone by himself. I'm not an expert on rape, but I thought most victims usually depend on support from their friends and family to get through the trauma, which Walter probably didn't have. And of course maybe he wasn't strong enough. 90% of the serial killers I've read it about usually had some sort of horrible thing happen to them when they were young. They don't just suddenly go "I'm going to start killing today." (Well, some of them do...)


It's a bit too easy methinks to write off Walter as a victim. I could just as easily believe Walter was just a dick, and rape or not, would have grown up to become the mega-dick he became.

I don't think he would have become the way he did if he wasn't raped anymore than Ed Gein would have become the way he did if he didn't have an extremely overbearing mother who threatened to cut off his penis.

jayson
12-13-2007, 01:28 PM
I don't think he would have become the way he did if he wasn't raped anymore than Ed Gein would have become the way he did if he didn't have an extremely overbearing mother who threatened to cut off his penis.

It's certainly possible that Walter's rape made him the sociopath we encounter in the stories. What we don't know though is what pre-rape Walter was like. It's not like we were told that he was a happy-go-lucky young man who never had a care in the world until he was violated. He could have been the kind of kid who tortures and mutilates animals, another thing serial killers do.

Daghain
12-13-2007, 01:48 PM
And the other thing about serial killers in general is that they usually have some sort of brain disorder to boot.

Brain disorder + childhood abuse = serial killer

So maybe Walter was unbalanced to begin with.

Míchéal
12-13-2007, 01:48 PM
walter is one of my fave characters in the series and i was very disappointed with his fairly shitty death. i sympathise with the guy because in my eyes he's helping roland along the way and then a dumb newborn freak has him for dinneh

oh and how do i start a new thread cos i cant figure this out at all..:panic:

Wuducynn
12-13-2007, 01:52 PM
And the other thing about serial killers in general is that they usually have some sort of brain disorder to boot.

Brain disorder + childhood abuse = serial killer

So maybe Walter was unbalanced to begin with.


Or maybe, like I said before, he just came to the conclusion.."You know most folk aren't worth the toilet paper I wipe my ass with, so I will lay waste to them and might as well enjoy myself while I do so"?

MonteGss
12-13-2007, 04:30 PM
I think I have more sympathy for the Spider-Bitch Mordred more than I do for Walter.

Because he suffered? Walter suffered as well. Becuase he had moments of humanity? Walter had moments of humanity as well.

King paid more attention to the "Boo hoo, Mordred is all alone" subplot and only gave Walter one sentence about his personal trauma. Had King focused a bit more on Walter's childhood and his rape he'd probably get a bit more sympathy.

And at the very least, Walter wasn't born evil. The first thing Mordred did was and eat and kill his own mother, a mother who gave up her immortality for a chance to raise and love him. I don't see how you can get more horrific than that.

I love the character of Walter. I love to HATE Walter. I despise him and that is why he is such a great character for me. I have no sympathy for him because he is malicious and EVIL and deserves no sympathy. That is why he is great to me. Mordred does not compare (as a character) to Walter. That said, I feel the tiniest bit of sympathy for the punk.

LadyHitchhiker
12-13-2007, 07:34 PM
I like the character but I have no sympathy for him. I think I would like him less if I did. I think I have more sympathy for the Spider-Bitch Mordred more than I do for Walter.

I voted yes. But as for whether or not I felt more sorry for Mordred - the spiderboy - or Walter - that's tough. I felt bad for both of them. Walter I think in some way was trying to help - torn between ka and anti-ka's wheels - and Mordred... well he was just a baby with bad genes...

Daghain
12-13-2007, 10:07 PM
walter is one of my fave characters in the series and i was very disappointed with his fairly shitty death. i sympathise with the guy because in my eyes he's helping roland along the way and then a dumb newborn freak has him for dinneh

oh and how do i start a new thread cos i cant figure this out at all..:panic:

You can click on new topic in any thread - it's in the upper left corner in a gold box. :D

How do you feel Walter helped Roland? I'm curious.

sarah
12-14-2007, 08:19 AM
The point I think maer and She Oy are making though is that, even if you are a victim of something as horrific as child abuse - you don't have to let that govern the path in life you will take.

You can chose to say "This has happened to me, but i won't remain a victim of my past." Whereas Walter seemingly thought "This has happened to me, now everyone that crosses my path shall suffer, as I have suffered." I think you need to be of tht sort of mindset to begin with, to make those sorts of choices.


exactly, darks. a choice. he chose.


Let me throw something else out there..maybe his rape has zero to do with his lifes choices and he just over a period of time realized that most folk need a serious, righteous fucking over and he was glad to oblige. It could be as simple as that.


yes but does that make you feel sympathy? he is who is. he did what he did. Do you feel sorry for him? I don't.

CyberGhostface
12-14-2007, 07:19 PM
he is who is. he did what he did. Do you feel sorry for him? I don't.

I think its more complex than that. We know next to nothing about Walter's transition from victim to villain. And if it is ever revealed, I'll be disappointed if it paints him as someone who jumps at the chance to become evil the first opportunity he gets.

Darkthoughts
12-15-2007, 06:19 AM
Yes, yes, you rule Lisa.:thumbsup:
Thank you for acknowledging that fact :innocent: :lol:



I don't think he would have become the way he did if he wasn't raped anymore than Ed Gein would have become the way he did if he didn't have an extremely overbearing mother who threatened to cut off his penis.

It's certainly possible that Walter's rape made him the sociopath we encounter in the stories. What we don't know though is what pre-rape Walter was like. It's not like we were told that he was a happy-go-lucky young man who never had a care in the world until he was violated. He could have been the kind of kid who tortures and mutilates animals, another thing serial killers do.

I think the rape probably furthered his hatred of people, but I don't believe it was the catalyst for his sadistic personality.

Sociopaths are generally people whose parents/carers were unable to bond with them as babies and infants. They recieve no emotional or physical support and grow up to be adults who are unable to form reciprocal emotional relationships. They tend to see other people more as objects to be used/manipulated for their own purposes.

I'd say that's a much more likely circumstance for Walter's personality than the isolated incidence of his rape.

Wuducynn
12-18-2007, 07:28 AM
yes but does that make you feel sympathy? he is who is. he did what he did. Do you feel sorry for him? I don't.

No, I don't feel sorry for him, but I can see his view points on things if I'm right about what I said about him.

Letti
12-22-2007, 03:54 AM
He wasn't born pure evil like the Crimson King or Rhea?


Why do you think that Rhea or the Crimson King were born evil? I don't think it at all. What made you think that? I am interested in it.
Moreover - I might be insane - I don't think Mordred was born evil, either.

CyberGhostface
12-22-2007, 09:20 AM
Why do you think that Rhea or the Crimson King were born evil? I don't think it at all. What made you think that? I am interested in it.
Moreover - I might be insane - I don't think Mordred was born evil, either.

Regarding Rhea and the Crimson King...did you ever read the comics? I'm hesitant to say anymore unless you have.

As for Mordred...the first thing he did was murder and eat his own mother unprovoked. I don't think someone born of the White would do such a thing.

MonteGss
12-22-2007, 09:22 AM
As for Mordred...the first thing he did was murder and eat his own mother unprovoked. I don't think someone born of the White would do such a thing.

:lol: I agree. :thumbsup:

Letti
12-22-2007, 10:27 AM
Why do you think that Rhea or the Crimson King were born evil? I don't think it at all. What made you think that? I am interested in it.
Moreover - I might be insane - I don't think Mordred was born evil, either.

1. Regarding Rhea and the Crimson King...did you ever read the comics? I'm hesitant to say anymore unless you have.

2. As for Mordred...the first thing he did was murder and eat his own mother unprovoked. I don't think someone born of the White would do such a thing.

1. Yes, I read them - but to tell you the truth I don't count with the comics when I tell my opinion about something. But let me know why you think they were born evil.

2. Yeah, but I don't think things are black or white. Good or bad. He was hungry and that was the only thing he felt.
And we mustn't forget that he wasn't a human being. He was a spider, too and in the animal world many bugs and insects eat each other - even if they belong to each other because of this or that.

CyberGhostface
12-22-2007, 11:36 AM
1. Yes, I read them - but to tell you the truth I don't count with the comics when I tell my opinion about something. But let me know why you think they were born evil.

Then I guess it matters if you count the comics as canon or not. I do.

The Crimson King was born of a demon and Eld in what was essentially a rape, and thus he was born to bring down the Tower. Unless you choose to ignore what the comics present, there's no other way to say the Crimson King wasn't evil.

Rhea, once again according to the comics, was born a 'bad seed'. She enjoyed committing various acts of cruelty and malice. She got worse later on but she was never 'good' to begin with.


2. Yeah, but I don't think things are black or white. Good or bad. He was hungry and that was the only thing he felt.

Not a legit excuse in my mind. There's no 'moral ambiguity' in eating your mother. And if he wasn't evil, he would have shown revulsion or remorse at what he did. But he didn't. You can't go "Well...yeah, he ate his mother but its not as black and white as you may think..."


And we mustn't forget that he wasn't a human being. He was a spider, too and in the animal world many bugs and insects eat each other - even if they belong to each other because of this or that.

So by what standards are judging Mordred on? Are we judging him on the standards of a mindless creature, or of a sentient being with alleged thoughts and feelings? People have no problem saying "Lets feel sorry for Mordred because he cries" or whatever and now we're excusing his actions because he's part animal?

Letti
12-22-2007, 12:03 PM
1. Yes, I read them - but to tell you the truth I don't count with the comics when I tell my opinion nabout something. But let me know why you think they were born evil.

Then I guess it matters if you count the comics as canon or not. I do.

The Crimson King was born of a demon and Eld in what was essentially a rape, and thus he was born to bring down the Tower. Unless you choose to ignore what the comics present, there's no other way to say the Crimson King wasn't evil.

Rhea, once again according to the comics, was born a 'bad seed'. She enjoyed committing various acts of cruelty and malice. She got worse later on but she was never 'good' to begin with.


2. Yeah, but I don't think things are black or white. Good or bad. He was hungry and that was the only thing he felt.

Not a legit excuse in my mind. There's no 'moral ambiguity' in eating your mother. And if he wasn't evil, he would have shown revulsion or remorse at what he did. But he didn't. You can't go "Well...yeah, he ate his mother but its not as black and white as you may think..."


And we mustn't forget that he wasn't a human being. He was a spider, too and in the animal world many bugs and insects eat each other - even if they belong to each other because of this or that.

So by what standards are judging Mordred on? Are we judging him on the standards of a mindless creature, or of a sentient being with alleged thoughts and feelings? People have no problem saying "Lets feel sorry for Mordred because he cries" or whatever and now we're excusing his actions because he's part animal?

Okay, I see your point about CK and Rhea. Of course you think they were born evil.
For me the comics are comics. They are much more like a tale but the books are absolutely real for me. To tell you the truth altought I like the comics they are very very far from me.
As you have just written I don't count the comics as canon so it's natural we will not agree about CK and Rhea.


So by what standards are judging Mordred on?
That's a very good question indeed. A hard one.
For my part I think he didn't look at Mia as his mother it was just a body he came from. We all have two parents and in his mind he had two as well. He had two fathers. Mai was noone to him... and I don't say it's natural or good but it's understandable - in a way.
And I don't say Mordred was a good guy, oh not at all but I say he wasn't born absolutely and totally evil, he wasn't just "black". He should have hated Rolad with all his cells but he still loved him - and of course hated him at the same time.
That's one of the reasons that gives me the idea that there was some good in him even if it wasn't more than a crumb.

CyberGhostface
12-22-2007, 12:14 PM
There was very little good in Mordred. Only one half of his parentage was evil, and if you were to count Susannah and Mia, then only 1/4th. If everyone's saying that its Walter's fault that he turned out the way he did and his choices, then why can't we say the same for Mordred? He could've fought his urges but he didn't.

Mia would have loved and cherished Mordred, and Mordred only saw her as a snack. Nothing says 'evil' like that.

Letti
12-22-2007, 12:23 PM
1. There was very little good in Mordred. Only one half of his parentage was evil, and if you were to count Susannah and Mia, then only 1/4th. If everyone's saying that its Walter's fault that he turned out the way he did and his choices, then why can't we say the same for Mordred? He could've fought his urges but he didn't.

Mia would have loved and cherished Mordred, and Mordred only saw her as a snack. Nothing says 'evil' like that.

1. Oh, I say the same. At the beginning he wasn't born totally evil but loneliness and many other things made he make the decision to hate people. Any day by day or hour by hour he became more and more evil. It was his fault as well. It was his decision. He could have tried to talk to Roland (even if it was dangerous) but he decided to hide and kill.
At the end he was evil. Just like Flagg.

2. Eating Mia was instinct. Every child starts to eat (drink) when they get born and I think human babies see their mothers as snacks at the first time. - instincts - A human child needs milk - he needed flesh and blood.

But I really don't say that he wasn't evil... he was! But he wasn't evil 100% when he was born.
Of course it's just my two cents.

DocPain
12-22-2007, 12:26 PM
I dont feel bad for him. But I do agree, just like Judas, he is what he is supposed to be.

Brice
12-22-2007, 12:32 PM
Walter has absolutely 0 sympathy from me. As has previously been said he made his choices. I have little regard for when people use bad things in there past as an excuse. It excuses nothing. It really doesn't matter if he was raped and brutally beaten every day. It's no excuse to be a dick. I thought he was a great character in the story. That little bit of information was really unnecessary to me though. If he was a dick he was a dick simply because he was a dick. That would be my same assesment of people in real life using abuse as an excuse also. If they lack the character to rise above their life's circumstances anyway, they wouldn't have been very good people minus the abuse IMO. As for serial killers speaking of how they were abused as children the same applies and more so. Alot of these are very smart people. They know how to manipulate people's sympathies.

CyberGhostface
12-22-2007, 02:31 PM
I never said it was an excuse, though. And I think its pretty narrow to assume that A.) These people would have been bad people even if they had good childhoods and B.) They're just playing the sympathy card. No one just says "Today I'm going to be a killer".

Not saying that its *always* the case, but it is possible for someone's psyche to become damaged after so much abuse. Its like those dogs that are constantly beaten by their owners; sooner or later they're going to snap.

Brice
12-22-2007, 03:27 PM
I never said it was an excuse, though. And I think its pretty narrow to assume that A.) These people would have been bad people even if they had good childhoods and B.) They're just playing the sympathy card. No one just says "Today I'm going to be a killer".

Not saying that its *always* the case, but it is possible for someone's psyche to become damaged after so much abuse. Its like those dogs that are constantly beaten by their owners; sooner or later they're going to snap.

Oh, I know you never said it was an excuse at all. It just seems that way to me. Maybe I'm wrong. I however didn't quite mean that these people would have been bad if they'd had good childhoods. I'm just saying they allowed their circumstances to get the best of them. If that is because their psyche was damaged or they were just weaker emotionally...well it might sound unkind, but I don't feel that really matters. IMO everybody has the ability to rise above whatever circumstances in their life. To me, every "evil" act is a conscious choice. So while it's likely true most people like this wouldn't say
"Today I'm going to be a killer" if they do kill then IMO it amounts to the same and nobody like that is getting any sympathy from me. I do have to disagree with your analogy about the dog though the dog might simply run away....it needn't attack. It's also a different matter I think to attack the person beating you than to attack another.

CyberGhostface
12-22-2007, 05:46 PM
Oh, I know you never said it was an excuse at all. It just seems that way to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

My question was if you were to feel sympathy for Walter knowing his plight...not if said plight excused his actions. Its an entirely different thing.


I however didn't quite mean that these people would have been bad if they'd had good childhoods. I'm just saying they allowed their circumstances to get the best of them.

Again, its not that simple. If someone has a strong group of support to help them thats an entirely different matter than someone who knows nothing but abuse.


If that is because their psyche was damaged or they were just weaker emotionally...well it might sound unkind, but I don't feel that really matters. IMO everybody has the ability to rise above whatever circumstances in their life.

Everybody has the ability, but for a lot of people its easier said than done. You can't expect someone like Aileen Wuornos to lead a normal and healthy life after what they've been through.


I do have to disagree with your analogy about the dog though the dog might simply run away....it needn't attack.

Not if its chained up. I'm sure I don't have to point out what Michael Vick did to those poor animals. When they tried to rescue the dogs one had become so savage that they had no alternative but to put it down.

Brice
12-22-2007, 06:52 PM
Oh, I know you never said it was an excuse at all. It just seems that way to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

My question was if you were to feel sympathy for Walter knowing his plight...not if said plight excused his actions. Its an entirely different thing.

Yes, it certainly is. I was merely attempting to explain why I personally was not sympathetic towards him. Perhaps I did so poorly.



I however didn't quite mean that these people would have been bad if they'd had good childhoods. I'm just saying they allowed their circumstances to get the best of them.

Again, its not that simple. If someone has a strong group of support to help them thats an entirely different matter than someone who knows nothing but abuse.

Still plenty of people manage without support to not lash out.


If that is because their psyche was damaged or they were just weaker emotionally...well it might sound unkind, but I don't feel that really matters. IMO everybody has the ability to rise above whatever circumstances in their life.


Everybody has the ability, but for a lot of people its easier said than done. You can't expect someone like Aileen Wuornos to lead a normal and healthy life after what they've been through.

She murdered people unrelated to her abuse. She made her choices and has no sympathy from me either. Could she have led a normal life? She certainly could. She chose not to. While it's true it isn't as easy for these people to make the right choice it doesn't make making the wrong choices okay and they don't have my sympathy.


I do have to disagree with your analogy about the dog though the dog might simply run away....it needn't attack.


Not if its chained up. I'm sure I don't have to point out what Michael Vick did to those poor animals. When they tried to rescue the dogs one had become so savage that they had no alternative but to put it down.

Well, while what Vick did was horrible the dog did in fact have a choice and it made it. True, it's not much of choice . a choice to attack in any conditions is still a choice.

CyberGhostface
12-22-2007, 07:05 PM
Still plenty of people manage without support to not lash out.

Not all people are the same. Different people react to different situations.


She murdered people unrelated to her abuse. She made her choices and has no sympathy from me either. Could she have led a normal life? She certainly could. She chose not to. While it's true it isn't as easy for these people to make the right choice it doesn't make making the wrong choices okay and they don't have my sympathy.

We're talking about a woman with serious mental problems here whose whole life was filled various acts of abuse. Yeah, she has choices but its not as simple as you're making it out to be. People who've been put through hell aren't as likely to make rational decisions. You seem to be under the impression that these people are fully sane.


Well, while what Vick did was horrible the dog did in fact have a choice and it made it. True, it's not much of choice . a choice to attack in any conditions is still a choice.

Oh, come on. A normal animal (most of them, anyway) doesn't have the same moral capabilities as a human does, let alone one that's been abused and tortured. You can't say "Well, that dog had a choice." Seriously.

Brice
12-22-2007, 07:33 PM
Still plenty of people manage without support to not lash out.

Not all people are the same. Different people react to different situations.

Yes, of course people are not the same and they react differently, however I maintain that while it may be harder for some than others there is always a choice in how to react.



She murdered people unrelated to her abuse. She made her choices and has no sympathy from me either. Could she have led a normal life? She certainly could. She chose not to. While it's true it isn't as easy for these people to make the right choice it doesn't make making the wrong choices okay and they don't have my sympathy.

We're talking about a woman with serious mental problems here whose whole life was filled various acts of abuse. Yeah, she has choices but its not as simple as you're making it out to be. People who've been put through hell aren't as likely to make rational decisions. You seem to be under the impression that these people are fully sane.

I'm not sure I believe that a mental problem or even insanity is indicative of a moral deficiency at all. Sorry, but once again I feel that a choice is still made and whatever factors or circumstances brought about that reaction don't justify them in any way and therefore don't warrant my sympathies. In most cases I'd feel some sympathy for someone who was abused or mistreated, but once they've crossed the boundary of acting out on those who are innocent I have none whatsoever. I have no such problem with them acting out on the guilty parties however.



Well, while what Vick did was horrible the dog did in fact have a choice and it made it. True, it's not much of choice . a choice to attack in any conditions is still a choice.

Oh, come on. A normal animal (most of them, anyway) doesn't have the same moral capabilities as a human does, let alone one that's been abused and tortured. You can't say "Well, that dog had a choice." Seriously.

We really don't know what an animal's moral capabilities are do we? Surely they have some.

CyberGhostface
12-22-2007, 08:02 PM
Yes, of course people are not the same and they react differently, however I maintain that while it may be harder for some than others there is always a choice in how to react.

There's always a choice in that people aren't *forced* to act. But again...you're oversimplifying the matter.


I'm not sure I believe that a mental problem or even insanity is indicative of a moral deficiency at all.

Have you ever studied or researched the subject??


Sorry, but once again I feel that a choice is still made and whatever factors or circumstances brought about that reaction don't justify them in any way and therefore don't warrant my sympathies.

Again, I'm not talking about justifying or excusing the actions of these people. I'm just saying that in most cases these people are shaped by events that occur in their lives. I don't have sympathy for their actions now, but I have sympathy for the person they used to be.


We really don't know what an animal's moral capabilities are do we? Surely they have some.

But you're expecting them to have fully rational decisions. My cats don't act rationally when they knocked down the Christmas tree this year, and they're pampered. Why would you expect a pitbull thats been beaten and forced to fight with other dogs to act rationally when coming in contact with other people?

Brice
12-22-2007, 08:27 PM
Yes, of course people are not the same and they react differently, however I maintain that while it may be harder for some than others there is always a choice in how to react.

There's always a choice in that people aren't *forced* to act. But again...you're oversimplifying the matter.

That may be true. I tend to see moral issues in strict terms of black and white. I can't help it. It's just how I feel.



I'm not sure I believe that a mental problem or even insanity is indicative of a moral deficiency at all.

Have you ever studied or researched the subject??

I've read quite a bit, but I'd say I'm far from being an expert. This is just my own personal gut feeling (although based on some limited degree of personal observation too).



Sorry, but once again I feel that a choice is still made and whatever factors or circumstances brought about that reaction don't justify them in any way and therefore don't warrant my sympathies.

Again, I'm not talking about justifying or excusing the actions of these people. I'm just saying that in most cases these people are shaped by events that occur in their lives. I don't have sympathy for their actions now, but I have sympathy for the person they used to be. I would have had sympathy before they acted out. That for me is completely negated when they do. And I realize you're not talking about justifications or excuses, but for me there is a direct correlation there.



We really don't know what an animal's moral capabilities are do we? Surely they have some.

But you're expecting them to have fully rational decisions. My cats don't act rationally when they knocked down the Christmas tree this year, and they're pampered. Why would you expect a pitbull thats been beaten and forced to fight with other dogs to act rationally when coming in contact with other people?

No, I'm not really expecting them to make rational decisions. But, why must their rationale be understandable by our terms. Your cats were very likely just playing, or thought the tree looked better lying down. :lol: By this I mean just because we don't understand their reasons doesn't suggest that they don't have their own totally rational reasons for what they do. Sorry, but I still believe they are completely capable of moral choices and see no reason to believe otherwise. I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one man.

CyberGhostface
12-22-2007, 08:51 PM
That may be true. I tend to see moral issues in strict terms of black and white. I can't help it. It's just how I feel.

Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that matter.


I've read quite a bit, but I'd say I'm far from being an expert. This is just my own personal gut feeling (although based on some limited degree of personal observation too).

I'm not an expert either, but I did a project on psychopaths for psychology, and I've seen a number of episodes of Most Evil on Discovery Times which has a psychologist analyze serial killers. A psychopath's brain is usually wired differently than normal people and their morals capabilities are usually different than you or I. A lot of them, for example, aren't able to empathize with other people.


No, I'm not really expecting them to make rational decisions. But, why must their rationale be understandable by our terms. Your cats were very likely just playing, or thought the tree looked better lying down. :lol: By this I mean just because we don't understand their reasons doesn't suggest that they don't have their own totally rational reasons for what they do. Sorry, but I still believe they are completely capable of moral choices and see no reason to believe otherwise. I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one man.

I agree that we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter as well.

Brice
12-22-2007, 09:03 PM
I've read quite a bit, but I'd say I'm far from being an expert. This is just my own personal gut feeling (although based on some limited degree of personal observation too).

I'm not an expert either, but I did a project on psychopaths for psychology, and I've seen a number of episodes of Most Evil on Discovery Times which has a psychologist analyze serial killers. A psychopath's brain is usually wired differently than normal people and their morals capabilities are usually different than you or I. A lot of them, for example, aren't able to empathize with other people.

Yeah, that's traditional thought on the matter. Personally, I think they're perfectly capable morally they just don't fuckin' care. I'd agree though that their brains are "wired differently" though in that neurotransmitter levels in their brains are likely very different than in a normal person's brain and I woulld concede that some of these could indicate a predisposion towards aggression or violence. I just don't feel that they are really morally deficient...more a situation where they "mentally" just say fuck it all.

LadyHitchhiker
12-24-2007, 08:59 AM
Why do you think that Rhea or the Crimson King were born evil? I don't think it at all. What made you think that? I am interested in it.
Moreover - I might be insane - I don't think Mordred was born evil, either.

I agree with you. I really don't know that I believe ANYONE is born evil. There are natural tendencies in certain people that genetically and through environment can be exploited to make someone that way.

CyberGhostface
12-24-2007, 07:15 PM
I agree with you. I really don't know that I believe ANYONE is born evil. There are natural tendencies in certain people that genetically and through environment can be exploited to make someone that way.

In fiction, anything is possible. In real life, no one is born evil (perhaps) but when you're talking about a fictional spider-demon (the Crimson King) bred to destroy the White...there's not much doubt to suggest otherwise.

Letti
12-25-2007, 01:31 AM
I agree with you. I really don't know that I believe ANYONE is born evil. There are natural tendencies in certain people that genetically and through environment can be exploited to make someone that way.

In fiction, anything is possible. In real life, no one is born evil (perhaps) but when you're talking about a fictional spider-demon (the Crimson King) bred to destroy the White...there's not much doubt to suggest otherwise.

(maybe we should start a Mordred thread, what do you think? - I think I will open it)

How could Mordred love Roland if he was born evil?

CyberGhostface
12-25-2007, 10:21 AM
I was talking about the Crimson King when I said he was born evil, not Mordred. But how could Mordred love his father if he was evil? Its possible to love and be evil...Hitler loved his niece and his dog for example.

But in the end Mordred tried to kill his father, so while he may had conflicting emotions regarding his father, in the end he acted on his dark side and ultimately paid the price.

jayson
12-25-2007, 10:39 AM
How could Mordred love Roland if he was born evil?

Because Mordred wasn't born entirely evil. Mordred had two daddies. He was quite evil, but there was still a side of him, a side he hated apparently, that still loved and longed to be loved. We saw which side won out in the end, so it suggests that the evil was pretty strong. I don't believe real humans can be "born evil" per se, though they can be born pre-disposed to some sociopathic mental illnesses, but Mordred was a supernatural creature with one supernaturally evil parent.

CyberGhostface
01-21-2008, 08:14 AM
Before you automatically click "Yes", consider the following...

Flagg (as Flagg, not any of his other identities) did very little in the series. They were ultimately a series of cameo appearences leading up to...well, nothing. Just fodder for Spider-Boy. I have to wonder if Flagg was necessary at all in the series. If someone were to pull a Mephisto (wink wink Spider-Man fans) and erase Flagg, would the series be any different?

Book 1: Walter and Marten are now two seperate figures. Walter dies at the end of the book, but appears in flashbacks.
Book 2: Minimal references to Flagg would be removed.
Book 3: Tick Tock dies in Lud. This is an improvement, considering how Ticky's later appearence was an embarrassment.
Book 4: The only significant change would be here. Given that Flagg is gone, someone else would need to create the Emerald Palace. The flashbacks could also explain what happened to Marten, given that he's now seperate.
Book 5: Flashbacks before Book 1 occur.
Book 6: Flashbacks before Book 1 occur.
Book 7: Flagg's appearence is omitted. It had little-to-no impact on the story, and was only referenced twice in passing.

If you vote "Yes", then please explain why Flagg was important.

Letti
01-21-2008, 08:17 AM
Thank you for the interesting question, CGF.
I clicked on yes and whenever I get home I will write down why.

Mike Beck
01-21-2008, 08:25 AM
I think this is an amazing question.

i clicked no. I believe that the series would have been much stronger without his character in it, for the reasons you posted already.

i also don't think he was needed for the emerald palace scene. instead of Flagg being inside, why not the Crimson King himself? I know the CK was trapped in the tower, but part of him could have manifested in the palace. some part of him that he could project. It would have set up a nice introduction for the CK, as well, considering all that "Beware the Crimson King" stuff.

Flagg in Lud was unnecessary.
Flagg in Topeka didn't really do much except tease the reader.
Flagg in Fedic? I could have done without.

Darkthoughts
01-21-2008, 08:30 AM
Good question! I think the Stand was Flagg's finest hour, and the Flagg of DT paled in comparison.

I don't know how to answer yet, do you mean all incarnations of Flagg - because without Walter, Marten etc, the story would have been entirely different.

CyberGhostface
01-21-2008, 08:34 AM
I don't know how to answer yet, do you mean all incarnations of Flagg - because without Walter, Marten etc, the story would have been entirely different.

I'm only referring to Flagg as Flagg. His identity crisis with Walter and Marten occurred after they were established as seperate characters in the first two to three books, so it wouldn't be hard to keep them in.

sarah
01-21-2008, 08:48 AM
Has it been discussed elsewhere why king merged all the three men into one?

Darkthoughts
01-21-2008, 08:50 AM
Sort of..ish...:D

CyberGhostface
01-21-2008, 08:57 AM
Whoever edited my original post could they just change it to **SPOILERS**?

sarah
01-21-2008, 09:08 AM
ok. Done. :D

jayson
01-21-2008, 09:23 AM
That is an EXCELLENT question CGF. Since we are just taking Flagg in his Flagg incarnation, I would have to agree with you that he was superfluous. It's a shame since he is among the greatest characters King ever created, but ultimately, he served no purpose.

CyberGhostface
01-21-2008, 09:30 AM
Thanks for the compliments everyone. :)

I really would like to know why King resurrected Walter for the last three books and say that he's Flagg...since he was writing them in one long period, he should have known the character's fate ahead of time.

R.F.
01-21-2008, 09:50 AM
In my opinion, there really is no difference between Martin, Walter, and Flagg. Now, I haven't read the comics (will as soon as I can find them), but in everything else, the Walkin Dude goes by many different names. The only way that I would support Flagg being taken away from Martin/Walter is if all three were made into different characters.

Also, any who think he is just fodder for spider boy, are forgetting the fact that there are a seemingly infinite amount of worlds, and R.F. is in all of them by one name or another.

jayson
01-21-2008, 10:50 AM
In my opinion, there really is no difference between Martin, Walter, and Flagg. ... The only way that I would support Flagg being taken away from Martin/Walter is if all three were made into different characters.

That is true, but only in the revised Gunslinger. In the original, there Walter and Marten are not the same person. When it was revised, King combined the two.



Also, any who think he is just fodder for spider boy, are forgetting the fact that there are a seemingly infinite amount of worlds, and R.F. is in all of them by one name or another.

That is up for debate. There are those, myself among them, who think that Flagg is a singular entity. In other words, there are not copies or twinners of Flagg in different worlds. Rather, he is able to travel between the worlds.

R.F.
01-21-2008, 10:56 AM
Right, and that is possible. So I guess it really depends on if The Man in Black is Walter is Martin is Randall is Richard is Walkin Dude... To me, he seems too important to Roland's quest to ever be counted out completely. Just as there are more than one world with Jake, I figured that Flagg has not quite seen the end of all of his days.

CyberGhostface
01-21-2008, 11:21 AM
The only way that I would support Flagg being taken away from Martin/Walter is if all three were made into different characters.

Which is exactly what I said when analyzing what the series would be like in Flagg's absence.


Also, any who think he is just fodder for spider boy, are forgetting the fact that there are a seemingly infinite amount of worlds, and R.F. is in all of them by one name or another.

Doesn't matter. Even if your theory is true, the series is over. We're not going to *see* any of these infinite Flaggs causing chaos, so its not much of a consolation prize to those disappointed with his mediocre fate and wasted potential.

timtempest6
01-25-2008, 09:30 PM
I think the tet just caught Walter in the time line of The Stand where he called himself flagg. I also think Mordred killing Walter/Flagg was to make Mordred's character more i don't know..bad ass.? like wow he did just like that what Roland could never do. you see?

ATG
01-25-2008, 09:34 PM
I say yes because he was a main component of the ties to the other books.

The Stand is generally considered his best book ( ATG ducks ), and RF was a major character, therefor he had to be there.

LadyHitchhiker
01-25-2008, 09:54 PM
Flagg should be in every story...

Candice Dionysus
01-25-2008, 10:40 PM
I honestly don't think Flagg really died. We've seen before that he always manages to escape just before his death, and I believe that, given how hungry Mordred was very shortly after, Flagg's death was in fact an illusion for Mordred. But I'm in love with Flagg, so my theory could technically be called bull on account of my being so biased. Depends on the person, really.

Though I do agree, his being in book Seven was useless, and all the anticipation leading up to it was like coming so close to climax, and having your partner finish before you, roll over, and pass out. Not very fun, extremely aggravating. And while I was not happy with that one aspect of the book, there were so many other aspects that surprised and delighted me that I'm not really feeling the "right" to complain about it, so to speak. Even if I am in love with Flagg.

ATG
01-25-2008, 10:43 PM
I honestly don't think Flagg really died. We've seen before that he always manages to escape just before his death, and I believe that, given how hungry Mordred was very shortly after, Flagg's death was in fact an illusion for Mordred. But I'm in love with Flagg, so my theory could technically be called bull on account of my being so biased. Depends on the person, really.

Though I do agree, his being in book Seven was useless, and all the anticipation leading up to it was like coming so close to climax, and having your partner finish before you, roll over, and pass out. Not very fun, extremely aggravating. And while I was not happy with that one aspect of the book, there were so many other aspects that surprised and delighted me that I'm not really feeling the "right" to complain about it, so to speak. Even if I am in love with Flagg.


Even if Mordred did kill him, it wasn't on a level of the Tower where death is forever.

Candice Dionysus
01-25-2008, 10:55 PM
Even if Mordred did kill him, it wasn't on a level of the Tower where death is forever.


That's true, but we also don't know if Flagg himself is originally from a level where Death is forever or not. If he was, and he had left his level of the tower, and died on another, would it still count as forever? How would that work?

I think if Flagg died on a level of the tower where death was not forever, his death wouldn't count as forever, because that level's timeline could be changed. Someone could go back and alter the course of things if they really felt the need (though considering its Flagg, I don't think many people from the series would jump at the chance to save him). But I could be wrong, and, against all logic, it could still count as permanent simply because he was originally from a level where death meant just that, death.

I really should speak up in discussions more often, but I only ever seem to want to in the middle of the night. I have to be at work in seven hours, so I need to go get some sleep. I will certainly be replying to anything else you might have to say on the subject, though, after work.

Jon
01-26-2008, 02:53 AM
I voted yes. I am a huge fan of "The Stand" and I wanted that charcter of tangable evil.

CyberGhostface
01-26-2008, 11:31 AM
I say yes because he was a main component of the ties to the other books.

The Stand is generally considered his best book ( ATG ducks ), and RF was a major character, therefor he had to be there.

But if nothing was done with the character, what's the point? No one had to be there.


I honestly don't think Flagg really died. We've seen before that he always manages to escape just before his death, and I believe that, given how hungry Mordred was very shortly after, Flagg's death was in fact an illusion for Mordred. But I'm in love with Flagg, so my theory could technically be called bull on account of my being so biased. Depends on the person, really.

On the other occasions he's vanished when the going got tough. There's nothing to suggest that here.


I voted yes. I am a huge fan of "The Stand" and I wanted that charcter of tangable evil.

I wonder if all the people voting "Yes" have even read my initial argument or are just voting because they think he's cool. I don't have a problem with people voting "Yes" but the very least they could do is try to refute my argument.

cozener
01-26-2008, 12:58 PM
I've never thought he was necessary but I did enjoy having him there. It added spice. Having Flagg be Walter and Marten added depth to those characters because Flagg himself is developed in The Stand. Then again, having read The Stand after I finished DT I can tell you from my perspective that those two characters could have done without that boost but they wouldn't have been the same characters in the end.

I just wish that Flagg was used differently. The question you raised Cyber, to me, forces the question of Flagg's death. This is another place where Flagg should have been used differently but I don't want to get into that. Its a whole topic in and of itself.

I would have liked to have seen more of Flagg throughout the series to justify a "yes, he was needed" response. I would have liked it if he were a more constant threat to the ka-tet. Perhaps not directly, but through agents like he was with Ticktock. Flagg is the type that likes to do his dirty work through others and seldom does things himself. The exception to that would have been his showdown with Roland in and/or around the Tower.

In short, no. He wasn't necessary but could have and should have been.

Letti
01-26-2008, 01:18 PM
CGF, my question might sound very stupid but when you ask this question we must think of just those things Flagg did under this name, Flagg? So when he did something as Walter or anybody else that doesn't count?

Candice Dionysus
01-26-2008, 06:53 PM
I honestly don't think Flagg really died. We've seen before that he always manages to escape just before his death, and I believe that, given how hungry Mordred was very shortly after, Flagg's death was in fact an illusion for Mordred. But I'm in love with Flagg, so my theory could technically be called bull on account of my being so biased. Depends on the person, really.

On the other occasions he's vanished when the going got tough. There's nothing to suggest that here.

I know. Its really just my personal opinion on things, which is why I added that depending on the person, it could be called bull. Its really just wishful thinking on my part.

Besides, I agreed that there was really no point to him being there, all said and done. He served no tangible purpose aside from being a light snack for Mordred, and that was unsatisfying (both for Mordred and for myself).

CyberGhostface
01-26-2008, 07:00 PM
Ck, my question might sound very stupid but when you ask this question we must think of just those things Flagg did under this name, Flagg? So when he did something as Walter or anybody else that doesn't count?

Yes, for the purpose of my argument, I'm referring to Flagg just under the name Flagg.

His connections to Walter, for example, were revealed late in the series and were probably added at the last minute (with his revision of the Gunslinger and contradictions with the second through fourth books).

So, in my opinion, saying that "Of course he was important, he seduced Gabrielle" or something similar wouldn't be a valid argument because when Marten was first established he wasn't Flagg and the story could have very well gone on without him being him.

The *only* place in the series where Flagg would be missed would be in Wizard and Glass. But even then the series would still be minimally different. Besides Flagg being "cool" (and I'm not arguing he isn't) there really is no way to say that introducing Flagg was good for King in the long run when he did nothing with the character.

Letti
01-26-2008, 11:42 PM
Aha. I see.
Okay, it's not easy to answer because I say everyone every single character was needed in the series even if they didn't do more but said two words. But Flagg did much more. You yourself write that he had an important part in the series only once where we could miss him but that only part can give me the answer: yes!.
But anyway I guess he had to appear because he is that character who appears in other books and he has a very important in King's books and he

found the end of the path

in King's longest and biggest series.
And for me it's very hard to tell the names apart because we know they were one. Like Will Dearborn and Roland are the same person.
But anyway I see your point and I can understand if you say he wasn't needed at all.

Wuducynn
01-26-2008, 11:46 PM
Ck, my question might sound very stupid but when you ask this question we must think of just those things Flagg did under this name, Flagg? So when he did something as Walter (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=741) or anybody else that doesn't count?


I never said I thought a question of yours was stupid Letti. I don't know what you're referring to.

Letti
01-26-2008, 11:47 PM
I never said I thought a question of yours was stupid Letti. I don't know what you're referring to.

???

Wuducynn
01-26-2008, 11:48 PM
Look above.

Letti
01-26-2008, 11:56 PM
Oh, now I know why you said it. Thank you. But It was quite late when I asked it and I wanted to type CGF... but I typed CK... sometimes I don't understand myself but I guess you are always on my mind.
*goes to edit it*

Wuducynn
01-27-2008, 12:00 AM
Oh! :lol: Nevermind then!

CyberGhostface
01-27-2008, 06:29 AM
Aha. I see.
Okay, it's not easy to answer because I say everyone every single character was needed in the series even if they didn't do more but said two words. But Flagg did much more.

What did he do that was so important to the series?


You yourself write that he had an important part in the series only once where we could miss him but that only part can give me the answer: yes!.

You mean the Wizard and Glass scene? Why?


But anyway I guess he had to appear because he is that character who appears in other books and he has a very important in King's books

He appeared in two other books before DT. I suppose that could count as grounds for putting him in the series, but King shouldn't have introduced him into the series if all he was going to get was a series of a cameos that led to nothing. But I don't get the "He was a big villain, he had to appear." Pennywise was a pretty epic villain, where was he? (And no, I don't buy that he was Dandelo...but if he was, that would be another point against King for giving his greatest villains anticlimatic ends that serve no purpose.)


and he

found the end of the path

in King's longest and biggest series.

How is that important to the rest of the series? It was only mentioned TWICE by Roland, and both of those were in passing as if he could care less. "Hmmph. Oh well."


And for me it's very hard to tell the names apart because we know they were one. Like Will Dearborn and Roland are the same person.

That comparision would work if Will Dearborn was a seperate character from Roland and then King retconned the novels into saying he was Roland all along. Walter and Marten were completely seperate characters, one who had died in the first novel, and King resurrected Walter when the series was almost over. Had he been Walter from day one (and he wasn't--or else King wouldn't have had to rewrite the ending of the first one and leave the door open for Walter's survival) there might be a point.

And its not that hard to consider them different people, given that Walter, Marten and Flagg all look and act pretty different.

Letti
01-27-2008, 07:14 AM
Aha. I see.
Okay, it's not easy to answer because I say everyone every single character was needed in the series even if they didn't do more but said two words. But Flagg did much more.

1. What did he do that was so important to the series?


You yourself write that he had an important part in the series only once where we could miss him but that only part can give me the answer: yes!.

2. You mean the Wizard and Glass scene? Why?


But anyway I guess he had to appear because he is that character who appears in other books and he has a very important in King's books

3. He appeared in two other books before DT. I suppose that could count as grounds for putting him in the series, but King shouldn't have introduced him into the series if all he was going to get was a series of a cameos that led to nothing. But I don't get the "He was a big villain, he had to appear." Pennywise was a pretty epic villain, where was he? (And no, I don't buy that he was Dandelo...but if he was, that would be another point against King for giving his greatest villains anticlimatic ends that serve no purpose.)


and he

found the end of the path

in King's longest and biggest series.

4. How is that important to the rest of the series? It was only mentioned TWICE by Roland, and both of those were in passing as if he could care less. "Hmmph. Oh well."


And for me it's very hard to tell the names apart because we know they were one. Like Will Dearborn and Roland are the same person.

That comparision would work if Will Dearborn was a seperate character from Roland and then King retconned the novels into saying he was Roland all along. Walter and Marten were completely seperate characters, one who had died in the first novel, and King resurrected Walter when the series was almost over. Had he been Walter from day one (and he wasn't--or else King wouldn't have had to rewrite the ending of the first one and leave the door open for Walter's survival) there might be a point.

5. And its not that hard to consider them different people, given that Walter, Marten and Flagg all look and act pretty different.

1. I didn't say he did anything that was so important to the series. I said the way I look at this series or any other books I say everyone is important even those characters who say two words and he, Flagg did much more. (He talked much more than saying two words I guess we can agree about it.)

2. What why? You wrote somewhere that was the only important scene where he appeared. Did't you?

3. I don't say he had to appear but he did. Noone has to appear. People are appearing and disappearing in the books.

4. Many things happen in the books that aren't important to the rest of the series. When we read a book we get lots of infomration about people a stuff that aren't important at all for the book itself.
Anyway I guess if Flagg

hadn't died I don't think Roland could have reached the Tower so easily.
Of course it's just a guess and nomore.
Roland mentoned it only twice... and? Yeah, he is an important character but he is not God or something. Roland is that type of person who doesn't talk about his enemies much anyway. And if they are dead he loses his interest.

5. For me they behaved and talked the same way or in a very similar way.

CyberGhostface
01-27-2008, 10:33 AM
1. I didn't say he did anything that was so important to the series. I said the way I look at this series or any other books I say everyone is important even those characters who say two words and he, Flagg did much more. (He talked much more than saying two words I guess we can agree about it.)

Well, thats not the way I look at it. I mean, if the old whore with the bad makeup job was removed from Wizard and Glass would anyone care? Obviously Flagg's not on the same level as her, but I don't buy the "If he's in the book he's important" bit.


2. What why? You wrote somewhere that was the only important scene where he appeared. Did't you?

Its the only scene that couldn't be removed as easily as the other ones, but that alone doesn't validate his importance in the series.


3. I don't say he had to appear but he did. Noone has to appear. People are appearing and disappearing in the books.

Yes. He didn't have to appear, but he did. And in the end that was a bad decision and a waste of a good character on King's part.


4. Many things happen in the books that aren't important to the rest of the series. When we read a book we get lots of infomration about people a stuff that aren't important at all for the book itself.

Right, but again, I don't see how this justifies Flagg being in the series. You're pretty much saying "Well, not everyone has to be important." But we're talking about a major King villain. Either do SOMETHING with his character or don't bring him in at all. 'Cause from where I'm standing all King did was say "Hey everyone, its Flagg! Oops, he's dead now. Sorry!"


Anyway I guess if Flagg

hadn't died I don't think Roland could have reached the Tower so easily.
Of course it's just a guess and nomore.

Is that a good thing? Wouldn't it be more interesting if Roland was more challenged when he got to the Tower instead of having it easy? I think battling Flagg would be more satisfying than the old geriatric throwing Harry Potter sneetches at him...(BTW, you don't have to tag all your spoilers since the original post has a warning.)


Roland mentoned it only twice... and? Yeah, he is an important character but he is not God or something. Roland is that type of person who doesn't talk about his enemies much anyway. And if they are dead he loses his interest.

Right, that's why he's never thought about Rhea or Jonas or the people in Tull or Susan or...


5. For me they behaved and talked the same way or in a very similar way.

I suppose, but at the same time, the evil character having a sense of humor isn't unique with Flagg. And it wasn't King's original intention either. He just combined them with Flagg after Flagg was introduced. Before that Marten and Walter were flashback characters who had both died. (There was a mention of Marten being killed in the original Gunslinger that was removed in the Revised.) I don't know about Marten, but Walter was definitely a last minute addition as throughout the beginning of the series Walter is dead as the dodo.

Letti
01-27-2008, 11:05 AM
1. I didn't say he did anything that was so important to the series. I said the way I look at this series or any other books I say everyone is important even those characters who say two words and he, Flagg did much more. (He talked much more than saying two words I guess we can agree about it.)

Well, thats not the way I look at it. I mean, if the old whore with the bad makeup job was removed from Wizard and Glass would anyone care? Obviously Flagg's not on the same level as her, but I don't buy the "If he's in the book he's important" bit.


2. What why? You wrote somewhere that was the only important scene where he appeared. Did't you?

Its the only scene that couldn't be removed as easily as the other ones, but that alone doesn't validate his importance in the series.


3. I don't say he had to appear but he did. Noone has to appear. People are appearing and disappearing in the books.

Yes. He didn't have to appear, but he did. And in the end that was a bad decision and a waste of a good character on King's part.


4. Many things happen in the books that aren't important to the rest of the series. When we read a book we get lots of infomration about people a stuff that aren't important at all for the book itself.

Right, but again, I don't see how this justifies Flagg being in the series. You're pretty much saying "Well, not everyone has to be important." But we're talking about a major King villain. Either do SOMETHING with his character or don't bring him in at all. 'Cause from where I'm standing all King did was say "Hey everyone, its Flagg! Oops, he's dead now. Sorry!"


Anyway I guess if Flagg

hadn't died I don't think Roland could have reached the Tower so easily.
Of course it's just a guess and nomore.

5. Is that a good thing? Wouldn't it be more interesting if Roland was more challenged when he got to the Tower instead of having it easy? I think battling Flagg would be more satisfying than the old geriatric throwing Harry Potter sneetches at him...(BTW, you don't have to tag all your spoilers since the original post has a warning.)


Roland mentoned it only twice... and? Yeah, he is an important character but he is not God or something. Roland is that type of person who doesn't talk about his enemies much anyway. And if they are dead he loses his interest.

6. Right, that's why he's never thought about Rhea or Jonas or the people in Tull or Susan or...


For me they behaved and talked the same way or in a very similar way.

7. I suppose, but at the same time, the evil character having a sense of humor isn't unique with Flagg. And it wasn't King's original intention either. He just combined them with Flagg after Flagg was introduced. Before that Marten and Walter were flashback characters who had both died. (There was a mention of Marten being killed in the original Gunslinger that was removed in the Revised.) I don't know about Marten, but Walter was definitely a last minute addition as throughout the beginning of the series Walter is dead as the dodo.

1. If we don't know about something of course we don't miss it. But for example if now King revised Wizard and Glass and he vanished that whore I would miss her a lot.
I think she was important (not as important as water or oxigen but still) because she was a good mirror about the life that was going on in Mejis.
And yeah, Flagg's part is much bigger than that whore's.
I can understand if you say you don't buy the "if he's in the book he's important" stuff but we will never agree on it. But that's not a problem at all.

2. You know I feel I can say anything and you will say Flagg wasn't needed and you can write me anything I will say he was because we look at the series from very different angles and we have very different feelings and our views are way too far from each other.
But we are here to discuss our feelings and opinions so let me see... (I wouldn't like to convince you about anything but it would be great if you wrote: you can be right, too)
What's this easily removing stuff? I don't really get it.
There are so many parts that could be easily removed. Tons. But if we removed everything that's not oh so very important we would get a 20-page-long book.

3. King is famous for killing his great characters without any hesitation. It's good. It's life-like. How could it have been a bad decision? We all die and most of us have a very stupid way of death. And sometimes death come very slowly and we can't meet it even when we would like to and sometimes it suddenly appears and gets everything...
Yeah, maybe Flagg would have deserved more and a nicer death but that's not how life goes.
Anyway other characters had a not perfect way of death eoither. What about the great Shemie? He had incredible power and a little wound killed him.

Anyway do you have probelms with the death of the character or the way he died?

4. I can't see this way because Walter, Marten and Flagg are the same... I don't even know when he used this or that name because he is only one to me.

5. Oh, there are many many things that could have happened and could have made the series more interesting... that's sure. And we all have ideas in our minds and we can say that this or that would have been better. Of course. But can we really say that? Because what would have been a great end for you could have been unacceptable for others...
For example here I am who says it was good as it was.
(It would have been so great if Roland could have said goodbye to Jake but he couldn't... I wish I could change it but I can't so I accept it as it is.) Etc..
And I don't always say it. There are some books that I felt I could throw into fire because of the end that was so incredibly poor and horrible. I write it down because I am not that type of person who can accept everything and who says the writer is the king BUT about the series I don't have any big compliments.

6. Susan was her love and he talked about Jonas and Rhea when he told that damn long story about his story in Mejis. Anyway he didn't talk about them a lot.

7. Sense of humour... that's not an easy thing.
First of all I haven't met many evil characters who had a sense of homour..
Secondly there are so many types of homour. He had a very speciel dark but still funny one that was sometimes very wise and sad. Or that's how I felt.

CyberGhostface
01-27-2008, 12:13 PM
What's this easily removing stuff? I don't really get it.
There are so many parts that could be easily removed. Tons. But if we removed everything that's not oh so very important we would get a 20-page-long book.

My point is that Flagg did nothing of importance in the series. His death was a slap in the face to Flagg's fans. All he had was a series of cameo appearences that lead to fodder for the emo spider boy. The ONLY reason I can see for adding him into the story is because "Flagg is great. He's cool. He should be in it because he's cool." He showed up a couple of times, acted menacing and then got eaten by Spider Boy. That's it. Its a disservice to the character.


King is famous for killing his great characters without any hesitation. It's good. It's life-like. How could it have been a bad decision? We all die and most of us have a very stupid way of death. And sometimes death come very slowly and we can't meet it even when we would like to and sometimes it suddenly appears and gets everything...

So if Roland slipped while getting out of the shower and broke his skull, you'd be okay with that because its "life-like"? Life, when you get down to it, is mundane and anticlimatic most of the time. I think when most people read fantasy novels about Cyborg bears and sentient trains they're not wanting to see intentionally anticlimatic endings for the characters.


Yeah, maybe Flagg would have deserved more and a nicer death but that's not how life goes.
Anyway other characters had a not perfect way of death eoither. What about the great Shemie? He had incredible power and a little wound killed him.

I wasn't too crazy about Sheemie's fate either. But he still played a significant role in the end.


Anyway do you have probelms with the death of the character or the way he died?

Both. I have problems with 99.9% of the chapter.


5. Oh, there are many many things that could have happened and could have made the series more interesting... that's sure. And we all have ideas in our minds and we can say that this or that would have been better. Of course. But can we really say that? Because what would have been a great end for you could have been unacceptable for others...

For example here I am who says it was good as it was.
(It would have been so great if Roland could have said goodbye to Jake but he couldn't... I wish I could change it but I can't so I accept it as it is.) Etc..
And I don't always say it. There are some books that I felt I could throw into fire because of the end that was so incredibly poor and horrible. I write it down because I am not that type of person who can accept everything and who says the writer is the king BUT about the series I don't have any big compliments.

So its basically "Shut the fuck up and give me your money"? I understand that I'm not going to like everything. But what King did to Flagg was so godawful that its quite possibly the worst thing in the entire series. Would my ideas be liked by everyone? Probably not. But they wouldn't have been reviled by nearly everyone like it was with Flagg.


6. Susan was her love and he talked about Jonas and Rhea when he told that damn long story about his story in Mejis. Anyway he didn't talk about them a lot.

But they were on his mind a lot. There are numerous references to the people he met and knew in Mejis. Maybe its not like "Hey, did I ever tell you about the time Jonas..." but there were numerous scenes of Roland thinking about them.


7. Sense of humour... that's not an easy thing.
First of all I haven't met many evil characters who had a sense of homour..
Secondly there are so many types of homour. He had a very speciel dark but still funny one that was sometimes very wise and sad. Or that's how I felt.

Oh come on...90% of the devil characters in the media today are all wiseasses. The devil is probably a pretty funny guy. Evil and charisma go hand in hand. How else is it supposed to be seductive?

Letti
01-27-2008, 12:22 PM
Where should I start? :)

So if Roland died that way (broke his skull) I think I would be able to accept it, yeah. I wouldn't be very happy with it but I could accept it.
It might be strange but I love reading fanasy books because they are so life-like... does it make any sense?
But if others read them to escape the real world I can understand if something so life-like and not deserved thing happens they are pissed off.

You made me incredibly excited.
What's that 0.01% you liked about that part???

I don't pay attention for media and I live in Hungary so when I say I don't meet funny evil characters I mean it.

(There are more things I would like to write about, I'll come back later.)

CyberGhostface
01-27-2008, 12:45 PM
So if Roland died that way (broke his skull) I think I would be able to accept it, yeah. I wouldn't be very happy with it but I could accept it.

So if the first chapter of DT7 was "Roland finished his shower. He reached for his towel and slipped, his head hitting the cold floor. 'Dammit!' He said. Blood pooled from his head. Roland was dead.' And the rest of the book was the rest of the ka-tet going on their merry way with two mentions of Roland? Now obviously I'm being sarcastic here (King wouldn't do something as stupid as this...or would he?:orely: ) but the point is having anticlimatic stuff because "shit happens in real life" doesn't work for me.


It might be strange but I love reading fanasy books because they are so life-like... does it make any sense?

Yes it does. I just don't think Flagg's death is a good example. I like realism, but I don't want the realism to interfere with a good story. And yes, I know some people think that one of King's most earliest and popular villains getting dispatched to make room for a self-pitying spider was good writing, but I'm obviously not one of them.


You made me incredibly excited.
What's that 0.01% you liked about that part???

I liked the two sentences about Walter's childhood and I liked some of his monologue (how he said he loved Gabrielle, killing Cuthbert, etc). That's pretty much it.


I don't pay attention for media and I live in Hungary so when I say I don't meet funny evil characters I mean it.

So you've never read a book or seen a movie where the villain was charismatic?

Letti
01-27-2008, 01:08 PM
I didn't say I have never met an evil character that whad a sense of humor or I didn't like but it's not usual at all.
Anyway most of the evil caharcters I have met are very poorly written. They are stupid selfish and evil and that's all. They have no past... no real reasons... no history.
That's why King rocks. His characters aren't black and white. They are very complex.

Once before I finished the series I had written somewhere that I wouldn't be able to be pissed of or angry if this would be the end of the book:

Roland entered the Burger King. Jake followed him.
Roland was very hungry he felt he could eat anything.
He went to the pretty girl and said: "A hamburger and coke, please."
*end*

Of course we have the rights to say that we don't accept this or that or we don't like this or that. If we are lucky we belong to the satisfied group.

Wuducynn
01-28-2008, 05:50 AM
Anyway most of the evil caharcters I have met are very poorly written. They are stupid selfish and evil and that's all. They have no past... no real reasons... no history.
That's why King rocks. His characters aren't black and white. They are very complex.


Letti you are SO right about that! That is exactly how I've felt in most fiction. :cool:

Storyslinger
01-28-2008, 10:42 AM
Being a huge Flagg fan, I have to vote yes. We can't get rid of my favorite character.

CyberGhostface
01-28-2008, 05:23 PM
Hannibal Lecter's one of my favorite characters, but I wouldn't like it if he appeared in a series, was in one chapter for each of the books, and was killed in off a half-assed fashion.

LadyHitchhiker
01-28-2008, 11:41 PM
Anyway most of the evil caharcters I have met are very poorly written. They are stupid selfish and evil and that's all. They have no past... no real reasons... no history.
That's why King rocks. His characters aren't black and white. They are very complex.


Letti you are SO right about that! That is exactly how I've felt in most fiction. :cool:



And that is why I heart Randall Flagg... not in the lovey sense but in the I love to read about him sense.

jayson
01-29-2008, 04:28 AM
Hannibal Lecter's one of my favorite characters, but I wouldn't like it if he appeared in a series, was in one chapter for each of the books, and was killed in off a half-assed fashion.

well put, and flagg should have been afforded the same respect by king as he is one of king's greatest creations. he deserved a better role in the magnum opus.

Brice
01-29-2008, 05:21 AM
Well, I'd maybe have liked to see Flagg do greater things in the series, but really I gotta' agree he was unnecessary if one makes a distinction between his various manifestations. With that said I agree people (sometimes even great people) have stupid senseless deaths. That is what death is. There is rarely any glory in it.

Letti
01-29-2008, 05:41 AM
Hannibal Lecter's one of my favorite characters, but I wouldn't like it if he appeared in a series, was in one chapter for each of the books, and was killed in off a half-assed fashion.

well put, and flagg should have been afforded the same respect by king as he is one of king's greatest creations. he deserved a better role in the magnum opus.

That's no how things work.
Most of the people and characters would deserve much more.
Anyway I don't think Flagg's death was so... horrible. He didn't break his sull in the bathroom but a powerful mosnter killed him. (Yeah, it was young and looked innocent but still powerful.)

jayson
01-29-2008, 06:19 AM
Hannibal Lecter's one of my favorite characters, but I wouldn't like it if he appeared in a series, was in one chapter for each of the books, and was killed in off a half-assed fashion.

well put, and flagg should have been afforded the same respect by king as he is one of king's greatest creations. he deserved a better role in the magnum opus.

That's no how things work.
Most of the people and characters would deserve much more.
Anyway I don't think Flagg's death was so... horrible. He didn't break his sull in the bathroom but a powerful mosnter killed him. (Yeah, it was young and looked innocent but still powerful.)

it's more than just the circumstances of his death. i agree pretty much with most of what cyber has said in this thread, that he could be seen as superfluous and could disappear with few changes to the text. flagg deserved better. he was roland's nemesis, and deserved a larger role in the final events. he plays so much less of a role in 5-7 than he did in 1-4.

Storyslinger
01-29-2008, 08:25 AM
Hannibal Lecter's one of my favorite characters, but I wouldn't like it if he appeared in a series, was in one chapter for each of the books, and was killed in off a half-assed fashion.

I agree there, his death seemed 'just wrong' to me, but, what are you gonna do. I didn't write it, so I have to live with it.

CyberGhostface
01-29-2008, 12:52 PM
Hannibal Lecter's one of my favorite characters, but I wouldn't like it if he appeared in a series, was in one chapter for each of the books, and was killed in off a half-assed fashion.

well put, and flagg should have been afforded the same respect by king as he is one of king's greatest creations. he deserved a better role in the magnum opus.

That's no how things work.
Most of the people and characters would deserve much more.
Anyway I don't think Flagg's death was so... horrible. He didn't break his sull in the bathroom but a powerful mosnter killed him. (Yeah, it was young and looked innocent but still powerful.)

Said powerful monster was a shit character who was just introduced, and the sole purpose of Flagg's death was to give Mordred credibility. "OMG, he just killed Flagg! Roland sure has his hands full now! LOL!":excited:

Woofer
01-30-2008, 06:59 PM
Before you automatically click "Yes", consider the following...

Flagg (as Flagg, not any of his other identities) did very little in the series. They were ultimately a series of cameo appearences leading up to...well, nothing. Just fodder for Spider-Boy. I have to wonder if Flagg was necessary at all in the series. If someone were to pull a Mephisto (wink wink Spider-Man fans) and erase Flagg, would the series be any different?

Book 1: Walter and Marten are now two seperate figures. Walter dies at the end of the book, but appears in flashbacks.
Book 2: Minimal references to Flagg would be removed.
Book 3: Tick Tock dies in Lud. This is an improvement, considering how Ticky's later appearence was an embarrassment.
Book 4: The only significant change would be here. Given that Flagg is gone, someone else would need to create the Emerald Palace. The flashbacks could also explain what happened to Marten, given that he's now seperate.
Book 5: Flashbacks before Book 1 occur.
Book 6: Flashbacks before Book 1 occur.
Book 7: Flagg's appearence is omitted. It had little-to-no impact on the story, and was only referenced twice in passing.

If you vote "Yes", then please explain why Flagg was important.

I really wish Flagg had been given a larger, better role, and I positively hate that Walter, Marten, and Flagg were merged. They were much better as separate characters and merging lessened each rather than adding depth to any. Mordred... Mordred leaves me bleh, but then I hate hate hate a baby as a plot device as much as a forced death. Ack ack gag!

However, Flagg's death alternately bothers and satisfies me. On the one hand, I feel that he deserved more because he was such an epic character. His appearance could've been limited to W&G and been fine since it was obvious they crossed a bit of the world in The Stand. I'm not sure how that would've exactly worked; maybe Flagg doing a solid for the CK because the CK helped Captain Tripps get going. Little cross-world cooperation for mass destruction. Go Team Evil! :clap:

On the other hand, I feel that he got exactly what he deserved because he had lived so long he had become complacent. And I can buy that. I could see someone like Flagg making a critical mistake in thinking he would know how to deal with such as Mordred (or at least what Mordred was supposed to be but never seemed to become *psi*). Great people make great mistakes, etc.

Man, I love these books.

Brainslinger
03-27-2008, 07:05 PM
I like Flagg being in these books, but I agree that the way he was used, he wasn't really needed.

Rather than bringing in a new character like Dandelo, I wish that Flagg had been the one to create that trap, or at least been the one behind Dandelo. I think that would have been so much more satisfying.

Of course if it had been Flagg, they would have had to have found another way of killing him since we know his magic renders him immune to Roland's (and therefore Susannah's) guns but even so.

If Mordred had then come across him in a weakened (rather than dead) state, then I would at least have accepted that. His ending with Mordred was freaky and gruesome, but I don't think it should have happened in the book where it did. (Perhaps Mordred could have also been wounded in his battle with Flagg too, rendering him weaker when confronting Roland, rather than the 'eating sick horse' thing?)

Anyway too late now but I was very disappointed with Flagg's demise. Come to think of it I was somewhat dissatisfied with the other villains as well, although I didn't mind the Crimson King canceling out trick too much.

John Blaze
03-27-2008, 07:34 PM
I think this is an amazing question.

i clicked no. I believe that the series would have been much stronger without his character in it, for the reasons you posted already.

i also don't think he was needed for the emerald palace scene. instead of Flagg being inside, why not the Crimson King himself? I know the CK was trapped in the tower, but part of him could have manifested in the palace. some part of him that he could project. It would have set up a nice introduction for the CK, as well, considering all that "Beware the Crimson King" stuff.

Flagg in Lud was unnecessary.
Flagg in Topeka didn't really do much except tease the reader.
Flagg in Fedic? I could have done without.
I agree totally with this entire post.

Hence, Mike Beck must be a genius.

KaLikeAWheel
07-02-2008, 12:36 AM
I don't think Flagg was necessary at all, and his death was just so anticlimactic if you've read all of King's works. I've pondered this for a long time, and the only thing I have come up with so far is that perhaps it is some sort of comentary on the banality of evil, blah, blah, blah....nope. Can't do it. I adore this series. It's my favorite story of all time, but that one thing just jangles my nerves...so I try not to think about it too much. :nope: Denial is a wonderful thing.

Donna

Matt
07-02-2008, 07:07 AM
Its not just a river in Egypt anymore! :lol:

I was glad to see Flagg in the series because of The Stand but I'm on the fence as to what was really contributed by the character.

Something to think about. :orely:

Babymordred121
07-05-2008, 02:02 PM
I think that making Walter also Flagg was a cool aspect to the series, linking King's books together and giving some more insights into the background of our Man in Black. I agree that Flagg/Walter was a wasted opportunity for some chaotic coolness, but you can't exactly criticize King's forethought in how he would end the character since King has openly stated that he doesn't plan out his stories ahead of time. If any of us had written the character, we all would have done things differently than what King did, but since he was pretty much writing out of his ass the entire time, one shouldn't get their hopes up that any of it will make sense or give any sort of consolation.

But yeah, King screwed the pooch when it came to the entire end of Walter/Flagg's story.

CyberGhostface
07-11-2008, 09:17 AM
you can't exactly criticize King's forethought in how he would end the character since King has openly stated that he doesn't plan out his stories ahead of time.

He did the Walter change when he was writing the final three books, and at that time, he did appear to have some sort of bigger plan. And he revised the Gunslinger to include the change *after* he finished the series. It still would have been anticlimatic if he wasn't Walter, but revising the series so that Flagg was present from the very first sentence only makes it more so.

obscurejude
07-11-2008, 09:19 PM
One of the things that is bothering me about this is that Flagg's memories are really vacant about his own past. This is very consistent with our twinner theories, but I'm not sure Walter should have such a clear recollection unless there's something to the Keystone conscious being the most dominant of the bunch.

Anyways, I'm thinking the story would make a lot more sense if he was just left out. I've read Wizard and glass five times and I still don't understand the ending, rather it becomes even more obscure and incongruent with each reading.

Letti
07-14-2008, 10:23 AM
I've read Wizard and glass five times and I still don't understand the ending.

For my part I have given up to understand that part.

obscurejude
07-14-2008, 05:37 PM
I've read Wizard and glass five times and I still don't understand the ending.

For my part I have given up to understand that part.

I'm not far behind you. :rose:

Letti
07-14-2008, 11:51 PM
I've read Wizard and glass five times and I still don't understand the ending.

For my part I have given up to understand that part.

I'm not far behind you. :rose:

:couple:

CyberGhostface
07-16-2008, 12:07 PM
What was so confusing?

Empath of the White
07-20-2008, 05:54 PM
While I liked Flagg in Lud (had just finished the miniseries of The Stand by this point, and it hinted at the fulfillment of Walter's prophecy), it seemed like he was cast aside for a while. I was really looking forward to him making good on his promise to Roland at the end of W&G. Sadly, in the grand scheme of things he seemed to be as needed as Sandman in Spider-Man 3.

flaggwalkstheline
10-29-2008, 06:42 AM
flagg, marten and walter are all the same person, 2 seperate them is silly
Without the walking dude there would be no series, he is responsible 4 Rolands early test of manhood, the fall of gilead, the breakers, the birth of mordred (by way of mia), jakes first death, his tarot mapped out rolands whole future, SO I think that if u look closely enough (especially at the signifigance of the tarot) then he is responsible for everything in a covert manner, he manipulated EVERYTHING behind the scenes without him the series simply would not b the dark tower, I think that he is as important a character as roland, just in a much more subtle way

flaggwalkstheline
10-29-2008, 04:02 PM
ok so i think that RF knew everything that was going to happen judging by his flawlessly accurate tarot reading at the end of the gunslinger, because of this i think he is still alive, his physical body has been destroyed before, most notably right after the tarot reading, i think that not only is flagg alive but HE KNEW EVERYTHING and played everyone like fiddles!!!


what do u think about this controversial theory?

LadyHitchhiker
10-29-2008, 04:05 PM
Oooooooooooh I would love to believe that all. I would love for it to be part of his plan that he was defeated by Mordred...

razz
10-29-2008, 04:34 PM
Yeah, i think Flagg was too great a character to be just eaten by Mordred.
here's a thought. we know there's more than one Eddie, more than one Jake, probably more than oen Susannah. There seems to be a genuine Roland, cuz he's from keystone tower world. question is, was Walter/Flagg? We know he was farmer before he became a magician/sorcerer/enchanter/wizard. So was he from keystone tower? if not, perhaps when he was recruited my the crimson King (i think they said that), maybe the King recruited more than one. It seems entirely possible. how he was able tou double back behind Roland i nthe desert to meet Callahan, btu still be ahead of Roland, get through Lud and to Superflu plagued earth, etc...there were more than one workign in colaboration!

LadyHitchhiker
10-29-2008, 04:42 PM
Spooky and intriguing and I love it! :rock:

Hbgunslinger
10-29-2008, 07:39 PM
I don't know though he said at one point in book seven. That he didn't in fact die after the Tarot card reading though. He said that he brought human bones with him and then put them in what was left of his clothes when the Gunslinger was asleep.
It was a rather disappointing end to a good villain. However at the same time his Dying in that way was rather fitting. When you look at it as his arrogance was in more than one way his down fall. He should have known better than to try to have a palaver with the son of the Crimson King/Roland.

Jean
10-30-2008, 12:48 AM
I don't know though he said at one point in book sevenThat he didn't in fact die after the Tarot card reading though. He said that he brought human bones with him and then put them in what was left of his clothes when the Gunslinger was asleep.
I believe flaggwalkstheline, like me, doesn't buy this explanation. It's much truer to the spirit, or even the letter, of the story, to believe that he did physically die, and there still must be some real explanation, instead of the anecdotic one with absurd changeling skeletons, fit only for some teenager fanfiction.


It was a rather disappointing end to a good villain. However at the same time his Dying in that way was rather fitting. When you look at it as his arrogance was in more than one way his down fall. He should have known better than to try to have a palaver with the son of the Crimson King/Roland.
He totally deserved such a death, and it was fitting, but it doesn't automatically mean he did die. The Stand spoiler: He totally deserved the death as a result of a show-off gone wrong, which happened to him in The Stand, but he didn't die after all.

Hbgunslinger
10-30-2008, 01:14 AM
Oh I am not saying he didn't deserve that death it actually fit him quite well I am just saying that I would have liked to see Roland put two in him.

LadyHitchhiker
10-30-2008, 04:31 AM
I beg everyone's pardon, but I'm sick of hearing that it was a fitting end for Flagg. His arrogance brought him down. That's not how I read it at all. I just read that Mordred was hungry and ate him, and for whatever reason, at the time, Mordred's powers were stronger than Flagg's (which was lame) but I think this goes back to the whole, source of Flagg's powers fluctuating because of the world or worlds moving on. I think The Stand is also one of these worlds caught in the broken beams, and so therefore his powers wax and wane respectively. I'm not saying Flagg was a good guy now or ever (which would make an interesting poll) or that he didn't deserve to die. I think what's being discussed here is whether it was part of his plan to be killed, whether he really is dead, and what the purpose of his self-sacrifice would be. Was it simply because he was an instrument of ka or anti-ka? What is the deeper meaning and reasoning for his death?

Letti
11-06-2008, 12:35 PM
Wow, we have lots of spoiler treads here. It's not easy to read the thead.
*goes to vanish the spoiler tags and adds a spoiler warning to the title*

ManOfWesternesse
11-06-2008, 02:07 PM
I don't know though he said at one point in book sevenThat he didn't in fact die after the Tarot card reading though. He said that he brought human bones with him and then put them in what was left of his clothes when the Gunslinger was asleep.
I believe flaggwalkstheline, like me, doesn't buy this explanation. It's much truer to the spirit, or even the letter, of the story, to believe that he did physically die, and there still must be some real explanation, instead of the anecdotic one with absurd changeling skeletons, fit only for some teenager fanfiction....

I'm unclear where you would get that from Jean?
And whatever about differing perceptions of the spirit of the story, surely the letter of the story clearly tells us that Flagg did not die then, and that he did lay a false trail for Roland with some old bones.
I don't see that as teenager fanfic (eek!), but as a perfectly acceptable device. :)

Jean
11-06-2008, 11:58 PM
I didn't really get it from anywhere else than my own personal perception... I tried to develop it in Did He? thread, and I think I will come back to that eventually, because it keeps bothering me. The one thing I hate about King is how he always wants to find rational explanations for what at the beginning loomed larger than reason (It and Library Policemen are my other two favorite examples); I am afraid this is not the proper place to go further into that, though. http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_sad.gif

Cuthbert Heath
11-08-2008, 06:16 AM
i dont think it was lame that mordreds powers were stronger than flagg i mean wasnt the crimson king more powerful than flagg and roland seemed to be smarter than flagg so when you combine both of them together and have mordred its not surprising that he could beat him..

flaggwalkstheline
11-10-2008, 02:58 PM
I didn't really get it from anywhere else than my own personal perception... I tried to develop it in Did He? thread, and I think I will come back to that eventually, because it keeps bothering me. The one thing I hate about King is how he always wants to find rational explanations for what at the beginning loomed larger than reason (It and Library Policemen are my other two favorite examples); I am afraid this is not the proper place to go further into that, though. http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_sad.gif

i dont feel that he tries to make rational explanations out of everything, i think one of the lessons he has throughout his work is that neither good nor evil is ever as strong as it may initially appear,an interesting sidenote: i think that in most of kings' books he leans towards saying evil is never as strong as it may initially appear, but when he writes a bachman, its the forces of good which turn out to be humbugs

an alternate theory i have is that flagg is the raggedy man, which would both fit with his modus operandi and his "death"/ crippling by mordred, cell could have been him trying to get his powers back...

Roland1134
11-14-2008, 02:48 AM
Hey, so I just finished the last book in the series and I was a little bemused not to see "Legion" show up. Im of course referring to The Ageless stranger the man in black spoke of to roland at the golgotha.

Now all this time I thought that maybe this reference to Legion was a reference to the new testament story, where jesus exercises a demon from a man's body and when jesus asks the spirit for his name, the spirit replies, "Legion, for we are many". So is this to mean that Roland's obstacles and enemies will be many? Or did i just miss a crucial part of the story? Is Mordred the ageless stranger because he is so young? that doesnt seem right.

So I was hoping someone would clear this up for me, or at least add your own opinion on the matter.

Long days, pleasant nights.

Ka-tet
11-15-2008, 03:23 PM
I've never really thought about this before.

But now i think about it. The Ageless stranger could be Walter, in the sense that he is ageless :P

Or maybe even Roland? And Walter is simply refering to the loop?

Empath of the White
11-15-2008, 06:02 PM
As I undestood it from The Wastelands as well as Wizard and Glass, Randall Flagg, known as Walter O'Dim in All-World, was the Ageless Stranger. And it makes sense considering we've seen him in a number of worlds--what is possibly a Mid-World of the past in Eyes of the Dragon, world of The Stand, and the superflu-plagued world from Wizard and Glass, and of course our All-World in the Tower novels.

flaggwalkstheline
11-15-2008, 06:10 PM
im not sure but i think that the distinction between walter and flagg/ the ageless stranger is not made in the revised version of the gunslinger

The Lady of Shadows
11-15-2008, 06:16 PM
i always thought walter/ r.f. was the ageless stranger. :unsure: i think i got that idea from the stand though.

Empath of the White
11-15-2008, 06:35 PM
I do have a question about the Ageless: In the unrevised version of The Gunslinger, was the Stranger referred to as: Maerlyn, the Ageless Stranger. Or were Maerlyn and the Ageless spoken of as two separate entities?

Lady_Macbeth
11-15-2008, 11:12 PM
I believe the Ageless Stranger is just another one of Walters 50 or so names. I remember I found a website once that listed every single name that Walters has ever gone by. Damn, wish I could find it again. >_<

Roland1134
11-15-2008, 11:50 PM
I sincerely doubt that walter is referring to himself as the ageless stranger, why would he even bring it up. He says that legion is greater than he(in terms of serving the crimson king) what would be the point in saying that in the first place, walter knows he is all of these persona's. It just doesnt make any sense that he would be legion.

Ka-tet
11-16-2008, 08:05 AM
I sincerely doubt that walter is referring to himself as the ageless stranger, why would he even bring it up. He says that legion is greater than he(in terms of serving the crimson king) what would be the point in saying that in the first place, walter knows he is all of these persona's. It just doesnt make any sense that he would be legion.

Maybe not to you or i. But maybe to Walter.

pathoftheturtle
11-20-2008, 10:15 AM
As the books now stand, it's fairly clear what the meanings of the half truths TMIB was telling at that meeting are. In the original, he implied that "his master" was the Ageless Stranger, one of several points on the direction of the story that I don't think SK was totally sure of when he wrote the first book. In the revised, it's changed to say "...But before you meet him, you must meet the Ageless Stranger." When Roland asks in the original if the Stranger is a minion of the Tower like TMIB is, he answers that he's "Much greater than I." In the revised, he just says "Yar." I agree that he was talking about himself in the third person; he did so because he was looking forward to fighting Roland when he was ready, but didn't want him to guess that he meant himself because he didn't feel ready for the fight right then. Furthermore, it wouldn't have been all that bad to him if Roland had just given up and gone away, instead; one reason TMIB bothered to tell him at all was to scare him some. Mostly, though, it was just to get him off his back for the moment.


I do have a question about the Ageless: In the unrevised version of The Gunslinger, was the Stranger referred to as: Maerlyn, the Ageless Stranger. Or were Maerlyn and the Ageless spoken of as two separate entities?Yes, TMIB says "Maerlyn" instead of "Legion" in the original version, when asked the Stranger's name. King started backing off of that idea as far back as DT III, though. In that book, TMIB lists to someone else various names of his, and says something like "Some have called me Maerlyn, but I never really was that one."

"Legion" seems to be a name for all of the evil monsters and demons in King's worlds, or any one of them; I think that TMIB gave that name just to get out of answering "Me!"

Brainslinger
11-20-2008, 07:33 PM
I agree that he was talking about himself in the third person; he did so because he was looking forward to fighting Roland when he was ready, but didn't want him to guess that he meant himself because he didn't feel ready for the fight right then.

That's what I thought too. (Although I'm not sure Walter was looking forward to the confrontation!) I think the ageless Stranger might have been a reference to the Flagg persona too. Sure they're the same person (and therefore Walter is the Ageless Stranger) but I have an idea that when he changes he takes on the persona completely, i.e another personality too, not just a face. That's a bit confused, I know.


Yes, TMIB says "Maerlyn" instead of "Legion" in the original version, when asked the Stranger's name. King started backing off of that idea as far back as DT III, though. In that book, TMIB lists to someone else various names of his, and says something like "Some have called me Maerlyn, but I never really was that one."

A couple of stories involving Maerlyn appear in the Robin Furth's back-stories in the Dark Tower: Gunslinger Born comics. Quite an interesting character he is too...


"Legion" seems to be a name for all of the evil monsters and demons in King's worlds, or any one of them; I think that TMIB gave that name just to get out of answering "Me!"

I agree. I thought it curious that Walter shows fear at that point in the story though, jumping at the sound of an cat's screech. Why? Is it his fear of the Crimson King? Or A little prophetic inclination* of his ultimate fate at another incarnation of Legion? Did he feel seven little feet scamper over his grave? (This only just occurred to me.)

*There is a special term for this but the term escapes me now.

Wuducynn
11-21-2008, 04:41 AM
Sure they're the same person (and therefore Walter is the Ageless Stranger) but I have an idea that when he changes he takes on the persona completely, i.e another personality too, not just a face. That's a bit confused, I know.

Not a bit confused. I have long held that opinion myself




I agree. I thought it curious that Walter shows fear at that point in the story though, jumping at the sound of an cat's screech. Why? Is it his fear of the Crimson King? Or A little prophetic inclination* of his ultimate fate at another incarnation of Legion? Did he feel seven little feet scamper over his grave? (This only just occurred to me.)

*There is a special term for this but the term escapes me now.


Probably a lot of both.

Bluenose
11-21-2008, 03:44 PM
Also, dont forget Alan Legoin from Storm of the Century. As memory serves, and its been a while since I saw that miniseries, but didnt he dress in black as well?

Brice
11-21-2008, 04:42 PM
Do you mean Andre Linoge? :unsure:

Bluenose
11-22-2008, 09:30 AM
yes, yes I do. Sorry, like I say, its been a while since I saw the mini series.

pathoftheturtle
11-24-2008, 07:40 AM
No prob. The mistake makes me realize that Linoge is an anagram of Legion, (far out) and I'm glad that you pointed him out. I don't think that he is the same guy, which is one reason for saying that "Legion" may be not just another name for Flagg, the Ageless Stranger.





...I thought it curious that Walter shows fear at that point in the story though, jumping at the sound of an cat's screech. Why? Is it his fear of the Crimson King? Or A little prophetic inclination* of his ultimate fate at another incarnation of Legion? Did he feel seven little feet scamper over his grave? (This only just occurred to me.)

*There is a special term for this but the term escapes me now.


Probably a lot of both.Agreed.


...Sure they're the same person (and therefore Walter is the Ageless Stranger) but I have an idea that when he changes he takes on the persona completely, i.e another personality too, not just a face. That's a bit confused, I know.Perhaps, but which personality was it at the end? He's a bit confusing, really: definitely a complex character.

Wuducynn
11-24-2008, 07:47 AM
Perhaps, but which personality was it at the end? He's a bit confusing, really: definitely a complex character.

I think at the "end", (quotes added because I don't believe he was really ended permanently) he was Walter Padick, his core personality.

pathoftheturtle
11-24-2008, 08:32 AM
I think at the "end", (quotes added because I don't believe he was really ended permanently)...Pardon; I meant to say "during his final TDT series appearance."


...he was Walter Padick, his core personality.But he was R.F. in appearance, right?

Wuducynn
11-24-2008, 08:35 AM
As far appearance goes, Flagg is always depicted as having full red lips, with lots of black spikey hair and a big toothed grin. In DT7 this didn't seem to be the case.

flaggwalkstheline
11-24-2008, 03:46 PM
As far appearance goes, Flagg is always depicted as having full red lips, with lots of black spikey hair and a big toothed grin. In DT7 this didn't seem to be the case.

Really? I thought in the stand he had long hair and was kinda cowboy-esque but that his face was kinda hard to see and in his walter/ man in black persona he was shaved bald

Wuducynn
11-24-2008, 03:50 PM
Really? I thought in the stand he had long hair and was kinda cowboy-esque but that his face was kinda hard to see and in his walter/ man in black persona he was shaved bald

He had long, black spikey hair described as like a raven's, in the Stand and a fierce hot grin bursting out of a not quite human grin. Same with his Richard Fannin persona which is just another R.F. persona.

flaggwalkstheline
11-24-2008, 06:34 PM
oh i havent read the stand in a while so i was thinking of flagg in the 6 hour movie/ miniseries, which btw ROCKS

pathoftheturtle
12-15-2008, 09:56 AM
There are those who believe that everyone is born immoral, and it is through environment that some learn to love. I don't want to get too far into that question (or the free will debate) here. Suffice it to say that either way, ironically, everyone may have equal potential to be good.

I'm bumping this now because I think that, on one level, Cyber may have been onto something important regarding this character. Apparently, while explaining why he used "The Dark Man" who he created in 1969 in later novels, King said "...The thing about him that really attracted me was the idea of the villian as somebody who was always on the outside looking in and hated people who had good fellowship and good conversation and friends." I haven't checked the original full context; I got that quote from Bev Vincent's The Road to the Dark Tower. Putting the comment together with all that I have read, though, has really got me thinking. It's easy to relate to the pain of alienation, and I think most people have some experience of the temptations that arise with envy.

...I'm not an expert on rape, but I thought most victims usually depend on support from their friends and family to get through the trauma, which Walter probably didn't have. ...DT7 tells of Walter's memory, that he was raped "...and yet had somehow withstood the temptation to go crawling back home. Instead he had moved on toward his destiny." It is true that we know nearly nothing about his earlier life; it's possible that it was some serious form of abuse that he ran away from to begin with. However, the way I interpret all of it is that what he was fleeing was merely from small-town life. Although Walter's folks probably did fail to bond with him, for whatever reason, I read the passage to mean he did have at least one avenue to get some measure of support, which he disregarded. His main motivation may have been to become great, with his proud stoicism there only leading, in reality, to his own damnation. We learn that his homeland was the same kingdom which Flagg worked for thousands of years to destroy, but we were never told exactly why he did that. Eyes makes clear only that he was evil. It would seem that he believed that he could lift himself up by tearing down all of them. So extreme was his vengence that it is hard to think of any proportionate offense to him that could have happened. Perhaps, then, it was a truly slight (or an entirely imaginary) one.

Basically, what I'm saying is that I think that he chose to keep himself isolated. That was his fault. We could argue forever about whose fault it was that he had that fault, but in any case, he finally met his match.

I believe that forgiveness is an essential practice in society, and that it is vital for justice to be impartial. I never relish suffering, no matter how guilty someone is. It's only in defense or of necessity that we should strike, and that we should do, even when we do feel sympathy. I like to think that anyone who has fallen could have made better choices at some point, but I also believe in unconditional love, so whatever the truth of it, I always do feel bad for them.

flaggwalkstheline
12-15-2008, 10:12 AM
I didnt feel sympathy for walter but I do think that giving him that background made him more human, similar to rolands background told in wizard n glass, if u think about it when trhe gunslinger (RE cough) starts he and roland are about on the same playing field as far as lack of morals, walter/flagg destroys worlds, roland doesnt care about them being destroyed he just wants the tower, and at that point doesnt even know if it will help anything really

Matt of Gilead
12-16-2008, 10:45 AM
I do feel sympathy for Walter, but not because of his trauma. I feel sorry for Walter that he was killed by a baby (Mordred never impressed me), and never got to have his showdown with Roland. I pity all those sent to the Realm of Thwarted Destiny.

As far as sympathy because of him being raped...yes, but only in so far as no one should be raped. I don't think that having that in his past makes him a more sympathetic character, and I don't even believe it is established that the rape made him become evil in any way. He chose to become what his is, with every step he took.

Darkthoughts
12-28-2008, 12:09 PM
I've merged two Flagg threads and renamed them for more general discussion.

I think the question/poll in the first post is a great starting point, after all Walter Paddick is the boy who became RF and his many aliases. Prepare for more threads (from Gilead) discussing this character to be merged here soon :thumbsup:

K.J.J.
01-01-2009, 09:26 AM
I don't know if this has been discussed or not, and many will not agree, but the thought came to me, so all please bear with me :)

Lets back track for a minute ok. Flagg, formerly Walter O'dim is Roland's oldest enemy right? He seduced his mother as Marten Broadcloak. Killed Cuthbert as a name by R.F. I can't remember, and so on.

But was there one specific moment where Flagg tried to kill Roland with his own 2 hands? There was the Tick-Tock Man, but lets hypothesis that Flagg knew that Roland and co. would make quick work of that man from Lud.

And then Flagg leaves the Tet a message saying Renounce the Tower.

So my question is this. What if Flagg's true intentions, where stop Roland from being on this endless loop because he knew what would happen once Roland reached the room at the top of the tower. And in an effort to save the Gunslinger, last in the line of Eld, Flagg was going to go to the room to take the Gunslinger's place.

What if everything Flagg done was in an effort to in turn, save Roland's life from being on a constant loop. (Tried to get him sent west by Cort so he would never start this fools quest, Killed his fellow Gunslinger's so he wouldn't have a tet and would renounce the Tower etc etc.)


It seems very out of character from the Flagg, but we don't know what happened from his time as Randall Flagg in the Stand and his time as Walter O'dim in the Dark Tower. Perhaps during that time (Perhaps on the place he ends up at the conclusion of the Stand) he learnt the truth of the Tower, and what he believes must be done in order to Stop the loop, that he would be caught upon.

obscurejude
01-01-2009, 09:34 AM
I think Walter is convinced that everyone is caught in the Tower's web and he rebels against it in general and specific ways. I have a lot of sympathy for him, and I think you make some interesting points that have certainly crossed my mind at times. I think a case can be made that Walter knew about the loop and thus attempted to save Roland by causing him to die through secondary sources. I'm going to think about it some more before replying to your specific points.

Thanks for posting and welcome to the site. :)

K.J.J.
01-01-2009, 09:38 AM
Hehe thank you (:

Yes I feel much sympathy for Walter/Flagg, I tell you I was cheering (and crying sadly, at the loss of Oy) when Mordred bit the dust. But yeah, I only finished the story several minutes ago, so I'll have to ponder on the idea for awhile, but I think, as far as I'm concerned, its what I will believe ^^ I mean, the ending is pretty much up in the air for what you want to think (:

obscurejude
01-01-2009, 09:40 AM
Yes, the ending can be interpreted many ways. Its one of the reasons we have so much fun around here. Our threads will help you get through the post DT depression. :)

Darkthoughts
01-01-2009, 02:17 PM
Interesting angle and not one I'd personally considered before.

We do have a Randall Flagg thread in "The Villagers", which I will merge your thread with, as this discussion will not be entirely DT7 specific - especially if we are considering Flagg as Marten :thumbsup:

K.J.J.
01-01-2009, 07:05 PM
Oh ok my mistake ;) Still trying to find my way around this place ^^

Empath of the White
01-02-2009, 08:40 AM
Walter's brief backstory in The Dark Tower did not get him any sympathy from me. However, his statement to Callahan in Wolves of the Calla made me feel a bit sorry for him. It sounded as if he was just a puppet for larger forces that he had no control over.

I wonder if he ever confided any of his thoughts and feelings related to his destiny in Gabrielle?

Jaztastic
02-11-2009, 04:29 PM
I'm up to Song oF Susannah, and decided to break and read Eyes of The Dragon. As I read this & pair it up with what I know about Flagg from Dark Tower, he is pure evil. "The Man In Black" did not seem evil, just bitter & knowing too much for his own good. He told fortunes and had all this knowledge about the Tower. He did things because he knew that's the way it was going to/had to happen (For instance, he knew Roland would draw three people, so Jake died in the mountains, but he was found again). Flagg just causes chaos and terror for no reason. I think I read that originally they were supposed to be two different people. What's with that??

sarah
02-11-2009, 04:36 PM
Hi Jaztastic! Welcome to the site. I'm going to move this thread down to the Villagers and merge it with the other Flagg/Walter thread (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=1614)in a few days. Happy reading and posting!

~maerlyn

osseolax28
02-11-2009, 05:10 PM
No their the sam being, I'm pretty positive that in one of the DT books, Flagg says he placed a skull and bones around his black robe to fool Roland. He does w/e he wants whenever he wants. So u didnt finsih the series yet then?

flaggwalkstheline
02-11-2009, 06:03 PM
I'm up to Song oF Susannah, and decided to break and read Eyes of The Dragon. As I read this & pair it up with what I know about Flagg from Dark Tower, he is pure evil. "The Man In Black" did not seem evil, just bitter & knowing too much for his own good. He told fortunes and had all this knowledge about the Tower. He did things because he knew that's the way it was going to/had to happen (For instance, he knew Roland would draw three people, so Jake died in the mountains, but he was found again). Flagg just causes chaos and terror for no reason. I think I read that originally they were supposed to be two different people. What's with that??

because flagg is insane thats y! he doesnt have to make sense!

Jaztastic
02-11-2009, 06:41 PM
Nope, haven't finished it yet. Lol ok, guess that makes sense. It was just deceiving, they didn't seem like the same character. But the fake skull & bones thing puts it into perspective.
For anyone that read Eyes of The Dragon, is the "crystal ball" he looks in part of the Wizard's Rainbow?

Darkthoughts
02-12-2009, 10:49 AM
I think the deal with Flagg is, that when he is in one of his other personas, he actually becomes that other person. Think of it as him having a multiple personality disorder...it's the same body with different personalities, mannerisms etc (despite the fact that he can also use glammer to change his appearance.)

Letti
02-19-2009, 12:20 PM
I think the deal with Flagg is, that when he is in one of his other personas, he actually becomes that other person. Think of it as him having a multiple personality disorder...it's the same body with different personalities, mannerisms etc (despite the fact that he can also use glammer to change his appearance.)

There is a lot in what you say.
If I was a shrink I wouldn't mind to have a long talk with him.

MonteGss
02-23-2009, 07:59 PM
I think the deal with Flagg is, that when he is in one of his other personas, he actually becomes that other person. Think of it as him having a multiple personality disorder...it's the same body with different personalities, mannerisms etc (despite the fact that he can also use glammer to change his appearance.)

Hmmm, sounds a bit like Twinners to me. :lol:
Sorry, had to get that in there. I just finished the Jack Sawyer books and am more convinced than ever of my theory....which is discussed at length in a different thread. :)

Jon
02-23-2009, 10:10 PM
Hmmm... sympathy for The Devil eh?

CyberGhostface
04-18-2009, 08:33 AM
Hmmm... sympathy for The Devil eh?

Actually, because of Flagg, I have a fair amount of sympathy for the Devil, at least in literature. Mephistopheles from the Faust stories in particular.

And, EEEEEEEE!!! 100th post in the thread and 400th post for me.

CyberGhostface
04-19-2009, 12:59 PM
Can someone please explain me why Walter was brought back from the dead and merged into the Flagg trifecta when he did nothing of importance after his 'death'? Because it wouldn't have made any real difference in the end if Walter was just Marten's crony who died in the golgotha.

flaggwalkstheline
04-20-2009, 05:57 AM
well perhaps in the guise of walter he didnt do much after DT1 but as flagg he did alot, it made sense to mix the characters
he masterminded the creation of mordred

Plus I am of the opinion that flagg knew everything that was going to happen judging by his smirktastic taro reading and as suchis still alive

alinda
04-20-2009, 07:24 AM
I agree , besides there are more stories to come I hope , and we all know how Sai King
likes to recycle characters...:lol:

CyberGhostface
04-20-2009, 07:55 AM
well perhaps in the guise of walter he didnt do much after DT1 but as flagg he did alot

That could be applied to almost any character, though. (And Flagg didn't do much either, but that's another argument for another day...:orely:)

Darkthoughts
04-22-2009, 02:10 PM
I'm going to merge this thread with the "Discussion of Flagg and his many guises" thread you created in "The Villagers" sub forum a while ago. I believe similar questions are asked therein ;)

childe nolan-d
05-21-2009, 03:36 AM
What of Robin Furth's relatively recent revelations on the subject of Walter's Parentage? Does this change anyone's opinion of his inherent evil or amorality?

turtlex
05-21-2009, 03:38 AM
Welcome to the site, chide nolan-d !!

You should head over to the Comic Tower for some great discussions on the Furth comic stories when you have a chance!

reckless113
07-17-2009, 01:08 AM
Did anyone else feel this character(Walter, Marten, Flagg) deserve a better ending? I had always assumed he would play a larger role than was initially let on. At the very least I'd thought his death would come by the hands/guns of a gunslinger.

Jean
07-17-2009, 03:38 AM
reckless113: I altered the title of this thread, because it was a Huge Spoiler that could be seen in Search Results by anyone, even though the thread itself is in a spoiler forum

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

sarah
07-17-2009, 07:38 AM
Hi reckless113. Welcome to the site :D I'm going to direct you to check out this thread (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=1614)and this thread (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=376) for help answering your questions.


I'll leave this thread open for a few days before merging. Welcome and happy posting. :)

cody44
08-06-2009, 04:50 PM
In my humble opinion the characters could have remained separated. I thought his death was an atrocity to his character, and I think that it was a major letdown for the potential he had shown in stopping (or at best, hindering) Roland's quest for the Tower.

The questions that I can't answer though is this: Is he really dead? Will this be cleared up in future works? (maybe making his return.)

TheCrisisKing
08-06-2009, 05:55 PM
He is a common character in King's Universe and his incorporation in the series ties it together. Whether it is a good addition is up to the reader

Kidd Ikarus
08-07-2009, 05:48 AM
I voted 'No' because I feel that Flagg's inclusion into the story would have been much better left if his actions were that of Walter or Marten. I haven't read a lot of King's work, but to me when Flagg showed up at the Emerald Palace and said, 'Oh, I am Walter and I am Marten too' . . . After that I wouldn't have really been too surprised if he said, 'Eddie. I am your father.'

IMO, I wish he would have just stayed TMIB.

Letti
08-07-2009, 05:57 AM
To me when Flagg showed up at the Emerald Palace and said, 'Oh, I am Walter and I am Marten too' . . . After that I wouldn't have really been too surprised if he said, 'Eddie. I am your father.'

That would have been kickass. LOL
(Anyway he might have been...)

Kidd Ikarus
08-07-2009, 06:10 AM
To me when Flagg showed up at the Emerald Palace and said, 'Oh, I am Walter and I am Marten too' . . . After that I wouldn't have really been too surprised if he said, 'Eddie. I am your father.'

That would have been kickass. LOL
(Anyway he might have been...)

:lol:

jayson
08-07-2009, 06:31 AM
After that I wouldn't have really been too surprised if he said, 'Eddie. I am your father.'

yes, well perhaps robin furth will make this come true in the comics. she sure seems to like to reinvent everyone else's back story. :rolleyes:

Letti
08-07-2009, 06:48 AM
After that I wouldn't have really been too surprised if he said, 'Eddie. I am your father.'

yes, well perhaps robin furth will make this come true in the comics. she sure seems to like to reinvent everyone else's back story. :rolleyes:

:faints:

Kidd Ikarus
08-07-2009, 07:05 AM
Haha. I hope she doesn't read that post and get any kind of crazy ideas:panic:

Letti
08-07-2009, 07:19 AM
Haha. I hope she doesn't read that post and get any kind of crazy ideas:panic:

If she does I will blame only you. ;)

Kidd Ikarus
08-07-2009, 07:27 AM
Haha. I hope she doesn't read that post and get any kind of crazy ideas:panic:

If she does I will blame only you. ;)

:rofl: I wouldn't expect anything less. hahaha

sandcracker21
08-24-2009, 04:04 AM
well i have finished the series for the second time, and i was wondering a few things...

chiefly, i cant seem to put my finger on 'the man in black' as i think stephen king had a hard time deciding what to do as well.

is randell flagg and walter separate people? the way i see it, walter is walter, and flagg is fannin, maeryln, marten, the good man farson, and the ageless stranger?

this has always confused me...

sandcracker21
08-25-2009, 03:49 AM
any thoughts?

Letti
08-25-2009, 11:35 PM
Welcome to the site. There are some other threads that could give an answer to your questions.
For example this one:

http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=1614
It's a very long thread but it's full of information.

But to give a short answer to your question: The man in black, Marten, Walter and Flagg are the same person.
The good man, Farson is a separate person. Flagg was working for him.

I will merge this thread with the existing Flagg thread in some days.
Aaand I have changed the title of the thread so you may get more answers.

MPatrick
08-26-2009, 06:56 AM
Also, keep in mind that in Wastelands he explains that he was not Maerlyn. Although he never really denied it...(when he was talking to Tick-Tock man).


Don't mind me, I just finished reading that & W&G again, and for some reason never noticed that line before! I'm sure you'll see it in the main thread though...

sandcracker21
08-26-2009, 04:16 PM
yes, but in 'the last argument' before WoC stephen king says that flagg was also farson to some?


and if walter was marten, then why didnt walter realize rolland was in mejis when he was in mejis? walter talked to jonas in mejis like he had no idea the "kids" there were dangerous or who they were? and remember rolland went to mejis to be safe from marten, but marten/walter came to mejis too!

Letti
08-26-2009, 08:59 PM
yes, but in 'the last argument' before WoC stephen king says that flagg was also farson to some?


and if walter was marten, then why didnt walter realize rolland was in mejis when he was in mejis? walter talked to jonas in mejis like he had no idea the "kids" there were dangerous or who they were? and remember rolland went to mejis to be safe from marten, but marten/walter came to mejis too!

Walter/Marten didn't give a damn about him at that time.

alinda
08-26-2009, 10:13 PM
Spot on Letti, His ego is out of control whichever name he uses too
so the fact that he wasn't impressed/interested at the time isn't a
surprise to me.

sandcracker21
08-30-2009, 01:04 PM
i see...i guess this makes sense, although i dont think even king knew it would be so until at the earliest book 5

Letti
09-09-2009, 10:33 AM
i see...i guess this makes sense, although i dont think even king knew it would be so until at the earliest book 5

I am happy we could help a bit. :)
Sorry but now I will need to merge this thread with the existing Flagg thread.

TeezBoy
09-22-2009, 08:42 AM
ok... i didn't read through the whole thread but here is my question:

i think it is made quite clear throughout the tower-books that walter and randall flagg are the same person.

but didn't flagg claim to be the biblical demon legion in "the stand"? how does this fit together with walter being a 1500 years old farmers son from the barony o delain?

also he is reborn at the end of "the stand", maybe on some different level of the tower? does this happen before he is finally killed by mordred? i think all of this doesn't fit together..

pathoftheturtle
09-22-2009, 12:24 PM
Legion may be a name not only for TMIB, (Man in Black) but for the entire army of evil within which he serves as "Prime Minister."
Or, the name might refer to his shape-shifting powers, just as o'Dim refers to his power of camoflauge.
Or, Legion might be a euphemism used due to the many names and identities he uses.

As for the limits of his talent for resurrection, I really can't help you. That's one of the great unanswered mysteries remaining around TDT.

CyberGhostface
09-24-2009, 07:37 AM
I think the real answer is that King had a much different view of Flagg when he wrote The Stand. In The Stand, he was a demon in league with Satan and has memories of being kicked by Jesus into a herd of pigs. In later books, he seemed to devolve into just an "evil wizard". I mean, heck, in The Stand, God couldn't destroy him and yet in the final Dark Tower novel a spider with diarrhea defeats him with ease.

The in-universe answer for the discrepancies between The Stand and The Dark Tower is probably the same excuse for King used for Insomnia when he threw the continuity from that book out the window: "Don't take the book literally, the turtle's song was muddled, etc, etc, etc."

CyberGhostface
09-24-2009, 08:02 AM
flagg, marten and walter are all the same person, 2 seperate them is silly
Without the walking dude there would be no series, he is responsible 4 Rolands early test of manhood, the fall of gilead, the breakers, the birth of mordred (by way of mia), jakes first death, his tarot mapped out rolands whole future, SO I think that if u look closely enough (especially at the signifigance of the tarot) then he is responsible for everything in a covert manner, he manipulated EVERYTHING behind the scenes without him the series simply would not b the dark tower, I think that he is as important a character as roland, just in a much more subtle way

Did you even read my initial post?:panic:

In the beginning of the series WALTER and MARTEN are two seperate characters unrelated to Flagg. It was only until the fourth book in the series that Marten became Flagg, and it was only until King finished the series that he resurrected Walter and made him yet another alias of Flagg.

So when I say, "Was Flagg needed?" I am referring to Flagg as Flagg only. Not Walter or Marten, who could have easily been seperate characters and were seperate characters for a good chunk of the series.

19eye-rosecrow-gun
11-12-2009, 11:48 AM
It states clearly about Flagg's history in DT 7 in the chapter The Thin Wire. He says he destroyed an entire world at one point with the name Randall Flagg (Refrence to The Stand). During the Stand Flagg was working for the Crimson King. The vision of the red eye opening in the night was not that of Flagg but of The Red King. TCK also used flagg to see things, which is where Flagg got his capability of using "the eye". He probably did travel to another when and met Jesus (who is mentioned here and there through the DT series). At the end of The Stand it clearly states Flagg was rescued by an unknown creature. His cloths were still standing, but his body was gone and there was a pair of evil cat like eyes fading away in front of where Flagg was. Read the ending again. Flagg was eventually killed by Mordred (More Dread) because Mordred was a far more powerful sorcerer than Flagg.

I am looking for a picture of Flagg from The Stand comics. Its the one where he is standing on a cliff wearing his black wizard costume, with fire all about him. If anyone has it please tell me.

Bloodsoup
11-13-2009, 01:52 PM
Hi, I'm not sure if here's a good place to put this but I put together a list of Flagg's appearances in order of which he would have experienced them. Obviously none of this is certain but this is my guess.

In terms of Book Titles

The Eyes of the Dragon
The Dark Tower: The Gunslinger Born
The Dark Tower: The Long Road Home
The Dark Tower: Treachery
The Dark Tower: The Fall of Gilead
The Dark Tower: The Battle of Jericho Hill
The Dark Tower I: The Gunslinger (flashback in The Dark Tower V: Wolves of the Calla)
Hearts in Atlantis (not really sure where to put this one)
The Stand (again not sure about this)
The Dark Tower III: The Waste Lands
The Dark Tower IV: Wizard & Glass
The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower

In terms of the events of his life

Born to Maerlyn and Selena (c. 1500 years before TDT)
Left in the Barony of Delain to be raised amongst humans
Burned down his foster parents home and began a journey to find his real family at age thirteen
Was raped by another traveller along the way at age fourteen
Found his real parents some time after this
Went on a long campaign of screwing of Delain
Began working for the Crimson King some time after this, as his 'Minster of State' if you will
Assumed the name Marten Bloadclock as Gilead's court wizard/magician
Aided John Farson, the Crimson King's 'Minister of War' in decimating All-World's baronies, ending with Gilead
Fled across the desert; Tull
Encountered Don Callahan at the Way Station, gave him Black Thirteen and sent him to Calla Bryn Sturgis
Held long palaver with Roland as Walter o'Dim, left while Roland 'slept'
Sent by the Crimson King to interfere with several versions of Earth; Raymond Fiegler
Manages to bring about the devastation of one world, Superflu Earth; sets a trap there for Roland (?)
Returns to Mid-World as Richard Fanin in Lud, is defeated by the Roland's Ka-Tet
Goes to End-World and convinces Mia to become mortal
Is killed by Mordred Deschain (at least for now:unsure:)

CyberGhostface
11-13-2009, 09:27 PM
The Stand probably takes place before Book III, given his references to Trashcan Man.

CyberGhostface
11-13-2009, 09:29 PM
I am looking for a picture of Flagg from The Stand comics. Its the one where he is standing on a cliff wearing his black wizard costume, with fire all about him. If anyone has it please tell me.

http://img2.pict.com/1d/fe/0c/1978388/0/800/tsamernightmares04page012.jpg

19eye-rosecrow-gun
11-15-2009, 08:42 PM
Wow that's it, that's the one! Thank you so much! I did buy this comic but it got ripped (by a baby no less, lol). I think this is one of the coolest pictures of Walter O' Dim. When I first read The Stand (novel), I thought the place Flagg stood was The Dark Tower itself, then I thought it was atop Le Casse Roi Russe, who knows. This artwork is real horrorshow...

cozener
11-17-2009, 07:16 AM
I felt sympathy for him when he was being eaten.

Letti
11-24-2009, 02:20 PM
I felt sympathy for him when he was being eaten.

And why?


CGF: Which is your absolute favorite Flagg picture and why?

Tik
11-30-2009, 04:58 PM
The Eyes of the Dragon
The Dark Tower: The Gunslinger Born
The Dark Tower: The Long Road Home
The Dark Tower: Treachery
The Dark Tower: The Fall of Gilead
The Dark Tower: The Battle of Jericho Hill
The Dark Tower I: The Gunslinger (flashback in The Dark Tower V: Wolves of the Calla)
Hearts in Atlantis (not really sure where to put this one)
The Stand (again not sure about this)
The Dark Tower III: The Waste Lands
The Dark Tower IV: Wizard & Glass
The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower
I agree with most of this. However, I would place The Stand inbetween Eyes of the Dragon and The Dark Tower stuff. My reasons for this include the fact that in The Stand, Flagg describes that he is being reborn through the actions of some kind of beast. Flagg also states he can do more magical things than he could before - an example would be shapeshifting, something he couldn't do in Eyes of the Dragon. My personal opinion is that The Stand is when the Crimson King first took a direct intrest in him (Flagg starts to use little red eyes/stones in The Stand) and invests Flagg with more power (the whole "being reborn via a beast" thing).

CyberGhostface
12-01-2009, 08:29 AM
CGF: Which is your absolute favorite Flagg picture and why?

Probably this picture Boehmke did:

http://img2.pict.com/a7/f8/ab/2102313/0/20c09db926c6c31e47e5a11e98e2b3c5.jpg

No specific reason, it just looks very cool.

Letti
12-01-2009, 09:36 AM
CGF: Which is your absolute favorite Flagg picture and why?

Probably this picture Boehmke did:

http://img2.pict.com/a7/f8/ab/2102313/0/20c09db926c6c31e47e5a11e98e2b3c5.jpg

No specific reason, it just looks very cool.

Small wonder. You can't see much of his face still it's very him. Maybe that's the very reason.

19eye-rosecrow-gun
12-08-2009, 02:19 AM
That's a very good picture. The wizard with no face. I like the Crimson Crown. The Red King is insane.

flaggwalkstheline
12-14-2009, 10:29 AM
I just drew a rather interesting parallel that I dont think I've seen b4, Randal Flagg and John Coffee
They both seem to have lived before but only vaguely remember their past lives...
strange
I will be elaborating more on this after I've thought about it some more

pinkymcfatfat
12-16-2009, 07:01 AM
I've always wondered if Walter was one of the 'wild cards' mentioned in "Insomnia".

19eye-rosecrow-gun
12-16-2009, 11:07 AM
I don't think he is a wild card, because his purpose is evil. The wild card of insomnia was Ed Deepnau, because he didn't have any. Walter has one; doom. Those who are evil are doomed in Stephen King's novels. Except for Needful Things. I think as long as we have money and desire to own what is rightfully ours, there will always be a Mr. Gaunt somewhere out there...

I actually wonder if Mr. Gaunt was Flagg...

pinkymcfatfat
12-16-2009, 02:55 PM
Ed Deepnau was himself doomed and had carried out evil acts upon him wife and was planning an act of great evil when he was barely stopped by Ralph and Lois.

'Wild Cards' are very rare and valuable. The Crimson King wanted Ed just because of that, he could be 'bent' to whatever purpose the CK wanted, like a human skelaton key.

Patrick Danville for reasons unknown to us could not be killed by anyone serving EITHER the Random or the Purpose...remember, Ralph himself has to severe his connection with whatever purpose he served to save Helen's daughter.

As for for Flagg being Gaunt, I really don't think they are the same fellow, but they are cut from similar material. Remember in 'Needful Things' Alan was givien a glimpse of what Gaunt really was, and that included images of a medieval peddler. Gaunt is very probably a 'Long-timer'.

If you look in DT7, there's a little blurb about how a new shop has opened in Maine. It's called 'Answered Prayers'...and I bet the renter is Leland Gaunt.

19eye-rosecrow-gun
12-16-2009, 06:56 PM
I just thought that's what Walter did while he was 'away' so to speak. When he's not destroying entire worlds, he is out as Leland Gaunt, who is destroying communities and taking souls for the Crimson King. The reason I considered it is because he is a demon, very much in the same image as Flagg, however I agree it is unlikely.

I never thought the Castle Rock stories connected to TDT, but it looks like Alan used the power of the WHITE to repel 'The Gaunt Thing..."

pinkymcfatfat
12-16-2009, 07:30 PM
There's three roaming 'long timers' if you consider Anton from 'Storm of the Centuary'.

19eye-rosecrow-gun
12-17-2009, 05:11 PM
I thought the movie was ok, but the bad guy didn't scare me. The demon was stupid; I never would have bought anything he said nor have given my kid to him. There are many 'long timers' to read of, not all are evil. I think the demons are actually just barely old enough to be considered as such, save for the Red King. I believe the Turtle is much older :p

I believe King likes to exaggerate the evil when he speaks of them being demons. Sometimes I think he is being quite literal (as in the case of Mr. gaunt). Sometimes, I think it is only a suggestion of character...

zuptich
04-01-2010, 12:59 PM
Welcome to the site. There are some other threads that could give an answer to your questions.
For example this one:

http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=1614
It's a very long thread but it's full of information.

But to give a short answer to your question: The man in black, Marten, Walter and Flagg are the same person.
The good man, Farson is a separate person. Flagg was working for him.

I will merge this thread with the existing Flagg thread in some days.
Aaand I have changed the title of the thread so you may get more answers.

Marten is the ageless stranger and a creature from the prim, if walter/flagg had been marten he would have seen to it that roland was killed in Mejis. the whole reason he was sent there is to that marten wouldn't kill him. flagg is a human imbued with powers, a wizard. the ageless stranger/marten is a demon

Ageless Stranger
04-01-2010, 04:48 PM
Welcome to the site. There are some other threads that could give an answer to your questions.
For example this one:

http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=1614
It's a very long thread but it's full of information.

But to give a short answer to your question: The man in black, Marten, Walter and Flagg are the same person.
The good man, Farson is a separate person. Flagg was working for him.

I will merge this thread with the existing Flagg thread in some days.
Aaand I have changed the title of the thread so you may get more answers.

Marten is the ageless stranger and a creature from the prim, if walter/flagg had been marten he would have seen to it that roland was killed in Mejis. the whole reason he was sent there is to that marten wouldn't kill him. flagg is a human imbued with powers, a wizard. the ageless stranger/marten is a demon

If that's the case, then why does Walter tell Roland during their palaver in the golgotha that he came to his mother as Marten? ("There is a truth you always suspected, is it not?")

pathoftheturtle
04-02-2010, 12:56 PM
Because King made the revised edition with extra-cheese, that's why.

Ageless Stranger
04-02-2010, 01:16 PM
What?

flaggwalkstheline
04-03-2010, 05:59 AM
the revised version is superior, it fits more with the rest of the books in the series, its basically the same treatment george lucas gave the original star wars trilogy, except yaknow, actually better

Ageless Stranger
04-03-2010, 06:06 AM
Now that I re-read the past three posts I see what path of the turtle is saying. ;)
Thanks, FWTL.

CyberGhostface
04-04-2010, 06:50 PM
the revised version is superior, it fits more with the rest of the books in the series, its basically the same treatment george lucas gave the original star wars trilogy, except yaknow, actually better

It doesn't, really. If you read the Revised and then the next three books, there's a lot of jarring stuff that doesn't fit.

For example, at the end of the Revised Gunslinger, Roland A.) Knows that Walter is Marten and B.) Suspects that the skeleton in the golgotha is not real and that Walter is alive. Yet in the next three books Roland believes that Walter is dead and is a seperate entity from Marten.

Or Roland thinking about the Beast and Maerlyn in later books when Walter tells him that it's Legion and the Crimson King.

Or, heck, not ONCE in the entire series during the countless scenes in which Roland and co. discuss the significance of 19, does Roland even mention the events concerning Walter and Allie. "Oh, that 19 number? Well, back in Gilead, 19 was a euphemism for the afterlife and when Allie mentioned it to Nort he drove her insane by telling her what was waiting for her when she died." :doh:


Marten is the ageless stranger and a creature from the prim, if walter/flagg had been marten he would have seen to it that roland was killed in Mejis. the whole reason he was sent there is to that marten wouldn't kill him. flagg is a human imbued with powers, a wizard. the ageless stranger/marten is a demon

...huh?

pathoftheturtle
04-08-2010, 02:23 PM
...And when the oracle told Roland that 3 was the number of his fate, was it ever clunky to have her then throw in "Another number comes later." :rolleyes:
Still, all of this indeed is :lol: basically the same treatment George Lucas gave the original Star Wars trilogy. http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s12/POTT2007/smileys/smiley-yuck.gif

Kronz
04-09-2010, 12:08 PM
The 19 business was definitely clunky in its retro-induction. It was kinda stupid even in the books where it's actually from.

I like to keep Flagg in my mind as just a bit more than a Man, not some kind of demon. It's hard to reconcile that he is Marten and Walter, but from just reading the novels he could even be Farson and others. I like that the lore and chronology is so liquid in the King multiverse, and I stopped expecting absolute answers from his stories years ago.

CyberGhostface
04-10-2010, 08:13 PM
...And when the oracle told Roland that 3 was the number of his fate, was it ever clunky to have her then throw in "Another number comes later." :rolleyes:
Still, all of this indeed is :lol: basically the same treatment George Lucas gave the original Star Wars trilogy. http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s12/POTT2007/smileys/smiley-yuck.gif

It's exactly like what George Lucas did, right down to Allie asking Roland to shoot her instead of Greedo shooting first.

Tik
05-04-2010, 03:51 PM
For example, at the end of the Revised Gunslinger, Roland A.) Knows that Walter is Marten and B.) Suspects that the skeleton in the golgotha is not real and that Walter is alive. Yet in the next three books Roland believes that Walter is dead and is a seperate entity from Marten.
Actually, Roland starts acting like Walter is dead but still has doubts whether he is or not - he's undecided. But even in the revised Gunslinger he talks of Walter in the past tense (ie like he's dead).

And Roland always treats each persona of Flagg seperately unless specifically listing his names together, even in the last 3 books. For example, when Callahan tells of his encounter with Walter, Roland and the ka-tet talk solely about Walter.

Or Roland thinking about the Beast and Maerlyn in later books when Walter tells him that it's Legion and the Crimson King.
Thats only one short scene:

"Walters veiled words about a Beast and someone he called the Ageless Stranger."

Maerlyn is never mentioned in the discussion of his palavar, only the phrase "Ageless Stranger" is used which jogs Susannah to be reminded of Merlin and King Arthur.

The use of the word "Beast" is the only contridiction that the revised throws up really. But if the other books are revised too, replacing "Beast" with "King" will be an easy thing to do.

Or, heck, not ONCE in the entire series during the countless scenes in which Roland and co. discuss the significance of 19, does Roland even mention the events concerning Walter and Allie. "Oh, that 19 number? Well, back in Gilead, 19 was a euphemism for the afterlife and when Allie mentioned it to Nort he drove her insane by telling her what was waiting for her when she died."
He doesn't mention alot of other 19 events either.

In the original we learn explicitly that Marten is dead. The Man in Black has eaten his soul, the Man in Black delievered him to Roland to kill, etc. Yet in the second book Roland believes he will see Marten in the near future. The original was full of mistakes and false starts and - crucially for me - not well written. In fact, The Gunslinger used to be one of my least favorite King books and I felt it to be a disappointment when compared to the other 3 books (at the time, the only ones I'd read). I read the revised and now its one of my favorite stories - the writing has been cleared up, it flows soooo much better, and it is no longer jarring when I read the series in order.

I do believe the revised to be an improvement over the orginal.

CyberGhostface
06-01-2010, 09:42 PM
Actually, Roland starts acting like Walter is dead but still has doubts whether he is or not - he's undecided. But even in the revised Gunslinger he talks of Walter in the past tense (ie like he's dead).

He's not so much as undecided as he is strongly suspicious that Walter laid a fake skeleton in his place to fool him. King would have been much better off rephrasing it to make it look ambigous to the reader but not necessarily to Roland and then have Walter reveal later on what was up. That way it wouldn't go from "Walter's alive--no he's dead--no, wait he's alive and I knew it all along". The fact that Walter was alive and Marten to boot should have been a revelation late in the series and be a surprise to Roland as well as to the reader.

This is of course, ignoring the fact that resurrecting Walter serves no conceivable purpose. Seriously, I have no idea why King would go to such great lengths to tie in Walter to Marten/Flagg when he did fuck-all in the final book besides being Mordred Num Nums.


And Roland always treats each persona of Flagg seperately unless specifically listing his names together, even in the last 3 books. For example, when Callahan tells of his encounter with Walter, Roland and the ka-tet talk solely about Walter.

I'm pretty sure in the final books (and it's been a while since I reread the series) that Roland thinks "Walter, who was calling himself Flagg now" and etceteras when thinking about his nemesis.


He doesn't mention alot of other 19 events either.

But this one--that the Land of Nineteen is the Land of Death, and that saying "Nineteen" will unlock the secrets of death and drive you insane--is a pretty big event. I mean, when Roland and the Ka-tet are wondering about the significance of 19 and why it pops up all the time, you'd think Roland would remember how important it was. Just like how he has know idea who the Crimson King is in book IV despite knowing legends about him as a child in the final book.

Honestly, a lot of the errors in the first book I really didn't notice going on--with the exception of Farson, maybe. However, the changes in the Revised do give a disjointed feel in correlation with the next three.

Tik
06-06-2010, 11:03 AM
He's not so much as undecided as he is strongly suspicious that Walter laid a fake skeleton in his place to fool him. King would have been much better off rephrasing it to make it look ambigous to the reader but not necessarily to Roland and then have Walter reveal later on what was up. That way it wouldn't go from "Walter's alive--no he's dead--no, wait he's alive and I knew it all along". The fact that Walter was alive and Marten to boot should have been a revelation late in the series and be a surprise to Roland as well as to the reader.

This is of course, ignoring the fact that resurrecting Walter serves no conceivable purpose. Seriously, I have no idea why King would go to such great lengths to tie in Walter to Marten/Flagg when he did fuck-all in the final book besides being Mordred Num Nums.
Roland has his doubts but cant prove them one way or the other. Roland finds out he is indeed alive in book 4.

Rereading the original Gunslinger its becomes painfully apparent why such changes were needed. For one thing, Marten was dead in that book. The Man in Black had eaten his soul, the Man in Black had delievered Marten into Rolands hands at some undisclosed point in their past. Yet in the next 3 books Roland strangely starts believing he is going to meet Marten again and finally does in book 4. And not only that, in the palavar we learn that Walter was the one who took Rolands mother through Marten, that it wasn't Marten himself. We learn that Walter was the one who made and broke his father. Yet in the next 3 books, all of these deeds aren't Walters, they are Martens. The only way to clear this up without more extensive rewrites is to combine the characters.

I'm pretty sure in the final books (and it's been a while since I reread the series) that Roland thinks "Walter, who was calling himself Flagg now" and etceteras when thinking about his nemesis.
Well, that would fall under "specifically listing his names together". In the Callahan example, when talking about Walter they only refer to him as "that guy Walter." Another example is that when Roland thinks back to his days in Gilead he only refers to "Marten the Enchanter" and none of his other names.

But this one--that the Land of Nineteen is the Land of Death, and that saying "Nineteen" will unlock the secrets of death and drive you insane--is a pretty big event. I mean, when Roland and the Ka-tet are wondering about the significance of 19 and why it pops up all the time, you'd think Roland would remember how important it was. Just like how he has know idea who the Crimson King is in book IV despite knowing legends about him as a child in the final book.
But Roland simply doesn't think its worth sharing. It more or less tells us what Roland thinks of 19 in book 5:

"Yet Roland, who believed in omens and portents as routinely as Eddie had once believed in lightbulbs and Double-A batteries, had a tendency to dismiss his ka-tets odd and sudden infatuation with the number."
As for knowing who the Crimson King is....well the truth of the matter is he doesn't. Sure, he knows of the Crimson King, he knows legends and knows that he's evil. But he doesn't know who he is....even in the last 3 books he's coming up with ideas:

"Who is he?"

"I dont know, Roland said. "Only that he bides far east of here, in Thunderclap or beyond it. I believe he may be a Guardian of the Dark Tower. He may even think he owns it."
As the series goes on he learns more about him.

It's like when Susannah asks Roland what the Eye sigul means. Roland doesn't tell her anything even though he knows its Farsons sign, which he finally gets round to tell her further on in the same book. He keeps things to himself.

Honestly, a lot of the errors in the first book I really didn't notice going on--with the exception of Farson, maybe. However, the changes in the Revised do give a disjointed feel in correlation with the next three.
As you say, Farson is a town in the original. Farson is a man in the next 3 books.

Marten is dead in the original. Marten suddenly become a very live threat again in the next 3 books.

Marten is protrayed to be Walters inferior - Walter cant even send him Rolands vision without turning Marten into a drooling fool. Yet this is very different to the Marten protrayed in the next 3 books.

Walter is the one who takes Rolands mother, not Marten (though its implied Walter uses Martens body). This is completely at odds with what Roland talks about in the next 3 books.

The Ageless Stranger is explicitly stated to be called Maerlyn. The next 3 books explicitly tell us Maerlyn isnt the Ageless Stranger.

Alain is called Allen.

England exists in Mid-World which is at odds with everything we ever learn about Mid-World.

When Roland's father returns to Gilead after Roland becomes a gunslinger he is killed....directly contridicting the events of Wizard and Glass.

Etc. There are lots and lots and lots of contridictions in the original book.

And like I said, the main reason - the best reason - the revised is much better is due to the writing. It flows much better with the rest of the series, even if you just want to take the next 3 books into consideration, never mind the 3 after that.

Arch Stanton
10-15-2010, 09:02 AM
No, it was lame. When I first started the series I already knew that Walter and Flagg were the same person and I'd heard that he met an anticlimactic end, but I was still expecting him to actually do something in the series before that happened. I don't see any reason why Flagg couldn't have survived until near the end of the book and been Roland's final obstacle before reaching the Tower and the Crimson King. It would have made more sense and been more thematically satisfying than the emotion vampire who came out of nowhere and almost killed Roland. As it is, all the foreshadowing in The Gunslinger and Wizard and Glass ("Before reaching the Tower you must kill the Ageless Stranger," "Next time I won't leave :)," "We'll meet Flagg again in Thunderclap") was for nothing. LAME.

flaggwalkstheline
10-15-2010, 02:00 PM
flagg, marten and walter are all the same person, 2 seperate them is silly
Without the walking dude there would be no series, he is responsible 4 Rolands early test of manhood, the fall of gilead, the breakers, the birth of mordred (by way of mia), jakes first death, his tarot mapped out rolands whole future, SO I think that if u look closely enough (especially at the signifigance of the tarot) then he is responsible for everything in a covert manner, he manipulated EVERYTHING behind the scenes without him the series simply would not b the dark tower, I think that he is as important a character as roland, just in a much more subtle way

Did you even read my initial post?:panic:

In the beginning of the series WALTER and MARTEN are two seperate characters unrelated to Flagg. It was only until the fourth book in the series that Marten became Flagg, and it was only until King finished the series that he resurrected Walter and made him yet another alias of Flagg.

So when I say, "Was Flagg needed?" I am referring to Flagg as Flagg only. Not Walter or Marten, who could have easily been seperate characters and were seperate characters for a good chunk of the series.

by in the begining, do you mean "in the unrevised version"? cause yeah they are a lot more seperated in that, the revised one, not as much

Walkingman79
10-15-2010, 03:13 PM
I voted yes.I fall under the group of people who have read for many years about Flagg and I have felt his presence in many of Kings books so I feel that without a doubt he was needed in TDT.I personaly like most of the stuff written about him in this series and I don't mind at all the plot twist of all 3 being Flagg.All of that would have been a much easier pill to swallow if that stupid spider didn't take him out as easy as he would a mutie animal roaming around Thunderclap:angry:.So in my opinion where sai King failed with Flagg was his demise.He was much to powerful a character to be defeated by a spider boy who was weak and shitting himself.Yes i feel like Flagg was necessary.My gripe is with Modreds character,always will be, and that is a different topic.Good food for thought though:thumbsup:I like this thread.

flaggwalkstheline
10-15-2010, 04:31 PM
i think the fact that in the end flagg was a humbug in the truest sense makes him just that much more badass

Letti
10-16-2010, 01:59 AM
i think the fact that in the end flagg was a humbug in the truest sense makes him just that much more badass

Why do you think he was just a humbug (or bumhug)?

LadyHitchhiker
10-16-2010, 02:56 AM
I'm confused by this quote as well.

flaggwalkstheline
10-16-2010, 06:29 AM
i think the fact that in the end flagg was a humbug in the truest sense makes him just that much more badass

Why do you think he was just a humbug (or bumhug)?

because in the end it turned out that though he had some power, his whole satanic facade was mostly a monstrous bluff! if that isn't hardcore then i don't what is:pirate: