PDA

View Full Version : The Crimson King *spoilers*



Rolands_Father
12-05-2007, 01:34 PM
This is a place to express your opinions about what you expected the crimson king to say, do, act like in the 7 th book, or anything else you can think of asking. Were you disapointed, or satisfied, please respond!


:onfire:



Spoilers bound to follow!!!!!!!

Kevin
12-05-2007, 02:08 PM
This is a place to express your opinions about what you expected the crimson king to say, do, act like in the 7 th book, or anything else you can think of asking. Were you disapointed, or satisfied, please respond

http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/member.php?u=29

Erin
12-05-2007, 02:12 PM
Kevin...:rofl:

Seriously though, I was disappointed when we finally met the Crimson King. However, I think King meant for us to be a bit. The CK at the end was nothing like he was during the height of his reign.

When I think about the Crimson King, however, I like to picture him like Michael Whelan's drawing in DT7, sitting atop a throne of skulls with his dead followers at his feet. Good stuff. :)

Rolands_Father
12-05-2007, 02:18 PM
I agree, that drawing is just haunting!!!!!!!

Erin
12-05-2007, 02:21 PM
It's hanging on my living room wall. :D I love it.

Kevin
12-05-2007, 02:21 PM
To be serious I expected some magic. Something special. Why was Walter answering to this guy, honestly. He could've taken him six ways to Sunday in the state we see him in at the end of DT 7.

I was also half hoping for a gun battle between the two of them. That would've been (more) epic.

jayson
12-05-2007, 02:22 PM
I agree, that drawing is just haunting!!!!!!!

Between that image and the picture of him in his spider form in the comics, there are plenty of Crimson King nightmares to be had.

As for the topic at hand, I didn't have a problem with the representation of the King when we finally met him as he was supposed to be quite mad by this point and not at the height of his powers. My one issue is that I found the final battle between the CK and Roland/Patrick to be a bit anti-climatic in that Roland didn't get to do much besides target practice. Overall I don't think it detracted from the ending, but I do think that should DT ever come to pass in a film version, this battle might come off a bit anti-climatic.

:rose:

Wuducynn
12-05-2007, 02:49 PM
This is a place to express your opinions about what you expected the crimson king to say, do, act like in the 7 th book, or anything else you can think of asking. Were you disapointed, or satisfied, please respond

http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/member.php?u=29

Thank you.

Wuducynn
12-05-2007, 02:59 PM
Re-posting from the other thread -

I think the over-hyping came really from some readers points of view, but if you gather all the evidence in the series, from the characters point of view he was not over-hyped at all. Here is a were-spider demon god who has the very real potential of bringing down the Dark Tower itself, who has a vast army populating multiple worlds with who knows what kind of spiritual and technological abilities at his command. He blackened a land just because. He rode to the Dark Tower in a portable storm. He forced most of his castle to kill themselves just by wishing them to. When he speaks sometimes a child dies somewhere as a direct result.
And those are just things that we know about.

To expand on it...it makes sense if at the end he has been weakened to where Roland can deal with him, the Beams have been reborn and his Forge (probably the Big Combination) was destroyed and he is trapped and gone totally mad.
All of which Roland and his ka-tet have done, has undone his plans and caused him to be weakened opening Rolands way to the Tower and even then Roland almost got killed if you remember his last ditch jump for the rose to use for paint for the CK's eyes? Roland was also (rightfully) afraid at looking too long into Los's eyes lest he be mezmerized. So even in his weakened state he was still a force to be reckoned with.

Storyslinger
12-06-2007, 08:00 AM
Thats a damn good post CK

Wuducynn
12-10-2007, 04:43 PM
:harrier: Thank you.

LadyHitchhiker
03-21-2008, 10:54 AM
The Crimson King... is he truly a villain or has his mind just been warped from long term insanity? Is insanity truly an evil or just a chemical imbalance? Do you pity him or do you loathe him, or does he just annoy you? Let's have a discussion!

Letti
03-21-2008, 11:54 AM
Pity him? No way.
I think he is a villian. Hands down. He might have been a very good man once... :rolleyes: but that man is gone for long. For my part I don't think anyone was born evil maybe just in cheap cartoons and comics.

mia/susannah
03-21-2008, 12:08 PM
I think the Crimson King was very much a villan. I could not say he was born one or that he just went totally insane but he was a very bad villan

LadyHitchhiker
03-21-2008, 01:00 PM
I personally found him very annoying... Screaming a high-pitched "EEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" was grating on my nerves... :lol:

MonteGss
03-21-2008, 09:12 PM
I can't wait til CK sees this thread. :lol:

obscurejude
03-21-2008, 09:48 PM
I can't wait til CK sees this thread. :lol:

I too, am anxious.

Brice
03-22-2008, 06:02 AM
I suspect Matthew will be the first to call the Crimson King a hero. :lol:

alinda
03-22-2008, 06:31 AM
Just crazy got my vote, I cant get behind this characture.
( sorry Mattttqhew)

blackrose22
03-22-2008, 11:46 AM
The CK wants to rule and destroy everything in all the multiverses. He kills on whims and wants everybody to bow before him. Controls people to do his evil bidding. Revels in the all the pain and destruction that he has created so that definitely makes him a villain and an insane one at that.

Letti
03-22-2008, 11:51 AM
The CK wants to rule and destroy everything in all the multiverses. He kills on whims and wants everybody to bow before him. Controls people to do his evil bidding. Revels in the all the pain and destruction that he has created so that definitely makes him a villain and an insane one at that.

I don't really see why you can see the nice cuddly and fluffy side of him...

blackrose22
03-22-2008, 01:09 PM
The CK wants to rule and destroy everything in all the multiverses. He kills on whims and wants everybody to bow before him. Controls people to do his evil bidding. Revels in the all the pain and destruction that he has created so that definitely makes him a villain and an insane one at that.

I don't really see why you can see the nice cuddly and fluffy side of him...

Because I just see him as a totally evil sick sadistic SOB!:scared:

LadyHitchhiker
03-22-2008, 01:22 PM
I can't wait til CK sees this thread. :lol:

I too, am anxious.
I know he'll have an opinion or two ;)

cozener
03-22-2008, 04:14 PM
Definately intended to be a villain. I'm absolutely sure on this one.

LadyHitchhiker
04-20-2008, 01:08 PM
I can't believe he hasn't bothered to post in here :(

Babymordred121
07-05-2008, 02:08 PM
He was completely evil to begin with, and reigned in complete evil for centuries. His insanity was a rather recent event, but all it's done is warp his character; he's always been evil, but now he's crazy and evil.

LadyHitchhiker
07-05-2008, 04:00 PM
I think it would be interesting if there was more of a back story

like with Randall Flagg

he was born a man, but he doesn't remember much of that...

I wonder if it's like that with ck?

Letti
07-06-2008, 01:18 PM
I guess you can find much more about him in the comics, Liz.

LadyHitchhiker
07-09-2008, 02:50 PM
Yeah I'm waiting..... I am still getting the comics every few months when Iget to travel an hour to Escanaba to pick up them from the closest comic store...

But so far no luck....

No illuminations illuminating to answer my questions...

LemurJones
07-09-2008, 04:25 PM
I don't think being crazy is any excuse for doing evil things.

Like, alright. Jeffrey Dahmer? Definitely crazy. But also definitely evil. No matter how crazy you are, you still have a responsibility as a human being.

The Crimson King might have been a good man once- or he might not have been. Bad people don't just start out good and then become bad when they reach maturity. For all we know, CK might have been a spoiled little sociopathic fuck when he was a kid, and then had hundreds of thousands of years to rot in his own evil head. Or he might have just been a normal or average person with a chip on his shoulder (like Flagg, pretty much) and instead of letting go of things, he just progressively got meaner and darker.

I think that as an agent of chaos in the universe, that CK's existence was just as necessary as Roland's, but instead of doing what was responsible and healthy for the universe he chose to pursue greed. So that makes him a villain.

cozener
07-09-2008, 04:51 PM
I don't think being crazy is any excuse for doing evil things.

Like, alright. Jeffrey Dahmer? Definitely crazy. But also definitely evil. No matter how crazy you are, you still have a responsibility as a human being. Eh...no. I don't think you, I, or any other sane person can say that. The whole thing about being truly insane is that your mind has stepped outside of the boundaries of rational thought. Civilizations ideas of good and evil, decent or indecent, smart and stupid, wise and foolish...have all gone out the window. I do concede, however, that some people are more insane than others and some insane people do know damn well that what theyre doing is wrong. But I promise you that there are plenty of nutcases that have left our ideas of right and wrong far behind them and have formulated a completely different view of good and evil.

I do agree that not everyone starts out good. I think there are people out there that are born bad...they have no capacity for understanding the pain of others. But I do believe most people do start out good and grow into evil and almost always before they've even realized what was happening. A soul goes cheap when its being sold a little at a time.

LemurJones
07-09-2008, 05:03 PM
I don't think being crazy is any excuse for doing evil things.

Like, alright. Jeffrey Dahmer? Definitely crazy. But also definitely evil. No matter how crazy you are, you still have a responsibility as a human being. Eh...no. I don't think you, I, or any other sane person can say that.

Not to pick a fight, but as someone who's had to grow up with and live with someone who classifies as definitely crazy and probably evil, I'm almost a hundred percent sure that I'm a sane person who qualifies to say that.

There are people who are definitely crazy- out of their minds, delusional, constantly hallucinating- and yet are not evil. They don't do anything that hurts anyone, even in the middle of their craziest craziness, except for maybe themselves.

If you believe that people who are crazy and do evil things can't help it, then you might as well just kill them all off instead of letting them get to the point where their psychoses give them allowance to do that kind of thing.

Jean
07-09-2008, 08:12 PM
Definitely crazy. But also definitely evil. No matter how crazy you are, you still have a responsibility as a human being.
I am inclined to think the same

Also, I didn't vote, because I don't see the only option that would suit me: namely, "yes, he is", without qualifications. I am not satisfied with "mean mean man" because I am not sure he is a man.

Letti
07-09-2008, 10:42 PM
Also, I didn't vote, because I don't see the only option that would suit me: namely, "yes, he is", without qualifications. I am not satisfied with "mean mean man" because I am not sure he is a man.

The same here.
Liz, don't you think that we should give some more options to the poll? It's an important and good question.
(I voted for mean mean man but it's far from my opinion.)

cozener
07-10-2008, 06:29 AM
I don't think being crazy is any excuse for doing evil things.

Like, alright. Jeffrey Dahmer? Definitely crazy. But also definitely evil. No matter how crazy you are, you still have a responsibility as a human being. Eh...no. I don't think you, I, or any other sane person can say that.

Not to pick a fight, but as someone who's had to grow up with and live with someone who classifies as definitely crazy and probably evil, I'm almost a hundred percent sure that I'm a sane person who qualifies to say that.

There are people who are definitely crazy- out of their minds, delusional, constantly hallucinating- and yet are not evil. They don't do anything that hurts anyone, even in the middle of their craziest craziness, except for maybe themselves. :lol: A debate is not a fight lemur. Although we may be in the wrong place to discuss it...well...maybe not. I think this discussion is relevant to the topic.

I don't feel that knowing one crazy person, no matter how intimately, qualifies you to judge insanity on the whole...nope. Like I said before, there are different degrees of insanity. I'm sure this person you're talking about is exactly what you say but there are others that aren't...not even close. Depending on the situation, I'm tempted to say that I'd sooner accept that delusions that lead to violence are manifestations of some kind of supernatural evil, ie: the Devil, rather than that the insane person himself is evil. (not that I accept that either)

But here’s another question about the nature of evil. If an insane person really thinks that going out and killing babies is going to save the world is he evil? His actions are certainly evil but his intentions are pure. I say he's just a sick bastard that needs to, at the very least, be locked away. Of course, I realize that people use the insanity defense to get out of being sent to prison and/or executed but just because many if not most insanity pleas are bogus, it doesn't mean they all are.

Then you have the “end justifies the means” argument. Is it evil to commit evil deeds if the end result is for the greater good? Was the Crimson King cognizant of the fact that he was evil or did he really feel that the best thing for the universe was for it to cease to exist?


If you believe that people who are crazy and do evil things can't help it, then you might as well just kill them all off instead of letting them get to the point where their psychoses give them allowance to do that kind of thing.I am not suggesting that insanity should be a license to commit murder or any other crime nor am I suggesting (nor would I ever suggest) that insane people or anyone else be killed for any reason other than self defense. The only thing I am arguing is that there are some crazy people that cannot be held accountable for their actions. In saying that they cannot be held accountable I am not saying that they shouldn't be confined to a place where they can't harm anyone else.

If a crazy person took a sledgehammer to a fountain drink machine in a gas station because they thought the shop owner was poisoning people with it we'd say he's crazy and needs to be committed. But if that same crazy person kills the shop owner because of that same delusion this makes him cognizant, evil, and accountable?

LadyHitchhiker
07-11-2008, 03:10 PM
I do think good people can go crazy and go bad. My mom did for a while. Now she's medicated and she's cool, but she could go over the bend again. She used to throw me down the stairs and tear out chunks of my hair, and see her deceased brother walking through the grocery store and call me vile names. Now we're the best of friends.

Empath of the White
07-20-2008, 05:35 PM
I think at first dear baby Los was confused. The role he was born into wasn't exactly normal (not even by Prim standards, I'd think) or simple. He had a decent motive but he used the wrong means to accomplish his goal. Plus the consequences of acheiving his goal through his chosen means didn't seem to register with him, even once. Just look at the ways the Crimson King attempted to bring down the Tower:

1.) Kidnapping children and sending the rejects into an irradiated Hell (assuming the Forge was in the Discordia).

2.) Employing a cannibalistic geezer.

3.) Ensnaring the mind and the "goodness" of a family man: Deepneau from Insomnia.

4.) Releasing toxins to create the darkness of Thunderclap in a probable attempt to halt Roland's progess.

So I think very very early in his life, Los wasn't good and wasn't bad. I think it was later that he learned of his purpose. Note: I haven't read the backstory segments from the Gunslinger Born arc so the accuracy of this last statement may be off.

Tony_A
07-30-2008, 05:54 AM
He's evil. No two ways about it. He may have been insane at the end, but we see that in a lot of megalomaniacs in reality.

theBeamisHome
07-30-2008, 11:13 AM
well i say he was evil and he just got insane. but i don't think you can call every evil person insane... Charles Manson.... like the epitome of evil, but i'm not sure i think he's actually insane. of course he doesn't apply to anyone's standard of a normal human being i don't think, but that doesn't actually make him insane. CK... was evil, i think... and then he just went crazy.

Brainslinger
08-04-2008, 08:51 AM
I chose the last three. I'm not totally certain of the latter due to his demon nature, but I'm also aware that Mia was a demon of the prim, yet showed empathy before she became physically humanized or possessed Susannah. I.e. she could have easily seduced and killed the father and taken the baby for her own. She knew it wasn't in the baby's best interest though, and she let them go.

Los on the other hand is part human, the very son of Arthur Eld himself. His demonic side might have made him more inclined to evil than a human, but is it possible his human side could have redressed the balance? Mordred showed signs of higher feeling and humanity after all (although I do think he's more emotionally complex than his father) so its possible CK did too. I don't really believe that mind, I think he's pretty much evil through and through, worse than Walter even, but it's a possibility.

LadyHitchhiker
08-06-2008, 01:30 PM
Since the triple homicide in our town I have thought a lot about good and evil....

And I must say I am even more uncertain about my opinions of good and evil now. Scott Johnson has broken a trust inside of me. A safety that I felt living in this town. Talking to a lonely spacey person and not feeling nervous about it.

Maybe as the case develops I will develop deeper insights into the insanity plea.... into good and evil, and to what my opinion of this is. But he is just one example.

jayson
08-06-2008, 01:55 PM
I think there's a huge difference between "evil" as a concept in a fictional work and the notion of "evil" in real life. Simply put, I don't think there is such a thing as an "evil" person in real life. This is not to say that there are not people who commit heinous acts, but I don't think this is due to some overarching concept of evil.

LadyHitchhiker
08-06-2008, 02:24 PM
I have a hard time defining between SK's character and real characters, because in many cases, the characters in these books are more real to me than a lot of people I know in real life, because they have more depth, or because I can see more of them than others allow me to see into them. I hope that doesn't sound crazy./

Gantoad
09-12-2008, 07:29 PM
Now we know that CK is crazy and evil, but that is not enough in reasons to me. It is mentioned about a pact with a higher (evil) being if the DT were toppled. It is also mentioned about CK gaining his own dominion over the resulting chaos and darkness once the Tower falls. And of course the notion of Twins, and CK being Roland's antithesis. But is that all of the reasons?

Maybe CK was a gunslinger, or perhaps a better term is crusader? Maybe CK went on the Quest before in far older days, and maybe he's suffered the Loop too? What if the CK remembered each previous loop? It's the sort of dejavu to inspire madness, and resentment for the Tower. I could see him getting to the point where he feels that there is no point to it all, that if this (the loop) is all that there is, then none of it matters. Why value human life when there's always a respawn waiting around the corner? So he grows to hate the Tower, trapped as he is by Ka. Maybe CK wants to be free of this perpetual torment of sameness and changes Quests, instead seeking to destroy the Tower so that he might be finally free? And of course once one begins the hating, it eats away at the heart, removing the original motivations and leaving only the taint, and CK becomes the antagonist we come to know and love(hate)?

Thoughts, disagreements, anyone?

BeDaN
09-12-2008, 07:40 PM
First off excellent post Gantoad. I think the idea of there being a higher being isn't far fetched, I'm not sure King ever wrote about the origins of CK, but then again I havn't read anywhere close to all his books. I'm really torn on this subject, personally I don't think he was a gunslinger. My personal opinion is he was a creature of intelligence who somehow escaped the prim or todash space , I do think that there are creatures of the prim and todash space who might very well make CK look very weak strength-wise. I would love to see a book on his origins and also what happened to Patrick during those lost years. . .but that's for another post other than this :evil:

Brainslinger
09-14-2008, 02:16 PM
One of Robin Furth's stories in the back of one of the Gunslinger Born comics does deal with the origins of the Crimson King.

Spoilers ahead:
Arthur Eld was seduced by a demon of the prim, the Crimson Queen. She was one of the powerful demons called, the Great Ones - not to be confused with the Great Old Ones, who are human - powerful demons usually in some kind of giant bug-like form. In her case her true form was (no prizes for guessing) a huge spider, but she took on the form of a beautiful woman dressed in red to seduce Arthur.

The story is a lot more involved than that as you could imagine but in short, Arthur was found in the arms of a giant spider the next day and rescued by one of Eld's knights (he had the same surname as a prominent character in the series by the way.) The spider fled, wounded but impregnated, and months later gave birth to a hybrid son, The Crimson King.

I won't spoil it further except to say, it's an interesting tale if you ever get to read it in that certain glass globes and a demonic wizard feature in the plot.

Of course, whether or not you accept it depends on whether you allow for the comics being a legitimate continuation of the Dark Tower storyline, albeit a back-story continuation.) Either way, he was always destined to attempt to usurp power over that world (and probably others as well.), and likely the Tower as well.

The idea that he has been looping as well, and his insanity was a result is a very interesting one, although (in light of above) I doubt is the case. I think his insanity is as much to do with the restoration of the beams, his advanced age and his origins bear in mind he is partly a creature of chaos, the prim being the substance of creation before the Tower brought it into order and formed the worlds. Partly coming from the prim, it's not too much of a stretch that he'd want to destroy that order and return to the Discordia from whence he came... at least in part.

Tik
09-24-2008, 03:52 PM
An intresting topic and one, I feel, that could be answered by looking at the very nature of the Red King itself. To do that, we need to look at the information we get about the Red King from Insomnia, Black House, and the comics. I will be posting quotes about the Crimson King from these books so I will put my post within spoiler tags to be on the safe side.

In Black House Parkus/Speedy states that the Crimson King is "pent in a cell at the top of the Tower, but he has another manifestation, every bit as real, and this lives in Can-tah Abbalah - the Court of the Crimson King." Like Jack says, the Red King is in "Two places at once."

The second manifestation is Los' the Red King, the creature Roland faced at the end of his quest. We know this because Los' was the one who dwelt in Le Casse Roi Russe, the court and castle of the King. As Jack says in Black House, the Crimson King "is presumably hanging out in his court (the part of him that isn't imprisoned in Speedys Dark Tower that is)."

We learn of this manifestations origin from the comics (read Brainslingers post above about Los' birth).

This raises some questions. Firstly, how does the Crimson King acquire a second manifstation? I believe Insomnia holds the answer....it states that:

"The Crimson King jumps from body to body and generation to generation like a kid using stepping stones to cross a brook."

This implies that the Red King hijacked the body of Arthur Elds and the Crimson Queens offspring, deeming it a useful body to have. This means that Los' the Crimson King is mearly an avatar. But who - and what - is the true Crimson King imprisioned in the Tower since the beginning of creation?

Well, the comics state that "Gan was not the only demiurge to arise from that primordial magical soup." They go on to say:

"...that which came after the bright light of Gan dragged like a heavy shadow. What bubbled up from the depths of the Prim with a great burping stench of decay was the force of the Outer Dark,"

If Gan is the White and the Purpose then the true Crimson King is the Outer Dark and the Random. This fits in with Rando Thoughtful, the Crimson Kings Minister of State, saying that "Big Red always was Gans crazy side." When Stephen King talks about how the two big cosmics (Gan and the Crimson King) were fighting over him, he mentions a name a few times that isn't repeated anywhere else. Heres an example of this:

"I turned aside from Dis, I should be able to turn aside from Gan as well."

So Dis seems to be the name of the true Crimson King pent in the Tower, the being whos Outer Dark and Random influence filters down from his place in the Tower throughout all the other levels of creation. And that, I feel, is why the Crimson King wants to destroy the Tower....because his influence is limited so long as reality exists. In Black House Parkus states that "the King has been trying to destroy the Tower and set himself free for time out of mind. Forever, mayhap."

Black House also goes on to say:

"If he - or it - destroys the Tower, wont that defeat his purpose? Won't he destroy his physical being in the process?"

"Just the opposite: he'll set it free to wander what will then be chaos...."

So, basically, the Crimson King wants to destroy the Tower so that his true self can rule the Discordia without any limitations to his power.


Gantoads post mentions a pact with a higher being. I believe this is refering to Mia when she says that Los' has been "promised his own kingdom, where he'll rule forever, tasting his own special pleasures." She goes on to say that she doesn't know who made such a promise, that maybe "this is only what he has promised himself."

To me, this sounds like the true tower pent Crimson King (Dis) promising things to the weaker second manifestation of the Crimson King (Los'). In essence, he has promised himself these things.

Matt
09-26-2008, 01:28 PM
To me, this sounds like the true tower pent Crimson King (Dis) promising things to the weaker second manifestation of the Crimson King (Los'). In essence, he has promised himself these things.

That was a great post Tik and the end there is really insightful. I learn something new everyday and love the perspective.

Empath of the White
09-26-2008, 06:26 PM
An intresting topic and one, I feel, that could be answered by looking at the very nature of the Red King itself. To do that, we need to look at the information we get about the Red King from Insomnia, Black House, and the comics. I will be posting quotes about the Crimson King from these books so I will put my post within spoiler tags to be on the safe side.

In Black House Parkus/Speedy states that the Crimson King is "pent in a cell at the top of the Tower, but he has another manifestation, every bit as real, and this lives in Can-tah Abbalah - the Court of the Crimson King." Like Jack says, the Red King is in "Two places at once."

The second manifestation is Los' the Red King, the creature Roland faced at the end of his quest. We know this because Los' was the one who dwelt in Le Casse Roi Russe, the court and castle of the King. As Jack says in Black House, the Crimson King "is presumably hanging out in his court (the part of him that isn't imprisoned in Speedys Dark Tower that is)."

We learn of this manifestations origin from the comics (read Brainslingers post above about Los' birth).

This raises some questions. Firstly, how does the Crimson King acquire a second manifstation? I believe Insomnia holds the answer....it states that:

"The Crimson King jumps from body to body and generation to generation like a kid using stepping stones to cross a brook."

This implies that the Red King hijacked the body of Arthur Elds and the Crimson Queens offspring, deeming it a useful body to have. This means that Los' the Crimson King is mearly an avatar. But who - and what - is the true Crimson King imprisioned in the Tower since the beginning of creation?

Well, the comics state that "Gan was not the only demiurge to arise from that primordial magical soup." They go on to say:

"...that which came after the bright light of Gan dragged like a heavy shadow. What bubbled up from the depths of the Prim with a great burping stench of decay was the force of the Outer Dark,"

If Gan is the White and the Purpose then the true Crimson King is the Outer Dark and the Random. This fits in with Rando Thoughtful, the Crimson Kings Minister of State, saying that "Big Red always was Gans crazy side." When Stephen King talks about how the two big cosmics (Gan and the Crimson King) were fighting over him, he mentions a name a few times that isn't repeated anywhere else. Heres an example of this:

"I turned aside from Dis, I should be able to turn aside from Gan as well."

So Dis seems to be the name of the true Crimson King pent in the Tower, the being whos Outer Dark and Random influence filters down from his place in the Tower throughout all the other levels of creation. And that, I feel, is why the Crimson King wants to destroy the Tower....because his influence is limited so long as reality exists. In Black House Parkus states that "the King has been trying to destroy the Tower and set himself free for time out of mind. Forever, mayhap."

Black House also goes on to say:

"If he - or it - destroys the Tower, wont that defeat his purpose? Won't he destroy his physical being in the process?"

"Just the opposite: he'll set it free to wander what will then be chaos...."

So, basically, the Crimson King wants to destroy the Tower so that his true self can rule the Discordia without any limitations to his power.


Gantoads post mentions a pact with a higher being. I believe this is refering to Mia when she says that Los' has been "promised his own kingdom, where he'll rule forever, tasting his own special pleasures." She goes on to say that she doesn't know who made such a promise, that maybe "this is only what he has promised himself."

To me, this sounds like the true tower pent Crimson King (Dis) promising things to the weaker second manifestation of the Crimson King (Los'). In essence, he has promised himself these things.


A very interesting theory. Going by this theory we could assume that the Crimson King's "true" form still sits near the top of the Tower?

Brainslinger
09-26-2008, 06:43 PM
A very interesting theory. Going by this theory we could assume that the Crimson King's "true" form still sits at the top of the Tower?

I'm not convinced he'd be at the very top (despite what the other books have stated.) as I think that is associated as the place of God. (I'm not sure that association is entirely correct either mind, as I think God/Gan (if they're the same, which again isn't certain) would permeate the entire Tower, not just the top.)

The idea of the Crimson King being a dual entity does explain discrepancies between the books that's for sure. I'm not entirely convinced in that a) Black House stated that the King's physical presence was in the tower, which suggests the part that is elsewhere (i.e. in the forge of the king... or his castle) isn't physical. We of course know it is.

He's certainly more than what you see though, hence Patrick's need to paint the King's eyes, the doorway to the soul, red to capture him properly.

I had another theory, which got around the discrepancies and explained the painting part, but it's pretty confused in some ways.

Tik
09-28-2008, 08:05 AM
That was a great post Tik and the end there is really insightful. I learn something new everyday and love the perspective.
Why, thankie-sai!

A very interesting theory. Going by this theory we could assume that

the Crimson King's "true" form still sits at the top of the Tower?
Indeed. O'course, when it says

top of the Tower, that doesn't mean the top Room of the Tower. Like Brainslinger says, that Room is where God is rumoured to be. In Insomnia the little doctors (long-timers) state that the Kings Random influence probably stops at a certain level:

"...perhaps there is no Random beyond a certain level; we suspect that may be the case, but we have no real way of telling."

That means the Kings true form, Dis, is at least one level/room below the very top Room. Still at the top of the Tower, but not in that last Room where God is rumoured to be.


Even though Dis is still there (he has to be, the Random is a fundemental part of existance) his one chance of escaping and destroying the Tower is now gone by the end of DT7. He will forever be imprisoned there. I find it quite fitting that Dis, the true Crimson King, is forever imprisoned at the top of the Tower whereas Los' the Crimson King becomes trapped on a balcony at the bottom of the Tower. Both manifestations are, by the end of DT7, Tower Pent.

Letti
10-07-2008, 11:46 PM
Hey darlings... just one thing. You needn't use spoiler tags here. I love to see them anywhere around the forum but here. :)

CK as an ex-gunslinger... it doesn't work for me at all. The idea is really interesting (and shocking) but for me - no way.
We don't get enough information from the books to know the history of the CK and I know there is much more information in the comics still I imagine the CK as an ex-human who was crazy about power who lost or sold his soul many times and became some kind of powerful soulless monster.

Empath of the White
10-08-2008, 06:52 AM
Recall the King's history: half-human, half-Prim demon. I have to wonder if the drastic differences in the genetics--not sure if this is a good term when speaking of the Prim demons...maybe bloodlines?--would affect the sanity of Los from the get-go. Its like human and mundane meets seemingly insane divinity. That should lead to one conflicted child.

Brainslinger
10-08-2008, 10:44 AM
I thought I'd better use the spoiler tags mainly as I was referring to comic material, but I agree. Anything book related certainly doesn't need spoiler tags here, considering everyone should have read all the books by the time they come here (unless they don't mind being spoiled.)

Silvermoth
11-07-2008, 08:53 PM
Fasinating concept of the Crimson King as a failed gunslinger. Wasn't it written that he too was descended from Arthur Eld in one of the books? Or (just chucking it out there) the King is Arthur Eld!

SigTauGimp
11-07-2008, 09:34 PM
Tik's posts absolutely blew my mind. :scared:

I've never really thought all that much about who the Crimson King actually WAS until reading it...very fascinating stuff. :thumbsup:

LadyHitchhiker
11-08-2008, 02:20 PM
If Crimson King is a failed gunslinger, does that mean Roland could end up taking HIS place eventually?

SigTauGimp
11-08-2008, 11:23 PM
But Roland isn't a failed gunslinger...although, it would be a neat idea to think that, what with all the time loops, paradoxes, and levels of the Tower, somehow, after all of his many repeats of his journey, he became aware of his failures, and turned bitter....finally becoming the Crimson King...I know that there are waaayyy too many plot discrepancies for it to actually work, but it's neat to think about...kinda makes ya dizzy.:scared:

Silvermoth
11-08-2008, 11:46 PM
I have more faith in Roland then that. I'm sure theres a critical part of the Crimson King's mentality that doesn't exist in Roland's which would stop him from being the apothesis of evil the way the King did

pathoftheturtle
11-18-2008, 08:05 AM
It's a paradox, obviously, if his motivation for trying to destroy the Tower is his frustration at the results of his failure to destroy the Tower. Which came first?
Quite possible, though, I wot: although his actions are a key factor causing the loop, he may refuse to accept any responsiblity and so get more angry at Gan and lash out more, thus giving himself ever more to be angry about.

The Dark Tower itself is often said to be a dual entity, in that it is an actual tower on one world and also is the multiverse, with all worlds on its various levels. I think that "the top of the Tower" is just another way of saying "the final loop" and that the "true form" of the CK basically is all of the versions of him taken together in a transcendent, mystical whole.

Wuducynn
11-19-2008, 02:34 PM
The Dark Tower itself is often said to be a dual entity, in that it is an actual tower on one world and also is the multiverse, with all worlds on its various levels. I think that "the top of the Tower" is just another way of saying "the final loop" and that the "true form" of the CK basically is all of the versions of him taken together in a transcendent, mystical whole.

I strongly agree. Very perceptive of you as usual. I think that's what the part in Black House is referring to.

Brainslinger
11-19-2008, 03:41 PM
The Dark Tower itself is often said to be a dual entity, in that it is an actual tower on one world and also is the multiverse, with all worlds on its various levels. I think that "the top of the Tower" is just another way of saying "the final loop" and that the "true form" of the CK basically is all of the versions of him taken together in a transcendent, mystical whole.

I strongly agree. Very perceptive of you as usual. I think that's what the part in Black House is referring to.

That might explain why Patrick had to paint the eyes red rather than 'capture him' the usual way he did everyone else. To gain the essence of what he is, more than just the bloke on the balcony.

Wuducynn
11-19-2008, 05:39 PM
That might explain why Patrick had to paint the eyes red rather than 'capture him' the usual way he did everyone else. To gain the essence of what he is, more than just the bloke on the balcony.

Right-on. I think that is what Patrick meant by "he darkles and tincts".

pathoftheturtle
11-20-2008, 08:23 AM
Yar, and the fact that one of the roses had to be used along with the blood of Eld in order to get the color supports the idea that CK's experience with the Tower is what makes him more than mortal.

To clarify my points, though, I'm not so sure about this part:
...Maybe CK was a gunslinger, or perhaps a better term is crusader? Maybe CK went on the Quest before in far older days, and maybe he's suffered the Loop too? ...He's suffering the loop, alright, but I'm okay with the idea that what we saw could be more or less the first time. I don't think he was ever much like Roland.

Wuducynn
11-20-2008, 09:19 AM
I believe the CK's immortality comes from the fact that he was born part "Great One" of the Prim. Definitely never a gunslinger. He was born to destroy the Tower not to defend it.

jayson
11-20-2008, 10:55 AM
I believe the CK's immortality comes from the fact that he was born part "Great One" of the Prim. Definitely never a gunslinger. He was born to destroy the Tower not to defend it.

Agreed. He may be descended from a Gunslinger parent, but that's where it ends.

LadyHitchhiker
11-23-2008, 07:18 AM
I think it's funny they're named the prim. Prim and proper...

pathoftheturtle
11-24-2008, 08:01 AM
I believe the CK's immortality comes from the fact that he was born part "Great One" of the Prim. ...Well, I really appreciate your earlier compliment, even if we don't agree totally. I do think that that is part of it, too, though. The puzzler is: Did his origin cause his destiny or did his destiny cause his origin?

Wuducynn
11-24-2008, 08:03 AM
It's sure something to think on.

Darkthoughts
12-28-2008, 11:55 AM
Renamed the thread for general discussion of the character.

Kes
01-21-2009, 11:04 PM
Okay...my apologies if this has already been discussed. And I hope I got the whole spoiler thing correct. (Mods feel free to fix it if I didn't).

I did a search but couldn't find anything that seemed the same as what I'm about to suggest...


So...one of the things that I thought was left rather undefined in the series is the Crimson King.

It occurs to me that perhaps the Crimson King, Stephen King, and Roland are perhaps all aspects of each other. (It's said in one of the books that Roland looks enough like King to be his father.)

Could the Crimson King be a multiversional Roland who went mad? How else could the Crimson King even have accessed the Tower at all without a sigul of Eld?

This would certainly explain Mordred's parentage and how BOTH could be his father....

Thoughts? I'm still working this all out in my head.

Letti
01-22-2009, 12:28 AM
Wow, what an interesting idea.
No, I don't think that Roland and the Crimson King are the same person or twins or anything like that. They exist in the same universe at the same time. We could think that Crimson King is from another universe and he used to be Roland once somewhere far far away... but it's such a strong guess I don't think it stands. No evidence.
I don't think the fact that they both are the fathers of Mordred can be called and proof either because in a world where people can hide in someone's mind (Mia in Susannah's) be pregnant there and then like a fax machine leave the body to deliver the baby... it's not a big thing to make two sperms become one.
Anyway Roland isn't that type of person who just goes mad. When he was fighting with the memory of Jake (there was a boy there was no boy) he could hold on for long. To sum up for me it's out of the question but it's a damn interesting question.

It's true we don't know much about the CK in the DT books but you can find lots of information about him in the comics.

flaggwalkstheline
01-22-2009, 11:29 AM
I do like the comics explanation of the CK but Im not one 100 percent sure? if it's canonical, I suppose it is since I think all the supplements in the back of the issues are canonical while the issues themselves are not, sheemy a robot? farson not just another disguise for flagg/ walter/ marten? puh-leez

Kes
01-22-2009, 11:31 AM
Now I haven't read the comics. Is it worth it?

jayson
01-22-2009, 11:38 AM
Are they worth it? Yes, for the most part they are enjoyable and the art alone is worth it.

Are they canon? The more I think about it, the more I trend towards saying no. Now that doesn't mean it can't be incorporated into one's individual interpretation of the series, but I don't think it's definitively canon as far as objectively answering any questions.

Still, if you are interested in some interesting theories about the CK, there is much of it to be found in the comics.

Kes
01-22-2009, 02:33 PM
Thanks R of G...I shall pick some up and begin to feed my obsession again:)

Matt
01-22-2009, 03:19 PM
Yep, the comics are worth it for sure. Just to see a visual of some of this stuff makes the cover price acceptable imo.

Chap
01-22-2009, 04:47 PM
regarding the comics: as long as King has reviewed them and accepted the content - I consider them canon :)

jayson
01-22-2009, 07:04 PM
But do we know for a fact that King reviews them or does he give Ms. Furth carte blanche to do what she will with the characters?

I've yet to see any confirmation anywhere that King reviews every last thing which appears in the comics.

Like I said, I think the decision of whether to accept them as canon rests with each of us individually (unless King ever says officially that they are or are not).

obscurejude
01-22-2009, 10:18 PM
Again, canon means a "rod used for measuring." We judge the comics by the already established canon of the book series by the author.

:beats chest:

We must recover the nuances of the English language. :)

Tik
01-23-2009, 05:41 AM
I replied to a similer topic a few months ago. I'll just copy and paste it here to see what you all think:

An intresting topic and one, I feel, that could be answered by looking at the very nature of the Red King itself. To do that, we need to look at the information we get about the Red King from Insomnia, Black House, and the comics. I will be posting quotes about the Crimson King from these books so I will put my post within spoiler tags to be on the safe side.

In Black House Parkus/Speedy states that the Crimson King is "pent in a cell at the top of the Tower, but he has another manifestation, every bit as real, and this lives in Can-tah Abbalah - the Court of the Crimson King." Like Jack says, the Red King is in "Two places at once."

The second manifestation is Los' the Red King, the creature Roland faced at the end of his quest. We know this because Los' was the one who dwelt in Le Casse Roi Russe, the court and castle of the King. As Jack says in Black House, the Crimson King "is presumably hanging out in his court (the part of him that isn't imprisoned in Speedys Dark Tower that is)."

We learn of this manifestations origin from the comics....that, basically, it was the result of a Great Old One (the Crimson Queen) raping Arthur Eld.

This raises some questions. Firstly, how does the Crimson King acquire a second manifstation? I believe Insomnia holds the answer....it states that:

"The Crimson King jumps from body to body and generation to generation like a kid using stepping stones to cross a brook."

This implies that the Red King hijacked the body of Arthur Elds and the Crimson Queens offspring, deeming it a useful body to have. This means that Los' the Crimson King is mearly an avatar. But who - and what - is the true Crimson King imprisioned in the Tower since the beginning of creation?

Well, the comics state that "Gan was not the only demiurge to arise from that primordial magical soup." They go on to say:

"...that which came after the bright light of Gan dragged like a heavy shadow. What bubbled up from the depths of the Prim with a great burping stench of decay was the force of the Outer Dark,"

If Gan is the White and the Purpose then the true Crimson King is the Outer Dark and the Random. This fits in with Rando Thoughtful, the Crimson Kings Minister of State, saying that "Big Red always was Gans crazy side." When Stephen King talks about how the two big cosmics (Gan and the Crimson King) were fighting over him, he mentions a name a few times that isn't repeated anywhere else. Heres an example of this:

"I turned aside from Dis, I should be able to turn aside from Gan as well."

So Dis seems to be the name of the true Crimson King pent in the Tower, the being whos Outer Dark and Random influence filters down from his place in the Tower throughout all the other levels of creation. And that, I feel, is why the Crimson King wants to destroy the Tower....because his influence is limited so long as reality exists. In Black House Parkus states that "the King has been trying to destroy the Tower and set himself free for time out of mind. Forever, mayhap."

Black House also goes on to say:

"If he - or it - destroys the Tower, wont that defeat his purpose? Won't he destroy his physical being in the process?"

"Just the opposite: he'll set it free to wander what will then be chaos...."

So, basically, the Crimson King wants to destroy the Tower so that his true self can rule the Discordia without any limitations to his power.


The Dark Tower 7 mentions the Crimson Kings pact with a higher being. I'm refering to Mia when she says that Los' has been "promised his own kingdom, where he'll rule forever, tasting his own special pleasures." She goes on to say that she doesn't know who made such a promise, that maybe "this is only what he has promised himself."

To me, this sounds like the true tower pent Crimson King (Dis) promising things to the weaker second manifestation of the Crimson King (Los'). In essence, he has promised himself these things.

Chap
01-23-2009, 08:10 AM
But do we know for a fact that King reviews them or does he give Ms. Furth carte blanche to do what she will with the characters?

I've yet to see any confirmation anywhere that King reviews every last thing which appears in the comics.

Like I said, I think the decision of whether to accept them as canon rests with each of us individually (unless King ever says officially that they are or are not).

I think I've read that everything goes through King before being published. That he has final say at least. Don't remember where I read it though :cowboy:

Kes
01-23-2009, 10:49 AM
I replied to a similer topic a few months ago. I'll just copy and paste it here to see what you all think:

An intresting topic and one, I feel, that could be answered by looking at the very nature of the Red King itself. To do that, we need to look at the information we get about the Red King from Insomnia, Black House, and the comics. I will be posting quotes about the Crimson King from these books so I will put my post within spoiler tags to be on the safe side.

In Black House Parkus/Speedy states that the Crimson King is "pent in a cell at the top of the Tower, but he has another manifestation, every bit as real, and this lives in Can-tah Abbalah - the Court of the Crimson King." Like Jack says, the Red King is in "Two places at once."

The second manifestation is Los' the Red King, the creature Roland faced at the end of his quest. We know this because Los' was the one who dwelt in Le Casse Roi Russe, the court and castle of the King. As Jack says in Black House, the Crimson King "is presumably hanging out in his court (the part of him that isn't imprisoned in Speedys Dark Tower that is)."

We learn of this manifestations origin from the comics....that, basically, it was the result of a Great Old One (the Crimson Queen) raping Arthur Eld.

This raises some questions. Firstly, how does the Crimson King acquire a second manifstation? I believe Insomnia holds the answer....it states that:

"The Crimson King jumps from body to body and generation to generation like a kid using stepping stones to cross a brook."

This implies that the Red King hijacked the body of Arthur Elds and the Crimson Queens offspring, deeming it a useful body to have. This means that Los' the Crimson King is mearly an avatar. But who - and what - is the true Crimson King imprisioned in the Tower since the beginning of creation?

Well, the comics state that "Gan was not the only demiurge to arise from that primordial magical soup." They go on to say:

"...that which came after the bright light of Gan dragged like a heavy shadow. What bubbled up from the depths of the Prim with a great burping stench of decay was the force of the Outer Dark,"

If Gan is the White and the Purpose then the true Crimson King is the Outer Dark and the Random. This fits in with Rando Thoughtful, the Crimson Kings Minister of State, saying that "Big Red always was Gans crazy side." When Stephen King talks about how the two big cosmics (Gan and the Crimson King) were fighting over him, he mentions a name a few times that isn't repeated anywhere else. Heres an example of this:

"I turned aside from Dis, I should be able to turn aside from Gan as well."

So Dis seems to be the name of the true Crimson King pent in the Tower, the being whos Outer Dark and Random influence filters down from his place in the Tower throughout all the other levels of creation. And that, I feel, is why the Crimson King wants to destroy the Tower....because his influence is limited so long as reality exists. In Black House Parkus states that "the King has been trying to destroy the Tower and set himself free for time out of mind. Forever, mayhap."

Black House also goes on to say:

"If he - or it - destroys the Tower, wont that defeat his purpose? Won't he destroy his physical being in the process?"

"Just the opposite: he'll set it free to wander what will then be chaos...."

So, basically, the Crimson King wants to destroy the Tower so that his true self can rule the Discordia without any limitations to his power.


The Dark Tower 7 mentions the Crimson Kings pact with a higher being. I'm refering to Mia when she says that Los' has been "promised his own kingdom, where he'll rule forever, tasting his own special pleasures." She goes on to say that she doesn't know who made such a promise, that maybe "this is only what he has promised himself."

To me, this sounds like the true tower pent Crimson King (Dis) promising things to the weaker second manifestation of the Crimson King (Los'). In essence, he has promised himself these things.

Thank you for this!

It does answer a LOT of my questions. I'm in the process of rereading Insomnia which I read and loved a long time ago but read not having touched a Dark Tower book, so with no frame of reference didn't hold onto much of the DT stuff that was in it.

I don't think I've read Black House, though I loved the Talisman. I'm going to read that next.

I think what satisfies me the most about what you've written is there is now a connection between Roland and CK (both descendents of Arthur Eld) that makes sense to me, outside of the "twinner" notion.

(I'm also getting started on the comics as well.)

theyspunaweb
01-23-2009, 03:46 PM
Reading Insomnia right now...

Am I incorrect, I forgot why I wanted to read Insomnia, I thought it was about Patrick from the last book of the Dark Tower series...is that another book? Maybe the reason I ment to read Insomnia was to read about The Crimson King instead. If so, which book is about Patrick? Duma Key?

jayson
01-23-2009, 06:18 PM
Both Patrick and the CK are in Insomnia. Perhaps you just haven't gotten to him yet. He's not really a main character, but he is there.

theyspunaweb
01-23-2009, 07:59 PM
Yeah sorry for not just going straight to the Insomnia thread...I found it after posting this in there but I was trying to avoid spoilers.

jayson
01-23-2009, 08:06 PM
Yeah, it's best to avoid book-specific threads until you've read the books lest something be spoiled for you.

Darkthoughts
01-24-2009, 06:59 AM
Jayson, yes - King does oversee everything. There's like a transcript of a comic con interview in one of the Gunslinger Born comics, where they give an account of one of the writing sessions at which King is present :thumbsup:

Hey Kes! Welcome :couple:

I've moved and merged your thread to here, because we can have more specific character discussion in this section :thumbsup:

Kes
01-24-2009, 10:59 AM
Excellent! Thanks:) I was wondering and thought, "Hey? I have a poll? How did that happen? LOL".

Letti
01-24-2009, 11:14 AM
I have given a new option to the poll. I have missed it from the beginning I hope you don't mind. If anyone would like to change their pick to that let me know and I'll change it.

jayson
01-24-2009, 02:59 PM
Thanks Letti, I finally feel there is an option I can vote for. I always believed him to be a villain but never attributed it to insanity.

Kes
01-24-2009, 03:17 PM
My jury is going to remain out until I've finished re-reading Insomnia...

The King of Kings
01-24-2009, 06:26 PM
He didn't become crazy until close to the end of his "life" though, right? He's a creature of chaos. His "alignment" is pretty self explanatory is it not?

Kes
01-24-2009, 06:29 PM
He didn't become crazy until close to the end of his "life" though, right? He's a creature of chaos. His "alignment" is pretty self explanatory is it not?


Well, if you read what another poster in this thread wrote garnered from Insomnia and the comics...it would lead one to believe that he was a creature of chaos all along...

Insane? I guess it depends on ones perspective and if you give credence to a greater/lesser emanation of CK.

The King of Kings
01-25-2009, 08:25 AM
He didn't become crazy until close to the end of his "life" though, right? He's a creature of chaos. His "alignment" is pretty self explanatory is it not?


Well, if you read what another poster in this thread wrote garnered from Insomnia and the comics...it would lead one to believe that he was a creature of chaos all along...

Insane? I guess it depends on ones perspective and if you give credence to a greater/lesser emanation of CK.

Strictly based off of the books though, didn't we learn that CK was just a evil guy until he was close to the end of his life and then he started going nuts.

Kes
01-25-2009, 11:12 AM
He didn't become crazy until close to the end of his "life" though, right? He's a creature of chaos. His "alignment" is pretty self explanatory is it not?


Well, if you read what another poster in this thread wrote garnered from Insomnia and the comics...it would lead one to believe that he was a creature of chaos all along...

Insane? I guess it depends on ones perspective and if you give credence to a greater/lesser emanation of CK.

Strictly based off of the books though, didn't we learn that CK was just a evil guy until he was close to the end of his life and then he started going nuts.

I don't think they ever say...and it seems that he has as much of a "normal" life as our friend Roland or Walter O'Dim. The notion seems to be that he is eternal in some way, and perhaps always was...

Remember...Random Thoughtful tells us that he's KILLED himself and yet still lives, so can't be really killed. He's now not only insane but some sort of undead creature. Someone capable of swallowing and gutting themselves with a sharpened spoon and remaining animated strikes me as someone who wasn't exactly a regular "guy" to begin with crazy or not. Let's not forget he was also Mordred's father...so how did THAT happened if it wasn't something come from CK and what he always was?

Mai
02-20-2009, 05:41 AM
Opinion. Where did Stephen King get the term The Crimson King?? Just wanting your opinion please. :)

ICry4Oy
02-20-2009, 06:55 AM
Not sure where King got it but the first thing I thought of was the group King Crimson and their album In The Court Of The Crimson King. I did a lot of ...uuuh....stuff while listening to that way back in the day.

flaggwalkstheline
02-20-2009, 07:22 AM
I'm pretty sure he was inspired by robert fripps' old band king crimson

Rcampebll
02-20-2009, 01:02 PM
yea im pretty sure thats it king is sorta the rocker type and all

Mai
02-20-2009, 04:56 PM
That is what ive been told. alot

Jaztastic
03-07-2009, 03:05 PM
I thought "Crimson King" was kind of like Satan since he's a red king of sorts, but I don't know.

I think Insomnia gives a much better view on what he was like before he hit rock bottom in DT 7. He was actually scary in that book, in DT he comes off as insane, but kind of pathetic too.

candy
03-08-2009, 10:10 AM
I thought "Crimson King" was kind of like Satan since he's a red king of sorts, but I don't know.

I think Insomnia gives a much better view on what he was like before he hit rock bottom in DT 7. He was actually scary in that book, in DT he comes off as insane, but kind of pathetic too.

i agree, just re- reading insomnia now and he is a much scarier version. but i also think he was supposed to be insane and anti climatic - as he had quite lost his marbles by this point

Letti
03-08-2009, 12:24 PM
He had quite lost his marbles by this point

:wtf: Oh, I lllove this expression!

ola
07-27-2009, 02:30 AM
Glad I found this thread. Something that never satisfied me was WHY is the Crimson King insane? Born that way?

Failed gunslinger seems to point in the right direction, but isn't enough for me!

I also like the idea of him being a past Tower-quester who had to do it over and over like Roland - but wasn't CK hanging around being crazy in his castle long before he got stuck in the Tower?

Brice
07-27-2009, 02:39 AM
Yes, and I think he's crazy from WAAAAAAYYYY back. It may just be that not being able to get what he wants has driven him crazy (presuming he is). I don't feel he was ever a gunslinger or questing the tower (at least not in the sense Roland is). I think his quest was to posses the tower and undo creation. I think that's what his tower was. The thing about insanity though is there is a why, but often not one which makes sense to a normal person.

pathoftheturtle
07-27-2009, 05:54 AM
...over and over like Roland - but wasn't CK hanging around being crazy in his castle long before he got stuck in the Tower?
In matters of the Tower, there is no such thing as "before."
:panic:
Think about that... and you might just end up as crazy as Tweedledee and I. :D:cyclops:

ola
07-28-2009, 01:33 AM
In matters of the Tower, there is no such thing as "before."

Every time I think I'm getting somewhere, it gets a little more convoluted instead. :cry:

Yeah, there goes the linear thinking again. Nothing's really linear, as in a single timeline from beginning to end. It's a perception thing - we have to put events in sequence for them to make sense. (At least in terms of this sequence of events.)

Still, there's a sense of...space?...between certain events at least. Something happened between the Crimson King coming into being, and him getting stuck at the Tower. What was it? Was he born wanting to "undo creation" as Brice put it?

There is a necessity for chaos and random to exist, in order for order and purpose to exist in contrast - and maybe that necessity is what lies buried under the CK's drive to possess the tower, and restore chaos to the universe. It wouldn't be a conscious thing at all.

Letti
07-28-2009, 12:02 PM
I agree with Brice. To understand an insane mind with a sane one is quite impossible. I don't think he used to be a Gunslinger. He was someone who couldn't accept his faith that's sure.

Twilights Fire
07-28-2009, 03:52 PM
Maybe not the right topic for it but here goes;

Didn't you guys think the Crimson King was a bit of an anti-climax.. Like during the whole series he is portrayed as the ultimate evil. and when we finally get to "see" him he is portrayed as an old insane/maniacal villain that has lost touch with reality..

I was kind of expecting more I guess...

pathoftheturtle
07-28-2009, 03:53 PM
I do believe the Crimson King is largely conscious of the situation. After all, his "kingdom" is transdimensional in nature.
There is a necessity for chaos and random to exist, in order for order and purpose to exist in contrast..."In order for order," you say. :orely: That way lies madness. If chaos exists for an orderly purpose, then order is supreme and chaos cannot be distinguished from it, but if order and chaos are inseparable, well, that's just chaos.
What proof is there that there is any necessity for us to perceive through contrast the existence of each of these concepts, other than the fact that it does indeed happen?
...we have to put events in sequence for them to make sense. ... Still, there's a sense of...space?...between certain events at least.I think that that sense is mostly just made up.
Something happened between the Crimson King coming into being, and him getting stuck at the Tower. What was it?Ka.

It would make just as much sense to say that it happened before he came into being, although I don't think that that is strictly true, either.
However, IMHO, the best answer is simply ka.

... It may just be that not being able to get what he wants has driven him crazy (presuming he is). ...Aye, and being able to see his chance come, over and over, with no apparent reason for him to always fail.:pullhair:

Brice
07-28-2009, 03:57 PM
Poor Crimson King. :cry:

pathoftheturtle
07-28-2009, 04:05 PM
Say, that reminds me. Where is Wuducynn?

Brice
07-28-2009, 04:13 PM
:orely: I don't know. I'm sure I've seen him on Facebook recently, but not on here much lately.

pathoftheturtle
07-28-2009, 04:17 PM
Well, please send our regards.

Brice
07-28-2009, 04:19 PM
When I can I happily will.

flaggwalkstheline
07-28-2009, 05:13 PM
That was a great post Tik and the end there is really insightful. I learn something new everyday and love the perspective.
Why, thankie-sai!

A very interesting theory. Going by this theory we could assume that

the Crimson King's "true" form still sits at the top of the Tower?
Indeed. O'course, when it says

top of the Tower, that doesn't mean the top Room of the Tower. Like Brainslinger says, that Room is where God is rumoured to be. In Insomnia the little doctors (long-timers) state that the Kings Random influence probably stops at a certain level:

"...perhaps there is no Random beyond a certain level; we suspect that may be the case, but we have no real way of telling."

That means the Kings true form, Dis, is at least one level/room below the very top Room. Still at the top of the Tower, but not in that last Room where God is rumoured to be.


Even though Dis is still there (he has to be, the Random is a fundemental part of existance) his one chance of escaping and destroying the Tower is now gone by the end of DT7. He will forever be imprisoned there. I find it quite fitting that Dis, the true Crimson King, is forever imprisoned at the top of the Tower whereas Los' the Crimson King becomes trapped on a balcony at the bottom of the Tower. Both manifestations are, by the end of DT7, Tower Pent.

its like the cabalic numerical system, kindof
"if man is 5 and the devil is 6 then god is 7"
that particular quote is from the pixies but it fits the idea of the crimson king being one level beneath god/gan himself

If the crimson king has to jump from body to body (I reject the comics explanation of the CK being Arthur Eld's son) is it possible that the replacement body bieng planned for him was patrick danville? he has some incredible powers after all...
maybe he doesnt need to jump from body to body to stay alive rather, he goes insane if he doesnt and ralph and company stopping him from getting patrick danville was what drove his current state nuts?
I wish sai king would write a middle volume to patrick's story in between insomnia and dt7...

Sidenote- the CK jumping from body to body is very similar to what X-men villan Apocalypse does

Letti
07-28-2009, 08:37 PM
Maybe not the right topic for it but here goes;

Didn't you guys think the Crimson King was a bit of an anti-climax.. Like during the whole series he is portrayed as the ultimate evil. and when we finally get to "see" him he is portrayed as an old insane/maniacal villain that has lost touch with reality..

I was kind of expecting more I guess...

I know it will sound silly but that's why I love the CK. Because he isn't this typical oh so powerful and oh so perfectly evil character who has a very evil laugh and can kill you with his look.
He must have had some nice days when he was not absolutely insane yet and he had worlds in his hands.. but yeah.. his Sun went down.

flaggwalkstheline
07-28-2009, 09:04 PM
Maybe not the right topic for it but here goes;

Didn't you guys think the Crimson King was a bit of an anti-climax.. Like during the whole series he is portrayed as the ultimate evil. and when we finally get to "see" him he is portrayed as an old insane/maniacal villain that has lost touch with reality..

I was kind of expecting more I guess...

I know it will sound silly but that's why I love the CK. Because he isn't this typical oh so powerful and oh so perfectly evil character who has a very evil laugh and can kill you with his look.
He must have had some nice days when he was not absolutely insane yet and he had worlds in his hands.. but yeah.. his Sun went down.

thats something that I love about the last book, neither good nor evil is as strong as the reader is led to believe, eddie got gunned down like a dog in the street by pimli prentis, jake got ran over saving sai king, flagg got punked by mordred who got owned by roland after killing the comedy relief talking animal sidekick Oy, patrick danville humiliated the "all powerful" CK and rode off into the sunset still scarred and sans tongue, susana settled for the consolation prizes of fake eddie and jake, and roland just keeps going round the cosmic mulberry bush

Its like a cosmic resevoir dogs!

Letti
07-28-2009, 09:35 PM
Maybe not the right topic for it but here goes;

Didn't you guys think the Crimson King was a bit of an anti-climax.. Like during the whole series he is portrayed as the ultimate evil. and when we finally get to "see" him he is portrayed as an old insane/maniacal villain that has lost touch with reality..

I was kind of expecting more I guess...

I know it will sound silly but that's why I love the CK. Because he isn't this typical oh so powerful and oh so perfectly evil character who has a very evil laugh and can kill you with his look.
He must have had some nice days when he was not absolutely insane yet and he had worlds in his hands.. but yeah.. his Sun went down.

thats something that I love about the last book, neither good nor evil is as strong as the reader is led to believe, eddie got gunned down like a dog in the street by pimli prentis, jake got ran over saving sai king, flagg got punked by mordred who got owned by roland after killing the comedy relief talking animal sidekick Oy, patrick danville humiliated the "all powerful" CK and rode off into the sunset still scarred and sans tongue, susana settled for the consolation prizes of fake eddie and jake, and roland just keeps going round the cosmic mulberry bush

Its like a cosmic resevoir dogs!

I see your point but I do think Eddie, Jake and Oy are very very strong and I have never changed my mind about that. Moreover they grew stronger with every word till the end of the series.
But still they are fragile. Every working heart is fragile. Anyway the way they died... it made them look even stronger. They could die like real gunslingers.. strong and respectful. With true words on their lips and with peace in their soul.

CK's case is very different for me. We had to face the fact that he wasn't that perfect villain we imagined him to be.

pathoftheturtle
07-29-2009, 03:36 PM
If the crimson king has to jump from body to body ... is it possible that the replacement body bieng planned for him was patrick danville?...
maybe ... ralph and company stopping him from getting patrick danville was what drove his current state nuts? ...:nope:
He never did that.
He wasn't trying to kidnap Patrick. What he tried to do was to crash a plane into him!I think that if he needs a new body, he can always go back to Los in another timeline.


Maybe not the right topic for it...
:orely:Maybe this? --
Which Crimson King do you like best? Poll (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=7916)

flaggwalkstheline
07-29-2009, 06:48 PM
maybe patrick dying by plane crash would have transfered him to a world closer to the CK the way jake switched from new york to the desert?

ola
07-31-2009, 01:00 AM
What proof is there that there is any necessity for us to perceive through contrast the existence of each of these concepts, other than the fact that it does indeed happen?

I'm assuming that there is some need to make that distinction in the first place. Maybe when one is dealing with the outcome of their actions, or making a decision that involves choosing one path over the other. I don't have proof for it being necessary. I think I'm just saying: there's no absolute rule for everyone that dictates what is random/chaotic and what is following a pattern. I'm thinking of chaos and order as always being relative to the person perceiving them, and so there always needs to be some point of reference/contrast, so that we can determine "this is chaos" and "this is order."


I think that that sense is mostly just made up.

I'll accept that a 'space' between events might not exist.

...
Ka?

I don't know what to think about ka at the moment. Ever since I got into some conversations a few months back about whether the self exists, I feel really wary about free will too. Thinking about Ka and what it means seems inseparable from the Free Will discussion. Honestly, I oscillate between wanting to sit and think about these things until I feel crazy; and wanting to rely on whatever vague concepts I've lived with so far, leave the discussing to the dedicated philosophers, and sleep instead!

Hopefully someday I'll feel a little clearer on what I'm trying to say. In general. :doh:

pathoftheturtle
08-01-2009, 09:59 AM
The Way That I Roll
I think I'm just saying: there's no absolute rule for everyone that dictates what is random/chaotic and what is following a pattern. I'm thinking of chaos and order as always being relative to the person perceiving them, and so there always needs to be some point of reference/contrast, so that we can determine "this is chaos" and "this is order."All I'm saying, myself, is just that if there is no absolute rule for everyone that dictates what is random/chaotic and what is following a pattern, then that in itself implies much chaotic randomness. If chaos and order are always relative to the person perceiving them, (assuming that that person exists, lol) then we only need a point of reference when we wish to determine what is chaos and what is order.
I'm assuming that there is some need to make that distinction in the first place. Maybe when one is dealing with the outcome of their actions, or making a decision that involves choosing one path over the other.
...maybe that necessity is what lies buried under the CK's drive to possess the tower, and restore chaos to the universe.:panic:

19eye-rosecrow-gun
11-07-2009, 01:04 AM
So I am wondering about The Crimson King. Was he always bad, or did he protect the tower? I know he is the son of the Red Queen (Alice in Wonderland?) and King Arthur... did Tak drive him insane or did he know about the repetition of the Tower?

Thoughts to ponder.

osseolax28
11-07-2009, 09:50 AM
where did u here the red queen was Alice in wonderland? i always thought he was always evil. Forgive me but who is Tak? Sounds familiar but can't put my finger on it.

19eye-rosecrow-gun
11-07-2009, 04:35 PM
Someone on this site said the Crimson Queen is his mother http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=710. She was a creature of the Prim (The darkness where here there be monsters, so to speak) and was impregnated by Arthur Eld. The Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland was a red haired evil entity to wanted Alice decapitated. Perhaps she is from the Prim? In any case, let's move on to Tak.

He is an evil entity from the novels Desperation and The Regulators, who's physical form is an orb of flashing lights (described by King as resembling lights from a bicycle reflector). He has telekinetic and psychic powers to control minds and matter. He is completely evil. I wonder if the crimson king and Tak are related, or if they are the same being in a way?

osseolax28
11-07-2009, 05:08 PM
oh ya o.k., now i remember who Tak is. i knew he sounded familiar. I never thought about the Alice in wonderland thing. i guess it's possible since King took elements from the Wizard of Oz, LOTR, as well as others.

I don't think they are the same being. i think from what i've seen in the movie, Tak is more of an entity like Pennywise. But i haven't read the books yet so i could be completly wrong. But i'm sure they must be related in some way.

Letti
11-07-2009, 10:39 PM
Hi there 19eye-rosecrow-gun, long days and pleasant nights.
I am absolutely sure that the Red Queen has no connection with Alice in Wonderland.

Anyway here we have a really great and exciting thread about the Crimson King: http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=2430
I hope you will like it. In some days we will need to merge the two threads.



where did u here the red queen was Alice in wonderland? i always thought he was always evil. Forgive me but who is Tak? Sounds familiar but can't put my finger on it.

I don't think there is any connection but in the comics you can find tons of information about the CK (and many other chracters and things) you cannot find in the series. For example the mentioned one that the Crimson King is the son of the Crimson Queen.

19eye-rosecrow-gun
11-08-2009, 02:16 PM
I have read most of the DT comics, and I remember him saying he was born of a mother who was a creature of the Prim. I just thought of the Red Queen from Alice in Wonderland because she is similar in a way, since she is also screaming crazy. I would have to backtrack and read again about him.

Letti
11-08-2009, 10:50 PM
I have read most of the DT comics, and I remember him saying he was born of a mother who was a creature of the Prim. I just thought of the Red Queen from Alice in Wonderland because she is similar in a way, since she is also screaming crazy. I would have to backtrack and read again about him.

I don't think it's enough to think that they are the same.

19eye-rosecrow-gun
11-09-2009, 07:32 PM
She is red, he is red. Her skin is white, his hair is white. They both rule as dominate powers, and they are insane. Completely.

Anyhow, I think the Crimson King is a funny guy.

Is there a post about Flagg? Im sure there must be. I really want to find a picture of him from The Stand comics. He is in his black hooded robe on a cliff with fire coming up about him. Its really cool.

Letti
11-09-2009, 10:27 PM
She is red, he is red. Her skin is white, his hair is white. They both rule as dominate powers, and they are insane. Completely.

This way we can make many characters related.
I don't say you shouldn't think this way I just can't agree.

LadyHitchhiker
11-14-2009, 04:30 AM
Well I was thinking the Crimson King and

Duma Key spoiler

Perse from Duma Key might be related?

Just a thought.

turtlex
11-19-2009, 11:07 AM
Okay... this logo look familiar to anyone ?!?

http://www.expeditions.com/images/template_2and3.jpg

I surely will not be taking a Lindblad Expedition any time soon.

Brice
11-19-2009, 01:55 PM
:panic:

Jean
11-19-2009, 02:16 PM
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_shocked.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_shocked.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_shocked.gif

Jon
11-20-2009, 04:28 PM
Thanks for the spoiler tag Lady Pornbot!!

Letti
11-21-2009, 12:22 AM
Okay... this logo look familiar to anyone ?!?

http://www.expeditions.com/images/template_2and3.jpg

I surely will not be taking a Lindblad Expedition any time soon.

If someone dares to tell me the Dark Tower is just a fiction I will show them this.

turtlex
11-21-2009, 08:55 AM
Sincerely don't consider it a work of fiction at all.

flaggwalkstheline
11-21-2009, 11:09 AM
Sincerely don't consider it a work of fiction at all.

Here here

Ward007
07-02-2010, 02:49 PM
Hi I'm new here and have a question..

Just finish reading the series, and what really bug me is, why is the Crimson King so weak at the end of the final book? I mean his attack is mostly consist of throwing grenades at Roland and Patrick. Isn't he suppose to be god-like in term of power and abilities? What happen?

Thank you

osseolax28
07-02-2010, 03:51 PM
In my mind and in my view of the series, the Crimson King was just a powerful entity. Unlike Flaggs glamour and tricks, The Crimson King's powers are real and not just mirages. But that doesn't mean he is God-like. The CK was ment to be an opposer of The Tower and Gan, but not equivelint to Gans powers.

Idk if my words are making sense. Basicaly, the Crimson King is a powerful demon, higher in the rankings of the tower (metaphorical tower) but there are much higher powers of evil and good than him. Plus, i think that since The Tower trapped him, his "powers" were useless.

If you have read or are going to read Insomnia, it will become much clearer than my jumbled ranting, since Insomnia expands on the "theory" of The Dark Towers universe and workings

LovesSweetExile
07-03-2010, 06:50 AM
I think the fact he was trapped in the tower considerably lowered his powers, either that or the fact it was Rolands KA to reach the tower, not even the Crimson King can challenge KA, plus the tower is most likely protecting him.

Letti
07-03-2010, 08:35 PM
He was as crazy as possible so even if he had power he couldn't use it anymore. He had no control over himself. I think that's why he behaved the way he did. He failed.
Anyway I never thought him God-like.

arrawyn
07-03-2010, 09:42 PM
yeah, i just thought of him as a crazy old guy (and wizard) who might've been powerful at one time, but not anymore.

candy
07-04-2010, 03:19 AM
Hi I'm new here and have a question..

Just finish reading the series, and what really bug me is, why is the Crimson King so weak at the end of the final book? I mean his attack is mostly consist of throwing grenades at Roland and Patrick. Isn't he suppose to be god-like in term of power and abilities? What happen?

Thank you

i agree, when i first read the book i was very disappointed in the crimson king story line. I also felt him weak and pathetic, esp after insomnia and the dark house. But having said that, on a re-read, i think its because he has gone insane after being locked in the tower, a lot of things that happen to roland and suzanne on the way to the tower hold this theory out. I think:cyclops:

fernandito
07-04-2010, 05:03 AM
I agree with Candy. Having been near the Tower for so long must have had a considerable effect on both his mind and his physical state. Although I must admit that I was a little disappointed in the final battle too.

Brainslinger
07-04-2010, 06:27 AM
I think it might be a number of factors.

The Dark Tower (DT7) spoilers:

I think when he commited suicide, becoming undead, he might have lost part of his power along with his life.

There was also a suggestion in the book that stopping the breakers work on the Beam might have contributed to his loss of power too. I'm not sure I quite buy that though. I understand that preventing the Beams' damage means that it starts to heal, and that the strengthening of the Beams also means the Tower itself might increase in strength as these thing are all interlinked, but I don't think the King would loose that much power so soon as a result.

Destruction of the Wizard's Rainbow. I'm not sure how much of the Red King's power is in the glasses. According to the comics they were created by the wizard Maerlyn from the prim itself, but as The Crimson King is a creature of the prim, at least in part, and Black Thirteen is often likened to his eye (although this might have largely been the imagination of the characters) it's quite possible they are linked.

Imprisonment in the Tower. This has been mentioned already, and it makes sense to me that the Tower would create some kind of magic dampening field to negate the King's influence. It perhaps just goes to show how powerful he still is that he was able to use his ability to influence the song of the Roses to put Patrick to sleep. (Or that was allowed by the Tower to fulfil Ka. )



Black House Spoiler:
The destruction of the Big Combination in Black House. It seems he draws a lot of his power from the evil things that happen throughout the multiverse. It makes a lot of sense to me that losing this was a major blow to his power.

Despite these things, I was rather disappointed with the depiction of the Crimson King as well. I understand that part of the reason was to show that the main power these beings have is in people's fear of them. That ultimately, if you stand and be true, they are weaker than they first appear (but not that weak surely?). But it was a shame nonetheless, and I think more explanation would have been welcome.

I think part of the reason King took that route was also because The Crimson King and the powers of Discordia as a whole were portrayed as the mastermind(s) behind the arise of these big corporations and their emphasis on technology and the departure of magic and the prim from the world.* Thus, CK relies on a robot horse to transport him (where did that go by the way?) , and sneeches are his weapons of choice. So it might have been a more thematic choice on Stephen King's part rather than a loss of power... much as that makes little sense from an in-universe point of view.

*That is an interesting contradiction considering The Crimson King, Walter and Maerlyn owe much of their power and their very existence to the prim and it's creatures.

Tik
07-11-2010, 03:01 PM
I think one of the key things to take into account is what we learn of the Crimson King's nature in the novel Black House. Mainly, that this being is (Black House spoilers here):
simulataneously a god near the top of the Tower AND a being that exists in Mid-World in his Court and Castle. To quote an earlier post of mine, in Black House Parkus/Speedy states that the Crimson King is "pent in a cell at the top of the Tower, but he has another manifestation, every bit as real, and this lives in Can-tah Abbalah - the Court of the Crimson King." Like Jack says, the Red King is in "Two places at once."

The second manifestation is Los' the Red King, the creature Roland faced at the end of his quest. We know this because Los' was the one who dwelt in Le Casse Roi Russe, the court and castle of the King. As Jack says in Black House, the Crimson King "is presumably hanging out in his court (the part of him that isn't imprisoned in Speedys Dark Tower that is)."
What this would mean is that its only an avatar of the true Red King Roland meets at the end of DT7. And quite possible a significantly less powerful version too.

Just because its an avatar doesn't mean its weak though, far from it. We already learn what the Red King did to his castle of minions in DT7....he would be able to wipe Roland out with a thought if not for a few things (DT7 spoilers follow):

Firstly, the Crimson King is trapped on a balcony by Gan. Recall what we learned of what a balcony of the Tower is:


"Reality is organic, reality is alive."


"In any case, theres this hypodermic hole in the living flesh of reality....this balcony on the flank of the Dark Tower."


"a balcony on the Tower; when we come here we're outside the Tower but still attached to the Tower."


"It's a place outside of time, outside of reality."

Basically, the King isn't technically part of reality anymore....he is trapped beyond it, the only connection being the doorway back into the Tower. The fact that the Crimson King could manage to send anything back through into reality and attack Roland (such as sneetches) shows how powerful the King could be.

Secondly, the fact that when the last fight took place the two characters were miles from each other - the Crimson King kept Roland at bay. They were 5 miles apart!

DoctorDodge
07-11-2010, 05:59 PM
I think one of the key things to take into account is what we learn of the Crimson King's nature in the novel Black House. Mainly, that this being is (Black House spoilers here):
simulataneously a god near the top of the Tower AND a being that exists in Mid-World in his Court and Castle. To quote an earlier post of mine, in Black House Parkus/Speedy states that the Crimson King is "pent in a cell at the top of the Tower, but he has another manifestation, every bit as real, and this lives in Can-tah Abbalah - the Court of the Crimson King." Like Jack says, the Red King is in "Two places at once."

The second manifestation is Los' the Red King, the creature Roland faced at the end of his quest. We know this because Los' was the one who dwelt in Le Casse Roi Russe, the court and castle of the King. As Jack says in Black House, the Crimson King "is presumably hanging out in his court (the part of him that isn't imprisoned in Speedys Dark Tower that is)."
What this would mean is that its only an avatar of the true Red King Roland meets at the end of DT7. And quite possible a significantly less powerful version too.

Just because its an avatar doesn't mean its weak though, far from it. We already learn what the Red King did to his castle of minions in DT7....he would be able to wipe Roland out with a thought if not for a few things (DT7 spoilers follow):

Firstly, the Crimson King is trapped on a balcony by Gan. Recall what we learned of what a balcony of the Tower is:


"Reality is organic, reality is alive."


"In any case, theres this hypodermic hole in the living flesh of reality....this balcony on the flank of the Dark Tower."


"a balcony on the Tower; when we come here we're outside the Tower but still attached to the Tower."


"It's a place outside of time, outside of reality."

Basically, the King isn't technically part of reality anymore....he is trapped beyond it, the only connection being the doorway back into the Tower. The fact that the Crimson King could manage to send anything back through into reality and attack Roland (such as sneetches) shows how powerful the King could be.

Secondly, the fact that when the last fight took place the two characters were miles from each other - the Crimson King kept Roland at bay. They were 5 miles apart!

An excellent explanation, Tik. I agree with others that the final battle between Roland and the Crimson King was dissapointing, but it's one of very few things that I didn't like about the final volume, I absolutely loved everything else. Besides, considering how powerful Stephen King made the Crimson King over his many novels, any battle that justified that kind of power would've meant that Roland would've been dead before he got anywhere near the field of roses! So the final battle, whilst slightly dissapointing, is something I'm willing to forgive, considering the only other option would've been to have Roland become some kind of God to defeat the Crimson King, something which would've left the rest of us a lot more pissed off, I think.

woodpryan
07-12-2010, 06:46 PM
I was also pretty disappointed with the ending in that sense. The loop didn't piss me off, but the Crimson King getting erased out of existence seemed like too much of a cop out for me. It felt extremely rushed. I felt like I was cheated out of a huge battle scene. I didn't even get to read about the Battle of Jerico Hill. I was pretty disappointed with that. I loved every word of this series up until the last 50 pages or so.

Atanóno Fána
07-20-2010, 10:26 AM
The fact is that the real power of the Red King is not known and certainly not be something big. He had a basic knowledge of magic, like a spider venom, telepathy, shapeshift, and All-World as one of the few he could use the machine (it could just a especially Good man, his nephew James, the Grissom and maybe Walter and Grissoms son.) Everything else is debatable, could draw their power, as it could have a few defeats much to lose (see Sauron and the One Ring - it is possible that the Red King put on something of the power, viz.'s Defeat in Insomnia and BH.). His real power was in the servants, without them, like most other supernatural villains, and makes no reference bypass was reduced to a mere clown, politically all the laughter.

Indeed, I believe that benefited primarily from the fact that he had many powerful allies, and its great advantage to be mere legend (his age, immortality, kinship with Eld, and various rumors about his power, though all could be an illusion, phantom, fraud) which attracted people like Walter and Farson. Indeed, without these two would be barely able to do something significant in Mid-World, otherwise it would have done it before. Of course, a power far greater than man, he had, but not be so crucial for the development of events, if not thousands of servants and helpers, corporations (LaMerk, Sombra) or remnants of the Old People ...

The last thing is that so insane that its power to "disappear" the mere shock, impatience, fear (as a man, if nervous, but rather will be in a car crash than if calm person - the punch line is the same). A tower may actually allow him to use his full strength. It is interesting comparison with Saruman, who also lost his power and his only strength was only a voice (see lullaby for Patrick and manipulation of Mordred).
Navrhnout lep překlad

cozener
07-23-2010, 09:00 AM
He was as crazy as possible so even if he had power he couldn't use it anymore. He had no control over himself. I think that's why he behaved the way he did. He failed.
Anyway I never thought him God-like. I had always assumed this too...lost much of his power to insanity.

snakebit
09-01-2010, 10:07 PM
I am very interested in learning more about the Crimson King. We the readers are told throughout many Steven King's books that he is the "Top Dog" bad guy. I have to admit that I have read many Steven King's books, but only read them once. I am going to start going through the dark Tower series again. But what do we really know about the Crimson King? We know he definitely associates himself with some nasty individuals and entities. We also know that he has gone insane for some reason and is set on the destruction of the universe. But why? Roland is an incredible character, but he is not all good. He would sacrifice anybody to fulfill his obsession of reaching the Dark Tower. Jake, Eddie, and even would have sacrificed King himself, instead of saving him, if it meant getting to the tower. So if Roland is not all good, does the Crimson King have to be all bad? Roland wanders for eternity in a loop where he must always destroy the Crimson King to reach tower. How many times has he killed the Crimson King 1, 10, 100..? Roland shortly forgets he has made the journey before, but what if the Crimson King can't erase the number of times he erased or destroyed by Roland. What if someone was stuck in a loop to destroy you over and over again, would that not make you crazy? Who is good? Who is evil? Or maybe they are both a little of both. Maybe they are just twinners of each other and destined to do this over and over again to keep balance in the universe. it did indicate they were somone how related. I would love for King to write a book about the Crimson King. where he came from, how he recruits his henchman, why he went crazy, and why he wants to destroy the universe. maybe titled "Interview with the Crimson King" lol. Comments, ideas, and speculations please

John Blaze
09-01-2010, 10:14 PM
Maybe he's destroyed Rolan upon his reaching the tower. I don't think the "reset' button is just for Roland. Maybe he's lost a couple of times before too.

I honestly hated the whole anti-climax that was Mr. "EEEEEEE". What a disappointment.

For future reference, if you have spoilers in your title you don't need to use spoiler tags. Nice first post, btw, and welcome to TDT.com

snakebit
09-01-2010, 10:21 PM
thanks John!

LadyHitchhiker
09-04-2010, 05:04 AM
I like to play with the idea of him not being all bad either.

What has made him crazy? What has made him be the man/thing he is?

LyleDraconis
10-07-2010, 09:05 AM
Ok, check this out. In the Dark Tower series, the Crimson King is the insane, genocidal, maniac whose one goal is to break the beams of the Dark Tower, thus breaking the one true force holding all of reality and existence in it's (mostly) proper place. But this is common knowledge here, among us Constant Readers. But, think of this: Is he really insane? A little touched in the head, if you pardon the joke, but how bonkers is he really?

Think of this: When the Crimson King sees his death at the hands of Roland Deschain in Maerlin's Grapefruit, he promptly forces all of his servants (except one) to drink poison and die, which sometimes happens with poison. He proceeds to swallow a sharpened spoon in order to kill himself and destroy any chance that Roland has to kill him with the Guns of Eld. Then he gets on his horse and rides to the Dark Tower. (lol)

To kill one's self, so someone else can't have the pleasure (read: duty) of it, is normally considered insane and paranoid. Yet, in doing so the Crimson King became undead and kept himself forever safe from the dangers of the Artifacts of Arthur Eld. He is now safe from any kind of death, because he is already dead. (Remember that sharpened spoon?)

What the Crimson King did was actually a very good move. He knew he wouldn't truly die, just technically. And, as mentioned above, he prevented the possibility of Roland ever killing him, preventing him from destroying the Tower. That brings me to another point: the Crimson King's ultimate goal to destroy everything, ever.

Technically, he just wishes to destroy everything which was created from the Prim, which is basically the primordial soup, only with a more believable story behind it (it gushed out of some guy's belly button). He wishes to rule over the Prim and control everything that survives in it. This should really be impossible, but if you do a bit of studying in the concordance, you'll find in the entry for the Crimson King that he was an illegitimate son of Aurthur Eld, who probably got it on with a demon of some sort. Since Arthur Eld was basically the Chosen One of all existence ('cept Roland, who's a direct but distant descendant) this means that the Crimson King would have some powerful ka about him. Is it really so ignorant for him to believe he could survive the destruction of reality? Friggin' Roland has been living out countless cycles of his life until he can learn from his many repetitive and predictable mistakes, making him a couple thousand years old, and he's just a descendant from a long line of Elds! The Crimson King and Roland are related, which is a mind-f*&% in itself, but the Crimson King being an actual son of Eld (and a freaking demon!) should actually be able to exist outside of existence. My point being, his claims may be unbelievable at first realization, but are they insane? Improbable? Impossible? Or is he really able to destroy everything beyond the Prim except himself? It's not like he wouldn't have anything thing to rule over, either. The Prim has sprouted Life once before, what's to stop it from happening again? And the things in-between worlds, in what's called the Todash Darkness? They wouldn't even feel a draft when Reality split. They'd only get more breathing room and a reason to smile. His motives and goals may be dark, terrifying, murderous and paranoid, but, indeed, not insane.

Discuss.

Jean
10-07-2010, 10:04 AM
LyleDraconis: thank you for posting! Since you've indicated in the title that it was a spoiler thread, you don't have to mark your spoilers in your posts

This thread may later be moved and/or merged.

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

LyleDraconis
10-07-2010, 11:30 AM
LyleDraconis: thank you for posting! Since you've indicated in the title that it was a spoiler thread, you don't have to mark your spoilers in your posts

This thread may later be moved and/or merged.

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

Heh, the only reason I did that was because the :radioactive: symbol refused to show in the title, despite the fact that other icons would. So, I compromised. If it's still alright though, I'll edit

Also, I just realized there is whole subcategory for individual character discussion, so I apologize.

pathoftheturtle
10-07-2010, 11:43 AM
...is he really able to destroy everything beyond the Prim except himself? ...Not unless he can conquer the DarK Tower.

Jean
10-07-2010, 12:21 PM
I have added the radioactive icon now http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

LyleDraconis
10-07-2010, 02:27 PM
I have added the radioactive icon now http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

Thanks! :D

Jean
10-08-2010, 01:22 AM
thank you for removing the spoiler tags http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearmood_cheerful.gif

19eye-rosecrow-gun
10-16-2010, 07:28 PM
He probably went crazy because he did not suffer the same amnisia that Roland did. CK knew he was going to die over and over again, thus his insane mission to destroy everything.

velcro_fly
10-17-2010, 08:33 AM
He probably went crazy because he did not suffer the same amnisia that Roland did. CK knew he was going to die over and over again, thus his insane mission to destroy everything.

In the same way that Roland and Jake were going insane, because of the two separate realities they remembered. The memory of Jakes' first death conflicted with the memory of Jake still living in New York and began to tear both of them apart.

19eye-rosecrow-gun
10-17-2010, 09:36 PM
The whole concept of Jake dying once and then coming back and dying again bothered me. No one else I can remember off the top of my head had the same fortune of dying and then coming back from another realm. Only Jake had this happen to him. I don't know what it is, but I know King had a reason for it. One day I will figure it out.

Seneschal
10-18-2010, 05:31 AM
i can only suppose the answer would be, "ka."

velcro_fly
10-18-2010, 06:38 AM
Father Callahan had a similar experience. Although his first death was not in the DT series, just retold.

HellBeast
10-26-2010, 10:51 AM
You could argue that considering the Crimson King's background, i.e. the bastard son of Arthur Eld and a demon, he is capable of possessing an intelligence far superior to mere humans.

I agree that he could have had the foresight to take his own life in the manner in which he did, and for the reasons that you suggest. I think the Crimson King is a very complex character. I don't mean to humanize the embodiment of Evil in the Dark Tower multiverse, but there had to be some serious separation issues if you're the bastard spawn of Arthur Eld and a demon-whore :P that's gotta change you... haha.

19eye-rosecrow-gun
10-26-2010, 10:30 PM
I believe in some way the Crimson King is actually Stephen King's dark half (lol pun).

Here is a good discussion kick: Saying the Crimson King went insane and wanted to end reality because he knew Roland would have him done in, then we can ask ourselves another question: What if Roland died?

What if he just died. Someone shot him in the back of the head, or the Dark Man finally did him in. Would the Red one still want to destroy all existence? Would he maybe just chill out and not be so destructive? I wonder about this. It seems CK is just as stubborn about ending every multiverse as Roland is about finding that tower.

19eye-rosecrow-gun
11-07-2010, 05:53 PM
I wonder if CK and Roland are the same being. I have been thinking about this. I would reveal what my ideas are behind this conclusion, but I want to see what others believe.

a fan
11-08-2010, 09:54 AM
the ck wasa insane smart but insane it was his job to protect the tower not distory it and on matter what lineage he has he would be plunged into the same nothingness as every one else and the fact that he dosent see it is even more insane evey thing (apart from killing him self) that he dose in the book king wrote was insane

pathoftheturtle
11-08-2010, 01:00 PM
I wonder if CK and Roland are the same being. I have been thinking about this. I would reveal what my ideas are behind this conclusion, but I want to see what others believe.Palaver >> Mid-World >> The Baronies >> The Dark Tower >> Reasons of a Red King (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?4595-Reasons-of-a-Red-King)

19eye-rosecrow-gun
11-08-2010, 04:55 PM
I think CK and Roland are the same person. I think CK might be the essence of Roland knowing deep in his subconscious mind that there is no end to his quest. No matter what he does, he is trapped by the tower. The Crimson King is Roland's hate for the tower.

I believe CK and Roland are one, but this is a short explanation of my theory.

Jean
11-09-2010, 01:26 AM
very much like a psychoanalyst's suggestion that the mysterious cloaked stranger who follows you on the street is only an externalization of your childhood trauma. Then he wonders why the patient missed the appointment, calls her and learns that she's been stabbed on the street by a cloaked man

I mean, any theory is valid until it is disproved, but there are theories that enrich our view of the world, and there are others that only set up some abstract view that doesn't have to have anything to do with reality...

LadyHitchhiker
11-09-2010, 05:58 AM
I considered that when I was reading the series that CK and Roland could be the same, but like jean says, I didn't find any back-up to that theory.

Seneschal
11-09-2010, 06:48 AM
RE: Discussion on chaos vs. order (an aside for your debate...)

chaos theory does not preclude order, and you have to be careful in the understanding of either one of those terms. patterns do not necessarily indicate that something is ordered, just like the nonexistence of a pattern does not necessarily indicate chaos. merely because a system is nonlinear and complex does not make it totally random (the Butterfly Effect is a full theory based on this idea). It should also be noted that random and chaos are not interchangeable words.

mathematically and theoretically speaking, chaotic systems have much order. what makes them chaotic is that they are indeterminate. the simplest example of an ordered chaotic system is a perfect circle. the coefficient pi specifically is ordered yet it is wholly indeterminate as it cannot be calculated precisely. the numbers run infinitely past the decimal point. yet, the system is precise. so here we see that chaos and order are not at all mutually exclusive. most systems studied on the planet and in the universe (from cellular mitosis to weather to solar eclipse) are neither totally chaotic nor totally ordered, but rather a complete symbiosis of the two.

just some food for thought for you guys in that discussion.

LadyHitchhiker
11-09-2010, 07:00 AM
Yeah, I know :) I read Jurassic Park.. I learned a lot about chaos theory from there ;)

pathoftheturtle
11-09-2010, 11:37 AM
19eye-rosecrow-gun: I think the distinction between wanting to understand the Tower (Roland) and unreservedly desiring to destroy it (CK) is a very important one, not often enough considered.

Seneschal: Thank you! That's good information, and quite well described. :)

Seneschal
11-10-2010, 05:25 AM
Yeah, I know :) I read Jurassic Park.. I learned a lot about chaos theory from there ;)

haha! :wtf:



Seneschal: Thank you! That's good information, and quite well described. :)

you're welcome. i wish more of my college education would come in handy like that.

LadyHitchhiker
11-10-2010, 01:39 PM
Glad you got a good chuckle out of that! :D

19eye-rosecrow-gun
11-10-2010, 02:37 PM
very much like a psychoanalyst's suggestion that the mysterious cloaked stranger who follows you on the street is only an externalization of your childhood trauma. Then he wonders why the patient missed the appointment, calls her and learns that she's been stabbed on the street by a cloaked man

I mean, any theory is valid until it is disproved, but there are theories that enrich our view of the world, and there are others that only set up some abstract view that doesn't have to have anything to do with reality...

You should read it again. Keep in mind Roland is made by the tower, like everything else. I believe Roland and CK are the same. In fact it is almost impossible they aren't.

pathoftheturtle
11-10-2010, 03:42 PM
very much like a psychoanalyst's suggestion that the mysterious cloaked stranger who follows you on the street is only an externalization of your childhood trauma. Then he wonders why the patient missed the appointment, calls her and learns that she's been stabbed on the street by a cloaked man

I mean, any theory is valid until it is disproved, but there are theories that enrich our view of the world, and there are others that only set up some abstract view that doesn't have to have anything to do with reality...

You should read it again. Keep in mind Roland is made by the tower, like everything else. I believe Roland and CK are the same. In fact it is almost impossible they aren't.Is it, then, almost impossible that everything else not be the same, too?
I know Jean has read these books plenty of times, and I actually found that post of his very expressive and right to the point.

19eye-rosecrow-gun
11-10-2010, 10:58 PM
Surly not everything else is the same. Oy and Flagg are not the same. Roland and CK probably are. Think about it like this: Roland destroys lives trying to get to the tower, and CK will destroy lives so Roland won't get there. Its a very simple explanation to say it like this, but just let it cook for a while.

pathoftheturtle
11-11-2010, 11:30 AM
the ck wasa insane smart but insane it was his job to protect the tower not distory it and on matter what lineage he has he would be plunged into the same nothingness as every one else and the fact that he dosent see it is even more insane evey thing (apart from killing him self) that he dose in the book king wrote was insanePerhaps he would be better off dead.

The flip side of the question, "Is the Crimson King truly insane?" is Roland's big question: Is Gan truly sane? To answer whether the CK is right to try to destroy the Tower in the sense of whether doing so is in his best interest, we'd need to know what would happen to him if he did not try to destroy it. Clearly, he's miserable now, but isn't that his own fault? It seems that he's making himself miserable, and possibly causing all of the other miseries the rest of us experience in the process. Did he start doing this because he lost his mind, or was Gan intentionally making him miserable before? What we really need to know is whether the existing multiverse is really better than what the CK would create, and in what way. In Eddie's vision of the Rose, the Dark Tower is behind every incident wherein anyone is spared suffering. If that's true then it certainly seems insane to seek to destroy that to gain power for oneself. But why does Gan permit the CK to try? At the end, does the Tower not appear to actually encourage Roland to keep trying to climb it? If all of the suffering and evil in existence arises from this competition over control of the Tower then is that an evil purpose being served by it? Is Gan a sadist with the power to do to the CK and the rest of us what the CK dreams of being able to do to us and to Gan? Or is there more to life than an average horror novel?

In short, what is the definition of goodness and the good life, do these really exist, and for whom?

19eye-rosecrow-gun
11-11-2010, 11:25 PM
I think we have to look at two facts in the novels. There is the element of Fate and Choice. Flagg says "We are what the Tower makes us". What Flagg means, is we have no choice. We are bound by fate. You must also consider however, every character makes choices. Roland didn't have to let Jake die. Eddie didn't have to spare Roland's life. We must look at the chosen fate and the choices.

pathoftheturtle
11-12-2010, 09:16 AM
Everyone makes choices, but the CK still can't simply choose to destroy the Tower. Between the element of fate and the element of choice is the element of power. I think that clarity on how these and other facts relate is essential to the meaning of sanity.

19eye-rosecrow-gun
11-13-2010, 01:09 PM
Its hard to say because if the Crimson King knows he is doomed to repeat his death forever, wouldn't it be sane for him to want to destroy the tower and re-create the Prim in which he was born from? This is sane enough, but there is also the fact of the Crimson King's evil nature. He enjoys people's suffering.

Babymordred121
12-28-2010, 05:55 AM
Kind of an Eastern-style interpretation, but what if his intention was never to rule anything, but to simply to obliterate this flawed, material reality to restore the infinite darkness beyond? If the Prim and Todash are a part of a higher reality, comprehensible only to the beasts within it, Crimson King may have genuinely believed that the material world was a horrible, broken mistake by comparison. His Nirvana is a dark, endless sea of perpetual void, free of the petty concerns of the flesh.

But instead of teaching others the way to transcendence, he's bringing Nirvana to them. To Crimson King, humans are purely material beings, no better than termites. They are to be used to help strip away the curtains, but that is all. Why give them the option to remain chained to this mortal reality? Better to simply shatter the illusion once and for all, and reveal the ultimate reality beneath. They have nothing within them that is worthy of the Todash darkness, and will be obliterated with the rest of the veil.

The Crimson King himself is only half mortal, cursed to walk this world and only dream of becoming one with the Todash. He thinks of himself as a kind of Buddha or Messiah, born of both worlds and aspiring to the greater. As such, destroying the fabric of reality would also destroy his own weak, mortal half, leaving only the pure, inhuman half to shine through and flourish in the primordial darkness.

Krims0nKing
12-28-2010, 10:52 AM
It's hard to say if the Crimson King is insane. We can just totally assume he's power hungry, and wants to rule everything. We know the Tower stands pretty much just for Roland, or heck, maybe I only view it as this. Crimson King wants to destroy the Tower, so that he's the most important figure in the world(s) If you've ever read "Black House" then you'd know his 'physical' being is stuck at the tower, and there other manifestations out there. He is, yes, one that Darkles and Tincts, as well as Randall Flagg, as well as Roland. They have no Twinners, they're just in every world like. Crimson King just serves the 'Random' and Roland serves the 'Purpose', and that answers the question above, "is Crimson King and Roland the same?"...the answer has to be...no!

sawFrossy
05-01-2011, 09:14 AM
Man, that is REALLY well done Ken. How long does this take you, besides forever?

mtdman
06-10-2011, 05:37 AM
Here's what I want to know. Was the CK around in the really old days when the really old people created all the technology that Roland and the katet keep running in to? When did he come along? Who were the people that lived in the land that he ruled? Who would live in a kingdom ruled by him? Were they all evil or bad people? When did he kill all those lands between the Castle Discorida and his castle? All that backstory is confusing to me.

Slender
06-10-2011, 10:25 AM
Here's what I want to know. Was the CK around in the really old days when the really old people created all the technology that Roland and the katet keep running in to? When did he come along? Who were the people that lived in the land that he ruled? Who would live in a kingdom ruled by him? Were they all evil or bad people? When did he kill all those lands between the Castle Discorida and his castle? All that backstory is confusing to me.
The Crimson King is the son of Arthur Eld and the Crimson Queen. Since Arthur Eld was born in the post-apocalyptic Mid-World, this means that Los' wasn't around until long after the Old Ones' civilisation had collapsed. However, the 'true' manifestation of the Crimson King, Dis, has been part of the Dark Tower since the very beginning at least that's the impression I get.

pathoftheturtle
06-10-2011, 06:17 PM
Don't forget that time passes differently in various worlds.

mtdman
06-11-2011, 09:14 PM
Here's what I want to know. Was the CK around in the really old days when the really old people created all the technology that Roland and the katet keep running in to? When did he come along? Who were the people that lived in the land that he ruled? Who would live in a kingdom ruled by him? Were they all evil or bad people? When did he kill all those lands between the Castle Discorida and his castle? All that backstory is confusing to me.
The Crimson King is the son of Arthur Eld and the Crimson Queen. Since Arthur Eld was born in the post-apocalyptic Mid-World, this means that Los' wasn't around until long after the Old Ones' civilisation had collapsed. However, the 'true' manifestation of the Crimson King, Dis, has been part of the Dark Tower since the very beginning – at least that's the impression I get.


I'm not sure I get the whole CK was always part of the Dark Tower thing. King made a point of writing about the CK traveling to the DT when Roland and his katet were in the Calla. And Dandelo, Thoughtful, and others made a point of talking about the CK traveling to the DT. And King wrote about CK getting caught on the balcony of the DT where he was when Roland came along. (Although, I don't understand how the CK got into the tower to get into Roland's 2nd room and then get stuck on the balcony. If he could get in, why wouldn't he just get in and be in charge of the tower? I thought Roland needed his gun to open the door and the CK couldn't get in without it either. That whole bit wasn't very consistent.).

Still doesn't explain who the people were that he ruled, where they came from, etc. There were obviously lots of people willing to work for him, from all worlds. I'd move out if he was my king. :D

Brainslinger
06-12-2011, 10:52 AM
I'd go with the comic origin of the Crimson King since we haven't been given another explanation, but I agree with this:


I'm not sure I get the whole CK was always part of the Dark Tower thing.

I don't think any of the books have stated that he has always been there right from the start. The Waste Lands, Insomnia and Black House do give the impression that he is already stuck in the Tower though, but different worlds, rate of time-flow could account for that. (And of course some statements may be prophetic in nature. And some may be inaccurate too coming as they do through a human filter.)

It's mainly from BH that we come up with the theories of the Red King being in two places at once, but none of the DT books have specifically stated this. I think he could send out his mind and influence even was trapped in the Tower (thus in effect being two places at once) but I personally don't subscribe to the idea that there's a godlike side called 'Dis' trapped at the top. I think Dis is either a more powerful other out there, or it's a description of all the forces of discordance and chaos. I think the Crimson King and his kin from the prim are all part of it.



Still doesn't explain who the people were that he ruled, where they came from, etc. There were obviously lots of people willing to work for him, from all worlds. I'd move out if he was my king. :D

We haven't really been given much information on this. It think it's fair to say he ruled a large chunk of End-World and the Taheen and Low-men comprise a large chunk of his subjects, as do the various human villages within his territory. Some would have been willing to follow him in their hope to gain power. The rest... well... I'd imagine he had many unwilling subjects. I'm sure many did try to leave (some may have succeeded.)

Of course he wiped out the majority of the population just for the fun of it. I imagine many served him out of fear that they might be next, rather than being outright evil.

Slender
06-13-2011, 12:11 PM
I'm not sure I get the whole CK was always part of the Dark Tower thing. King made a point of writing about the CK traveling to the DT when Roland and his katet were in the Calla. And Dandelo, Thoughtful, and others made a point of talking about the CK traveling to the DT. And King wrote about CK getting caught on the balcony of the DT where he was when Roland came along. (Although, I don't understand how the CK got into the tower to get into Roland's 2nd room and then get stuck on the balcony. If he could get in, why wouldn't he just get in and be in charge of the tower? I thought Roland needed his gun to open the door and the CK couldn't get in without it either. That whole bit wasn't very consistent.)
The way I see it, the 'old man' Crimson King who is the biological offspring of Eld is one being, whereas the more abstract, 'true' Crimson King is another, more fundamental entity. Los' and Dis are strongly linked the extreme, supernatural, almost primordial evil of Los' makes him the closest thing Dis has to an avatar outside the Tower but I think they're ultimately two separate beings, although the line between them is a very blurry one.


It's mainly from BH that we come up with the theories of the Red King being in two places at once, but none of the DT books have specifically stated this. I think he could send out his mind and influence even was trapped in the Tower (thus in effect being two places at once) but I personally don't subscribe to the idea that there's a godlike side called 'Dis' trapped at the top. I think Dis is either a more powerful other out there, or it's a description of all the forces of discordance and chaos. I think the Crimson King and his kin from the prim are all part of it.
Since the forces of Purpose (or the White, or whatever you want to call it) are concentrated in a single location the Tower it's always made sense to me that the forces of the Random/Red are similarly concentrated. The two are diametrically opposed two sides of the same coin and they wage their war across every universe, but I think the ultimate nexus of both forces is in the same place; that the pinnacle of evil is located at the heart of good. One is the shadow of the other; the two cannot be separated. This is why I think the Crimson King has, in some way, been there from the beginning.

pathoftheturtle
06-13-2011, 03:54 PM
Well, I'm not so sure that good and evil can't be separated; so, if the CK has more than passing influence on the Tower, if it is in fact the pinnacle of evil itself, then I'd say that Roland is entirely justified to go on trying to surmount it. Maybe there is no true good in existence.

mtdman
06-15-2011, 04:52 PM
Refresh my memory. Where did we learn about this 'Dis' part of the CK? Is that in a book, or speculation? I can dig the idea that the White is trapped with the forces of the Darkness in the Tower. Dark and White is in every level of the Tower.

Brainslinger
06-19-2011, 10:25 AM
Refresh my memory. Where did we learn about this 'Dis' part of the CK? Is that in a book, or speculation? I can dig the idea that the White is trapped with the forces of the Darkness in the Tower. Dark and White is in every level of the Tower.

Dis is mentioned in the later books but the idea that it is part of the Crimson King is speculation.

If anything I'd say the CK is part of Dis rather than the other way around. What actually is Dis isn't really clarified in the books. I'm not clear if it's just an arbitrary thing, the force of chaos and DIScordance, or if it's one of the Mid-world pantheon... or both.

Tik
08-02-2011, 03:18 PM
The name Dis is mentioned in the 6th book. It's in the scene where Stephen King is talking about how the Crimson King tried to convert him into his pet writer. During this conversation King seems to substitute the title "Crimson King" with "Dis" at certain points.

I'm 100% convinced that there are two forms the the Crimson King. For one thing, Black House explicitely states this. For another, even the Dark Tower series itself suggests it. In book 5 we see a flashback of Father Callhan seeing the Red King looking down at him from the Dark Tower through Black 13 yet this is years before he killed everyone at Le Cassie Roi Russe and decamped for the Tower. The King in book 5 is in two places at once, the Tower and his Castle (exactly as outlined in Black House). Then theres that scene in book 7 which states the Crimson King is Gans crazy side. And when Patrick Danville is drawing the Red King he states that the King isn't entirely there.

For a more indepth explaination, backed up with quotes and evidence, see the spoiler tag in my first post in this thread (found on the first page).

flaggwalkstheline
08-02-2011, 04:08 PM
so dis and los?

Darkthoughts
08-27-2011, 03:08 PM
As this thread is, and has been, so character specific, I'm merging with the CK thread in The Villagers subforum :)

Wuducynn
12-15-2011, 05:20 PM
The name Dis is mentioned in the 6th book. It's in the scene where Stephen King is talking about how the Crimson King tried to convert him into his pet writer. During this conversation King seems to substitute the title "Crimson King" with "Dis" at certain points.

I'm 100% convinced that there are two forms the the Crimson King. For one thing, Black House explicitely states this. For another, even the Dark Tower series itself suggests it. In book 5 we see a flashback of Father Callhan seeing the Red King looking down at him from the Dark Tower through Black 13 yet this is years before he killed everyone at Le Cassie Roi Russe and decamped for the Tower. The King in book 5 is in two places at once, the Tower and his Castle (exactly as outlined in Black House). Then theres that scene in book 7 which states the Crimson King is Gans crazy side. And when Patrick Danville is drawing the Red King he states that the King isn't entirely there.

For a more indepth explaination, backed up with quotes and evidence, see the spoiler tag in my first post in this thread (found on the first page).

Agreed. I've thought this kind of thing for years.

Andrew Campbell
04-24-2014, 08:44 PM
I gave it a 4. Loved the ending. In fact, as "ka" would dictate, it was the only logical ending to have. However, I didn't expect the Crimson King to be a gibbering idiot, so I had to dock it a point. I expected someone a calculated and ruthless as Flagg. G'head. Shoot me. Tell me I've "forgotten the face of my Father."
Bears don't shoot, they maul.

Seriously, though, I never thought the reasoning "I expected this and got that" is very convincing. I'd much rather people (and animals) argued with what they got, not what they expected. I know, however, that many have found the Crimson King thing disappointing, expectations or no expectations. Couldn't never really understand why. I would say having a dead insane king in the centre of the universe was just about the worst thing that could happen to us.

Well, it strikes me that such is the point of this exercise: we all rate experiences (be they books, movies, vacations, sky-divimg, food, what-have-you) based upon our expectations. Higher marks go to those experiences that exceed the expectations, whilst lower marks go to those which fall flat. For DT7, the build up to the Crimson King, which started with INSOMNIA, exceeded the actual manifestation of what was supposed to be the ultimate villain. And in this respect, I refer back to the movie BROADCAST NEWS where Aaron, in describing the Devil, asks (somewhat rhetorically): How will the Devil show himself? With a tail, and horns, and fangs? Surely not. The Devil will appear as a nice guy -- a friend, who only will ask you to compromise your values just a little bit. And then a little more. And then more still.

That, I guess, is what I was expecting with the Crimson King: a seducer, who was well-versed and familiar in the inherently fragile nature of humanity, and who would (quietly, but gleefully) exploit it.

Now, I agree that having a dead, insane king at the center of the universe is a frightening proposition. That proposition, however, doesn't convey the inherent evil that I was looking for: i.e., the ultimate antithesis to (borrowing King's terminology) "the White."

Jean
04-24-2014, 09:58 PM
but what if what we have exceeds our expectations, so to speak, sideways?

I mean, there is a quantitative and qualitative aspects to expectation. We expect something to be awesome, and it isn't; or we expect it to be average, and it's awesome - this is the quantitative aspect, and very much the experience I had with the whole of, say, Dr.Sleep and Cell respectively.

The qualitative aspect in its mild form is, we expected it to be round, and it is square. This can be more or less reduced to previous case, because we can argue that round is more appropriate and give some valid arguments in favor of this opinion.

In its pure form it is: we expected it to be round, and it is pink.

(sorry I have to hurry to work now, I didn't address all of your post and haven't developed what I wanted to say, but you see the poiint! please do go on, God knows bears missed such discussions!!!)

Andrew Campbell
04-25-2014, 07:02 AM
but what if what we have exceeds our expectations, so to speak, sideways?

I mean, there is a quantitative and qualitative aspects to expectation. We expect something to be awesome, and it isn't; or we expect it to be average, and it's awesome - this is the quantitative aspect, and very much the experience I had with the whole of, say, Dr.Sleep and Cell respectively.

The qualitative aspect in its mild form is, we expected it to be round, and it is square. This can be more or less reduced to previous case, because we can argue that round is more appropriate and give some valid arguments in favor of this opinion.

In its pure form it is: we expected it to be round, and it is pink.

(sorry I have to hurry to work now, I didn't address all of your post and haven't developed what I wanted to say, but you see the poiint! please do go on, God knows bears missed such discussions!!!)

My point is two-fold. First, while bat-shit crazy (as was presented by the Crimson King in DT7) is scary, it is not necessarily evil. Sure, he's lobbing hand-grenades like Tom Seaver, but he's irrational, unthinking and -- thus -- somewhat random. Which brings me to the second part: that is not how SK initially set up the Crimson King. He first appears in INSOMNIA. Specifically, he appears to young Patrick Danville in dreams. Now, someone who can do that is focused, purposeful, and single-minded to a goal. In a word: cognitive. In INSOMNIA, the Crimson King has an agenda. We don't know what it is, or why he inhabits Danville's dreams, but we surmise that there is a reason and goal for doing so. And it is because of that implicit understanding, that Patrick Danville can not die, regardless of the price. That is (for me) the whole point of INSOMNIA: to present that all matters dealing with The Dark Tower are conscious and purposeful, and that there are two immense forces (the White and the Dark) that are locked in a struggle and contest for ultmate control. Indeed, when Ralph Roberts strikes his deal with Clotho and Lachesis to substitute his own life for that of Natalie Deepneau, Ralph senses great cosmic wheels -- at levels far higher than his plane of existence -- turning and rebalancing as his proposal is considered and -- ultimately -- accepted.

That is the stage (and the expectation) King sets in INSOMNIA, which he really does nowhere else in any of the DT novels: i.e., that, while "all things serve the Beam," there is a conscious, calculating, and focused purpose in why things happen. If nothing else, Ronald Deschain is purposeful in everything he does, and everything he does is focused on the singular goal of attaining the Tower. The "yin" to his "yang" is the Crimson King, who is . . . what? . . . a gibbering, incoherent primate with a wicked fastfall? That's not how he was established when he first made the scene in INSOMNIA, which is why to me his final climactic appearance was a let down.

fernandito
04-25-2014, 07:21 AM
but what if what we have exceeds our expectations, so to speak, sideways?

I mean, there is a quantitative and qualitative aspects to expectation. We expect something to be awesome, and it isn't; or we expect it to be average, and it's awesome - this is the quantitative aspect, and very much the experience I had with the whole of, say, Dr.Sleep and Cell respectively.

The qualitative aspect in its mild form is, we expected it to be round, and it is square. This can be more or less reduced to previous case, because we can argue that round is more appropriate and give some valid arguments in favor of this opinion.

In its pure form it is: we expected it to be round, and it is pink.

(sorry I have to hurry to work now, I didn't address all of your post and haven't developed what I wanted to say, but you see the poiint! please do go on, God knows bears missed such discussions!!!)

My point is two-fold. First, while bat-shit crazy (as was presented by the Crimson King in DT7) is scary, it is not necessarily evil. Sure, he's lobbing hand-grenades like Tom Seaver, but he's irrational, unthinking and -- thus -- somewhat random. Which brings me to the second part: that is not how SK initially set up the Crimson King. He first appears in INSOMNIA. Specifically, he appears to young Patrick Danville in dreams. Now, someone who can do that is focused, purposeful, and single-minded to a goal. In a word: cognitive. In INSOMNIA, the Crimson King has an agenda. We don't know what it is, or why he inhabits Danville's dreams, but we surmise that there is a reason and goal for doing so. And it is because of that implicit understanding, that Patrick Danville can not die, regardless of the price. That is (for me) the whole point of INSOMNIA: to present that all matters dealing with The Dark Tower are conscious and purposeful, and that there are two immense forces (the White and the Dark) that are locked in a struggle and contest for ultmate control. Indeed, when Ralph Roberts strikes his deal with Clotho and Lachesis to substitute his own life for that of Natalie Deepneau, Ralph senses great cosmic wheels -- at levels far higher than his plane of existence -- turning and rebalancing as his proposal is considered and -- ultimately -- accepted.

That is the stage (and the expectation) King sets in INSOMNIA, which he really does nowhere else in any of the DT novels: i.e., that, while "all things serve the Beam," there is a conscious, calculating, and focused purpose in why things happen. If nothing else, Ronald Deschain is purposeful in everything he does, and everything he does is focused on the singular goal of attaining the Tower. The "yin" to his "yang" is the Crimson King, who is . . . what? . . . a gibbering, incoherent primate with a wicked fastfall? That's not how he was established when he first made the scene in INSOMNIA, which is why to me his final climactic appearance was a let down.
Wow. Well stated, I agree with just about everything you said. I haven't thought about the CK aspect of the story in quite some time but now that the memory has been rekindled; yes, he was a massive disappointment as both a character and as the anti thesis to 'The White'.

Jean
04-25-2014, 07:29 AM
the four posts above are copied from a CRA thread

Jean
04-25-2014, 07:40 AM
Andrew: this is exactly why I think CK was a perfect adversary, and the exact opposite to everything Roland stands for

They are not yin/yang, because they do not represent the sides of a unity, the heads and tails of one coin, nothing like that. Their difference is way too essential. It is order versus chaos, and a random insane undead King is the epitome of chaos. It's not even good vs. evil - that is why, as you correctly said, we can hardly say CK is evil. Evil implies a design; it also implies knowledge of good; it thrives on good and is, thus, its counterpart. Random isn't counterpart of anything, not even of order; an order regroups or crumbles and falls, and still the crumbled parts are vestiges of past order - random doesn't know even its basic rudiments, because its principle is random (sorry for the tautology).

I agree, however, that it's not how CK was presented to us in other, earlier books. I think it's because human mind (the author's in this case) didn't quite grasp the concept of the absolute adversary, - one that is beyond not only good or evil, but also the whole scheme of things, - and tried to rationalize his intents and behavior.

fernandito
04-25-2014, 07:50 AM
I have to admit that I'm at a severe disadvantage in this debate because 1) I read DTVII for the first and only time in 2004 and the constant battering of time has eroded most of its contents from my memory, and 2) what little I do manage to remember is filtered across time by my 18 year old self (how old I was when I read it) and as such some of the heavier philosophical implications went right over my head.

Having said that, wasn't it stated explicitly somewhere in the series that CK was the personification of evil?

Jean
04-25-2014, 07:54 AM
even if it was - it was said by someone. The book is outstandingly complex (sometimes, maybe, independently from the author's intentions). It may have been said, for example, by Roland, whose mind is rather simple and straightforward, and totally influenced by the lore of his land(s) and time(s), which he accepts uncritically (like, for example, the concept of ka).

Andrew Campbell
04-25-2014, 10:38 AM
I risk being pedantic here. However, fiction -- in my opinion -- is a machine: a novel (or a series of novels) establishes rules, defines its own logic, and moves within them. When there are changes to the logic or infrastructure to a novel, the changes themselves must be explainable within the confines of the novel's system. King, in fact, recognizes this, and I come to realize that this discussion is akin to the argument between Annie Wilkes and Paul Sheldon in MISERY. Recall: Sheldon kills off Misery Chastain in "Misery's Child" and is forced by Annie The-Number-One-Fan to bring Misery back. So, he half-heartedly writes "Misery's Return." Wilkes reads it, and tells Sheldon that he's totally screwed it up, because there is a plot line disconnect between Misery's death and her resurrection. Simply put, the "machine" of the novel broke down because of a continuity error.

That was how I felt about the CK. We were provided foreshadowing in INSOMNIA as to what to expect (via the omnicient third-person narrative style) and were presented with something entirely different in DT7. And I remember thinking, as I was reading, "Is this the guy that we all were supposed to be afraid of?" That the DT7 CK bore no resemblance to what had been foreshadowed shocked me out of the narrative.

And I will agree, that Chaos is the pure opposite of Order. But Chaos is not necessarily the opposite of White; nor, is Order necessarily White. And "White" is what the DT series is about. Indeed, the symbolism of Christianity saturates much of the storyline. Roland, a descendent of Arthur the Eld, is a knight on a quest. When he receives the cross of the Jesus-man, he takes on the role of Perceval and his quest becomes THE Quest -- except it is the Tower he seeks, not the Holy Grail. In that respect, one looks for the opposite of the knight-errant: the antithesis of "good". And as Jean observes, evil has "design"; evil has "knowledge"; and evil has an appetite. Chaos, on the other hand, is mindless and random.

(And even though my thoughts in this respect follow those of Annie Wilkes, I'm really not like her at all. Really.)

Jean
04-26-2014, 02:09 AM
Yes, Annie Wilkes was the best critic. But the adventures of Misery Chastain wasn't the best literature. It was exactly the kind of literature Wilkes was the best critic for.

Whenever we have to do with something that transcends the boundaries of genre - or, rather, with anything that is really good - I believe we could use a little humility, like, asking ourselves: what if the author did exactly what he intended to do? What if what he did is better - or just different - than what I had in mind? Then we step inside the novel, accept the rules the author imposed, whether or not we agree with them or deem them consistent, and as a reward may get a novel entirely different from what we thought it was, and a whole lot of revelations.

I am all for inner logic of a piece of literature. I am very sensitive to anything that sounds false (like the totally implausible intrigue of The Eyes of the Dragon). The question is, what exactly does or doesn't sound false, and why.

My opinion (I apologize to everyone who've read it many times before over these years) is that what King did (especially, but not only) in the Dark Tower is greater than logic and better than consistency.

I am arguing that TDT surpasses fiction. I am arguing that it was exactly as described in Song of Susannah: story dictated by the Tower and creating the Tower at the same time. I have to assume, consequently, that the material surpassed the author's ability to describe it, just for the simple reason that it transcended human experience and the joint experience of a single separate universe.

Hence the inconsistencies. Hence the bad logic. The author is trying to fit into his head, and then convey to us through little black letters on a sheet of paper, that which can't be imagined or described.

I also believe that this is exactly what he consistently does in his best works. That is why, first, the "explanations" he gives are so pathetic, comparing to the picture we see (we can't really believe that
It is an ET spider, etc
and next, it makes him an unreliable narrator. We can't go by what he explicitly "said"; only by his visions. He describes the events honestly, as he sees them; whether he can draw the right conclusions is dubious.

I'll address the question why I firmly believe the gunslingers usurped the idea of "white" later (also, when I have found the proper thread)

Tik
05-28-2014, 04:25 AM
Well, it strikes me that such is the point of this exercise: we all rate experiences (be they books, movies, vacations, sky-divimg, food, what-have-you) based upon our expectations. Higher marks go to those experiences that exceed the expectations, whilst lower marks go to those which fall flat. For DT7, the build up to the Crimson King, which started with INSOMNIA, exceeded the actual manifestation of what was supposed to be the ultimate villain. And in this respect, I refer back to the movie BROADCAST NEWS where Aaron, in describing the Devil, asks (somewhat rhetorically): How will the Devil show himself? With a tail, and horns, and fangs? Surely not. The Devil will appear as a nice guy -- a friend, who only will ask you to compromise your values just a little bit. And then a little more. And then more still.

That, I guess, is what I was expecting with the Crimson King: a seducer, who was well-versed and familiar in the inherently fragile nature of humanity, and who would (quietly, but gleefully) exploit it.

Now, I agree that having a dead, insane king at the center of the universe is a frightening proposition. That proposition, however, doesn't convey the inherent evil that I was looking for: i.e., the ultimate antithesis to (borrowing King's terminology) "the White."

It might be worth pointing out that the Crimson King was a seducer at various points in the series. Even in DT7, where his mindset is arguably at it's most unhinged, the Red King lulls Patrick to sleep and tries to reason with Roland. The Eye of the King, looking out from Black 13, also whispers to and manipulates the minds of people nearby. The Red King's more intelligent, exploitative side of his character can also be found in the prequel comics.

My point is two-fold. First, while bat-shit crazy (as was presented by the Crimson King in DT7) is scary, it is not necessarily evil. Sure, he's lobbing hand-grenades like Tom Seaver, but he's irrational, unthinking and -- thus -- somewhat random. Which brings me to the second part: that is not how SK initially set up the Crimson King. He first appears in INSOMNIA. Specifically, he appears to young Patrick Danville in dreams. Now, someone who can do that is focused, purposeful, and single-minded to a goal. In a word: cognitive. In INSOMNIA, the Crimson King has an agenda. We don't know what it is, or why he inhabits Danville's dreams, but we surmise that there is a reason and goal for doing so. And it is because of that implicit understanding, that Patrick Danville can not die, regardless of the price. That is (for me) the whole point of INSOMNIA: to present that all matters dealing with The Dark Tower are conscious and purposeful, and that there are two immense forces (the White and the Dark) that are locked in a struggle and contest for ultmate control. Indeed, when Ralph Roberts strikes his deal with Clotho and Lachesis to substitute his own life for that of Natalie Deepneau, Ralph senses great cosmic wheels -- at levels far higher than his plane of existence -- turning and rebalancing as his proposal is considered and -- ultimately -- accepted.

That is the stage (and the expectation) King sets in INSOMNIA, which he really does nowhere else in any of the DT novels: i.e., that, while "all things serve the Beam," there is a conscious, calculating, and focused purpose in why things happen. If nothing else, Ronald Deschain is purposeful in everything he does, and everything he does is focused on the singular goal of attaining the Tower. The "yin" to his "yang" is the Crimson King, who is . . . what? . . . a gibbering, incoherent primate with a wicked fastfall? That's not how he was established when he first made the scene in INSOMNIA, which is why to me his final climactic appearance was a let down.
I would have to disagree with various points here. Firstly, the King's random side was well known from the off. In Insomnia, the Red King is explicitly portrayed as the head of the Random side of cosmological things. Likewise the Red King's insanity was brought up at least as early as Black House (by Parkus), if not before.

In fact, I've just remembered that it was alluded to in Insomnia by Dor - "Random is crazy. Purpose is sane." So right from the get go we should expect a certain degree of insanity from a being that personifies the Random.

Now, just because the Red King is insane/Random doesn't mean he's not evil nor that he's an unthinking creature. It's pretty obvious he is. After all, it's his plan (thousands of years in the making, if not longer) to destroy the Tower via the Beams. It's the King who sets the anti-ka in motion. It's the King who sent Marten and Farson to destroy the gunslingers/Affiliation. It's the King who tries to convert Stephen King into writing for him. Etc.

You've also got to remember that by the time Roland encounters the Red King at the Tower, all of the Crimson King's plans have been foiled by this point. All his planning has come to naught, which is stated to be a contributing factor for his mind state at this time. The King was already defeated before Roland got to him.


I risk being pedantic here. However, fiction -- in my opinion -- is a machine: a novel (or a series of novels) establishes rules, defines its own logic, and moves within them. When there are changes to the logic or infrastructure to a novel, the changes themselves must be explainable within the confines of the novel's system. King, in fact, recognizes this, and I come to realize that this discussion is akin to the argument between Annie Wilkes and Paul Sheldon in MISERY. Recall: Sheldon kills off Misery Chastain in "Misery's Child" and is forced by Annie The-Number-One-Fan to bring Misery back. So, he half-heartedly writes "Misery's Return." Wilkes reads it, and tells Sheldon that he's totally screwed it up, because there is a plot line disconnect between Misery's death and her resurrection. Simply put, the "machine" of the novel broke down because of a continuity error.

That was how I felt about the CK. We were provided foreshadowing in INSOMNIA as to what to expect (via the omnicient third-person narrative style) and were presented with something entirely different in DT7. And I remember thinking, as I was reading, "Is this the guy that we all were supposed to be afraid of?" That the DT7 CK bore no resemblance to what had been foreshadowed shocked me out of the narrative.

And I will agree, that Chaos is the pure opposite of Order. But Chaos is not necessarily the opposite of White; nor, is Order necessarily White. And "White" is what the DT series is about. Indeed, the symbolism of Christianity saturates much of the storyline. Roland, a descendent of Arthur the Eld, is a knight on a quest. When he receives the cross of the Jesus-man, he takes on the role of Perceval and his quest becomes THE Quest -- except it is the Tower he seeks, not the Holy Grail. In that respect, one looks for the opposite of the knight-errant: the antithesis of "good". And as Jean observes, evil has "design"; evil has "knowledge"; and evil has an appetite. Chaos, on the other hand, is mindless and random.

(And even though my thoughts in this respect follow those of Annie Wilkes, I'm really not like her at all. Really.)
To me, the foreshadowing of the Crimson King is quite good actually.

Firstly in Insomnia we are treated to a god-like entity and it's place in cosmological terms. We learn that it's this entity that Roland opposes. Then in Black House we learn that it has two manifestations - it's true form locked in a prison near the top of the Tower and it's second manifestation at the Court and Castle of the King. This goes some way to foreshadowing how Roland may defeat it - Roland will never face it's true form but may confront this second manifestation (Stephen King foreshadowing a way how Roland can defeat a god by basically having him defeat it's avatar).

By this point as well the Red King's insanity is also being foreshadowed, by the Crimson King being head guy of the Random and by Parkus' belief that the Red King is probably insane.

In DT3 the Beast-like form of the Crimson King Eddie sees in his dream is likened to a cancer of creation. In DT7 Patrick erases Susannah's cancerous sore from her face, which is nice foreshadowing for the King's defeat.

Again, the Red King's worsening insanity is constantly alluded to throughout the last DT book. This includes the scene where we learn that the Crimson King knows he's lost and kills all his followers. For me, by this point, I was expecting a somewhat unhinged Red King. And I know some people rolled their eyes at it and thought it silly, but when I first read that first scream I did get a little chill.

iJosh
09-16-2014, 01:01 AM
why did i read this. legit spolied it ahah

webstar1000
09-18-2014, 03:59 AM
why did i read this. legit spolied it ahah

LOL... the title says clearly SPOILERS....

Random321321
10-15-2014, 08:26 AM
Even if it's an interesting decision in certain ways, I do find the final battle to be a huge letdown, compared to the expectations set forth by The (original) Gunslinger. It didn't need to be a bang-bang action battle, a metaphysical psycho-battle would have worked, but no, sadly. Just a silly old man throwin' sneetches.

Merlin1958
10-16-2014, 02:47 PM
Even if it's an interesting decision in certain ways, I do find the final battle to be a huge letdown, compared to the expectations set forth by The (original) Gunslinger. It didn't need to be a bang-bang action battle, a metaphysical psycho-battle would have worked, but no, sadly. Just a silly old man throwin' sneetches.

Well, while I do agree with you when you think about it where else could he go, exactly. A "gunslinger" vs a "Magical" entity such as the "Crimson King" unless he had a "talisman" of some sort it was a no win situation. I guess he wrote himself into a corner.

Jon
10-25-2014, 10:07 PM
Plus he was an old fucker.

Merlin1958
10-27-2014, 08:11 PM
Plus he was an old fucker.

And that!! LOL The ending was a tad tedious and somewhat lacking, but after years to absorb it, it just seems that he went the "right" way.

Jon
11-28-2014, 07:58 PM
Yes. There where those of us who waited 25+ years for the end and I suspect seeing seeing SK going doing down like that was kind of a relief for the "older" readers like Bill.

But we *cough/younger/cough* readers wanted blood!

fernandito
11-29-2014, 07:35 AM
It was a ridiculously disappointing ending.

On Roland going up against a deity like opponent - King could have neutered the CK's powers a bit with the explanation that being so close to the Tower for so long had hindered his abilities. A metaphysical battle as mentioned by the user^ above would have worked wonderfully too.

Pretty much anything but what we got. I'm hoping the films rectify that.

Xerrand
07-16-2015, 10:49 AM
It was a ridiculously disappointing ending.

On Roland going up against a deity like opponent - King could have neutered the CK's powers a bit with the explanation that being so close to the Tower for so long had hindered his abilities. A metaphysical battle as mentioned by the user^ above would have worked wonderfully too.

Pretty much anything but what we got. I'm hoping the films rectify that.

I could not agree more. The sheer amount of build up for the King was totally wasted on account of what we actually got at the end. Santa clause with grenades.....

To answer the main question though, he was definitely a Villain, I mean it was his people who were bringing about the destruction of not just the universe, but all of existence itself. I'm pretty sure that is definitely Villain behaviour, however disappointing the being known a the Crimson King himself turned out to be in the end.

Jon
07-16-2015, 10:06 PM
I was personally disappointed by the end myself.

I MUST ask..."Would we be better entertained by a "Mad Max" or "Die Hard" type ending?

Xerrand
07-21-2015, 05:11 AM
I was personally disappointed by the end myself.

I MUST ask..."Would we be better entertained by a "Mad Max" or "Die Hard" type ending?


To be honest I 've no idea haha, I never did know what to expect at the end and I don't that that King knew himself really....

Jon
07-23-2015, 07:48 PM
As an answer to my own question..a mix woul have been nice...see Roland kick a little ass and a bit of "Twilight Zone" work too. But the actual ending was...lame. You gotta understand...I began this journey with the original Gunslinger...I waited 21 years for this story to end.

Xerrand
07-24-2015, 03:23 AM
As an answer to my own question..a mix woul have been nice...see Roland kick a little ass and a bit of "Twilight Zone" work too. But the actual ending was...lame. You gotta understand...I began this journey with the original Gunslinger...I waited 21 years for this story to end.

Wow...yeah if I had started back with the original gunslinger then the ending really would have been a kick In the ass :lol: all the build up of the crimson king just wasted!

chen1995
11-09-2015, 09:00 PM
He is as much a villian as possible.

Jon
04-28-2016, 10:38 PM
Yes... but there ARE aspects of CK that I like. Satan's best move as to convince humanity that he doesn't exist. King ALMOST...over 21 years, convinced me that RF was his Satan ( The Stand). CK was... a "story" until late in the DT series. I must give King that. But then RF's boss was a paper tiger...that I didn't like...especially in the wake of RF being trashed by "a-hungry spider."

Tommy
04-29-2016, 01:02 AM
My two biggest disappointments with the DT series are how RF and CK are dealt with.

Jon
05-05-2016, 10:57 PM
Yes.. thank you Tommy...I forgot that CK was dispatched with a simple eraser...lame!

Iwritecode
05-06-2016, 05:16 AM
Really if you think about it though, some of the greatest villians ever were eventually defeated by some really small act. In LOTR, Sauron was taken down by a ring being thrown into a volcano. In Star Wars, the emperor was destroyed by being flung over a railing. The Wicked Witch of the west melted from a little bit of water.

These villains are always touted as being all-powerful and unstoppable but the good guys have to win eventually so the writers must give them some way to be defeated.

Jon
06-13-2016, 04:30 AM
Really if you think about it though, some of the greatest villians ever were eventually defeated by some really small act. In LOTR, Sauron was taken down by a ring being thrown into a volcano. In Star Wars, the emperor was destroyed by being flung over a railing. The Wicked Witch of the west melted from a little bit of water.

These villains are always touted as being all-powerful and unstoppable but the good guys have to win eventually so the writers must give them some way to be defeated.


The man makes a point!

Tommy
06-13-2016, 06:11 AM
I agree.

Edited for clarity and stupidity...

Jon
06-17-2016, 11:45 AM
But Tommy...
But Roland didn't defeat CK...Patrick did.

Don't make me get out a bottle of Nair and a bottle of White Out to eliminate you!!! LOL

Jon
06-17-2016, 11:49 AM
That's the good thing about we hairy guys, Tommy...Patrick's eraser would have worn out!

Tommy
06-17-2016, 03:52 PM
But Tommy...
But Roland didn't defeat CK...Patrick did.

Don't make me get out a bottle of Nair and a bottle of White Out to eliminate you!!! LOL

:redface:

Tommy
06-17-2016, 03:53 PM
That's the good thing about we hairy guys, Tommy...Patrick's eraser would have worn out!

I would require a big eraser indeed. :redface:

Jon
06-19-2016, 12:16 PM
* Sends Tommy a gift certificate for a Brazilian.

kaufen
01-18-2017, 06:25 AM
Anything book related certainly doesn't need spoiler tags here, considering everyone should have read all the books by the time they come here

Jean
01-22-2017, 11:59 PM
Yes.. thank you Tommy...I forgot that CK was dispatched with a simple eraser...lame!
I don't know about lame.

It's - I mean, the logic itself - is like, you know, when people, say, pay for a renowned expert's consultation and then say: what, he got all this money - for what? writing those two lines on a piece of paper? it took him ten minutes! - Forgetting the decades of hard work, training, acquiring knowledge, etc etc, that finally enabled him to make people value his opinion that high.

Same here, you see - it's not that thing in your spoiler that defeated CK, it's everything Roland and his ka-tet has been doing; plus generations of gunslingers before him, since they shaped both Roland the way he was, and the world the way it finally let Roland bring all the necessary ingredients together. That

But Roland didn't defeat CK...Patrick did.is, for me, the best thing of all - there is both irony to this, and - at last - some strangely dignified humility. I so feared the saga would go all superhero at the end - I am so grateful it never did.

Brainslinger
08-06-2017, 02:34 PM
And besides, while it was Patrick's doing, it was Roland's idea. He used Patrick and his power to defeat the Crimson King. (Defending them both from the sneeches, in the process. One miss and Patrick could have been mincemeat along with the plans.) In a very real sense, Patrick became Roland's gun.

I confess I hoped for something more from all the major villains though.

Tommy
08-06-2017, 08:37 PM
I wanted more from CK as a character as well. Such good build up but he was probably not always a villain, he just has lived too long and has gone bat-shit crazy.

Which actor would you cast for CK?

LankyMcAllister16
08-07-2017, 12:32 PM
He was a disappointing lunatic. Randall Flagg should have been Roland's final obstacle to reaching the Tower.