Which Mistakes Sit Well With You, Which Don't???

[Mr_Lund]

Before I get into any of this, let me preface it with the fact that I am a huge King fan. I respect the man and his works very much! So, if some criticism is given in this post, the intention is (whether it comes across or not) that it is given as friendly as possible!

On then...

To err is human, as we all know. Writing seven (eight) books of such an immense story line is a great undertaking, and it would be an unreasonable expectation to think one would find them free of mistakes. Us Tower Junkies know that they are in there, and have likely found a few ourselves without someone else pointing the rest out.

I'm new to this board, and certainly have not had the time to go through every topic already here. But, my guess is that there have already been threads that discuss the various mistakes King has made in the books. So, knowing this to likely be true, this is not intended to be just another "Point out King's Mistakes" thread. Instead, hopefully this is something fresher than that. What I'm curious about is this:

Of the mistakes you are aware of in The Dark Tower Series, which are you able to reconcile and be okay with, and which have you not been able to do that with?

For me, some mistakes I've been able to explain away by giving King some lee-way. Others, for personal or logical reasons, I can't forgive (and thus, try to turn a blind eye for).

Here's a quick list of a few to start the discussion. Feel free to comment on the ones I've brought up, and/or bring up your own. The goal, I might add, is that in finding out how some of you may have reconciled some of King's mistakes, I might be able to agree and put a few of my unreconciled ones to rest!

1. King's Lack of Gun Knowledge - Status: Reconciled
Is this the most famous, well known mistake? I'm not sure, but my guess is that most Tower fans know of this one. Jake's .44 Ruger doesn't really exist (Ruger never made such a caliber), and Roland's revolvers are sometimes described as single-action (fanning) and double-action (cocking the hammer).

This one, I have reconciled, and you can too! The reconciliation happened for me in Wizard and Glass, and was further helped by Callahan's story in Wolves of the Calla.
The ka-tet find themselves in Topeka, Kansas, but a clearly different one than their own world where Nozz-a-la exists and the Kansas City Monarchs play ball. Then, Callahan describes finding his hidden highways which lead him to alternate realities of our world.
With this added knowledge of other worlds, certainly the world Jake came from could have been a reality where Ruger did decide to make a .44 caliber. As for Roland's revovlers, we might be arrogant in thinking that the only way to make a revolver is single OR double action. Perhaps in Gilead a different manufacturing technology that our world has never conceived existed.

2. Henry Dean's Vietnam History - Status: Reconciled
This one was terrible for me for a while. In The Drawing Of The Three, we learn of Eddie's brother, Henry, having been a Vietnam Vet who was drafted into the war. But, if you know of the dates of the war, and when they ended the draft, it's obvious that Henry couldn't have been drafted. In addition to that, this problem is made even worse in The Wastelands when, in 1977, Henry and Eddie Dean are young, school age brothers hanging around basketball courts. By that date, Henry should either be over seas or returned wounded and well on his way to being a junkie.

The status of this one, though, is also reconciled with the "many-worlds" theory that helped me with the previous mistake mentioned. I sleep better at night thinking that in Eddie Dean's reality, the dates of Vietnam must have happened differently, and later.

3. Yes Roland, Women Wear Pants - Status: Still Bugs Me...
Roland is shocked to see the stewardess on the plane wearing pants instead of a dress in The Drawing Of The Three. Yet, pants are being worn in Mejis (riding pants are described) by Susan and others, so Roland has certainly seen them on women before. (And, weren't some ladies in Tull wearing pants? I don't remember 100%.)

This mistake, I admit, is minute (as most are, or else they would have been found and edited), but I can't just explain it away like some of the others.

4. Can't Understand The Letter "H" - Status: Befuddled
In The Drawing Of The Three, Roland tries to read a neon sign but can't make out all of it because he can't recognize the letter "H". It doesn't seem to work at first, as by that time you already know of names and words that contain phonetics that our alphabet uses "H" for, including the normal "Hax" and some consonant combinations (Cuthbert, Khef, Deschain). In fact, how ironically funny is it that the High Speech doesn't have an "H", yet the word "High" uses it twice in two different ways?

In later books, King shows actual High Speech characters which sorta helps me get this, as they are definitely NOT Roman letters. So, it becomes clear (I think) that of course Roland can't understand an "H" because the High Speech is made of completely different characters than our alphabet. This enjoyment only lasts a microsecond, though, for it creates a new problem: How does he understand the other letters, then?

So, what's going on? Does Roland recognize some letters when he's in Eddie's mind? Why not all? Are there some Roman characters in the High Speech (or in the Low Speech)? Creating a new language is a daunting task I'd never want, but, I wish King would explain these things better somewhere in the series. To my knowledge, he never does. It is, though, the unreconciled mistake I'm most forgiving about.

5. Name Changing - Status: Unforgiven
In The Drawing Of The Three, Eddie refers to his sister Selina. In The Wastelands, her name is Gloria. Likewise, in Wolves Of The Calla, Callahan clearly tells his tale involving Rowan Magruder, and later (Book VI or VII, I can't remember) Jake refers to Callahan's friend as George Magruder.

I can't use a "many-worlds" theory on this one. So what caused these mistakes? We're all human and mistakes happen, but man, shouldn't this have been caught in editing? I know if I was writing and wanted to talk again about someone's sister, I would have gone back to my original mention of the character to look up the name. Was it just laziness?

6. The Coastline Direction - Status: VERY LOOSELY Reconciled
In The Drawing Of The Three, Roland has gone west, through the mountains, then finds the Western Sea. He proceeds north. But, King states traveling north along the coastline, the ocean is on Roland's right side, which clearly means he'd be going south.

Okay, I KNOW before you say it that King has made it clear that the directions are breaking down. Still, this is a complete reversal of directions. More than that, it makes it really, really tough to try and "map out" where Roland has traveled and what his path from the Baronies to The Tower actually is. There is some reconciliation I can give it if I just bear with the idea that the directions are in that great of a flux, and maybe it was King's intention to make Roland's world truly something one can no longer map. But, was that really his intention, or just a slip of the type?

There you have it. Those are six of mine. I have more, but that's a long enough post. I am eager to hear what you think of the ones I've mentioned, and to read about yours!

[Jean]

a great thread, and an awesome starting post, thank you Mr_Lund! I think most of these have been talked about somewhere, but I love the idea of discussing what does or doesn't sit well with us, and why.

As far as the pants issue is concerned, I myself started a thread concerning them, but it was incredibly many years ago, at the times of .net.This discrepancy annoyed me like hell, and the reason, I believe, is obvious: a world where women don't wear pants is essentially different from a world where they do. The whole context, the whole picture is different. I remember it was one of the reasons why I was mad at King while reading W&G.

My second pet peeve is the language problem. Totally with you on this one. I had a theory on the high and low speech ( = Saxon vs. Norman when the English language was shaped), but it doesn't explain the characters controversy.

[Iwritecode]

5. Name Changing - Status: Unforgiven
In The Drawing Of The Three, Eddie refers to his sister Selina. In The Wastelands, her name is Gloria.

Somehow I’ve read both of those books numerous times and completely missed this fact.

Not the name-change part but the simple fact that Eddie has a sister... :redface:

EDIT: Maybe "missed" isn't the right way to describe it. "Completely forgot that he had a sister" would be better.

[Merlin1958]

"Mr. Lund", it's a really good thing that you have not watched "Lost"!!! LOL LOL LOL You bring up valid points, but IMHO you give the author "Literary latitude" and leave it be. Of course, the ultimate fault my fall on, Robin Furth who was supposed to prevent this kind of thing in the first place!! LOL Good thread though. I for one like it!!

[Jean]

5. Name Changing - Status: Unforgiven
In The Drawing Of The Three, Eddie refers to his sister Selina. In The Wastelands, her name is Gloria.

Somehow I’ve read both of those books numerous times and completely missed this fact.

Not the name-change part but the simple fact that Eddie has a sister... :redface:

EDIT: Maybe "missed" isn't the right way to describe it. "Completely forgot that he had a sister" would be better.

LOL, no, it's that you're having a glitch now. He had had a sister,

she died when a very little girl, and that's why his mother made Henry look after Eddie every single moment 24 hours a day, and that's what influenced their relationships
Now remember? I think you just for a moment imagined some big Sis he keeps mentioning, or something like this

[Iwritecode]

5. Name Changing - Status: Unforgiven
In The Drawing Of The Three, Eddie refers to his sister Selina. In The Wastelands, her name is Gloria.

Somehow I’ve read both of those books numerous times and completely missed this fact.

Not the name-change part but the simple fact that Eddie has a sister... :redface:

EDIT: Maybe "missed" isn't the right way to describe it. "Completely forgot that he had a sister" would be better.

LOL, no, it's that you're having a glitch now. He had had a sister,

she died when a very little girl, and that's why his mother made Henry look after Eddie every single moment 24 hours a day, and that's what influenced their relationships
Now remember? I think you just for a moment imagined some big Sis he keeps mentioning, or something like this

Yea, I read that first post and said to myself "Eddie had a sister? When did this happen?" She was mentioned so little in the novel that it just completely slipped my mind.

[CyberGhostface]

90% of this stuff I've never noticed.

The only stuff that bothered me is stuff like the inconsistencies created by the Revised going into the next three books -- I.E. it ends with Roland knowing that Walter=Marten and is alive, the beginning of the next book, Walter's dead and a different person. Or stuff like Roland hearing about the Crimson King, then not knowing who he is in Book 4, and finally knowing childhood legends about him in the last book. (And "King's knowledge trickled into him" is a cop-out).

Or Roland and Jake speaking like they did in the Callas in the Revised -- what was up with that, and did I miss something? They only speak like that again in the series when they enter the Callas and then they drop it after leaving, so why is Roland all "May it do ya fine" here?

[pathoftheturtle]

6. The Coastline Direction - Status: VERY LOOSELY Reconciled
In The Drawing Of The Three, Roland has gone west, through the mountains, then finds the Western Sea. He proceeds north. But, King states traveling north along the coastline, the ocean is on Roland's right side, which clearly means he'd be going south.

Okay, I KNOW before you say it that King has made it clear that the directions are breaking down. Still, this is a complete reversal of directions. More than that, it makes it really, really tough to try and "map out" where Roland has traveled and what his path from the Baronies to The Tower actually is. There is some reconciliation I can give it if I just bear with the idea that the directions are in that great of a flux, and maybe it was King's intention to make Roland's world truly something one can no longer map. But, was that really his intention, or just a slip of the type?I think that King made it Western because he was drawing on Western movies he had seen. But he has always lived on the East coast. It could have been a natural mistake, though the idea of that being intentional is also interesting, especially since we learn in Book 7 thatthe city of Lud is a twin to New York. Doesn't make much sense for it to be in the West given that information.


The only stuff that bothered me is stuff like the inconsistencies created by the Revised going into the next three books...At first, he intended to revise all of the books.


Or Roland and Jake speaking like they did in the Callas in the Revised -- what was up with that, and did I miss something? They only speak like that again in the series when they enter the Callas and then they drop it after leaving, so why is Roland all "May it do ya fine" here?Yeah, I believe that that was just a screw up. Seems to me he's often shown this fault in his writing. Once he finds a turn of phrase he likes, he repeats it even if it makes no sense. Look at his other books -- sometimes new language carries over from scene to scene even when the characters who made up the terms are not present.

[Tik]

The only stuff that bothered me is stuff like the inconsistencies created by the Revised going into the next three books -- I.E. it ends with Roland knowing that Walter=Marten and is alive, the beginning of the next book, Walter's dead and a different person. Or stuff like Roland hearing about the Crimson King, then not knowing who he is in Book 4, and finally knowing childhood legends about him in the last book. (And "King's knowledge trickled into him" is a cop-out).
Honestly, the revised cleared up a lot of inconsistencies as opposed to creating them.

Look at your Walter/Martin death muddle up for example, a version of this was actually present in the original Gunslinger anyway (where Marten is explicitly dead) and The Drawing of the Three (where Roland believes he will meet Marten again on his quest).

The revised changes this so that although Roland knows they are both the same person and finds Walter's "corpse", he still has his doubts about whether Walter could really be dead. The doubts don't stop him from referring to Walter as being dead (because, well, he did find a corpse), but it does make him think that he may face Marten again further down the line. The revised has cleared up the initial inconsistency.

Roland always tends to refer to each facet of Legion as an individual entity, even in the last three books (with the odd line thrown here and there where a character acknowledges that they are all the same being) so that aspect of the first four books doesn't really stand out as an inconsistency to me.

As for the Crimson King thing, that seems to be Roland just being Roland and not telling his companions all he knows (as he does so in many other circumstances). After all, when he first sees the phrase "All hail the Crimson King" in Wizard and Glass, Susannah asks Roland if he knows what it means:


Roland shook his head, but he looked troubled, and that introspective look never left his eyes.

That always seemed to me, even before the last three books (and the revised Gunslinger) were published, that Roland knew far more than he was letting on.

So what is the status of these examples to my mind? Status: Reconciled :)

[Merlin1958]

Though technically not a "mistake" per se, his ultimate handling of the "Mordred" story line seems like a whopper to me, even after all these years and many re-reads.

[CyberGhostface]

Roland always tends to refer to each facet of Legion as an individual entity, even in the last three books (with the odd line thrown here and there where a character acknowledges that they are all the same being) so that aspect of the first four books doesn't really stand out as an inconsistency to me.

That's not exactly true. In the last three books, he never makes reference to Walter, Flagg and Marten being separate entities like he does in Books 2-4. In each of the final three books, there's some line about "Walter, who was calling himself Flagg" or something along those lines. At one point he's straight up called "Walter/Flagg".

Here's how it goes regarding the Revised:

Book 1: Walter is revealed to be Marten. He leaves a skeleton behind, but Roland strongly doubts that it's the genuine article.

Book 2-4: Roland makes repeated reference to Walter being dead and has no doubts about it. (I.E. he's not "I doubt that it was actually him") He takes for granted, for example, the jawbone being Walter's. He also refers to Marten as being in league with Walter. Heck there's even a paragraph in the second book where he mentions three different wizards that he knew: Walter, Marten and Flagg.

Book 5-7: Roland now knows that Walter and Marten are the same person.

The Walter identity snafu complicates things far more than any reference to Marten in the original edition.

The best way that King should have done it was reveal to both the reader and Roland at the same time that Walter is Marten.

That is even assuming that Walter should have been resurrected in the first place, when it all really serves to do is retroactively make Flagg's fate that much more disappointing.


As for the Crimson King thing, that seems to be Roland just being Roland and not telling his companions all he knows (as he does so in many other circumstances). After all, when he first sees the phrase "All hail the Crimson King" in Wizard and Glass, Susannah asks Roland if he knows what it means:


Roland shook his head, but he looked troubled, and that introspective look never left his eyes.

That always seemed to me, even before the last three books (and the revised Gunslinger) were published, that Roland knew far more than he was letting on.

I don't see why Roland would lie about knowing who the Crimson King was, since he was pretty straightforward with the rest of the Ka-tet about what he knew and didn't know.

Another thing that the revised DT introduces that is dropped: the number 19. Not once in the final three books does it ever occur to Roland to even mention that the number was a symbol for the afterlife and that knowledge of said number drove a woman insane. Instead he's befuddled with the rest of the ka-tet as to why it keeps on popping up.

[Tik]

That's not exactly true. In the last three books, he never makes reference to Walter, Flagg and Marten being separate entities like he does in Books 2-4. In each of the final three books, there's some line about "Walter, who was calling himself Flagg" or something along those lines. At one point he's straight up called "Walter/Flagg".
You misunderstand. I didn't mean that Roland stated that Marten and Walter are different characters, I meant that he addresses each facet of Legion individually. For example, when discussing Callahan's meeting with Walter in book 5, the characters only refer to Legion as Walter. When discussing what Marten did back in Gilead in the last 3 books, they refer to Legion as Marten. When discussing things about Flagg, they refer to Legion as Flagg. Etc. This is what happens the majority of the time, with a smattering of "Flagg is Walter is Marten" thrown in at some point in a book (usually by a different character other than Roland).

The incidents in the first 4 books are just the same.


Book 1: Walter is revealed to be Marten. He leaves a skeleton behind, but Roland strongly doubts that it's the genuine article.
Yes, that's true, he has his initial doubts.

Book 2-4: Roland makes repeated reference to Walter being dead and has no doubts about it. (I.E. he's not "I doubt that it was actually him") He takes for granted, for example, the jawbone being Walter's. He also refers to Marten as being in league with Walter. Heck there's even a paragraph in the second book where he mentions three different wizards that he knew: Walter, Marten and Flagg.
Roland is a practical man. He has doubts, but not certainties. The jawbone he has is from "Walters" corpse so without a better understanding of who's jawbone it is, that's what he's going to call it. Whether Walter is dead or alive, the jawbone has been left by Walter so it's Walters jawbone.

You also forget that, retroactively from our point of view, Roland does share doubts of Walter's/Marten's death. Remember, Roland suspects he will see Marten again, acknowledging his doubts from the first book about Walter/Marten's death (albeit retroactively from our real world perspective).

Also remember that Roland hears Walter's voice in his head in book 2, again this retroactively acknowledges Roland's doubts.

I have relatively recently reread the series and don't remember Walter being in league with Marten. Unless you mean that small snippet in an argument, in which case that hardly counts since these were only summaries. It could even be argued this only describes the perception of events Walter wanted Farson's forces to know about, much like how, in another argument, it's claimed that Flagg is Farson (read DT7 to see how successful Walter was in this regard).

As for the listing of three different wizards, he's addressing each facet individually like he always does, even in the last 3 books. It's notable he doesn't describe what the Man in Black does but goes straight on to Marten's deeds in detail straight after Walter's brief name drop. Maybe because he knows they are the same character, no doubt (retroactively, of course). And even with the revised, Roland doesn't know Flagg is Marten/Walter yet. He only finds out in book 4.

Book 5-7: Roland now knows that Walter and Marten are the same person.
As he did in the previous novels.


The Walter identity snafu complicates things far more than any reference to Marten in the original edition.
Not at all, it's just brought up a lot more than the original snafu. At the end of the original, Marten and Walter are dead. Then in the 2nd book, Marten is going to confront Roland in the future and Walter's voice keeps whispering to Roland, so are they alive or dead or both? Then Roland meets Flagg, identifies him as Marten, and isn't at all surprised that the deceased Marten is alive and kicking. At least in the revised, we know of Roland's initial doubts despite how he later treats Walter as being dead. In the original, Marten is dead outright (no doubts about that) then alive again (no doubts about that) with no hints or detail as to how that could possibly be.

The best way that King should have done it was reveal to both the reader and Roland at the same time that Walter is Marten.

That is even assuming that Walter should have been resurrected in the first place, when it all really serves to do is retroactively make Flagg's fate that much more disappointing.
Whichever way was best, I do think it was necessary to revise The Gunslinger.

Personally I don't think Flagg's fate was disappointing. It was a wonderfully gruesome way to go.

I don't see why Roland would lie about knowing who the Crimson King was, since he was pretty straightforward with the rest of the Ka-tet about what he knew and didn't know.
Really? Roland is the guy who didn't tell his ka-tet about the Beams for months or even described to them about fundamental workings of his world. This is the man who kept the whole "my heads tearing to pieces due to timeline changes" for months until he could no longer bear it. The man who kept Susannah's pregnancy a secret from the rest of the ka-tet.

Roland is very secretive and keeps his cards close to his chest until he decides when the ka-tet needs to know about them. This is a pretty big part of his character and his interactions with the ka-tet. This was simply another example of that. He opens up more as the quest continues, but that's how he is.

Another thing that the revised DT introduces that is dropped: the number 19. Not once in the final three books does it ever occur to Roland to even mention that the number was a symbol for the afterlife and that knowledge of said number drove a woman insane. Instead he's befuddled with the rest of the ka-tet as to why it keeps on popping up.
It was on one letter and the oracle directly stated it wouldn't pop up again until later in his quest. Also remember that Roland has difficulty remembering who Brown and Zoltan was, characters who turned up after the 19 letter thing. If he can't remember them, he's bound not to remember that little detail. After all, it was hundreds of years before he met his ka-tet.

[CyberGhostface]

You misunderstand. I didn't mean that Roland stated that Marten and Walter are different characters, I meant that he addresses each facet of Legion individually. For example, when discussing Callahan's meeting with Walter in book 5, the characters only refer to Legion as Walter. When discussing what Marten did back in Gilead in the last 3 books, they refer to Legion as Marten. When discussing things about Flagg, they refer to Legion as Flagg. Etc. This is what happens the majority of the time, with a smattering of "Flagg is Walter is Marten" thrown in at some point in a book (usually by a different character other than Roland).

The incidents in the first 4 books are just the same.

No, they're not. There's an incident in the second book where Roland makes a reference to three different wizards that he knew; Walter, Marten and Flagg. He doesn't refer to them as three different manifestations of the same entity either.


Yes, that's true, he has his initial doubts.

Doubts that he never references again.


You also forget that, retroactively from our point of view, Roland does share doubts of Walter's/Marten's death. Remember, Roland suspects he will see Marten again, acknowledging his doubts from the first book about Walter/Marten's death (albeit retroactively from our real world perspective).

He doesn't share doubts that Walter is dead. He makes repeated references to Walter being dead as if it's a fact.


Also remember that Roland hears Walter's voice in his head in book 2, again this retroactively acknowledges Roland's doubts.

How?


As for the listing of three different wizards, he's addressing each facet individually like he always does, even in the last 3 books. It's notable he doesn't describe what the Man in Black does but goes straight on to Marten's deeds in detail straight after Walter's brief name drop. Maybe because he knows they are the same character, no doubt (retroactively, of course). And even with the revised, Roland doesn't know Flagg is Marten/Walter yet. He only finds out in book 4.

...

As he did in the previous novels.

Then maybe you could find an example from the last three books where Roland makes reference to Walter and Marten as separate people that he knew as opposed to being the same person like he did in the second book.


Not at all, it's just brought up a lot more than the original snafu.

Ergo, it's more noticeable and sticks out more. Most of the 'errors' in the original book are fairly small and easily forgotten, I.E. Roland speaking in 70s slang or going through magazines. There are tons of these tiny errors peppered throughout the series, which most people won't even notice or remember when they are contradicted later on. Conversely the changes that the revised brings up are far bigger so the contradictions are stand out when reading the revised to the next three.


It was on one letter and the oracle directly stated it wouldn't pop up again until later in his quest. Also remember that Roland has difficulty remembering who Brown and Zoltan was, characters who turned up after the 19 letter thing. If he can't remember them, he's bound not to remember that little detail. After all, it was hundreds of years before he met his ka-tet.

It wasn't a little detail, it directly lead to Allie's death in the revised.

[Tik]

No, they're not. There's an incident in the second book where Roland makes a reference to three different wizards that he knew; Walter, Marten and Flagg. He doesn't refer to them as three different manifestations of the same entity either.
Yes, they are.

As already explained, the section on Flagg in the second book is irrelevant to the discussion as at this point Roland doesn't know he is another version of Walter/Marten.

Here's the quote about the man in black after the details of Flagg:


Then there had been the man in black.

And there had been Marten.

Roland then talks in more detail about Marten like he did with Flagg. The man in black, oddly enough, is not elaborated on. Presumably Roland doesn't bother to do this because he knows they are both the same character.

This quote does not equate to Roland believing they are not the same being. As explained, it is merely Roland addressing each facet individually, as he continues to do so throughout the series.

Doubts that he never references again.
Hence the use of the word "initial". Plus, there is his belief he will meet Marten again, which amounts to the same thing (if he thinks he's going to meet Marten, he must suspect that Marten/Walter is still alive).

He doesn't share doubts that Walter is dead. He makes repeated references to Walter being dead as if it's a fact.
Because as far as he knows, Walter is dead. He only knows he's still alive by the end of the fourth book. And remember, he knows that Marten is Walter. As such, if he suspects he will meet Marten again then he suspects that Walter is alive, being as they are the same creature.

How?
Because it can now be suggested that Walter is communicating psychically with Roland at these points.

Then maybe you could find an example from the last three books where Roland makes reference to Walter and Marten as separate people that he knew as opposed to being the same person like he did in the second book.
I don't need to. I've already explained how Roland addresses each facet individually in the last three books despite knowing they are the same being eg Callahan's meeting with Walter, where everyone addresses that aspect of Legion as Walter.

It is also worth pointing out that Roland doesn't make explicate references to Walter and Marten being separate characters in the first 4 books. The most he does is list two different personas next to each other, as quoted above.

That is not the same thing.

Ergo, it's more noticeable and sticks out more. Most of the 'errors' in the original book are fairly small and easily forgotten, I.E. Roland speaking in 70s slang or going through magazines. There are tons of these tiny errors peppered throughout the series, which most people won't even notice or remember when they are contradicted later on. Conversely the changes that the revised brings up are far bigger so the contradictions are stand out when reading the revised to the next three.
It's not more noticeable at all. It just that a minority can be more vocal about things. The originals errors don't even make logical sense compared to the rest of the series. At least in the revised King hinted that Walter may be back from the "dead" at a later date. There are no such hints that Marten will be in the original, he's very clearly dead and then - BAM! - he's magically alive again with no foreshadowing or logical reasoning. That to me is a much more noticeable error that sticks out waaaaaay more than anything in the revised.

I also disagree about the originals errors being relatively small. The originals notion that Farson is a town instead of a person was the biggest continuity error that was ever given throughout the series. Roland saying things like "Dig" is rather more off putting than the Calla speak. The magazine thing is pretty notable. Roland not knowing who Sheb is despite meeting him in the flashback in the fourth book. Marten being stone dead despite him being treated as alive in the later books (starting from book 2). The Ageless Stranger being Maerlyn despite the fact that this turns out to be patently untrue. And of course, I'm not terribly fond of how the original was written, the revised is a much better book and fits in nicely with the remainder of the series.

This is, of course, not counting the cause for your major grievance against the revised and later books, in that the original clearly contradicts the last 3 novels where it's made clear Walter is Marten.

It wasn't a little detail, it directly lead to Allie's death in the revised.
I'd disagree. There is no reason that Roland should remember that number after that amount of time. All he need remember is that it was his hands that did the killing after falling into Walter's trap.

Also remember that even though the number 19 is used here, it's presence/power/usage is not explained to Roland. So even if he can remember (doubtful), why bring it up when his ka-tet starts getting obsessed with the number? It adds nothing to the conversation, especially when Roland is actively discouraging discussions about 19:


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-tet's odd and sudden infatuation with the number.


Roland considered for a moment, then let it pass. If the number nineteen was somehow part of this, it's meaning would declare itself in time. For now there were other matters.


"Piss on nineteen"

[CyberGhostface]

Then there had been the man in black.

And there had been Marten.

Roland then talks in more detail about Marten like he did with Flagg. The man in black, oddly enough, is not elaborated on. Presumably Roland doesn't bother to do this because he knows they are both the same character.

This quote does not equate to Roland believing they are not the same being. As explained, it is merely Roland addressing each facet individually, as he continues to do so throughout the series.

At the time it was written, it clearly did. Trying to work it around is an example of 'fanwank', which is basically making up reasons to explain away errors.


Because as far as he knows, Walter is dead. He only knows he's still alive by the end of the fourth book. And remember, he knows that Marten is Walter. As such, if he suspects he will meet Marten again then he suspects that Walter is alive, being as they are the same creature.

Then why doesn't he reference "But the skeleton may not have been Walter" later on? Because King didn't intend it at the time.


Because it can now be suggested that Walter is communicating psychically with Roland at these points.

You can assume that but King clearly didn't write it as such. Not to mention Walter never communicated with Roland in such a fashion before or after, he just left messages via normal means.


I don't need to. I've already explained how Roland addresses each facet individually in the last three books despite knowing they are the same being eg Callahan's meeting with Walter, where everyone addresses that aspect of Legion as Walter.

It is also worth pointing out that Roland doesn't make explicate references to Walter and Marten being separate characters in the first 4 books. The most he does is list two different personas next to each other, as quoted above.

That is not the same thing.

Here is the full context in 'Drawing of the Three':


The gunslinger had known magicians, enchanters, and alchemists in his time. Some
had been clever charlatans, some stupid fakes in whom only people more stupid
than they were themselves could believe (but there had never been a shortage of
fools in the world, so even the stupid fakes survived; in fact most actually
thrived), and a small few actually able to do those black things of which men
whisperóthese few could call demons and the dead, could kill with a curse or
heal with strange potions. One of these men had been a creature the gunslinger
believed to be a demon himself, a creature that pretended to be a man and called
itself Flagg. He had seen him only briefly, and that had been near the end, as
chaos and the final crash approached his land. Hot on his heels had come two
young men who looked desperate and yet grim, men named Dennis and Thomas. These three had crossed only a tiny part of what had been a confused and confusing
time in the gunslinger's life, but he would never forget seeing Flagg change a
man who had irritated him into a howling dog. He remembered that well enough.
Then there had been the man in black.
And there had been Marten.

Right then and there, he refers to them as different men.

Another line from Wizard and Glass:


Neither Eldred Jonas nor the crone on the hill had been of
Marten's stature-nor even of Walter's-when it came to evil, but they had been
evil enough.

A small one but Roland is still thinking Walter as a separate figure to Marten here, a person lesser to Marten's evil.


It's not more noticeable at all. It just that a minority can be more vocal about things. The originals errors don't even make logical sense compared to the rest of the series. At least in the revised King hinted that Walter may be back from the "dead" at a later date. There are no such hints that Marten will be in the original, he's very clearly dead and then - BAM! - he's magically alive again with no foreshadowing or logical reasoning. That to me is a much more noticeable error that sticks out waaaaaay more than anything in the revised.

I also disagree about the originals errors being relatively small. The originals notion that Farson is a town instead of a person was the biggest continuity error that was ever given throughout the series. Roland saying things like "Dig" is rather more off putting than the Calla speak. The magazine thing is pretty notable. Roland not knowing who Sheb is despite meeting him in the flashback in the fourth book. Marten being stone dead despite him being treated as alive in the later books (starting from book 2). The Ageless Stranger being Maerlyn despite the fact that this turns out to be patently untrue. And of course, I'm not terribly fond of how the original was written, the revised is a much better book and fits in nicely with the remainder of the series.

Out of all those errors, 'Farson' is the only one that sticks out. The rest of the stuff is akin to Eddie's sister or Roland's grandfather having different names, etc. Stuff that most people don't notice. On thedarktower.net several times people who were reading the series starting with the Revised were asking questions about Walter being Marten because of all the inconsistencies. So this isn't just a case of disgruntled fans upset over the changes, it's also a source of confusion to newcomers.

[Tik]

At the time it was written, it clearly did. Trying to work it around is an example of 'fanwank', which is basically making up reasons to explain away errors.
Original intent is irrelevant. What matters is how it fits in with the entirety of the series now, not how it fits in with outdated editions.

Then why doesn't he reference "But the skeleton may not have been Walter" later on? Because King didn't intend it at the time.
Not at the time but this is what the term "retcon" is used for. Again, by this point in the story (taking the revised into consideration), Roland knows that Marten is Walter. Therefore any suspicions of Roland's that he may meet Marten again automatically includes the belief that Walter could be alive.

You can assume that but King clearly didn't write it as such. Not to mention Walter never communicated with Roland in such a fashion before or after, he just left messages via normal means.
But he does with other characters, like those in The Stand.

He never leaves another note with the number 19 on it either, doesn't mean he didn't do it that time. He only uses a tape recording to leave a message behind once as well, doesn't mean he couldn't do it again if he so wished. Etc.

Here is the full context in 'Drawing of the Three':
Yes, it's exactly as I said:

Then there had been the man in black.
And there had been Marten.
This is the sole mention of the man in black in that entire quote. Nowhere does it state "And Walter was definitely a different man from Marten, as Roland remembered seeing them both playing poker that one time".

Nowhere are the characters definitively described as being separate in such a way as to create huge, continuity destroying errors (for example, both characters being present and interacting in the same room).

Again, he is addressing each persona individually. One facet of Legion is Walter. Another of them is Marten. Nothing you are posting is really challenging this viewpoint.

Now if there are similar cases in the last three books I haven't noticed.
I have listed how Roland addresses them in turn. For example, when climbing the Tower he sees Marten in Gilead and specifically names him as Marten the Enchanter. He does not say "Marten, who is Walter, who is Flagg". Like the first few books, Roland is addressing each facet on their own terms.

Out of all those errors, 'Farson' is the only one that sticks out. The rest of the stuff is akin to Eddie's sister or Roland's grandfather having different names, etc. Stuff that most people don't notice. On thedarktower.net several times people who were reading the series starting with the Revised were asking questions about Walter being Marten because of all the inconsistencies.

And one could use fanwank to explain away most errors, I.E. Roland speaking in 70s slang is because he was channeling Stephen King at the time. But they're still errors.
Not really. You admit to the Farson thing but to me Marten's death, Shebs lack of history, and the Ageless Stranger being a completely different person in the later books are just as big.

In other words, to me, the original had far more errors that needed to be addressed than any other book. The revised cleared up the errors that bugged me the most.

[Steve]

I have never subscribed to King's handwaving of his errors, saying "Oh, it was in a world where Vietnam ended two years later." It's lazy and, to borrow a turn of phrase from Queen Victoria, a bit of a pile of bullshit. It just further convolutes the story. Methinks King's fact-checkers and proofreaders are often asleep at the wheel, and he should check with some of our forum regulars before putting out another book.

[Merlin1958]

I have never subscribed to King's handwaving of his errors, saying "Oh, it was in a world where Vietnam ended two years later." It's lazy and, to borrow a turn of phrase from Queen Victoria, a bit of a pile of bullshit. It just further convolutes the story. Methinks King's fact-checkers and proofreaders are often asleep at the wheel, and he should check with some of our forum regulars before putting out another book.

Bold words, but I can't say I object. He does do this in TDT series a few times.

[Empath of the White]

Lack of Speedy and Co in the final 3 DT books. I think I know why they weren't there, but it still bugged me that King would hint at them having a further role in the events of the Tower. Wasting the Tick-Tock Man bothered me as well.

[pathoftheturtle]

it still bugged me that King would hint at them having a further role in the events of the Tower.Well, you know, that was before his accident.

[BountyHunter]

Maybe Eddie's sister's full name is Selina Gloria Dean, or Gloria Selina Dean? ;)

[Jean]

I like this approach. It reflects a magnanimous desire to not only forgive the mistakes in DT, but also make them unhappen.

[Tik]

Why not, it's worked before!

I remember in thedarktower.net days having discussions about continuity errors, one of which was about Roland's grandfather. He turned out to have three - Alan Veriss (Gabrielle's father), Alaric Deschain (Steven's father), and Henry the Tall (Steven's father). My proposed solution was that Henry was Alaric's middle name and that he had simply become well known by the nickname "Henry the Tall". Some liked it, some didn't, the discussion petered out and life moved on.

Fast forward a few years and imagine my surprise when I opened up the official Marvel Gunslinger guidebooks/supplements, where you will discover Roland's grandfather and Steven's father is listed as Alaric "Henry" Deschain. Seems the people of this forum aren't the only ones to come up with these kind of solutions :)

[SDZald]

it still bugged me that King would hint at them having a further role in the events of the Tower.Well, you know, that was before his accident.

Yep the accident changed Mr. King and the path of the entire series. I don't mean that as a slight, how could a near death experience not change someone.

One very small one i haven't seen mentioned. One that doesn't really bug me.
In book 7 when he goes to draw his gun with his right hand, you would think by now he would be past that habit, to fight Mordred, if I remember right that is where it happened. He finds an empty holster and it dawns on him that Suzz has taken it with her through the door to meet fake Eddie and fake Jake so she can live in her fake world (sorry can't resist, it is the feel good moment in the series but if it were me the last thing I would want would be to live out my life with people I care so much about who really are NOT the ones I care about)
Anyway later on when he is hiding behind the ruin and shooting the snitches (sp) the King is tossing at him he thinks, " as long as he doesn't toss more then 12 he will be ok, he is sure he can get them all." Excuse me but he has one gun, and really only hand that can fire one gun, shouldn't he be worried about the King tossing more the 6 at a time?

[Jee]

You know, ive just started re-reading The Dark Tower books for what must be the 6th time, and id never noticed any mistakes until now. Ive only really noticed 2, but they have been really bugging me.

I finished The Drawing of the Three on a long train journey today, the swapping of East and West really got on my nerves.

I just started The Wastelands and literally on page 1 there is a mistake; On the first page, Roland and Susannah are having some target practice and the book states; "Roland brought back better than 300 rounds from the world where Eddie and Susannah had lived".
This is wrong. Roland purchased 4 boxes of 50 Winchester .45s, placing two in each pocket of Jack Morts coat, so 200 rounds maximum. Now, its not the mistake that annoys me, its the fact that we're on page 1 and already there's a mistake. I was also confused about the guns Roland took from the first two policemen, thinking to himself "one for Eddie, one for Odetta", is he referring specifically to the two policemen's guns? Because the weapons they were carrying would most likely have been standard issue .38 which Roland would have had no ammo for other than the bullets currently chambered minus the 2 rounds he fired at Katz drug store. So what's the point in taking them?