Original or Revised, if you HAD to choose

[Matt of Gilead]

I vote revised, but I've never read the original. From what I've heard, it sounds like the changes were an improvement.

[EdwardDean1999]

I've probably sullied the vote by voting without ever reading the original. I base my vote on SK's argument/forward for revising The Gunslinger. He describes it as comparatively pompous in contrast to later works and of later DT chapters. I have to agree. Even the revised edition halts and stalls in its narrative flow. You can almost imagine young SK writing this stuff and stopping every paragraph to comb through his words with a thesaurus. (Really? was it the "Apotheosis of all deserts"?)

The narrative gets much better and you can tell when SK is not agonizing over which adverb to throw in. Those better passages seem more like an exercise in free-writing. Dialogue is smoother. We don't choke on detail. We allow the narrative to wash over us because dumbasses like me don't have to look up "apotheosis" in the dictionary. We can just enjoy the novel.

I say revised. But without ever reading the original. I don't even think I want to read the original.

[MonteGss]

Though I agree with your vote for revised....you DEFINITELY should read the original version.

[jayson]

I agree with Monte, about the advice to read the original. I prefer the original, but either way, I think if you can get a copy of the original it's worth a read. You may still prefer the revised, plenty of people do. :)

[Letti]

I don't think it has the same effect if you read the original first and then the revised or the opposite.. if you read the revised first and then the original. I don't think that the original can win you if you started with the revised one. I might be wrong.

[MonteGss]

Letti, I'd be willing to bet that those people who started the series reading the revised and then at a later date picked up the original version ALL voted that the Revised is their preference. Shit...we've all heard from people that didn't even know there was an "original" until they came to this site. :)

[Letti]

Letti, I'd be willing to bet that those people who started the series reading the revised and then at a later date picked up the original version ALL voted that the Revised is their preference. Shit...we've all heard from people that didn't even know there was an "original" until they came to this site. :)

Yeah, they cannot get that feeling we did. When you didn't know anything about anything. I mean the original one has much more mysteries and secrets somehow. It's like being a fog.. That's why I love it so much.

[MonteGss]

Letti, I'd be willing to bet that those people who started the series reading the revised and then at a later date picked up the original version ALL voted that the Revised is their preference. Shit...we've all heard from people that didn't even know there was an "original" until they came to this site. :)

Yeah, they cannot get that feeling we did. When you didn't know anything about anything. I mean the original one has much more mysteries and secrets somehow. It's like being a fog.. That's why I love it so much.

I agree....though I truly do like the revised better. :)

[stone, rose, unfound door]

I didn't vote because they don't compare. They're not the same book and they don't tell the same story so I actually take the original version as the starting point of a first loop and the revised one as the starting point of another loop.

[EdwardDean1999]

Though I agree with your vote for revised....you DEFINITELY should read the original version.

I wish they would republish it. I don't enjoy reading used books as much as new.

[AnOutsider]

Old thread I know, but here goes:




King has talked of revising all the books but I'm not sure I want that to happen...

I don't want this to happen either. I'm curious what he thinks he needs to edit/rewrite. As mentioned by others, I do understand the edits to The Gunslinger though. i think part of it is little things like the western sea being on the wrong side when they're walking up the beach in drawing of the three.

nothing *huge*, but stuff like that.

Man, that bugged me SO much that my search for a map of the world of The Dark Tower is what brought me to this forum in the first place. It annoyed the heck out of me and no matter how much I told myself that it must be intentional since the world is in drift, it still irked me.


I didn't vote because they don't compare. They're not the same book and they don't tell the same story so I actually take the original version as the starting point of a first loop and the revised one as the starting point of another loop.

That's a really good way to think about it. I'd love to have SK rewrite the series in a newer loop. maybe even have someone go into the tower with him at the end.

[pathoftheturtle]

i think part of it is little things like the western sea being on the wrong side when they're walking up the beach in drawing of the three.

Man, that bugged me SO much that my search for a map of the world of The Dark Tower is what brought me to this forum in the first place. It annoyed the heck out of me and no matter how much I told myself that it must be intentional since the world is in drift, it still irked me.That's nothing. How about this:Lud is New York How can a train run southeast from there to Kansas? :beat: Best just to forget about maps for that world, but still, very glad that you have made your way to our site. :)

[Brainslinger]

Okay, minor The Waste Lands spoilers:


How about this:Lud is New York How can a train run southeast from there to Kansas? :beat: Best just to forget about maps for that world, but still, very glad that you have made your way to our site. :)

I didn't see that as a problem at all as I don't think

the two cities were ever meant to be the same to that extent. I think Ludd is certainly a twin of New York (of sorts) but they're geographically in different places, else New York being on the Atlantic. (I suppose the Mid-World equivalent of that would be the Clean Sea, but I'm not certain.) Even if they were in geographically equivalent places, portals such as doors and thinnies don't necesarily deposit one in the equivalent place in that world to which you left.

Back to The Gunslinger:

The whole east/west left right thing is weird though, something too drastic to just be put down to directions in drift I think. I agree it's a shame King didn't alter that part when he revised the book.

[MonteGss]

I didn't vote because they don't compare. They're not the same book and they don't tell the same story...

Well, you actually didn't answer the question. ;)
The thread is....
If you HAD to choose. There are many reasons to like one over the other or to ignore one or treat them as two different stories but that really isn't what the thread is asking. :)

[Woofer]

I have not read all the comics, so can someone answer this for me?

How do we know that Roland's ancestors didn't sail west across the Western sea to the land where we find Roland, thus making it the Western sea?

[pixiedark76]

I own both the original and revised. I voted for the revised. I think that the original makes no sense at all! I am totally lost when I read the original version. :doh: Especially when you read the rest of Dark Tower volumes. For instance:
the number 19 is not mentioned in the original (19 is the secret word that Randall Flagg tells Allie in regards to asking Nort about the secrets of death)In the revised version it is mentioned and this is why the revised version flows better with the rest of the DT volumes.

[Letti]

I own both the original and revised. I voted for the revised. I think that the original makes no sense at all! I am totally lost when I read the original version. :doh: Especially when you read the rest of Dark Tower volumes. For instance:
the number 19 is not mentioned in the original (19 is the secret word that Randall Flagg tells Allie in regards to asking Nort about the secrets of death)In the revised version it is mentioned and this is why the revised version flows better with the rest of the DT volumes.

When I was 12 or so I read the original in Hungarian and it blew my mind. It left tons of open questions but I didn't mind. Many years later I read the revised in English and I felt it.. so.. unnatural. All those extras.. a very bad example came to my mind but it's like when you have a beautiful daughter with blond hair and blue eyes but you tie damn big pink shiny ribbons into her hair to show how cute she is... all those extras feel like... sweaty, too much.
Just my two cents but I have written it down because it's the opposite of yours.

[Woofer]

I own both the original and revised. I voted for the revised. I think that the original makes no sense at all! I am totally lost when I read the original version. :doh: Especially when you read the rest of Dark Tower volumes. For instance:
the number 19 is not mentioned in the original (19 is the secret word that Randall Flagg tells Allie in regards to asking Nort about the secrets of death)In the revised version it is mentioned and this is why the revised version flows better with the rest of the DT volumes.

When I was 12 or so I read the original in Hungarian and it blew my mind. It left tons of open questions but I didn't mind. Many years later I read the revised in English and I felt it.. so.. unnatural. All those extras.. a very bad example came to my mind but it's like when you have a beautiful daughter with blond hair and blue eyes but you tie damn big pink shiny ribbons into her hair to show how cute she is... all those extras feel like... sweaty, too much.
Just my two cents but I have written it down because it's the opposite of yours.

Agreed. I think the lack of all those "extras" adds to the mystique that draws us into the series.

[pathoftheturtle]

I'm just glad that I DON'T have to choose. I can see the pros and cons of each, and very much like having both.

[CyberGhostface]

I own both the original and revised. I voted for the revised. I think that the original makes no sense at all! I am totally lost when I read the original version. :doh: Especially when you read the rest of Dark Tower volumes. For instance:
the number 19 is not mentioned in the original (19 is the secret word that Randall Flagg tells Allie in regards to asking Nort about the secrets of death)In the revised version it is mentioned and this is why the revised version flows better with the rest of the DT volumes.

I have to disagree with you on that because the number 19 makes no sense at all in the Gunslinger when taken in greater context with the rest of the series.

In DT1, 19 was the word that unlocked death's secrets, and the Land of 19 was (I think) where Nort went when he died.

In DT5, the number 19 just pops up randomly and the ka-tet treat it as an oddity with no explanation as to what it means when it first appears. And yet, Roland never goes "Hey, wait a second! I remember seeing this number before! It was back in Tull, when..." In fact, the connection between the Land of 19 in DT1 and the whole "19 99" bit in the last three novels is not elaborated on at all. It would make much more sense if Roland had never encountered it all until DT5.

It's just like how Roland knowing about the Crimson King--in the Revised, he's told that the King's the father of Sylvia's child and the thing that Roland must defeat at the end of his journey. Yet in DT4..."Who's the Crimson King?" "I don't know."

The Revised causes more problems, many of them unnecessary, with the continuity of the series than the Original did.

[pathoftheturtle]

Right. I think that what you're saying there, Cgf, suggests a better answer to the following than the one quoted from sj below:


King has talked of revising all the books...
I'm curious what he thinks he needs to edit/rewrite. i think part of it is little things like the western sea being on the wrong side when they're walking up the beach in drawing of the three.

nothing *huge*, but stuff like that.

[CyberGhostface]

I really don't think King should revise the rest of the series. It would be George Lucas and his "special editions" all over again.

I think the concept of revising DT1 to make it more accessible and linear with the rest of the series was a good idea (as it is harder to read than the rest of the series). I just think King just went the wrong way by making new changes to the continuity that end up contradicting 2-4 moreso than the original did. With the exception of the town being called "Farson" (which could have easily been fixed by saying that Farson's ancestors built it or something), a lot of the 'errors' were pretty small. I never once noticed that Roland's guns weren't the right weight, for example, when reading the book. And when Roland mentioned the rarity of paper in DT2, I had all but forgotten about him flipping through a magazine in Tull.

And 90% of the changes he made could have easily been introduced in books 5-7. For example, what point was there in changing the Beast to the Crimson King? Couldn't a later novel just make reference to the the Crimson King as the Beast? It's a pretty vague moniker that could easily have been applied to him. The guy has so many aliases as it is--Kingfish, Abballah, Los--that one more couldn't hurt.

[ola]

Agreed. I think the lack of all those "extras" adds to the mystique that draws us into the series.

I have to agree with this. I like having mystery. I was a little weirded out when listening to the revised version for the first time - I didn't know it was revised, and I thought I'd forgotten all that stuff somehow.

[Brice]

I have not read all the comics, so can someone answer this for me?

How do we know that Roland's ancestors didn't sail west across the Western sea to the land where we find Roland, thus making it the Western sea?

Yes, if the sea was named the Western Sea that doesn't have to mean it was west of Gilead.

[candy]

Letti, I'd be willing to bet that those people who started the series reading the revised and then at a later date picked up the original version ALL voted that the Revised is their preference. Shit...we've all heard from people that didn't even know there was an "original" until they came to this site. :)

Yeah, they cannot get that feeling we did. When you didn't know anything about anything. I mean the original one has much more mysteries and secrets somehow. It's like being a fog.. That's why I love it so much.

i totally agree with this, when I first picked up the Gunslinger, i loved it because of the difference in writing style. I think its the same in anything in life the first experience will always be the favourite, this is why there are so many arguements over remakes.

however i also think anyone who has read the revised, should also read the original, just because it is so different.



I own both the original and revised. I voted for the revised. I think that the original makes no sense at all! I am totally lost when I read the original version. :doh: Especially when you read the rest of Dark Tower volumes. For instance:
the number 19 is not mentioned in the original (19 is the secret word that Randall Flagg tells Allie in regards to asking Nort about the secrets of death)In the revised version it is mentioned and this is why the revised version flows better with the rest of the DT volumes.

When I was 12 or so I read the original in Hungarian and it blew my mind. It left tons of open questions but I didn't mind. Many years later I read the revised in English and I felt it.. so.. unnatural. All those extras.. a very bad example came to my mind but it's like when you have a beautiful daughter with blond hair and blue eyes but you tie damn big pink shiny ribbons into her hair to show how cute she is... all those extras feel like... sweaty, too much.
Just my two cents but I have written it down because it's the opposite of yours.

Letti :huglove: i was coming to say that. For me the revised version with its 'additions' took away a lot of the mystique of the later books. why mention 19 at all when roland is so indifferent to it later in the series, he is a very intelligent man and would have remembered its significance from Gunslinger 1 and there is just so much that - to me - knowing whats coming takes the surprises and the changes in roland away.




Agreed. I think the lack of all those "extras" adds to the mystique that draws us into the series.

I have to agree with this. I like having mystery. I was a little weirded out when listening to the revised version for the first time - I didn't know it was revised, and I thought I'd forgotten all that stuff somehow.

:wtf:! this is what i was trying to say ola:huglove:
i must admit though, that i read the original years ago and lost it in my many house moves. i bought a Gunslinger book last year and it was very strange as you say Ola to read it again with such small and sometimes quite large additions.

[pathoftheturtle]

I have not read all the comics, so can someone answer this for me?

How do we know that Roland's ancestors didn't sail west across the Western sea to the land where we find Roland, thus making it the Western sea?

Yes, if the sea was named the Western Sea that doesn't have to mean it was west of Gilead.Roland had already travelled far from Gilead to reach the Mohaine... going westward all the time. And I am sorry for stirring up the geography (off)topic.

[Ka-Shume]

I just recently started The Gunslinger for the second time (having finished the series in November of last year =D) and I know that the version of it I read this time was different than last. The one I read this time was a paperback with the Tower on the front, the one I read before showed Roland and David on the cover.

One specific thing in the one I read the first time was that the man in black whispers in Allie's ear "19" and he does not do this in the one I just previously read.

So which is the revised?

[ManOfWesternesse]

So which is the revised?

The one where he whispers "19" is the revised.

[CyberGhostface]

The Revised also has an introduction from King that the original didn't.

[Letti]

And I guess the revised must be longer.

[Centipede]

Too little, too late, to add a comment here, but I would agree that the original is far superior. It is a dark, mysterious world, and beautifully written. Book I is more about mood; Book II is about action; Books III and on are very poorly written and for some reason obsessed on putting the world of The Dark Tower together with every other book King has written. Dinosaur Sr is right -- the revised is like adding CG Jawas into the text: jarring and forced (anyone remember King's lame reference to AC/DCs "Who Made Who" in the opening chapters of The Stand? It is that kind of stupidity that you run into with Dark Tower I revised).

[Letti]

Too little, too late, to add a comment here, but I would agree that the original is far superior.

It's never late to add such a comment. :couple:

[pathoftheturtle]

...the original is far superior. It is a dark, mysterious world, and beautifully written. ...Here, I will just agree that you do make a pretty good point about the revised. Your summation of the nature of the rest of the series was striking enough to me, though, that I've commented futher on it on a more appropriate thread. Please check it out (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showpost.php?p=447555&postcount=69).

[CrimsonMordred]

Though I have not thoroughly read the second edition, the first edition was my first full Dark Tower read, and some of the omitted parts were the most interesting parts, especially when they talked about the beast that guarded the tower, my imagination ran free on that one. That change to the actual Dark Tower was the worst in my opinion!

[candy]

i am just re-reading the original version. Its been years since i read this one as i lost it in one of my countless moves. I have read the revised version a few months ago, so i am hoping its close enough so i can spot the differences, but enough time has passed for it to be a new story for me. (i read it years ago and prefered it to the revised, so i am interested to see if my preference is still the same)

As an aside, my sister number 1 has just finished the wastelands. One of the major reasons for her not starting the series earlier was her reluctance to read the original gunslinger (sister number 2 and dad both refuse to pick the series back up because of the same reason - all three gave it a try but gave up as they didnt like the style of writing) but i persuaded sister number 1 to give the revised a go, and she loved it. She has read up to the wastelands in 2 weeks.

The thing is; sister number 1 is an english lecturer, which makes me wonder?:orely:

[RainInSpain]

I'm of course ages late to this poll, but still I voted. For the original, because that's the book that affected me and captivated with its mystery.
True enough, the revised version is easier to read, but some things sure seem superfluous.
My pet peeve is

when Roland takes the mescaline pill - the revised says that before taking it he rolled it in his fingers that would soon be gone
Why add this? To make people who would otherwise not buy the next book, do so out of simple curiosity what happened with his fingers?

[Brainslinger]

I'm of course ages late to this poll, but still I voted. For the original, because that's the book that affected me and captivated with its mystery.
True enough, the revised version is easier to read, but some things sure seem superfluous.
My pet peeve is

when Roland takes the mescaline pill - the revised says that before taking it he rolled it in his fingers that would soon be gone
Why add this? To make people who would otherwise not buy the next book, do so out of simple curiosity

I doubt it. It's a little thing King often does, providing a little spoilerific foreshadowing. Usually it's all happens within the same novel though. It's just in this case the novel is in multiple volumes, but I'm sure it wasn't done for marketing reasons.


what happened with his fingers?

Do you really want me to tell you? If you read the next book Drawing of the Three, you will find out very soon. I'd recommend it, it's a great read. Dad-a-chuk!

[Letti]

I'm of course ages late to this poll, but still I voted. For the original, because that's the book that affected me and captivated with its mystery.
True enough, the revised version is easier to read, but some things sure seem superfluous.

For me it's not easier at all, moreover.. but it might be easier for a new reader.

[candy]

I'm of course ages late to this poll, but still I voted. For the original, because that's the book that affected me and captivated with its mystery.
True enough, the revised version is easier to read, but some things sure seem superfluous.

For me it's not easier at all, moreover.. but it might be easier for a new reader.

i think, to those of us who read the original certain phrases do jar. There was another one talking about the horn that kept annoying me on the re-read of the revised

but i believe the reason he did the revised version was for the new readers, not for us. I think i read somewhere that he didn't much care what the original readers of the Dark Tower thought of the revised version as we had read the books anyway - but he wanted to get new readers to read them. At the time i remember being really mad that we (the loyal few) could be cast aside so easily. But now, i can say i am glad he did it as i have got sis number 1, hubbie and ......... now my dad all readin the gunslinger after putting down the original version.

So as much as it jars on me to read the revised (poss more so after my re-read of the original) i am also happy as i have more people in my immediate circle who i can have discussion with

[RainInSpain]

Do you really want me to tell you?

Heh, no need (but thanks for offering) - read and re-read all 7 books many times (dear hubby is about to gag me for quoting at every opportunity :lol: )
It's just that for me this particular phrase was sticking out like a sore thumb in the revised edition. Other revisions/additions - not so much.



For me it's not easier at all, moreover.. but it might be easier for a new reader.

I think so, too - also, for new readers it brings DT1 closer to the later volumes. I've never even owned/read a revised edition until 2 weeks ago - did not want to "spoil" my feel of the original.

[pathoftheturtle]

...this particular phrase was sticking out like a sore thumb ...:lol:

[RainInSpain]

Yeah, yeah :cyclops:
But it did stick out :P

[BillyxRansom]

I've only read parts of the Revised edition, and I still like the original better. Its rough edges is what gets me. It makes it feel way more dreamlike.

[Brice]

:thumbsup:

[RainInSpain]

more dreamlike.

Exactly!
Adding too many details takes away this quality - while that's exactly what captivated many readers.

[pathoftheturtle]

This debate reminds me of another one from way back when: America elects a King (http://www.postalmuseum.si.edu/artofthestamp/subpage%20table%20images/artwork/rarities/Elvis%20Ballot/elvisballot.htm)

[RainInSpain]

Yep. Ours here just has a little less publicity.

[Brainslinger]

I think I prefer the revised, or at least I did. I'm a bit of a sucker for extra material.

That being said, much of that material did seem a bit superfluous. I'm thinking particularly of the 19 stuff. I liked it. Found the scene very interesting, almost goose-pimply. However, I can't help thinking... why was Roland so dismissive of the 19 stuff in Wolves of the Calla? Obviously the real reason is that King wrote the revised version after the last three books, but from an in-universe point of view it made little sense. Sure, Roland had been through so much at that point, and he might have just forgotten... but I don't buy that. He might not have loved Allie, but his encounter with her certainly made a strong impression on him. (Apart from all the jiggling about I mean. Oo-er matron!)

It's curious that by adding stuff to bring it more in line with the later books, King created a new contradiction. Okay 'contradiction' is probably too strong a word as Roland's forgetting is possible, he being very much a man of the moment (most of the time) but it creates questions certainly. And that's not the only stuff in the revised version that does.

[Did-a-chick? Dum-a-chum?]

I prefer the original over the revised :thumbsup:


I've only read parts of the Revised edition, and I still like the original better. Its rough edges is what gets me. It makes it feel way more dreamlike.

Yes, very much THIS

[Roland of Gilead 33]

1stly i love the original, but to be fair i haven't read it since prolly the 90's. so my thoughts on it may change. i have read the revised edition as well.

it was i think too slow.i can't recall if the original version was like that or not? but my guess is the number 19 being forgotten by "Roland" was really for one reason, in 'Wizard & Glass" as you all know i'm currently reading. "Roland" is trying to think of Riddles to tell 'Blaine' & he does 50 or more
it really never says on how many it was. just guess work on i think "Jake's" part?

anyways he comments on how the day before or 2 days ago he would have said he knew thousands of Riddles but they just escaped his mind.
& he made a comment that perhaps he is moving on..? so my guess is that's what happend to him, he started to slowly move on as the world around him did.

i think it makes some sense to go back & fix the original if 'The beast' isn't in any of the other "DT" books. my guess? either he forgot he had put the 1st book way back when. or he just couldn't think of what to do with that character? or any idea he had just didn't work. so he changed that in the original book.

as for my point it making sense, i just meant that it did fit in the later books. & the funny thing is, people here would prolly be complaining if he hadn't released that version. i know i would be complaining about it. my question is did he do a revision of "DT2" or "DT3" ? at some point?

cause they if i'm not mistaken also mention the character "The Beast" i just finished "DT3" a week or so ago & they mention 'The Beast" so did he change that yet?

[Brainslinger]

my guess is the number 19 being forgotten by "Roland" ....he comments on how the day before or 2 days ago he would have said he knew thousands of Riddles but they just escaped his mind.
& he made a comment that perhaps he is moving on..? so my guess is that's what happend to him, he started to slowly move on as the world around him did.

That's in a later book so I've spoilerified part of that (although it doesn't really spoil much). Good call though, that makes sense. Even if he had forgotten I can't help thinking that later 19 stuff would have jogged his memory. On the other hand, that event in Tull was one in many, so maybe that's not so surprising after all.


my question is did he do a revision of "DT2" or "DT3" ? at some point?

He intended to, but so far only The Gunslinger was revised. That explains the disparity in the books.

[Roland of Gilead 33]

i remember in the intro he DOES mentions that. but my guess he was "DT' burn out after having written 3 books in a row about it. plus re-writing the original book. so he prolly was on burn out. & thanxs for putting a spoiler on that. i wasn't sure if that would be considered one. & since most people have read the 1st book here that's also why i didn't add one.

anyways & thank you for the compliment. :) & i agree, "Roland" has been through a LOT through the years. hell he's been through stuff that "SK" never even wrote about i'm sure. so it would also make sense that he'd want to forgot about a LOT of it

[Brainslinger]

i remember in the intro he DOES mentions that. but my guess he was "DT' burn out after having written 3 books in a row about it. plus re-writing the original book. so he prolly was on burn out. & thanxs for putting a spoiler on that. i wasn't sure if that would be considered one. & since most people have read the 1st book here that's also why i didn't add one.


You're welcome. Basically the rules in Baronies are that you don't need to use spoiler tags if you're writing about stuff that happened in the current or previous books. The assumption is that a person shouldn't be in that thread if they haven't read that book and previous books unless of course they don't care about spoilers.

For example if you were in the Drawing of the Three section you could post spoilers of that book and The Gunslinger without the spoiler tags. Spoilers for The Waste Lands onwards would need to be tagged. Since this is a The Gunslinger thread any spoilers from the other books would need to be tagged, this being the first. (If that makes sense.) I think the spoiler you posted was from either The Waste Lands or Wizard and Glass. (It wasn't a big one though. Probably borderline as to whether or not it was really needed, but I was just playing it safe.)

If you are actually starting a new thread yourself, then another alternative is to simply write a spoiler warning in the thread title itself stating which books will be spoiled. Then anyone going in knows what to expect.

[Roland of Gilead 33]

ok thankee sai for the head's up

[MonteGss]

64% v 54% Interesting. It is starting to even out a bit, if I remember correctly. :)

[RolandLover]

I haven't read the original Gungslinger but I want to! Is this the original one? http://www.amazon.com/Gunslinger-Dark-Tower-Book/dp/0452284694/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313923203&sr=8-1
If not cry your pardon but could someone post the original for me please? TIA

[WeDealInLead]

That's the revised edition and it's also illustrated. Go for it.

I don't remember what I voted but I like the revised edition more.

[rolandesch]

I've only read the revised so I can't really say, however it becomes apparent to me that the inconsistencies in the original are better left revised.

[Brainslinger]

I've only read the revised so I can't really say, however it becomes apparent to me that the inconsistencies in the original are better left revised.

The trouble is, the revised edition made other minor inconsistencies. Don't get me wrong, I like the Revised Edition and prefer it overall. It certainly fits the later books better, and the inconsistencies are small.

[pathoftheturtle]

I'm not so sure. Is consistency really so important in literature, anyway? The original was an ambiguous romantic epic, like the poem. Does comicbook-style continuity necessarily improve that?

[Wuducynn]

The trouble is, the revised edition made other minor inconsistencies.

Like what?

[Brainslinger]

The trouble is, the revised edition made other minor inconsistencies.

Like what?

Okay, I'll spoilerify since it deals with later books:

Mainly stuff concerning Walter.

In the revised version Roland realises during his conversation with the man in black that Marten became Walter. Then in the books leading up to Wolves of the Calla (where they're clearly described as the same person) he views them as separate entities again. So in short the revised Gunslinger fits with the last three books, but not entirely with the books in between.

I did say "minor inconsistency", Walter ending up quite a minor character anyway. One could even put it down to the moving on of that World and it's effect on Roland himself. (There's indication in the later books that his mind is affected.)

Personally, considering their history, I don't think that's the kind of thing he'd forget though. That being said, it's not a big deal at all, and it wouldn't even take much editing in those books to set things straight... and as such probably isn't really worth doing.

[Wuducynn]

The trouble is, the revised edition made other minor inconsistencies.

Like what?

Okay, I'll spoilerify since it deals with later books:

Mainly stuff concerning Walter.

In the revised version Roland realises during his conversation with the man in black that Marten became Walter. Then in the books leading up to Wolves of the Calla (where they're clearly described as the same person) he views them as separate entities again. So in short the revised Gunslinger fits with the last three books, but not entirely with the books in between.

I did say "minor inconsistency", Walter ending up quite a minor character anyway. One could even put it down to the moving on of that World and it's effect on Roland himself. (There's indication in the later books that his mind is affected.)

Personally, considering their history, I don't think that's the kind of thing he'd forget though. That being said, it's not a big deal at all, and it wouldn't even take much editing in those books to set things straight... and as such probably isn't really worth doing.

I think when King was doing the revision his intention was to be revising books II, III and IV after that. I'm pretty sure I remember seeing an interview with him saying that now that he had gotten where he wanted to go with the series together in his mind which only came together when he started writing Wolves of the Calla that he had intended on revising the rest of the series.

[Jean]

Is consistency really so important in literature, anyway? No.

[WeDealInLead]

I re-read the original version. I still feel the revised is superior in every way. If there were no DT series, the original would probably fare better in my mind but somehow, Roland saying 'How are they hanging?' (or whatever) to those boys in Tul is not the Roland we get to know later on. Just the way he carries himself in later books radiates I don't know... class? I get to feel his royal blood more in the revised edition. I'm not forgetting he's still a relentless killing machine but he's almost macho in the original version.

[Wuducynn]

Is consistency really so important in literature, anyway? No.

For me it depends on who you are talking to. If King feels it's important to him that his series, his Great Work, be consistent then it's important for him and I can see why. I think he explained himself very well in the introduction to the revised edition as to why it was important for him to revise it and I respect his choice and agree with it.

[Merlin1958]

I gotta go with the Author's choice and say the Revised edition. It is, ultimately, the story he wanted to tell after all.

[Jean]

Is consistency really so important in literature, anyway? No.

For me it depends on who you are talking to. If King feels it's important to him that his series, his Great Work, be consistent then it's important for him and I can see why. I think he explained himself very well in the introduction to the revised edition as to why it was important for him to revise it and I respect his choice and agree with it. I am talking to, from, and on behalf of, a reader. I do not care a flying f**k about what an author intended, wanted, or endeavored to do - only what he actually did.

[pathoftheturtle]

Is consistency really so important in literature, anyway? No.

For me it depends on who you are talking to. If King feels it's important to him that his series, his Great Work, be consistent then it's important for him and I can see why. I think he explained himself very well in the introduction to the revised edition as to why it was important for him to revise it and I respect his choice and agree with it.Yes, I've read that introduction at least a dozen times, and I think he did explain why it was important for him very well -- he wanted to sell more books.

[fernandito]

...Yes, I've read that introduction at least a dozen times, and I think he did explain why it was important for him very well -- he wanted to sell more books.

Cynical ... but yes, I'd have to agree.

[Merlin1958]

Boy, tough crowd!!! LOL


:rolleyes1:

[Wuducynn]

Is consistency really so important in literature, anyway? No.

For me it depends on who you are talking to. If King feels it's important to him that his series, his Great Work, be consistent then it's important for him and I can see why. I think he explained himself very well in the introduction to the revised edition as to why it was important for him to revise it and I respect his choice and agree with it. I am talking to, from, and on behalf of, a reader. I do not care a flying f**k about what an author intended, wanted, or endeavored to do - only what he actually did.

Well it's good you don't give a flying fuck. Because I don't give a stationary, earth-bound fuck about you not giving a fuck. So we're not giving a fuck together.

[Wuducynn]

I gotta go with the Author's choice and say the Revised edition. It is, ultimately, the story he wanted to tell after all.

Exactly.

[pathoftheturtle]

It is, ultimately, the story he wanted to tell after all.That old ka-mai? Don't make me laugh.

But, look, my position hasn't changed: I'm glad that both versions exist. I can talk about my personal preferences, but I don't really understand the hypothetical "If you HAD to choose." Why would you have to? It's not like we've ever found it necessary on any forum to settle as a whole group on a single interpretation of the purpose of the series or of the truth of any particular point.

[Jean]

Well it's good you don't give a flying fuck. Because I don't give a stationary, earth-bound fuck about you not giving a fuck. So we're not giving a fuck together.
If you wonder who gave you a rep point for this post, it was me. Nice to see you back. Nice to hear you talk, too. Nothing like a good old Mattqhew at his most usual.

[Jack Mort]

Don't know if people are still talking here, but I have to go with the original. Here's why: When King wrote the original, all of the inconsistencies (internally, never mind the later books) of style shone through and made the book fascinating to read. The oddly poetic first person observations that Roland makes; the random switching of POV throughout; the extremely erratic allusions to Keystone Earth, the list goes on and on. The parts of Gunslinger that King leaves out are sometimes indications that King himself isn't sure where the story is going. It is like a homologous relationship between the writing and the reception of the book - we're discovering it together.

Not talking about nostalgia for my own experience of reading, necessarily. I suppose I mean that parts of The Gunslinger point to someone writing at a less mature stage, perhaps, but also to someone not nearly as shackled to specific a style. A King who (as he himself has said over and over again) hadn't yet experienced everything. King's passionate homage to several genres is part of the poetic style of the book, and that style is what I responded to as a young reader. These matters of style, even unintentionally inconsistent ones, are always more interesting to me... they give me more room to "insert" myself imaginatively into the story as a reader.... Does this make sense? Thoughts?

[Jean]

Precisely. I've never loved The Gunslinger, and I don't think I ever will - but I agree that it was a worthy effort. It's full of this noble madness, insights and visions of a young author who just wants to write what he wants (feels, sees, knows) without giving a fuck about how it could be perceived by readers, critics, editors, whoever. It stands alone in King's body of work, and in the whole world's literature - not because it is very good, but because it is unique. I like to think of it (yes, I know I've said this before) as a blank verse poem, an overdrawn epigraph - mirrored by Browning's poem that ends the saga; this way I can at least come to terms with it; moreover, then it perfectly fits the rest, without any ad hoc alterations. I really really wish he hadn't attmepted at making it more palatable.

[Randall Flagg]

I like them both. I would have never wanted King to revise the book, but since he did, I was at least interested in seeing how he felt it could be improved-made more consistent with subsequent books in the series. I still like the original, although I must admit that the first time I tried to read it (1983), I found parts of it obtuse and indecipherable.

[Jean]

I like them both. I would have never wanted King to revise the book, but since he did, I was at least interested in seeing how he felt it could be improved-made more consistent with subsequent books in the series. I still like the original, although I must admit that the first time I tried to read it (1983), I found parts of it obtuse and indecipherable.
as far as liking is concerned I think I might like the revised more than the original. I haven't gotten around to reading it yet; but I hope I will soon.

[Jack Mort]

Precisely. I've never loved The Gunslinger, and I don't think I ever will - but I agree that it was a worthy effort. It's full of this noble madness, insights and visions of a young author who just wants to write what he wants (feels, sees, knows) without giving a fuck about how it could be perceived by readers, critics, editors, whoever. It stands alone in King's body of work, and in the whole world's literature - not because it is very good, but because it is unique. I like to think of it (yes, I know I've said this before) as a blank verse poem, an overdrawn epigraph - mirrored by Browning's poem that ends the saga; this way I can at least come to terms with it; moreover, then it perfectly fits the rest, without any ad hoc alterations. I really really wish he hadn't attmepted at making it more palatable.

Yes, Jean. You said it far, far better than I had. There is a certain energy to it, no?
Nick

[Brice]

The original is perfection to me. The revised is watered down, imo.

[BobbyOodle]

I prefer the original, only because it makes Roland out to be more of a hardass, emotionless prick than it does in the revised edition.
Also, just a side-note, since the Gunslinger was originally a series of publications in a magazine, and was just thrown together for the book, each section feelings longer and more spread out than it was.
I liked this because some may see it as a short start to an epic series, but in reality, with the gaps and how slow the read was, it truly set up for the rest of the series, and feels longer than the 300ish pages it was.

I just liked it better that Roland killed Allie (or is it Alice? My memory is failing me) out of pure instinct and didn't care about her being held hostage or her pleas to save her. it made Roland seem cold. But in the revised edition, King added in more intervention of the man in black and Allie and Roland killed her out of pity, and wanting her to be put out of her misery. I like saving Roland's emotional development for later.

[Nick Stefanos]

The original. I've lost count of how many times I read that (too many when the first two were all there was of the series). I only read the revised once. The original works for me just fine without the retroactive changes, especially with the language.

[Jamie Vultrille]

I like the Revised and I think it was a logical step to smooth out the transition into the next books, but if I had to choose...the original, hands down. It was more dreamlike and surreal, like a postapocalyptic sci-fi/western version of Eraserhead after smoking (or chewing) devil grass or a serving of stew laced with generous amounts of acid.

[Jamie Vultrille]

I prefer the original, only because it makes Roland out to be more of a hardass, emotionless prick than it does in the revised edition.
Also, just a side-note, since the Gunslinger was originally a series of publications in a magazine, and was just thrown together for the book, each section feelings longer and more spread out than it was.
I liked this because some may see it as a short start to an epic series, but in reality, with the gaps and how slow the read was, it truly set up for the rest of the series, and feels longer than the 300ish pages it was.

I just liked it better that Roland killed Allie (or is it Alice? My memory is failing me) out of pure instinct and didn't care about her being held hostage or her pleas to save her. it made Roland seem cold. But in the revised edition, King added in more intervention of the man in black and Allie and Roland killed her out of pity, and wanting her to be put out of her misery. I like saving Roland's emotional development for later.

I agree. The original had a much more obtuse and amoral context on Roland's shooting of Allie. Remember, she was Sheb's "shield and sacrifice", and I think it meant that he was counting on Roland hesitating for even just a little (against an onrushing psychotic mob, even one armed with essentially only melee weapons, a second's hesitation could turn into a fatal misstep in close quarters) because he had come to know Allie in more ways than one during his short time in Tull...but guess what, Roland reacted instantaneously, just like that. It also says a lot about the depth of training Roland had from childhood. He was the last of his kind, the last of a world and a civilization the people of Tull could not even imagine, and yet they were trying to kill him. Could he somehow pacify and awe them into submission by expounding on long-gone virtues and sights and principles that only he remembers now? Could he make them see and feel the weight of his lineage and the long legacy behind his guns? No. So he lets his hands speak, since they're the most eloquent body parts he has anyway, at least in that situation.

In short, how do you prove to your enemies that you're better? According to Roland in the original, you kill them all and be the last man standing. Amoral to the core.

[Xerrand]

They are both pretty good, and there isn't that many differences but I Voted original. I didn't like the whole "19 and go insane" thing that was in the newer edition. Also I could be wrong here(I have a copy of the original in this house somewhere but it could be anywhere...) but wasn't there a part at the end of the original copy during the palaver with Walter that Roland realises he'll have to go and do the whole journey over and over again, and he quickly shy's away from it? It's been a few years but I seem to remember that.

[Girlystevedave]

I didn't like the whole "19 and go insane" thing that was in the newer edition.

I didn't really care for that either. I'm sure that, had I read the revised version first, all the foreshadowing wouldn't have bothered me. But, it just felt like too much.


Also I could be wrong here(I have a copy of the original in this house somewhere but it could be anywhere...) but wasn't there a part at the end of the original copy during the palaver with Walter that Roland realises he'll have to go and do the whole journey over and over again, and he quickly shy's away from it? It's been a few years but I seem to remember that.

I can't say I remember that, but now you've made me want to go back and re-read the palaver portion to see if it does touch on that. :orely:

[Girlystevedave]

Also,

do not click unless you've finished the Dark Tower series
maybe we should use spoiler tags around anything that mentions Roland having to repeat the loop just in case someone visits this thread without having finished the series yet. One can never be too careful. :lol:

[Merlin1958]

Wait.....


OMG!!! Roland is in a loop????? Holy crap!!! :wtf:


Very good point, Girlystevedave

[Girlystevedave]

Hey, I like to think worst case scenario about stuff. I would hate to be the person who accidentally spoiled the series for someone. :lol:

[Merlin1958]

Hey, I like to think worst case scenario about stuff. I would hate to be the person who accidentally spoiled the series for someone. :lol:


I agree. I was just adding in an element of humor to soften it up for the new guys and perhaps encourage an "edit".

[Girlystevedave]

I gotcha. ;)

[Xerrand]

Just edited that, apologies! I assumed that anybody reading on here would have finished DT, but that was a pretty narrow and silly assumption :P I got ahead of myself!

[Merlin1958]

Just edited that, apologies! I assumed that anybody reading on here would have finished DT, but that was a pretty narrow and silly assumption :P I got ahead of myself!

No problem. As a rule, the thread title will usually let you know to "spoilerize" or not. Otherwise, when in doubt, use spoiler tags to be safe. No harm, no foul and very glad to have you on the site, my friend!!! It's always great, IMO when new comers visit old threads and revitalize the discussions. Good stuff!!!

[Johnny Alien]

I am all for updates that smooth out the series however I feel like the updates in the revised version actually hurt the flow more than help it. Exposing Walter and Martin to be the same person at the end of that book only makes it way more confusing when Roland obviously refers to them as separate people in the next few books. I would rather it be left alone and have that fact exposed to Roland later. In order to make that reveal work at that time the other books needs to be updated as well and I really don't want that to happen.

[Merlin1958]

I am all for updates that smooth out the series however I feel like the updates in the revised version actually hurt the flow more than help it. Exposing Walter and Martin to be the same person at the end of that book only makes it way more confusing when Roland obviously refers to them as separate people in the next few books. I would rather it be left alone and have that fact exposed to Roland later. In order to make that reveal work at that time the other books needs to be updated as well and I really don't want that to happen.

Very good point. I happen to think that despite a couple of mis-steps, the "revised edition" better fleshes out the overall story in the end, but to each his own, right? A case can be made either way and would be valid. I personally think that, King revised it for future generations that had never read the original, which would negate some of the incongruities. In other words, he did it to calm his own mind on the story.

[Girlystevedave]

Just edited that, apologies! I assumed that anybody reading on here would have finished DT, but that was a pretty narrow and silly assumption :P I got ahead of myself!

No, you're probably right. I just over-analyze my posts. :lol:



I am all for updates that smooth out the series however I feel like the updates in the revised version actually hurt the flow more than help it.

I agree. It somehow gave it a somewhat "choppy" feel to the story.

[sgc1999]

original for collecting, revised for reading. after reading the original of course:)

[Merlin1958]

original for collecting, revised for reading. after reading the original of course:)

Exactly!!!

[Johnny Alien]

The issue with Walter became apparent to me recently as a friend of mine is reading through the series for the first time and when they got to Drawing of the Three they got extremely confused by Martin and Walter being referred to as different people. Since it's not necessary for Roland to have that information in the first book it seemed like a needless revision that really only helps repeat readers not first time readers.

[SenorEdmonds]

I think both are necessary for understanding the scope of the dark tower.