Roland - General discussion

[Matt]

I totally agree, it's just a perspective.

I think I'd probably do it to a bird if I had to, but not a boy.

[Brice]

Sacrifice is sacrifice I think...if there is a god (which at least for the purpose of the story we must accept). Sacrificing even one for the masses (even if it's all of creation) isn't the way to save anything. The reality about a greater good is there never is one if it doesn't rely on each individual.

[Matt]

I agree on every single level of the Tower Brice-great post.

[Darkthoughts]

Yes Brice, you wonderful old hippie, beautifully put :D

[Brice]

Thank you! :couple:

[Bumbler19]

I said he can make love with any woman he meets, i mean... he can hypnotize people pretty damn well. XD

But if would he is the question... I would say Roland is for the most part an Opportunist, He is going to take whoever is easiest, and less of a hassle or will get him something in return (IE: older divorced/widow) At least he is this way at his adult age.

Younger, I would say he needs feeling... the whore... was just like... ya know, making sure you knew what you were doing when you did it the first time with the one you love.

IMO

[LadyHitchhiker]

I think in every instance except Rosa and Susan, he basically just had sex with them and THEN developed which way or not of whether he loved them, so it was definitely more sex than making love.

[klokateer]

(sorry if this has been brought up before, I used search to the best of my ability)

How old do you think Roland is?

!!!!!!SPOILER!!!!!!!



Given the cyclical nature of his quest, my mind is apt to fold under the weight of the task of assuming his age.

What are you best guesses/hypothesis?

[sarah]

Hi klokateer and welcome to the site.

Personally, I think Roland is ageless at this point in his quest. His body may possibly be of a man in his forties but how can one actually know? we don't know for sure how many times he's been on his path.

EDIT:

I know this is a really big thread (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=1778&highlight=roland)but it is filled with all sorts of good stuff. Take a good ten minutes and go through it when you have a chance. :D

[klokateer]

Thank you for the direction, and you're thoughts.

[alinda]

Time and the world having moved on I tend to agree with maerlyn here.
Roland is confronted with a situation that keeps liner time from counting in my
estimation.
Whether 40 or 400 yrs , he is the same man , until he learns what he needs to proceed.




PS Is there another thread with this topic? I think a merge may be coming on :huglove:

[Jean]

Bears love everyone who has ever asked this question! How Old Is Roland was the first thread I started at .net... memories... http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

[Letti]

Bears love everyone who has ever asked this question! How Old Is Roland was the first thread I started at .net... memories... http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

And did you get an answer then? :)

[candy]

i agree that time i linear, however i believe roland is getting on in years when we first meet him - i believe he is in his fifties

i keep trying to do a spoiler wrap but its not showing, so let me just say i have my reasons

[Jean]

Bears love everyone who has ever asked this question! How Old Is Roland was the first thread I started at .net... memories... http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

And did you get an answer then? :)

Much the same as what we can see here. Finally, I found solace in idle speculations, as bears often do.

candy: highlight the text you want to be spoiler marked, and click on the radioactive button. Or else, just type those tags around the text:

[spoiler]text text text [/ spoiler]

- without space after /

[soylentjillian]

I can forgive him for using Susanna and Jake and Eddie and Oy as mere tools to reach his end, because he doesn't know that the whole cycle will again start and they will be used again.

I can forgive him because he never knew.

[Letti]

I can forgive him for using Susanna and Jake and Eddie and Oy as mere tools to reach his end, because he doesn't know that the whole cycle will again start and they will be used again.

I can forgive him because he never knew.

But why does it make any difference? I mean he did it. He used people. He killed people. He made lots of mistakes... For me it doesn't matter what happens to him at the end. (Still I say I can forgive him but not because of the end at all.)
So why does it make any difference for you?

[alinda]

I see nothing to forgive,altho' I could easily forgive him anything.
To forgive a thing is the first step in overcoming it.:huglove:
Great question again Letti, and Brice? You rock!:huglove:

[Cort]

My answer is pretty straight forward, i think there is nothing to forgive him for


Roland came forward as nothing but a projectile, a brainless missile programmed to launch the body he was in at the man in black the instant he saw him

As we are reminded throughout the books Roland is a man of little imagination who with his
damned guns, slow head and quick hands does everything he has been trained to ,he reacts instinctivly to most situations and does whatever is needed in order to see his goal achieved.

His sacrafices are acceptable considering the stakes are all wordls across all levels of the tower, for Roland the end truly justifies the means.

[KaLikeAWheel]

I could forgive Roland because for the most part he is being used by the Tower as much as he uses anyone else, if not more. He did come a long way through the course of the series.
From the man who let Jake fall to the man who was ready to give up his quest for the tower for no other reason than to save Jake (even though he failed to do so). I believe the loss of Susan robbed Roland of his ability to love, but dropping Jake made him realize he had closed off a part of himself, and therefore, allowed him to be able to open that part of himself back up. Without dropping Jake, he could have never become the man who would give up his quest for the tower and the multiverse to save Jake. In my mind (and my heart) Roland totally redeemed himself when he tried to jump in front of that van to save Jake. As for Susannah and Eddie, they were both essentially broken souls, and without Roland they would have destroyed themselves sooner, rather than later, so there's nothing to fogive there.

That's my opinion, anyway. Great thread!

Donna

[CyberGhostface]

I'm going to say in his mid-30s.

[Mad Man]

well the only way i've been judging Rolands age is with the fall of Gilead - and i really like to think that it was thousands of years before we met Roland in The Gunslinger...


i need someone to talk with about Roland :arg: i can't make out my mind about some things :borg:

[candy]

what would you like to talk about mad man?

in regards to rolands age, i still feel he was older due to
the arthritis that affects him later in the series, the way he is described is also i feel as an older gentleman but young enough to still thrill the ladies - therefore 50s came to mind as athritis is not usuallya young persons desease -

[Mad Man]

about Roland and the loop :doh: I can't make up my mind how should i think about it...

Is Roland older with each "loop"? Or will the dark tower take him back in time? Will he get a new body every time? If he gets a new body then it's kinda maddening - he forgets everything also so it would be like a 100% new start with the small add from the dark tower. Or does he start the new turn with his old body? If so then arthritis would get him killed - and the lack of fingers :cry: i have a whole bunch of these questions maddening me and i can't find an explained answer to any of those :doh:

[AlishaRiley]

The point made by Candy is one I've not considered, oddly enough, in concern with his age. I've always imagined him as a man is his late 30's, early 40's. Although his arthritis makes me think, now, that he is possibly a little older. It could be mere coincidence, however. The fact that he's a gunslinger, also, could've been part of the reason he developed it at an (arguably) early age.

I think the fact that we're not sure of his age is a good thing - it leaves room for speculation, and we can add our own input, and perceptions into the story. A little mystery is always a good thing, imo. :)

[candy]

about Roland and the loop :doh: I can't make up my mind how should i think about it...

Is Roland older with each "loop"? Or will the dark tower take him back in time? Will he get a new body every time? If he gets a new body then it's kinda maddening - he forgets everything also so it would be like a 100% new start with the small add from the dark tower. Or does he start the new turn with his old body? If so then arthritis would get him killed - and the lack of fingers :cry: i have a whole bunch of these questions maddening me and i can't find an explained answer to any of those :doh:

not sure if you know, but there is a thread that talks about the whole end of the series
http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=1778

hope this helps

[Mad Man]

I know the thread, thanks - it doesn't help 'tho :wtf: :panic: :wtf:

But lets stay with the thread here :P

I don't think that Roland is ~40-50 ... I'm not sure from where i get it but i've always thought that he's OLD... i'm pretty sure it's somehow mentioned in the books... the time is weird but i'm sure he's not 40 or 50 :panic: :rock: *just my opinion :P*

[Letti]

For my part at the beginning I imagined him around the age of 35 but at the end.. hm.. around 55 or 60 - still with foxy and active eyes and strong body.

[Letti]

There are lots of theories about the series. Roland is going around.. Roland is travelling in time.. Roland is going to other levels of the Tower.. Roland is in hell.. and so on. That's why we love this series so much. Or more exactly it's one of the many reasons.
And a question came to my mind... if there are more Eddies and Jakes.. are there more Rolands too? All of them trying to save the Tower? Or are there Rolands who saved and chose Susan and they live happily together ever after?
Or how so? Is there this only one we met?
What do you think?

[Jean]

As we once agreed with Matt, the only way to imagine time-travel - or time-loop - possible and free of at least the basic paradox is to assume that every time someone goes back, he creates a new reality, a new set of possibilities; that is, another timeline that branches off the main one. Thus, it would make another Roland, but the point is, that for me (I argued it in Susannah's threads) it would still be the same Roland, just like the numerous Eddies and Jakes are always the same Eddie and Jake.

I don't know where the loop actually starts. The Roland standing there with all his fingers intact and the Horn of Eld might just as well have saved Susan; as far as chosing Susan is concerned, I am afraid it would have taken a whole other Roland, that is, not Roland at all - someone who just couldn't be a phenomenon produced by the same essense.

great question, as usual! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

[ManOfWesternesse]

Great question yes, and damn hard to answer.
The idea of 'only one' Roland appeals to me, however the hell Gan could make it work that way is hard to know though - but I like to think of it that way.

Jean, if we were to take the 2 "Roland's" - Roland#1 who dropped Jake and Roland#2 who did not, then a question for me is - Why is Roland#2 so conflicted about it? HE didn't drop Jake (There was no Jake to drop!), so HOW can he have that memory? So if it's a clean split and we have 2 Roland's going forward then surely they both have their own histories which cannot affect each other?

[Jean]

but going back to the past doesn't change one's memories of the past. See, you go to yesterday and don't have the breakfast you actually had in line 1; it creates line 2 where you didn't have it, but you remember everything right up to the moment you went back to the future; naturally, your memories of the past extending from April 29, 2009 to April 30, 2009 consist of two versions (version 1: having had this breakfast + all other events right till the point you went back; version 2: not having had it + all other events till the same point; then it's up to you whether to go back again and create yet another, or to go on in this new line). If there's any gift from Gan, I hope it is erasing one of those lines of memories, not to further complicate it for Roland.

(Gan may have overlooked some parts of those memories, though... maybe that is why Roland is sometimes inconsistent in what he says about the past.)

[Brice]

IMO, there is only one Roland, one Jake, one Eddie, etcetera.

[Jean]

yes, I am inclined to feel the same - at least about Roland - despite all previous reasoning. But, then again, the question of what happens to the traveling person when new lines are created is still unclear to me. The person may just disappear from all timelines he left when he went back - it is the first thought that comes to mind, of course, but I had already noticed that it leads to some impalatable implications. I got to think more.

[ManOfWesternesse]

Ah, I think I see where you are now Jean.
In my Roland#1 & #2 case above I was assuming they CONTINUE on separate lines - YOU have those 2 lines coming back together into one Roland (and naturally he would have both memories).

Brice - I tend to agree (& certainly would prefer to think of it so) - only one of each,& not just Roland.

[flaggwalkstheline]

I think part of what makes roland special, what makes him darkle and tinct is that he is singular, according to most of sai kings stories (talisman/ black house particularly) most people have twinners throughout the multiverse, It is the people who dont like roland and the Crimson king and jack sawyer and patrick danville who can make a difference on a cosmic level because of their singular nature
Fitting in with this is the idea that flagg has MANY twinners who are joined in one consciousness, the opposite of roland

[pathoftheturtle]

In The Road to the Dark Tower, Bev Vincent speculated that Stephen King might be a "Twinner" of Roland, and pointed out some interesting evidence, such as Roland sharing the pain of SK's wounds. I'm not so sure about the idea any more, though.

As we once agreed with Matt, the only way to imagine time-travel - or time-loop - possible and free of at least the basic paradox is to assume that every time someone goes back, he creates a new reality, a new set of possibilities; that is, another timeline that branches off the main one. Thus, it would make another Roland, but the point is, that for me (I argued it in Susannah's threads) it would still be the same Roland, just like the numerous Eddies and Jakes are always the same Eddie and Jake. ...Right, interesting. What you're saying is not just like Eddie and Jake, though. If it is true that Roland has no other counterparts than those that he makes of himself, and if it is true (as speculated on other threads) that other people do have them in connection with the transmigration of their souls after death, then perhaps the reason that he is excluded is that he maybe never dies. :unsure:

[Jean]

wait, wait! the "maybe" in that last sentence is crucial. I firmly believe that he does die, or else he is not even human, and that would kill the story for me - anyway, I don't see him having committed anything so horrible as to doom him to the endless hell of loops.

[candy]

i agree with flagg, i was unsure of what i thought until i say the explanation if twinner vrs singulars. i agree that roland is singular and that there is only one

with jake and eddie i feel there must be more than one and that they are twinners as there were differences in the new pair that can not be explained by saying they are the same but placed on a different path along the time loop(I may be remembering this wrong as its time for a reread but was it not hinted at that they were brothers?)

i would also hazard a guess that suzannah has a twinner too, as its a rare case for a singular person to exist. even sai king was a twinner in the dark tower. (when suzannah hears that he dies - i believe it was one of his twinners in another reality)

i hope its ok that i have not put spoilers (still trying to get used to not using them in particular threads)

[Letti]

You, who say there is only one Roland - how can it be?
Let's forget time travel a little.
I know it's an interesting part of the question but it's just a part of it. In fact if we forget time travel (for awhile) there is another very important aspect too; the other worlds.
Lots of lots of worlds. Similar to each other and different from each other.

When Susannah went through that door she met Eddie and Jake. For my part I think those two people must have the same genes as our Eddie and Jake of the ka-tet 19 BUT for me they aren't the same people at all. Still I must admit if we look at the gene part there are more Eddies and Jakes.

So... if we consider all the worlds and if we count with the genes... are there more Rolands? I know the Roland who chooses Susan is not the same Roland... but we cannot deny the similarities and the genes.
To sum up: you, who say there is only one Roland do you mean that all the other worlds exist without Roland or do you say there are Rolands but only the genes are the same?
If you still say there is only one Roland - only one even if we count with the genes - how is that possible? In the other worlds Gabrielle has no kids? Or Gilead exists in only one world? Or the whole Deschain family is missing from the other worlds that are similar to Roland's?

I would like to think there is only one Roland. I want to think that. But when I start to think of it the logic says there must be other Rolands too. I hope you can explain there is only one.

Huh, I hope my question makes some sense.

[Letti]

i hope its ok that i have not put spoilers (still trying to get used to not using them in particular threads)

It's more than okay. In this section - DT7 - we use no spoiler tags at all. :rose:

[candy]

your question makes sense letti. but it still hurt my brain. :orely:

now i have to go away and think over your arguement as it has turned my thoughts upside down. your right, if roland is only one, does that make stephen and gabriel childless in all other worlds? hmmmmmm

leave this with me and i shall return.

and thank you, this is why i love the site so much. one minute your are safe in your assumptions and the next you have to re think eveything. i love it:huglove:

[flaggwalkstheline]

i would also hazard a guess that suzannah has a twinner too, as its a rare case for a singular person to exist. even sai king was a twinner in the dark tower. (when suzannah hears that he dies - i believe it was one of his twinners in another reality)


I think that suze has twinners but unlike most people, they are inside her

perhaps thats y her fate was different than the singular roland or eddie and jake who are not singular

[candy]

ok .... now then, having thouht on this while out food shopping. (it made it quite an enjoyable experience)

i think roland is still the only one, and if stephen and gabriel are not childless in other realities then they have a son. but its not roland,

i know there are huge holes in this idea and i am still trying to get a handle on it. i shall return

[Melike]

You, who say there is only one Roland - how can it be?
Let's forget time travel a little.
I know it's an interesting part of the question but it's just a part of it. In fact if we forget time travel (for awhile) there is another very important aspect too; the other worlds.
Lots of lots of worlds. Similar to each other and different from each other.

When Susannah went through that door she met Eddie and Jake. For my part I think those two people must have the same genes as our Eddie and Jake of the ka-tet 19 BUT for me they aren't the same people at all. Still I must admit if we look at the gene part there are more Eddies and Jakes.

So... if we consider all the worlds and if we count with the genes... are there more Rolands? I know the Roland who chooses Susan is not the same Roland... but we cannot deny the similarities and the genes.
To sum up: you, who say there is only one Roland do you mean that all the other worlds exist without Roland or do you say there are Rolands but only the genes are the same?
If you still say there is only one Roland - only one even if we count with the genes - how is that possible? In the other worlds Gabrielle has no kids? Or Gilead exists in only one world? Or the whole Deschain family is missing from the other worlds that are similar to Roland's?

I would like to think there is only one Roland. I want to think that. But when I start to think of it the logic says there must be other Rolands too. I hope you can explain there is only one.

Huh, I hope my question makes some sense.
Letti, it all makes sense. I totally agree with you. But, I wonder how do you explain Jack Sawyer's condition? It is a fact that he is singular. Things you have said about Roland, should also be true for him, too.

[pathoftheturtle]

That's explained in The Talisman. Jack's nature is specifically related to interdimensional magic. It is also, as you say, the only certain example.

I think that suze has twinners but unlike most people, they are inside her
Interesting. And the CK has a mortal and an immortal form. I never really thought of him as singular... but it IS pretty obvious that his "empire" is interdimensional, and he is such a megalomaniac that it's doubtful that multiple CK's could get along. Perhaps he has many mortal forms in different worlds, on different levels, all controlled by the great evil spirit.
...It is the people... like roland and the Crimson king and jack sawyer and patrick danville who can make a difference on a cosmic level because of their singular nature...Really? Uh... I may need to re-read Insomnia soon.:orely:

...Let's forget time travel a little.
I know it's an interesting part of the question but it's just a part of it. In fact if we forget time travel (for awhile) there is another very important aspect too; the other worlds.
Lots of lots of worlds. Similar to each other and different from each other.
...I'm not so sure that we can do that. I think it's entirely possible that the very reason that there are other worlds is because of time travel.
Sometimes I think that Roland is in all times; that there’s a version of him questing for each version of the Tower.

wait, wait! the "maybe" in that last sentence is crucial. ...I know. I think the other qualifiers, all of the if-it-is-trues, as-speculateds, and perhaps-es, are pretty important, too. It is quite tentative hypothesis. Brainstorming.
...I firmly believe that he does die, or else he is not even human, and that would kill the story for me - anyway, I don't see him having committed anything so horrible as to doom him to the endless hell of loops.Those aren't necessarily contradictions, though: If Roland continues to loop until Judgement Day, that's not the same as endless hell. Meanwhile, the rest of us might be jumping from world to world through a less overt means. The big question is, what would any of that say about Jack?

[Daeris]

I forgave Roland. This might sound strange, but I did so because I think that's what Gan would want me to do.

As Matt eluded to back on the first page, Roland is weak, just like all of us. The Tower is his weakness, and he can't break free. My weakness... (here comes some disclosure) is lust. I haven't broken free yet (a darker part of me doesn't want to), but I'm at a point where I can remain self-aware of my weakness.

Roland isn't at that point yet. That point of self-awareness. He was just before he went through the final door, but too little too late.

I want to be forgiven for succumbing to my weaknesses, and therefore I should be willing to forgive others for theirs.

[Brice]

I don't think Roland needs forgiveness from anyone except himself. I basically think the same for the rest of us. :)

[candy]

I don't think Roland needs forgiveness from anyone except himself. I basically think the same for the rest of us. :)

great answer brice, short and to the point,

to elaborate from my point of view though, i dont think there is anything to forgive as roland is just being roland, and he would not be the roland that we all followed and fell in love with if he had done anything differently.

i for one know, that if he had changed character and done a few things differently to give a nice happy tied up ending - i would have been really frustrated as that would not have been the roland i followed for 15 years of my life. whereas the things he did that many of you can not forgive him for was part of who he was, so it would be like saying

' i can not forgive you candy for having hazel eyes'

theres nothing i can do to change this, unless i wore contacts - in which case it would be a falsehood. much the same as if roland had changed his ways, it would be a false roland who i would have renownsed.

and if he did need forgiving - i doubt he would ave given a flying f**k what we all thought anyway:wtf:

[Echof0xtrot]

what would you like to talk about mad man?

in regards to rolands age, i still feel he was older due to
the arthritis that affects him later in the series, the way he is described is also i feel as an older gentleman but young enough to still thrill the ladies - therefore 50s came to mind as athritis is not usuallya young persons desease -

it turns out not to be arthritis, but actually king's pains from the accident...so he actually doesn't suffer from arthritis at all ;)

[a fan]

Hi klokateer and welcome to the site.

Personally, I think Roland is ageless at this point in his quest. His body may possibly be of a man in his forties but how can one actually know? we don't know for sure how many times he's been on his path.

EDIT:

I know this is a really big thread (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=1778&highlight=roland)but it is filled with all sorts of good stuff. Take a good ten minutes and go through it when you have a chance. :D

agree

[candy]

what would you like to talk about mad man?

in regards to rolands age, i still feel he was older due to
the arthritis that affects him later in the series, the way he is described is also i feel as an older gentleman but young enough to still thrill the ladies - therefore 50s came to mind as athritis is not usuallya young persons desease -

it turns out not to be arthritis, but actually king's pains from the accident...so he actually doesn't suffer from arthritis at all ;)

:doh:your quite right, i bow to you my friend:huglove:

[pathoftheturtle]

It still is a hint that he is no spring chicken, in that everyone assumes it to be age until they learn about 6/19/1999.

Another indication is when DT6 says that he looks like he could be Stephen King's father.

[obscurejude]

And Candy, both Roland and Rosalita act like its pretty normal for a man Roland's age to be getting the rheumatiz (can't remember the spelling) so I think your point is a valid one. It was something that Roland had worried about before and he didn't seem surprised by it's prospect, only disappointed that something natural would prevent him from gaining the tower.

[candy]

HA HA!!! I unbow then, if there is such a thing:rock:

[Letti]

Anyway... do you think people celebrated birthdays in Gilead? Or did the world move on so much that it would have been impossible? Maybe they just didn't give a damn about it.

[Jean]

Why not? We know for sure how old everyone was in Roland's recollections, and we know that they did have celebrations; why not birthdays? Especially in a traditional society where coming of this or that age is always an important milestone.

[mdk101]

well the only way i've been judging Rolands age is with the fall of Gilead - and i really like to think that it was thousands of years before we met Roland in The Gunslinger...


i need someone to talk with about Roland :arg: i can't make out my mind about some things :borg:

This is exactly what my train of thought was on the topic at hand...whenever Roland met new people they would always say how long ago Gilead had fallen (I think it was Joe Collins that said it must have been thousands of years ago).

[Letti]

Why not? We know for sure how old everyone was in Roland's recollections, and we know that they did have celebrations; why not birthdays? Especially in a traditional society where coming of this or that age is always an important milestone.

It's just so damn hard to imagine Roland sitting in front of a birthday cake. :)
I know... I know... maybe their traditions were different.

[pathoftheturtle]

...both Roland and Rosalita act like its pretty normal for a man Roland's age to be getting the rheumatiz (can't remember the spelling) ...
'Fraid so. :(
"...filthy old rheumatoid arthritis, which kills so much of what could be good in the old ages of men and women who are otherwise healthy..."
-- Pet Semetary

[Brice]

Why not? We know for sure how old everyone was in Roland's recollections, and we know that they did have celebrations; why not birthdays? Especially in a traditional society where coming of this or that age is always an important milestone.

It's just so damn hard to imagine Roland sitting in front of a birthday cake. :)
I know... I know... maybe their traditions were different.

No birthday cake for Roland? Surely Gan isn't that unkind? :(

[Ka mai of maine]

in THE COMPLETE CONCORDENCE by robin furth there is a timeline or mid-world and in it roland is 337 at the end of the jorney due to in the first book after meeting with the man in black he sleeps for many years and it is an estimate done by robin an asscoicate sai king. a very book to browse it has every from mid world to end world to ours chacters place portals and much more

[pathoftheturtle]

337? Gee, you'd think that arthritis would be the least of his problems. :lol: Thanks for looking that up, Ka mai. Raises the interesting point that the question of Roland's age can be seen in different ways; physical and objective.

Ms. Furth notes the assumptions she decided to make in creating that timeline, and the fact that there remain various uncertainties about what it covers, to say nothing of the possible implications of the DT7 spoiler. Still, this is all highly interesting for us fans. :)

[Mad Man]

337 sounds just fine! I couldn't believe that he could be just 40+. Roland is more than that (for me atleast) :rock:

[candy]

337 sounds just fine! I couldn't believe that he could be just 40+. Roland is more than that (for me atleast) :rock:

i agree with this, while on one hand Roland physical body is around the 40ish mark for me, he is also oldie worldie and the way he acts would suggest really very old indeed (oldie worldie i wanted to say)

[theplayer01]

First this is my first post so hello to all. Found this site on accident but it seems very interesting. Now on to the show. I was reading your various post and had some ideas on the subject.

First as to Roland being a singular person in the cosmos.

It's been awhile since I have read some of the older books but I am almost positive that is stated in the series that Roland's world as well of the world that Stephen King lives in are more then the other worlds. At least it is alluded to by the only danger to the tower is the destruction of the rose in SK world or the destruction to the actual tower in Roland's world. So I would argue that even if there are other people in the multiverse that resemble Roland or even live lives similar would it really matter. No matter if the Roland of another world obtained the tower or cried off the quest it would not make any difference in the scheme of things. It's like our worlds version of King Author. Does it matter if the story comes from a real person that existed on or "world" or that the story comes from the ultimate game of telephone between worlds. If our King Author was real it would just be distorted reflection of the real struggle on Roland's primary world. It would have no impact on the multiverse other then giving us on our "world" a glimpse of the struggle going on for our very existence. Of course we just think thats a fairy tale. If is a game of telephone it's nothing but a misinterpreted tale of our connection of GOD.

Second now that I spouted that whole thing on whether it matters or not here is my opinion.

I think that Roland is a singular entity. His being the one of the primary worlds I believe that he is Gan's personal champion of that world. That's the simple answer. Now here is where you really get into my personal ideas of the whole story. I look at Roland much like one his guns at his side, and the dark tower series as a whole as the forge that made that gun. I believe that with the apocalypse approaching with the fall of the dark tower Gan has decided to forge his champion. So he takes Roland and puts him into this loop to forge him into the being he needs him to be. I look at it much like the story of the Jesus-man. To be the savior of the people the God of our world need a mortal champion. During the forging of the Jesus-Man he was lead to the top of a mountain (Tower?) and tested for 40 days and 40 nights or in layman terms a long time but no one knows how long. Anyway we do not know what these test consist of but we know from the bible in or "world" that the Jesus-man leaves the mountain tried and tested and is able to do what needs to be done to save the people of our "world". I believe that Roland's trip threw the Tower is his version of the mountain top preparing him for the real test to come.

I know I may have went a bit off topic but I hope I got my idea of what I was trying to say across. Please let me know what you think or if you need me to clarify anything. Also I in no way intend to offend anyone's faith. This is just my opinion of the story not my world views on the state of God, Jesus, or any thing else you may believe in. If you find anything I wrote offensive I do cry your pardon.

[Jean]

Also I in no way intend to offend anyone's faith. You haven't - at least, not mine. Although I suppose that Jesus himself is infinitely more than just a "mortal champion", I have always suspected Roland's strong kinship with RCatholic saints, such as St.George, St.Ignatius of Loyola, St.Joan of Arc and manly more. Humanity reaches its ultimate degree in a saint; thus Roland is a saint and an ultimate himan being for me, not a divine entity of any kind.

(it was one hell of a first post, by the way... http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_thumb.gif)

[pathoftheturtle]

(it was one hell of a first post, by the way... http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_thumb.gif)That's for sure. :D Welcome to tdt.com! :)


...At least it is alluded to by the only danger to the tower is the destruction of the rose in SK world or the destruction to the actual tower in Roland's world. So I would argue that even if there are other people in the multiverse that resemble Roland or even live lives similar would it really matter. No matter if the Roland of another world obtained the tower or cried off the quest it would not make any difference in the scheme of things. ...So, does that mean that the new Roland we see at the end won't need to save the Tower again? Or that those same allusions won't be drawn the next time around?

I know that what you're talking about, the "keystone" concept, is what the books say. It just never made sense to me. What I think is that what the Roland we saw was told was just what he needed to hear. His version of the Tower was the only one that mattered to him, because the other versions of it need to be saved by the other versions of him. IMHO, the keystones are relative.:orely:

[megaknight]

im thinking he is around 55 physically, due to his age when he was in hambry, the 20 years of travelling he spoke of, and the fact that at jericho hill, he was 25. he also said he felt 10 years older after he and walter spoke at the end of book 1. He also has the dry twist, which also makes me think that he is older. And his hair is turning gray.

[Darkthoughts]

There were 9 separate threads in this section, all discussing Roland. Some of them had died away a few pages back. So, over the next day or so I'll merge the rest of them in here and then summarise, with a bit of c&p-ing, the main points of discussion so far :thumbsup::cowboy:

[klobbrus]

Greetings.

After rereading The Dark Tower I was amazed (again) at the skills Roland has for surviving almost anywhere. The scene with the deer and the skinning/preparing of the hides/meat was amazing!

My question is this: are the skills Roland displays based on any real survival skills one could use? A couple examples:

the 'cold' tanning of the hides with the animals brains

the use of ash to help small wounds

will the kidneys help with coughs, etc.


Also, this thread could be for not only listing/ verifying the skills Roland displays on his quest, but also for skills beginner survivalists wouldn't know!( as I am curious to know if the 'cold' tanning of the hides would really work)


One real piece of survival to get the ball rolling!

You can get clean water from almost anywhere ( even from saltwater, leaves, pondwater, etc.) by using a solar still. Which is basically a shallow dish(or small hole in the ground) with a cup in the center and a tarp/plastic covering with a rock/weight so that the dip is over the cup. This will cause the water (from saltwater, urine, even healthy leaves) to evaporate upwards to the tarp and drip into the cup if it is in direct sunlight!

[lead dealer]

Roland uses a lot of good survival tricks.

Cold tanning or "brain" taning has been discussed in a way previous thread. But it is rather effective way of tanning hides that has been used by native americans for melinenia... However it is rather time consuming and dose not happen as quickly in the sereis.

Emergancy weapons oil can be found in your pantry. Olive oil Is quite an effective weapons oil and was used in colonial america as such. Keep your weapon clean and oiled and it will save your life!

[klobbrus]

Roland uses a lot of good survival tricks.

Cold tanning or "brain" taning has been discussed in a way previous thread. But it is rather effective way of tanning hides that has been used by native americans for melinenia... However it is rather time consuming and dose not happen as quickly in the sereis.

Emergancy weapons oil can be found in your pantry. Olive oil Is quite an effective weapons oil and was used in colonial america as such. Keep your weapon clean and oiled and it will save your life!

Thankee lead dealer! I know a few of the things SK describes ( rock scrapers, bone needles, etc. ) are realistic, but also that ( at least in some things *cough* rolands guns *cough*) SK seems not to have done much research beforehand (not a bad thing per se, just a funny thing!)! Just curious if some of the mentioned skills would help or complicate things in a survival situation!

[cozener]

Whats wrong with Roland's guns? Honestly, from what I recall they've never been particularly well described.

[Bev Vincent]

Robin Furth apparently spent quite a bit of time researching the deer-skin section of DT7 for King, so I expect that most of it is fairly accurate.

[Letti]

Robin Furth apparently spent quite a bit of time researching the deer-skin section of DT7 for King, so I expect that most of it is fairly accurate.

Wow, nice piece of information. Thanks.

[lead dealer]

Whats wrong with Roland's guns? Honestly, from what I recall they've never been particularly well described.

There is a whole thread devoted to rolands/ gunslinger guns. Them not being thouraly described, contridicting terms and features, ect, ect.....

The gun junkies tring to find this worlds closest example....


Another apperntice slinger finding his way to the tower....:thumbsup:

[lead dealer]

As far as Rolands survival skills as mentioned in the sereis, he so far has done nothing terrably wrong. Have not seen the whole comic sereis yet (hence the "so far" part. Most of it is sound advice, althogh be it some dated.

To avois becoming bear sh$%, try makeing yourself look bigger than you are. Do not play dead, bears are scavagers. You do the math..... Raise your arms and make noise.

Other than just plain avoiding pissing off a bear, or avoiding them entirely. Carry a large bore weapon. high powered rifle, pistol abouve .40 cal. Aim for the head, bears have thick skulls, squeeze till it goes click.... Much better than pepper spray! Yogie will have spice to his meal!
Heck the well placed shot to the head worked on Schadarick rather well...

[Woofer]

Or dang ol' stay out of the bear's yard, man. Go trompin' through my yard, man, I'd turn on the claws and teeth, too. Talkin' 'bout humans thinkin' they own everything.

[klobbrus]

As far as Rolands survival skills as mentioned in the sereis, he so far has done nothing terrably wrong. Have not seen the whole comic sereis yet (hence the "so far" part. Most of it is sound advice, althogh be it some dated.

To avois becoming bear sh$%, try makeing yourself look bigger than you are. Do not play dead, bears are scavagers. You do the math..... Raise your arms and make noise.

Other than just plain avoiding pissing off a bear, or avoiding them entirely. Carry a large bore weapon. high powered rifle, pistol abouve .40 cal. Aim for the head, bears have thick skulls, squeeze till it goes click.... Much better than pepper spray! Yogie will have spice to his meal!
Heck the well placed shot to the head worked on Schadarick rather well...

it did indeed work out well for Roland ands co with shooting shardik! But the above is correct, most animals will not stick around to see what made the ear splitting bang (discharged round), much less if they are grazed/hit by the slug! Sure some will be enraged, but as a rule a few shots will take care of anything(either by scaring away or with a few well placed lead projectiles...always aim for the head, the eyes if you can see them- as very few creatures will continue an attack if they are suddenly missing an eye or two!)

one more piece of survival advice is an oldie but goodie used by natives here ( the Americas) for *waves toward horizon with faraway look* delah!:

to make a simple trap, use a rock, a small stick/twig, and a piece of bait. Set the rock in a way that the only way to get to the bait is to go through the twig holding the rock up. If there is only one 'entrance' to the bait (through the stick propping the rock up) the creature will knock the twig and the rock will ( if it's big enough) will crush your meal for you!

This method obviously takes practice patience and a bit of luck, but is very easy to do with nearly no tools/or no other sources of food (water for seafood/berries/nuts/ etc.)

[lisaki]

had he not literally killed his own mother in pursuit of it, back at the start of his terrible career? But in those years he had been friendless, childless, and (he didn’t like to admit it, but it was true) heartless. He had been bewitched by that cold romance the loveless mistake for love
What does this DT VII statement means? It bothers me...
Was Roland really heartless in the start of his journey?
Friendless? What about his first Ka tet?
And which is the "cold romance" he is referring to?

[Letti]

Yeah, I think he was quite heartless (but of course not absolutely heartless). Not when he was together with his first ka-tet, after that. When he was chasing the man in black without stop like a crazy lunatic.

Cold romance? Good question.

[lisaki]

Cold romance?
Yes... what about that? :orely:
Im sorry I didn't use the spoiler thing... :doh:

[Letti]

Cold romance?
Yes... what about that? :orely:
Im sorry I didn't use the spoiler thing... :doh:

No problem. It's there now, isn't it? ;)
I am sure he doesn't mean the romance he had with Susan.

[lisaki]

I'm not sure... The word "romance" is very specific and I don't think it can be used metaphorically. Ahh that really bothers me! :panic:

[Letti]

I'm not sure... The word "romance" is very specific and I don't think it can be used metaphorically. Ahh that really bothers me! :panic:

Let's see what the native speakers say. :)

[lisaki]

You 're right... :)

[Letti]

They are sleeping now. I hope they will come in in the evening.
You are right it has a specific meaning.. but.. who knows. Oh damn.. now it's on my mind, too. :panic:

[Sickrose]

Maybe not Romance as in the kind between two people.

Romance kind be an idealised concept of something as opposed to romantic love it is full of emotion. His quest is almost romantic in his endless heartbreaking, lonely search for the tower. He is obsesessed by it, fears it and is in awe of it and maybe is infatuated with it. It is cold because it can't love him back and destroyed the only person who can maybe.

Dunno if that helps!

[Jean]

Yes, this, too: Roland is repeatedly labeled deeply romantic, and his romance with the Tower fits the above quotation, I think.

On the other hand, the "loveless mistake for love" part makes me think that somewheres along the way he may have had other romances, in the more personal sense of the word.

[Delah]

Well, in W&G, Roland refers to love as a drug. I would say the "Romance" in this case would be more of a bewitchment, or an addiction. Or that the "romance" between Roland and the Tower is cold because its never reciprocated on behalf of the Tower. Roland loves the object of his obsession but it will never open up to him.

[flaggwalkstheline]

Yes, this, too: Roland is repeatedly labeled deeply romantic, and his romance with the Tower fits the above quotation, I think.

On the other hand, the "loveless mistake for love" part makes me think that somewheres along the way he may have had other romances, in the more personal sense of the word.

Exactly early on in the gunslinger roland is described as being a romantic

And the "loveless mistake for lover" could be applied to Alice

[Letti]

And the "loveless mistake for lover" could be applied to Alice

Oh, I don't think so.
Firstly it wasn't a real romance. It might have meant more for Alice but it was just sex for Roland. Definitely not much more.
Secondly, although it wasn't a romance it was not cold, either.
Last but not least it wasn't an important thing in Roland's life. I don't think he would mention it thinking about such big parts and points of his life.


Or that the "romance" between Roland and the Tower is cold.

How could I miss it? Yes, I think this is it.

[lisaki]

Bewitched by Allie or other women during his journey? No :)
By the tower idea?
Yeah, I like this theory, I just don't know if the word "romance" fits here. As the native speakers say, it might :)
My friend is reading DTVII right now. His idea of the Roland-Susan relationship was that it was a fake childish thing, that would happen to any random good looking teenagers if they met under these circumstances. He even claims that teenagers are dying for something they have mistaken for love (though it's not deep at all) all the time. He said something like "see? that thing with Susan was just a cold romance, SK says so, not me!"
My idea of Susan-Roland is different. I adore them together and I feel it was real love. Had to re-read the whole chapter to see that just a few pages later Roland thinks that
he loved Jake more than everyone he ever loved - even more than Susan.
I think this proves his feelings were real, and stayed real. Well yeah, I have to protect this Roland-Susan idea in my mind :rolleyes:
Roland loved and had a heart before the journey started. I think he loved at least some people- including the members of his first ka tet.
He wasn't heartless, he just lost his heart somewhere between sorrow, loneliness and duty. He found it again with the new ka-tet.

Anyway I tried to explain it as good as I could in English, hope you understand my point.

[pathoftheturtle]

I agree, lisaki. :) Please add your vote to this poll from our DT4 forum --Their Love (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=357). (Also, you might like to comment on that thread.)

I'd like to say much about Roland's character, but for now I'll just content myself with clarifying sematics. Here's some definitions from the Merriam-Webster English Dictionary:

romanticism \rō-ˈman-tə-ˌsi-zəm, rə-\ noun; often capitalized :
1 : a literary, artistic, and philosophical movement originating in the 18th century, characterized chiefly by a reaction against neoclassicism and an emphasis on the imagination and emotions, and marked especially in English literature by sensibility and the use of autobiographical material, an exaltation of the primitive and the common man, an appreciation of external nature, an interest in the remote, a predilection for melancholy, and the use in poetry of older verse forms.

romantic \rō-ˈman-tik, rə-\ adjective :
1 : consisting of or resembling a romance
2 : having no basis in fact : imaginary
3 : impractical in conception or plan : visionary
4 a : marked by the imaginative or emotional appeal of what is heroic, adventurous, remote, mysterious, or idealized b often capitalized : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of romanticism c : of or relating to music of the 19th century characterized by an emphasis on subjective emotional qualities and freedom of form; also : of or relating to a composer of this music
5 a : having an inclination for romance : responsive to the appeal of what is idealized, heroic, or adventurous b : marked by expressions of love or affection c : conducive to or suitable for lovemaking
6 : of, relating to, or constituting the part of the hero especially in a light comedy

romance \rō-ˈman(t)s, rə-; ˈrō-ˌ\ noun :
1 a (1) : a medieval tale based on legend, chivalric love and adventure, or the supernatural (2) : a prose narrative treating imaginary characters involved in events remote in time or place and usually heroic, adventurous, or mysterious (3) : a love story especially in the form of a novel b : a class of such literature
2 : something (as an extravagant story or account) that lacks basis in fact
3 : an emotional attraction or aura belonging to an especially heroic era, adventure, or activity
4 : love affair
5 capitalized : the Romance languages

I think that the idea is about the difference between truly giving (love) and simply wanting to see oneself as a hero. The heartless often do believe that they are good; with no heart, how could one tell what any of the things of the heart really are?

[lisaki]

Please add your vote to this poll from our DT4 forum --Their Love. (Also, you might like to comment on that thread.)
Thank you :) I did.

[darkrose]

i dont think Roland is heartless but he's his just a bit slow in realizing what his feeling really is, just like his father described him, he said to Roland..
--" Morals may always be beyond you. You are not quick like Cuthbert or Wheeler's boy. It will make you formidable."
And also we have to consider the way he's been nurtured and also no offense to the guys, its also a male thing to be a bit insensitive, its kinda written in their dna--generally speaking..

As for romance, on my understanding it is something that your heart is gravitated to, it doesnt neccesarily pertain to a person, in Roland's case its more of his obsession to the Dark Tower.. Cold-- because he did everything just to get to the Tower even though he had hurt a lot of people in the process...

[cozener]

Yes, this, too: Roland is repeatedly labeled deeply romantic, and his romance with the Tower fits the above quotation, I think.

On the other hand, the "loveless mistake for love" part makes me think that somewheres along the way he may have had other romances, in the more personal sense of the word. Perhaps "cold" romance and loveless refers to how love left him after Susan and continues to leave him with each woman he meets. None of the encounters with women we see Roland have after Susan ever grows beyond the physical if it even gets that far. This could be extended to everyone he loves whether that love is romantic or platonic. All of his family and friends die. All of his new ka tet die except Susannah who ends up leaving him. So yes, to Roland, love is a very frosty proposition that always leaves him alone in the end. In Drawing of the Three Roland says in his mind that he wants to love but this isn't something that has ever come easily for him. This is a guy who is naturally cold hearted and its one of the reasons he was able to survive for so long. Now, that term...cold hearted...does not necessarily mean that they are incapable of loving/caring for others. Obviously, Roland loved his father and mother, both his ka tets, even Cort. People that are cold hearted can care for other people. It just takes longer to develop these feelings and it tends to be very difficult for someone like that to display their emotions. Being cold hearted is a mixture of emotional retardation, inhibition, and self protection. It served Roland well. All of his real pain came along after he started to care for people. Incidentally, this is the reason I relate to Roland more than any other character.

[MacarDeschain]

Yes Roland is a hero but he is also a type of lawman. He is like the old stories of the Texas Rangers, with there motto one riot one ranger. But his badge is his guns. Roland even say in the books that it his duty to protect the tower. This is due to him being a gunslinger and of the blood line of Eld. But on the other hand I also think Gan ues him like a temporal antibody, or a stitch even a crutch. His being serves to purposes. 1. To keep the Tower from falling in a time where there are little to no antibodies / gunslingers to fight off the infection (witch he makes more of them by training his Ka Tet and making the Tet co.) 2. An to redeem his self in his own Eyes For in truth is not what madders.

[Letti]

But on the other hand I also think Gan ues him like a temporal antibody, or a stitch even a crutch. His being serves to purposes. 1. To keep the Tower from falling in a time where there are little to no antibodies / gunslingers to fight off the infection (witch he makes more of them by training his Ka Tet and making the Tet co.) 2. An to redeem his self in his own Eyes For in truth is not what madders.

This thought is very far from my thinking. I can't imagine Gan using anyone for anything... why would he? I can't imagine him as a puppeteer.
IMHO if Gan gives us purposes he gives them to give goals and some meaning to our lives.

[MacarDeschain]

This thought is very far from my thinking. I can't imagine Gan using anyone for anything... why would he? I can't imagine him as a puppeteer. IMHO if Gan gives us purposes he gives them to give goals and some meaning to our lives.

Why would he not use him, It would be like you not using your hand becueas you saw no use for it. Or you saw no use for breathing. No more purposes then just to live and is that not enough. Roland made his chooses and Gan just used it to help him self. Will him self and all liveing things.

[Jean]

Nikolett didn't create her hand as a separate being, endowed with immortal soul and the gift of free will... if she had, I think she would have denied herself the possibility to use it.

[MacarDeschain]

Yes you are right, but that does not mean she should not use it to save all of the rest of her body, even if her hand had a will of its own. This is why Roland is a hero. Yes has a will of his own, But Gan knows that Roland will make the right chose in the end. Because it is in Roland’s nature to do the right thing (just the hard Way). Gan knew this and relied on it. So used him to do this.

[Woofer]

http://ihasahotdog.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/funny-dog-pictures-open-window.jpg

[hpr7]

How Old is Roland? :cyclops:
Here is why I have doubts about Roland's age How is Sheemie Ruiz alive still?

[Ageless Stranger]

Have you finished the book? If not, don't read the sopiler.

He's not. He dies in VII, after his purpose is served.

But to give my opinion on your question, I think he is quasi-immortal, just like Walter O'Dim and Roland himself.

[Letti]

Good question.
BUT we mustn't forget that Sheemie isn't just a simple human-being. He is one of the strongest breakers. He has great powers. Once Roland mentioned they didn't understand how Sheemie could catch up with Roland's first tet after they had left Mejis.
You cannot ask the age of the one who can open a hole in time/dimension (remember the gingerbread house?) and create their a special space where he can spend as much time as he wishes and in the moving world time stops.


Anyway in some days this thread will be moved this section: The Villagers (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/forumdisplay.php?f=52)

[Tik]

Susan herself thinks about this:

She though, But Rolands old....so old! Which means that if this is the tavern-boy he knew in Mejis....the one with the donkey and the pink sombrera hat....then he must also be....

The novel Black House may hold the answer. In that book, Parkus tells Jack that the Crimson King doesn't need to replace Breakers because they dont die - "they are kept in a place where there is essentially no time". Purgatory, which is exactly what Roland calls Algul Siento.

[ohdiscordia]

Ok, so I've read all of the books and I am going back but its driving me crazy because I want confirmation about what is Roland's most agonizing choice. HELP anyone?

[arrawyn]

i would say his most agonizing choice is in the Gunslinger when he let Jake fall.

[lonely_cube]

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's
when he leaves Susan and she dies.

[arrawyn]

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's
when he leaves Susan and she dies.

but he didn't really have a direct choice in that he wasn't right there to be able stop that happening. with what i'd said, he was right there and had the choice to stop it or not.

with what you said, he could have made the choice to not leave susan. but they had all their own parts to play in the plan and they all knew what they had to do. Sure Roland is angry with the fact that Susan died and he wasn't there to stop it, and he blames himself for her death, but i think he more blames himself for letting jake fall because he deliberately chose the MIB over jake.

[ohdiscordia]

Oh, well I think it was when
Roland makes the decision to hypnotize Stephen King and the driver of the van (choosing the tower) instead of helping/comforting Jake as he is dyeing.

[arrawyn]

ohdiscordia - that's a good point! i was surprised at that really that he did that. but at the same time he did have irene or arlene or whatever her name is (sorry it's 5:30 in the morning!) there to keep jake company (and Oy). i wonder if it would've been different if they weren't there and it was just Roland. if Roland would STILL abandon Jake in favour of talking to King.

[Charyou Tree]

i would say his most agonizing choice is in the Gunslinger when he let Jake fall.

This +10000

[pathoftheturtle]

Deciding to seek the Dark Tower.
In the Glass, he was warned that this would cost him everything. He took that seriously, thus counting every loss thereafter as a result of his choice.
This is why Roland blames himself for Susan, illogical though it may be.

[lonely_cube]

Deciding to seek the Dark Tower.
In the Glass, he was warned that this would cost him everything. He took that seriously, thus counting every loss thereafter as a result of his choice.
This is why Roland blames himself for Susan, illogical though it may be.

You know, that actually makes sense. I bet that's what it is.

[arrawyn]

Hi everyone,

Letti suggested we started a new thread on this topic as it was originally started in the forum specifically for 'The Drawing of the Three' but then got totally off topic with people referring to stuff in later books.

So the original question asked by Doncissiero was basically in one of the arguments its states that letting Jake fall in the first book is Rolands second most agonizing choice in his life....so what do you all think is his first?

He obviously has had to make tons of agonizing choices throughout his entire journey.

and as is being discussed in another thread, most likely it is these agonizing choices (one? or all?) that he might have to do over again differently in the loops. the only one that he doesn't need to re-do is Susan. and this leads to another question Why?

[pathoftheturtle]

kk. Then I'll repeat here that Roland's most agonizing choice is the choice to seek the Tower. He didn't much agonize over it at the time, but did much agonizing over it ever after.
...
... most likely it is these agonizing choices (one? or all?) that he might have to do over again differently in the loops. the only one that he doesn't need to re-do is Susan. and this leads to another question Why?Why what? Why does he "have to" loop? you mean? Why does he "not need" to undo Susan's fate? What? Those questions raise lots of others to me, different enough to call for even more threads. To simplify, let me just ask this: he wouldn't be looping at all if he hadn't gone to the Tower, so did he have to do that? Yes? No? Well, does the loop mean that he has to cry off?

[Letti]

I'm gonna move the posts which belong here. Thank you for starting a new thread for them. :)

*edit
:done:

[LovesSweetExile]

This has always puzzled me, even more since reading the comics, does anyone have an actual idea of Rolands true age?

There has been hints he is over a thousand, three hundred, one hundred, early fifties even, at first I thought, yeah maybe it is possible he could be ancient, putting aside the fact that 'time is funny' due to some mystical power through his bloodline, also due its hinted that Steven is somewhat older than he seems, due to the fact that corts father also served him, which i picked up upon when Depape took 'the old bastard' for questioning, he obviously knew of Steven.

Yet, Sheb isn't special, and doesn't he meet him once again in Tull? so this would suggest Roland would be about forty in 'the gunslinger'

Even after his mystical experience with Flagg, Roland belives century's have past, but we know it was merely a trick.

The old people who live outside of Lud, even their ancestors were far past the time of Gilead and John Farson.

So my only conclusion can be that maybe time passes differently throughout mid world and end world, or there is some kind of mistake in the storyline, any thoughts?

[lonely_cube]

Well, they definitely don't say explicitly, but I always figured he was about 1500 years old, at least by the time he reaches Calla Bryn Sturgis. At various points in the series, and before it when Roland is chasing the Man in Black, time probably skips around Roland and the ka-tet (once he draws them) without anyone even noticing. For example, in W&G when Roland is telling his story, it appears to the ka-tet that it only took one night, although it was a long night. It's possible that around them, time kept passing as usual, and maybe even years went by while Roland was talking. This could have happened at virtually any point in time when the ka-tet is in an uninhabited area, since time could pass without them really noticing. Once they reach the Callas though, this couldn't really work anywhere except Empathica, since there were people pretty much everywhere by that point. So my guess is, Roland was born about 1500 years before he reaches Calla Bryn Sturgis, and he is probably about 50-60 physically.

[LovesSweetExile]

So your saying even though Roland ages naturally through actual time, he physically ages as normal? That kinda makes sense, I always assumed he had some kind of immortality due to his bloodline.

[Brainslinger]

I think time speeds up around him from time to time but I don't think the time he has actually experienced is any longer than someone of 40-60 years. (Yes I'm aware that's a big age difference. I'm that uncertain of how hold he actually is.)

As for that bit after his palaver with Walter, I'm really not certain how long he was asleep there. We know it was partly a trick by Walter, but I still got the impression a significant amount of time had passed, albeit perhaps not as long as it seemed. He seemed to age 10 years in that time period too, although whether that was due to the passage of time or shock when confronted with Walter's vision, I don't know.

[gsvec]

Also, in WotC, Roland realized that he actually went todash during his palaver with Walter.

[lonely_cube]

So your saying even though Roland ages naturally through actual time, he physically ages as normal? That kinda makes sense, I always assumed he had some kind of immortality due to his bloodline.

The only problem with the bloodline thing is, Sheb and Sheemie are also still alive from before the fall of Gilead, and I'd be quite surprised if both of them happened to be indirect descendants of Arthur Eld. It seems more likely that time just kinda skips past people occasionally, without affecting them in any way.


Also, in WotC, Roland realized that he actually went todash during his palaver with Walter.

Yeah, this always confused me a bit. My best guess is that he was actually todash for around 10 years, but it was such a confusing jumble of messages that forgot almost everything he saw, making it seem like less time went by.

[LovesSweetExile]

Thanks for the reply's guys, i think the most logical explanation what brainslinger stated was that from Roland's POV, he has lived around 40-60 years, lets say 50-60 to be safe, so that means he was most probably in his late 20's/early 30's during the battle of Jericho Hill.

Although, when he meets Sheemie during The Dark Tower, it say's Sheemie looks about 35 if I remember, but thing is, Sheemie isn't that much younger than Roland, i'd say during WAG, Sheemie was around 11-12, so theres a little mystery right there, unless he doesn't age physically the same way Roland does because of his powers.

So when it took Roland 20 years to reach the Western Sea, to him he may have aged 20 years, but the rest of Mid and End World, possibly hundreds, if not a thousand years could have passed, which is quite trippy, considering in just 20 years from a specific location, I wonder if Roland himself is aware of this, because to him, Gilead, the gunslingers, John Farson etc, is not relatively old and in the history books, but to others, its ancient. Its like, if king Aurther travelled from Scotland to Wales, from his time to our time, he be like wtf !

[osseolax28]

If you had to put an age on him, i'd say he was in his 50's at the end of the series. So lets say he aged 50-60 normal years, but because time and terrrain changes so frequently in his universe, he may look older or younger than he actually is; depending on how time is moving at a particular moment.

Let's say he's 52 in WotC and looks 46, but the world around him changed much faster than he did physicaly.

Basically i think that Roland does not move WITH time, but rather time moves AROUND Roland and those connected to his Ka. Possibly the Towers way of protecting him?

With time moving around him, it would allow him to look younger or older than he really is at a givin time. But the world around him would age faster.

[LovesSweetExile]

Basically i think that Roland does not move WITH time, but rather time moves AROUND Roland and those connected to his Ka. Possibly the Towers way of protecting him?

Thats an awesome theory !

[Jean]

yes, bears like it, too - it fits well with their belief that Roland, being a key figure in the multiverse, lives in accordance with specific laws.

[Brimania]

Alright. This is a tough question for many reasons, the most obvious being that the entire DT series is almost entirely about agonizing choices. The obvious answer:


However one could argue:

[Merlin1958]

Well, I would have to go with Letting go of Jake but, just to be a devils advocate what about Choosing to kill his own Mother?

[Jean]

but it wasn't like he chose this, was it?

[blavigne]

I agree with Path of the Turtle. Roland has agonized ever afterward since choosing the tower although I do not think for one second that he would change it.

[candy]

Oh, well I think it was when DT7 spoiler
Roland makes the decision to hypnotize Stephen King and the driver of the van (choosing the tower) instead of helping/comforting Jake as he is dyeing.

I would agree with this, i think it took till this point for him to realise how much he cared about those around him.

gunslinger spoiler
when he dropped Jake at the start he knew damn well what he was doing and he always intended to do it. why else would he become 'the boy' in rolands head? and it took a long time for roland to stop thinking of him in that way, therefore i dont agree that this was an agonising decision for him

I beleive he switched himself off emotionally after all the stuff that went on in W&G and therefore it was only when he re-attached himself and discovered a new KA-TET that his decisions became any where near agonising, previous to this he was emotionless
W&G spoiler
even in W&G he appeared to me to be hormone laden boy so any decision he made would be more teenage angst than any real hard decision that would come later

in regards to the decision to kill his own mother, this was not a decision. Yes it was agonising in its knowledge **after the fact** but not an actual decision at the time

So on a purely personal level all the agonising decisions he made, came later, and i think its only when he realises how much he cares for his new Ka-tet that his decision gets hard.

wastelands spoilerfor example, although its not in a really hard agonising decision, i know that he hated having to ask susannah to tackle the demon alone whole eddie opens the door.

So for me, i agree with ohdiscordia the worst one for him is the
DT7 spoilerthe moment he can not help jake to die, or at the very least to be there for him. you can tell this in the hate he feels for stephen king for putting them all in this position

[Merlin1958]

but it wasn't like he chose this, was it?

Well Jean, if you're referring to my post, didn't he have a choice to pull the trigger and kill his Mom? or am I forgetting something? I guess I am due for a re-read, but I lent my reader copy books to a kid I coach in little league.

As I recall it was sort of a reaction scenario, but a choice he made nevertheless.

As long as I'm on the topic, though I said "dropping Jake" I really don't believe it. It has always been my contention that the "Jake-Drop" was a non-issue since due to time travel/Alternate Universe, it never really happened. I've tried to convey this thought before and always get beaten down, so I usually don't bother anymore, but it seems pertinent here.

[Jean]

but it wasn't like he chose this, was it?

Well Jean, if you're referring to my post, didn't he have a choice to pull the trigger and kill his Mom? or am I forgetting something? I guess I am due for a re-read, but I lent my reader copy books to a kid I coach in little league.

As I recall it was sort of a reaction scenario, but a choice he made nevertheless.
If we keep to the letter of the book, he didn't realize it was his mother till it was too late, so he didn't actually make a choice to kill her.

On a more metaphysical plane, well, yes, it was his choice whether or not to let himself be manipulated by the glammer. In this respect, him killing his mother echoes him leaving Susan at the mercy of the mob: both for believing what he was made to believe.

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

Jelly or Syrup

[Merlin1958]

but it wasn't like he chose this, was it?

Well Jean, if you're referring to my post, didn't he have a choice to pull the trigger and kill his Mom? or am I forgetting something? I guess I am due for a re-read, but I lent my reader copy books to a kid I coach in little league.

As I recall it was sort of a reaction scenario, but a choice he made nevertheless.
If we keep to the letter of the book, he didn't realize it was his mother till it was too late, so he didn't actually make a choice to kill her.

On a more metaphysical plane, well, yes, it was his choice whether or not to let himself be manipulated by the glammer. In this respect, him killing his mother echoes him leaving Susan at the mercy of the mob: both for believing what he was made to believe.

Yep, a re-read is in order. I forgot about the glammer. Good point, Jean.

[pathoftheturtle]

Yes, a very good point. Jean's right, and I think the interpretation faulting Roland "for believing what he was made to believe" is valid. Furthermore, the recurrence of that could suggest an overriding theme, and provide insight on his quest for the Dark Tower. Perhaps he's wrong to believe what he was taught that it represents, and trying to climb it is another mistake. It's frustrating that so many other elements in the books still seem to indicate the opposite.

[Merlin1958]

Yes, a very good point. Jean's right, and I think the interpretation faulting Roland "for believing what he was made to believe" is valid. Furthermore, the recurrence of that could suggest an overriding theme, and provide insight on his quest for the Dark Tower. Perhaps he's wrong to believe what he was taught that it represents, and trying to climb it is another mistake. It's frustrating that so many other elements in the books still seem to indicate the opposite.

Well yeah, because its clear (to me atleast) that his over-riding destiny is to reach the Tower and the room at the top. The quest to reach it is never in doubt, but the choices he makes o the journey determine the overall outcome. Hence the previous loops.

I suppose its also fair to say that all the choices he made prior to "The Man in Black......." are set and pre-determined. He cannot change them, but he is master of all his choices from that point on.