Roland - General discussion

[Letti]

If you ask me Roland's taste of humor is... amazing. It rocks.
Maybe we can't feel it so much in his character ( however I do) because:
- first of all his humor is very different from Eddie's
- secondly he doesn't like to waste his time with it,
and here we can see how different they are, I mean Eddie and Roland, Eddie has to say out loudly every funny things that comes to his mind, Roland gives them a free way just rarely.

But he did prove so many times that he has a good sense of humor.

[Daghain]

Since Jean requested it, here it is...

What do you think? Did Roland truly not have a sense of humor? Do you think maybe because Eddie's was so "in your face" that it made Roland seem more serious? Or was Roland more a practitioner of wit than outright humor?

[Jean]

Dear ladies,

I merged those threads, keeping Daghain's title. Since Letti's thread was chronologically first, Letti's post comes first, too. If you think it should be merged in any other way, or renamed, or moved to Villagers, we can always discuss it in Midworld facilitators' forum.

:rose: :rose: :rose:

[Daghain]

Looks like great minds think alike, Letti. :D

Thanks for merging, Jean!

[B Rag]

I don't beleive there's a single person anywhere who has absolutely no sense of humor. I think that what Letti said was right: That he doesn't waste his time with it. But Roland obviously does have at least some sense of humor, or else the situation with Dandelo wouldn't have taken place.

[Frunobulax]

Roland's sense of humour is a much drier, matter-of-fact view. Eddie's lies in sarcasm, observation, and puns.

[Matt]

I think Roland does have a sense of humor but like so many others have said, joking around is simply very low on his list of priorities. :D

I can identify because sometimes I am like that myself.

[Hannah]

I think Roland is pretty damn funny sometimes, but it's a dry humor.

[sarah]

I agree hannah. and as the series goes on I think he relaxes a bit more and lets his humor out. He was alone for so long and i think ones humor kind of gets left in the dust when you have no one to share it with. Once he was with his ka-tet, i think we see a bit more of his dry drawl.

[VolsToTheWall]

Roland's one liners may be few and far between, but that just makes the ones we do get that much the funnier. Like the Zen Buddhist line, they are like rare gems, when you do find one you appreciate them.

[Daghain]

I agree. His humor is a lot more subtle, and rare, which makes it unexpected and somehow more funny. :)

[Frunobulax]

Well, it's often funnier because it's unexpected or seemingly out of character.

[BlakeMP]

I don't beleive there's a single person anywhere who has absolutely no sense of humor.

I've got a former boss's wife I'd like to introduce you to. :lol:

But I agree, Roland does have a sense of humor. It's just a very subtle one, a side he doesn't put on display.

[Daghain]

LOL Blake I think I've met her sister. :D

Subtle sense of humor is sometimes the best. I used to work with a guy who rarely said anything funny, but when he did...oh man you would hurt yourself laughing. :)

[Telynn]

From The Wastelands.

Roland had just made Eddie take the gun, and then take the knife.

Eddie Jammed the knife into his belt and then looked defiantly at Roland. "Now can we go?"

"There is one more thing," Roland said.

"Weeping, creeping Jesus!"

The smile touched Roland's mouth again. "Just joking." he said.

[Matt]

OMG!!

I just mentioned that scene in another thread yesterday. Its in the Wastelands book forum.

It was a great way to end it right there, with a Roland joke. :D

[Frunobulax]

[Cues Buddy Rich to do a rimshot]

[Daghain]

That is a great scene. I think I laughed so hard I cried. :)

[Letti]

Of course it's a question about Roland. If the question doesn't make a sense for you I am sorry but I wouldn't like to describe it. You can mean it as you wish. I would like to see your deepest feelings.

[Daghain]

I said it didn't make sense to me, only because I don't think there's anything to forgive him for.

[Letti]

I said it didn't make sense to me, only because I don't think there's anything to forgive him for.

It's an absolutely great answer. Thanks for it.

[Wuducynn]

I cannot forgive him because he keeps trying to kill the Crimson King and save the Dark Tower. How can one forgive the one whom one hates so deeply?

[Letti]

I cannot forgive him because he keeps trying to kill the Crimson King and save the Dark Tower. How can one forgive the one whom one hates so deeply?

Sometimes I really don't know if you are serious or not.

[Matt]

I cannot forgive him because he doesn't have what it takes to step out of the pattern.

I really think Kings entire intention with Roland was to illustrate weakness (perhaps even his own)

Great thread Letti :wub:

[Letti]

Could you write more details, Matt? I mean... humans fail... so many times, don't you think?

[Matt]

I do and I believe that may be the the point of the story after all is said and done.

Each of us is challenged in our lives with something like this. The urge/need to do something that is no good for us but we still do it because we do not have the power to break free.

The story illustrates, to me, that breaking free is sometimes one of the best things a person can do for themselves.

[Wuducynn]

Matt you heartless bastard, you can't find it in you to love Roland?? :(

[Matt]

This from the Crimson King :lol:

[Wuducynn]

Sometimes I really don't know if you are serious or not.

How can you not know that I'm serious?

[Jean]

I said it didn't make sense to me, only because I don't think there's anything to forgive him for.
except his unbearable penchant for demagogy. I can forgive it, though, after everything he has done.

[She-Oy]

I don't really think it's my place to forgive Roland. He didn't really ever do anything to me personally...the other characters and himself maybe.

I think the big thing is for Roland to forgive himself, that's his job, not ours.

[Jean]

this is very true, from a point of view, but I understand the question a little differently. You see, when a book is as important as the DT series, it becomes part of our lives, and the characters parts of our soul. So, whatever they do, they do to us. They hurt us when, after we come to love them, they hurt others; they make us happy or unhappy; so it ultimately may be up to us to forgive or not forgive them.

[Darkthoughts]

I think its hard to say. We don't live in a world like Roland's where the way of the gun is acceptable, so some of the consequences of Roland's actions are more severe than we are used to personally.

I guess if you feel Roland acted for the greater good, then you can forgive him because the things he did were a means to an end.

I agree with She-oy too though. If he could forgive himself he wouldn't require our forgiveness...or to put that another way - Roland is so hard on himself that no-ones forgiveness but his own would be enough to give him peace I think.

[Jean]

yes, but here you focus on him, too, and I believe Nikolett was going to find out more about us rather than whether or not Roland deserved/needed forgiveness.

For example, I just thought that if the question was, "can you justify all Roland's actions to yourself", my answer would be definitely "no". But the question was whether or not I could forgive him, and this is an altogether different story.

[Wuducynn]

yes, but here you focus on him, too, and I believe Nikolett was going to find out more about us rather than whether or not Roland deserved/needed forgiveness.


Yeah, I think she is still trying to emotionally and mentally digest my answer..

[Darkthoughts]

Surely you contradict yourself there? If you don't feel Roland deserves forgiveness - according to your personal ethics or definition of the term forgiveness - then how can you say whether or not you forgive him?

I know I'm probably being too literal about this compared to where you're coming from - but can you define your point in another way as to make it clearer to this pedantic nature of mine? :P

[She-Oy]

In that case, yes, I could forgive him. If Jake was me, meaning if Roland had dropped me, I would have forgiven him. But I'm that kind of person. I can forgive just about anyone...doesn't mean I don't learn, just means I can make peace without hatred...which is something Roland obviously can't do.

Anger eats me alive and I can't stand to be that way. For him, it was just a way of life and a driving force at that.

[Jean]

Darkthoughts: as I understand it, justifying someone's actions is a rational act based on justice (sorry for the tautology); the one who does the act has to be fair. Forgiving is an irrational act, rooting in heart, involving love; the one who does it has to be merciful. Forgiveness is always a small miracle, an interruption of the dreary chain of deeds and retributions. As Heather said:

If Jake was me, meaning if Roland had dropped me, I would have forgiven him.

[Chassit]

I think I could forgive him

XIX

[Letti]

I think I could forgive him

XIX

And here is our first absolutely straight answer. :D

[Letti]

1. I don't really think it's my place to forgive Roland.
2. He didn't really ever do anything to me personally...the other characters and himself maybe.

3. I think the big thing is for Roland to forgive himself, that's his job, not ours.

1. "God will forgive me. It's his job." - by Heinrich Heine ;)

2. I see your point but I agree with Jean. Lots of things happen to this world and most of them don't do anything to us but they still touch our lives. And they can wake up so many feelings inside us.

3. Wise. I think the hardest thing is to forgive us but I don't think it would be a part of our job. (It's possible you didn't want to say this.) There are things we really can't forgive ourselves but we need to be able to live with them.

[Darkthoughts]

Oh ok, I understand what you're saying Jean. I don't think I grasped it at first because I couldn't forgive someone if I was unable to justify (to myself) their actions.

However, thats also a bit of a paradox because I think if you love someone or care very deeply for them, you find ways to justify the unjust because you want to forgive them.

[Jean]

Oh ok, I understand what you're saying Jean. I don't think I grasped it at first because I couldn't forgive someone if I was unable to justify (to myself) their actions.

However, thats also a bit of a paradox because I think if you love someone or care very deeply for them, you find ways to justify the unjust because you want to forgive them.
Exactly! But we shouldn't be afraid of paradoxes, such is the dialectic of life.

[Letti]

I think one of the nicest feelings of the world is forgiveness.

[Valkyrie]

I don't think its my place to forgive him. I think that if he wanted anyone's forgiveness, it would be Jake's first and foremost, followed by the rest of the ka-tet. Our forgiveness would mean zero to him.

[Letti]

Yes... there is a lot in what you say Valkyrie but we often forgive people who don't really need our forgiveness. There are so many feelings that are lost in the big universe but.. maybe they are still important.
It's possible they are not important to the ones we feel them for.. but to ourselves.

[She-Oy]

I am seeing Letti's point full on now.
And what she says is exactly WHY I tend to forgive. It's more for me than it is the other person. I hate to hold grudges, it makes me physically ill sometimes...to just let it go, forgive, move on...it's cathartic.

[Wuducynn]

I think I could forgive him

XIX

And here is our first absolutely straight answer. :D

I thought mine was a pretty straight answer.

[Letti]

I am seeing Letti's point full on now.
And what she says is exactly WHY I tend to forgive. It's more for me than it is the other person. I hate to hold grudges, it makes me physically ill sometimes...to just let it go, forgive, move on...it's cathartic.

You must be a valuable soul. :rose:

[Letti]

I think I could forgive him

XIX

And here is our first absolutely straight answer. :D

I thought mine was a pretty straight answer.

Yeah, sorry - but yours was way longer. ;)

[She-Oy]

I am seeing Letti's point full on now.
And what she says is exactly WHY I tend to forgive. It's more for me than it is the other person. I hate to hold grudges, it makes me physically ill sometimes...to just let it go, forgive, move on...it's cathartic.

You must be a valuable soul. :rose:

No, I wouldn't say so. I just have a very guilty complex and this is how I have learned to cope with it. I feel guilty when I am angry, I have to learn to let go. It's a personal choice for me. In some ways it's almost selfish.

[Letti]

I am seeing Letti's point full on now.
And what she says is exactly WHY I tend to forgive. It's more for me than it is the other person. I hate to hold grudges, it makes me physically ill sometimes...to just let it go, forgive, move on...it's cathartic.

You must be a valuable soul. :rose:

No, I wouldn't say so. I just have a very guilty complex and this is how I have learned to cope with it. I feel guilty when I am angry, I have to learn to let go. It's a personal choice for me. In some ways it's almost selfish.

We all are selfish. The question is what you can do with it. And to me it seems that you can handle it really nicely.

[Valkyrie]

Yes... there is a lot in what you say Valkyrie but we often forgive people who don't really need our forgiveness. There are so many feelings that are lost in the big universe but.. maybe they are still important.
It's possible they are not important to the ones we feel them for.. but to ourselves.

This is true, aand I understand where you are coming from.

However, if I can play devil's advocate for a moment, it can also seem very arrogant of me to suggest that the universe might require my forgiveness of someone who hasn't sought my forgiveness or has done me no personal wrong. And as for offering forgiveness simply to make myself feel better about events I had no part in? I just don't get that...I mean, I get it, but it doesn't do anything for me personally.

Going back to the question: Roland is a man of many flaws, that is true. He's hurt many people and done a lot of bad things in his quest for the tower. In my opinion, he is being well-punished for these things and while he has my sympathy, I still don't feel the need to forgive him for anything and am holding no grudge or ill feelings toward him.

[Letti]

You don't feel that you were a part of the quest, Valky?

[Valkyrie]

You don't feel that you were a part of the quest, Valky?

Because while I was emotionally there, I didn't have to suffer and sweat and sacrifice the way they did. I didn't go through what they went through. I took great pleasure in laying on my sofa and reading about their quest.

[Jean]

Oh ok, I understand what you're saying Jean. I don't think I grasped it at first because I couldn't forgive someone if I was unable to justify (to myself) their actions.

However, thats also a bit of a paradox because I think if you love someone or care very deeply for them, you find ways to justify the unjust because you want to forgive them.
Exactly! But we shouldn't be afraid of paradoxes, such is the dialectic of life.

Now, after giving it some more thought - there still are cases of forgiveness without justification (although you're not a Christian, I think I can give this example: God forgives us our sins without ever justifying them). That Jake situation is, of course, the most graphic. Heather would forgive him if she was Jake; but even without identifying with him, can't we forgive Roland - although letting a child who trusts you fall into the abyss isn't justifiable under any circumstances - because he suffered, because he repented (1), and because he was, already as early as in TDOTT, ready to sacrifice everything, even to forfeit his chances to get to the Tower (sometimes it seems to me that Odetta and Matt read a different book!) to undo what he had done and to save the boy (2).

(1)

The gunslinger came awake from a confused dream which seemed to consist of a single image: that of the Sailor in the Tarot deck from which the man in black had dealt (or purported to deal) the gunslinger's own moaning future.
He drowns, gunslinger, the man in black was saying, and no one throws out the line. The boy Jake.
But this was no nightmare. It was a good dream. It was good because he was the one drowning, and that meant he was not Roland at all but Jake, and he found this a relief because it would be far better to drown as Jake than to live as himself, a man who had, for a cold dream, betrayed a child who had trusted him.

(2)

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. Thoughts of what might happen if he stopped the man in black from murdering Jake did not come until later -- the possible paradox, the fistula in time and dimension which might cancel out everything that had happened after he had arrived at the way station. . . for surely if he saved Jake in this world, there would have been no Jake for him to meet there, and everything which had happened thereafter would change.
What changes? Impossible even to speculate on them. That one might have been the end of his quest never entered the gunslinger's mind. And surely such after-the-fact specula*tions were moot; if he had seen the man in black, no conse*quence, paradox, or ordained course of destiny could have stopped him from simply lowering the head of this body he inhabited and pounding it straight through Walter's chest. Roland would have been as helpless to do otherwise as a gun is helpless to refuse the finger that squeezes the trigger and flings the bullet on its flight.
If it sent all to hell, the hell with it.

[Darkthoughts]

Yes, it is a very Christian concept forgiveness isn't it. I mean, in its truest form where you forgive unconditionally. I don't bear grudges against people, I'm unable to...not perhaps for the same reasons as She-Oy, more because I can't be rude to someone/ignore them if they speak to me...haha - I'm soooo British :P So what I mean to illustrate by that is that to all intents and purposes other people might imagine that I forgive - but I'd know in my heart that my relationship with that person had changed irreversably.

To apply that to Roland, the fact that he repents and often wishes throughout the story that he'd acted differently - he still doesn't forgive himself and nor does Jake (who is always reluctant to complete any sentance that involves disclosing how Roland let him fall. Plus he is always unsure that Roland will let it happen again) so, no matter if you're asking me if I can forgive Roland - I can't help but base my opinion on facts and the opinions of Roland and the ka-tet. What basis for making a decision do i have otherwise?

I don't think I've made a decision one way or the other so far - but I have to go with "no, I don't forgive him" I love Roland and I supported him throughout the journey - but I'd be lying if I said I'd truly forgiven him. Infact I'll go one step further and say I don't really believe in the concept of forgiveness because I don't believe anyone ever truly does forgive (even though we are very adept at acting otherwise) in their secret heart of hearts.

[Jean]

I see where the core of this difference between us lies. For you, the notion itself of forgiveness is akin to justification; for me to love. You're doubtful how one can forgive without justifying; I can't see how one can love without forgiving. But, of course, then the concept of forgetting creeps in... and it's something I got to give additional thought to (I think I know what I think, but can't put it into clear categories yet).

[sarah]

I said it didn't make sense to me, only because I don't think there's anything to forgive him for.

My thoughts exactly. He tried to better himself all through the quest. he was a changed man from The Gunslinger to The Wastelands. I don't think there is anything to forgive.

[Matt]

I said I wouldn't only in the context of the question. I assumed Letti meant that if it was in your power (or mattered) to forgive him. Would you?

I said "no" and that is only because I am a huge personal responsibility guy. Also, since I believe the only key to Rolands salvation is to cry off, he needs to have the strength to realize that imo.

and its funny how closely this matches a struggle I am having in my life at the moment. Not for all existence but from a certain perspective...aren't all quests that way?

[Cuthbert Allbad]

Rough question. I don't feel Roland did anything wrong. I'm sure the rest of the Ka Tet knew what chances they took by joining Roland's quest.

Roland acted exactly the way Roland should've have. It's his nature.

[She-Oy]

This whole conversation reminds me of a song, "The Grudge" by Tool.

If you read the lyrics it's about the same thing. Actually the song is saying that this world's lack of forgiveness is what is bringing us down...it's even got "looping" going on in it.

Anyway, here are the lyrics, read them and see if you can get the same thing out of them...

Wear the grudge like a crown of negativity.
Calculate what we will or will not tolerate.
Desperate to control all and everything.
Unable to forgive your scarlet lettermen.

Clutch it like a cornerstone. Otherwise it all comes down.
Justify denials and grip 'em to the lonesome end.
Clutch it like a cornerstone. Otherwise it all comes down.
Terrified of being wrong. Ultimatum prison cell.

Saturn ascends, choose one or ten. Hang on or be humbled again.

Clutch it like a cornerstone. Otherwise it all comes down.
Justify denials and grip 'em to the lonesome end.
Saturn ascends, comes round again.
Saturn ascends, the one, the ten. Ignorant to the damage done.

Wear the grudge like a crown of negativity.
Calculate what we will or will not tolerate.
Desperate to control all and everything.
Unable to forgive your scarlet lettermen.

Wear your grudge like a crown. Desperate to control.
Unable to forgive. And we're sinking deeper.

Defining, confining, controlling, and we're sinking deeper.

Saturn comes back around to show you everything
Let's you choose what you will not see and then
Drags you down like a stone or lifts you up again
Spits you out like a child, light and innocent.

Saturn comes back around. Lifts you up like a child or
Drags you down like a stone
To consume you till you choose to let this go.

Give away the stone. Let the oceans take and
Transmutate this cold and fated anchor.
Give away the stone. Let the waters kiss and
Transmutate these leaden grudges into gold.
Let go.

I feel so much like my husband right! 8)

[Aesculapius]

I feel so much like my husband right! 8)

I wouldn't shout that too loud. :lol:

Anyway, yes, 'The Grudge' is the first song on the album for a damn good reason. :D

[She-Oy]

Hey, I'm proud of your thoughts, even if I don't get them myself all the time...hehehe

But what I was trying to say is Roland might do well by listening to that song...it almost written for people just like him.

[Aesculapius]

LVX

[Darkthoughts]

I see where the core of this difference between us lies. For you, the notion itself of forgiveness is akin to justification; for me to love. You're doubtful how one can forgive without justifying; I can't see how one can love without forgiving. But, of course, then the concept of forgetting creeps in... and it's something I got to give additional thought to (I think I know what I think, but can't put it into clear categories yet).
No love without forgiveness? What if theres nothing to forgive?

I'm glad you hit on "forgetting" though, because I was thinking about this conversation yesterday - trying to think how I could better express what I mean and it came to me that its to do with how you define forgiveness, and to me its bonded with forgetting.

From what I posted previously I don't want you to think that if someone wrongs me I could never forgive them, I do forgive people but my point is - is there ever true forgiveness?

For example lets say your partner was unfaithful to you, but you decided that you wanted to carry on your relationship and to do that obviously you must forgive. So what does forgive mean in this context? It means in part that you feel your love is strong enough to endure this (your point about love and forgiveness?) but it also means that you agree to forget - that you won't hold it against them or continually dwell on it.

My pov then was, you can't truly erase that knowledge from your brain though, so have you truly forgiven? Or is forgiveness the act of keeping it to yourself and not dwelling on it?

I guess in this example there would be no justification - you cannot justify the unfaithful partners actions, you put stock in the value of your love and forgive on that basis.

[Jean]

we're getting deeper and deeper into that, and our categories multiply. Now yet another aspect arises: difference between not forgetting and holding it against someone. Thank you for that wonderful post and food for thought... will take me some time

[Darkthoughts]

No worries, I'm really enjoying this discourse with you :huglove:

[Matt]

Same here, we have some fascinating conversations going on

[Darkthoughts]

Its so refreshing to be able to discuss the books again, and in such depth. We've developed a whole philosophy from them as readers and I love how everyones taken such different meanings from what they read and experienced on the quest.
Group hug!! :lol:

[She-Oy]

Yes it is. I know I am thoroughly enjoying the conversations.

To hit on the forgive and forget notion, well, I don't think we can ever really forget a wrong done to us, but I don't think you necessarily have to forget to truely forgive. In fact, it wouldn't be right to forget. Just because you forgive someone doesn't mean you are throwing yourself out there to be walked all over again, it mean just as you said DT, to not dwell on it. To not bring it up and hold it over the person's head.

There is nothing wrong about learning from a bad experience and taking caution.

[Wuducynn]

Its so refreshing to be able to discuss the books again, and in such depth. We've developed a whole philosophy from them as readers and I love how everyones taken such different meanings from what they read and experienced on the quest.
Group hug!! :lol:

Indeed it is. I like your style Darkthoughts, including your user ID.

[Letti]

Its so refreshing to be able to discuss the books again, and in such depth. We've developed a whole philosophy from them as readers and I love how everyones taken such different meanings from what they read and experienced on the quest.
Group hug!! :lol:

:grouphug:

[Letti]

And another question... if you don't mind.
Can we decide if we forgive or not? Does it depend on us? Or does it just come?


Anyway I think forgiveness is a very complex feeling and "journey". First step is to understand the other.
The second one is to be able to accept what has happened to see the reasons even if it hurts a lot and it's hard to see through the dark clouds.
And the third
*thinks*
step is to open those doors we had closed inside us before.

Does it make any sense?
These are my first thoughts so let me know how you think about it.

And one more last question...
can we lose the ability to forgive?

[Odetta]

We can decide to forgive or not. It is not an automatic response. Because of that, to answer your second question... can we lose the ability to forgive? No... you always have the ability... but you can CHOOSE to not forgive.

[Letti]

Sometimes I don't feel it would be my decision that I forgive... my anger vanishes.. the bad memories faint into the past... and one day to the other I feel it doesn't matter anymore. And I could forgive.
But yeah.. sometimes I feel it's my decision.

[Darkthoughts]

I like your style Darkthoughts, including your user ID.
Thank you very much!! Sometimes people think my views are pessimistic - I've even been called nihilistic (thats generally in religious D&D though :P ) but to my own mind I just try and tell it like I see it and consider my self to be an optimist.
I think Jung was quite accurate with his shadowself theory and to that end I think we also project an image of how we'd like to be, rather than how we actually are.


And another question... if you don't mind.
Can we decide if we forgive or not? Does it depend on us? Or does it just come?
Good question! I think a bit of both - if the opposite of forgiveness is say, bearing a grudge, then I think sometimes you do forgive without intending to,ie: if you're a fairly healthy (mentally) person I think its hard to bear grudges (even when you might initially intend to) and thats the sort of instance when forgiveness comes of its own accord.


And the third
*thinks*
step is to open those doors we had closed inside us before.
I love the way you word things :huglove: I also think thats an accurate way to describe it.


can we lose the ability to forgive?
I'm not sure...I certainly think its possible to never have had the ability to forgive in the first place - say in a person who's never received love or care, someone with a deeply disturbed upbringing - someone who's socio/psychopathic - I'm not sure theres any hope of such a person ever learning to forgive (although I'm sure there are exceptions).

But to lose the ability, if before you were open to the concept...yeah - I guess under very harsh circumstances its possible. Someone who's been wrongfully imprisoned say. But ultimately such a person would want to move on/forgive wouldn't they?

[Letti]

*hugs the girl above* :wub:

[Matt]

I have a situation I am in right now where I will never choose to forgive, not to my dying day.

However, I do think I have that choice and can exercise it if I need to.

[Letti]

I have a situation I am in right now where I will never choose to forgive, not to my dying day.

However, I do think I have that choice and can exercise it if I need to.

Oh... I am really sorry Matt that you are in such a situation. *hugs you*

[Matt]

Thanks Letti, it is very hard. And family to boot :(

I want to be the type of person that forgives and I almost always do but once you get pushed too far..you have to cut a person out of your movie.

/end pity party for Matty

:couple: <--me and Letti

[Odetta]

I have a situation I am in right now where I will never choose to forgive, not to my dying day.

However, I do think I have that choice and can exercise it if I need to.

Exactly... your choice... it is not uncontrollable.

[Darkthoughts]

I didn't see your post before I posted Odetta (seriously slow at typing :D ) but I agree that mostly its a choice - though in the case of someone who was really disturbed, I doubt they would even recognise that they had a choice at all.

[Odetta]

true... if we are talking about the seriously disturbed, they may not feel they have an option.

[MonteGss]

Does not make sense to me because I don't think there is anything to forgive him for. :)

[Letti]

Does not make sense to me because I don't think there is anything to forgive him for. :)

You say that you have nothing to forgive him or he has never done anything anybody should forgive?
Because they are not the same.


(I edited the poll a little bit. I think now it shows more.)

[MonteGss]

Can I edit my vote then? I don't know how.
I do not think there is any need to forgive Roland. Roland is who he is.
So that would make my vote #4 I think.

[Letti]

Can I edit my vote then? I don't know how.
I do not think there is any need to forgive Roland. Roland is who he is.
So that would make my vote #4 I think.

Cry your pardon, sai but I have already edited your vote. I hope you don't mind.
*hopes* :rose:

[MonteGss]

If you put my vote as #4...then we are as right as rain.
:wub:

[Letti]

Yesyes. That was my first thing to do when I edited the poll. (You can see we have less votes at 3#)
I should have given that option when I started the poll.. but sadly I can't think with other people's minds. :D But that's why we are here.

[Cuthbert Allbad]

Can I edit my vote then? I don't know how.
I do not think there is any need to forgive Roland. Roland is who he is.
So that would make my vote #4 I think.


Roland is as Roland does!!!

[Letti]

What's your strongest feeling about Roland? Did it change during the quest? What are the reasons?
If I missed something very important from the poll, let me know and I will edit it.

[sai blaine]

Letti...you and roland...ahem

Anyway i say my strongest feeling for roland is...Respect, followed by hate. Even thoe i despise roland in certain ways, his determination to reach the tower and to not let anyone stop him neither friend nor foe, cant help but admire that.

[Letti]

Letti...you and roland...ahem

Anyway i say my strongest feeling for roland is...Respect, followed by hate. Even thoe i despise roland in certain ways, his determination to reach the tower and to not let anyone stop him neither friend nor foe, cant help but admire that.

Wow.
You could surprise me.

[sai blaine]

Errr....why? :o

[Matt]

Pity for me--I love Roland but I pity him.

[Letti]

Pity for me--I love Roland but I pity him.

Now it's there. Thank you.

[Storyslinger]

I respect the man for all that he had to endure

[jayson]

Amazement. His ability to continue despite all he has seen and all he has done is nothing short of amazing for me. Whatever befalls him, he continues. Whatever obstacles appear in his path, he finds a way around or over them. :shoot:

[sai blaine]

Another thing i respect him for being able to do is move on, even more so after susans death, if i was in rolands place and felt like he did then i dont think i could of carried on and would of welcomed death.

[CyberGhostface]

I suppose 'respect' is the closest emotion considering his character growth throughout the first three books. The Roland who shoots down Tull and the Roland who rescues Jake from Lud are almost two different people.

[Daghain]

:thumbsup:

What CypberGhostFace said. And, I have a lot of respect for Roland's tenacity and resourcefulness.

[ManOfWesternesse]

I voted 'respect' in the end - but 'Amazement' was close & 'Love' was probably damn close too.
Hard to vote - which means it's a good poll.

[Jean]

I voted 'respect' in the end - but 'Amazement' was close & 'Love' was probably damn close too.
Hard to vote - which means it's a good poll.
like last time, I voted "love" without hesitation, although I see your point, too.

[sai blaine]

I voted 'respect' in the end - but 'Amazement' was close & 'Love' was probably damn close too.
Hard to vote - which means it's a good poll.
Only thing that amazes me about roland, is why people like him :lol:

[Jean]

Like and love is, well, different. It's like in Doctor Dolittle, when his daughter says, "Daddy, you don't like me!" He says, silly, I love you. She says, I know you love me. I said you didn't like me.
Well, there's a lot about Roland I don't like, but for this mixture of amazement, awe, gratitude, pity (thank you Nikolett for that option), respect, and shock I feel I can't find a better word than love.

[sai blaine]

Despise? :panic:

[JasKo]

Altou I'm torn between Respect and Amazement, I went for amazement. He's truly a great person that continues to amaze me, because I am amazed of him and his abilities and his respect towards others(as long as they don't ruin his quest for the DT.)

P.S. I'm still not done with the books, so it might change.

[jayson]

I suppose 'respect' is the closest emotion considering his character growth throughout the first three books. The Roland who shoots down Tull and the Roland who rescues Jake from Lud are almost two different people.

That is an excellent point Ghostface. In an even shorter time span, just look at the growth from the Roland who dropped Jake into the abyss and the one who saved him in Lud. Roland's personal growth is what makes him such an intriguing character. After the first book, I'd have said I despised Roland for dropping Jake, but he redeemed himself in Lud. As for Tull, while it was a massacre, Roland had little choice. Kill or be killed.

[Letti]

I voted 'respect' in the end - but 'Amazement' was close & 'Love' was probably damn close too.
Hard to vote - which means it's a good poll.
:couple: thanks

[JasKo]

I voted 'respect' in the end - but 'Amazement' was close & 'Love' was probably damn close too.
Hard to vote - which means it's a good poll.

All Letti's posts are great! :D

[Wuducynn]

"Roland and You" the new sitcom coming out this spring only on ABC.

[jayson]

"Roland and You" the new sitcom coming out this spring only on ABC.

It stars Roland Deschain and Los the Red as two wild & crazy bachelors who hate one another but must work together to raise their son Mordred. Hell, it's already a better premise than Cavemen.

[Storyslinger]

NIce

[Matt]

The odd couple--two and a half men? :lol:

[Storyslinger]

Nope, All in the Family

[jayson]

Don't even need the writer's strike to end for CK's dialogue... "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Wuducynn]

Nope, All in the Family

:lol: :thumbsup:

[Wuducynn]

The odd couple--two and a half men? :lol:

Remember the Red King is also half spider..soooo that would make it...ummmm :lol:

[jayson]

Nope, All in the Family

:lol: :thumbsup:

CK - "Aw geez meathead, ya let the Manni in here again."

[Storyslinger]

Nope, All in the Family

:lol: :thumbsup:

CK - "Aw geez meathead, ya let the Manni in here again."

:rofl:

[Wuducynn]

CK - "Aw geez meathead, ya let the Manni in here again."


Mmmmmmmmm Manni!! Los' loves Manni bbqed!

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m168/Los_The_Red/Loshavingsupper-1.jpg

[Jean]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/backtotopic.gif

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/thaku.gif

[Daghain]

"Roland and You" the new sitcom coming out this spring only on ABC.

It stars Roland Deschain and Los the Red as two wild & crazy bachelors who hate one another but must work together to raise their son Mordred. Hell, it's already a better premise than Cavemen.


Special guest appearance by Susannah Dean as the disgruntled ex-wife. :lol:

[Wuducynn]

I love that The Dags just ignores Jean's post and continues the derailing of the thread...wooooohooooo :lol:

Back on topic... I voted "Warm, sweet love for dear Roland"

[jayson]

I love that The Dags just ignores Jean's post and continues the derailing of the thread...wooooohooooo :lol:

Back on topic... I voted "Warm, sweet love for dear Roland"

Huh huh, I bet you've got some warm sweet love for Roland.

[Wuducynn]

What? I do!

[Daghain]

My computer isn't loading images. I missed the off-topic graphic, didn't I? My bad. :lol:

[TerribleT]

My computer isn't loading images. I missed the off-topic graphic, didn't I? My bad. :lol:

SSSSUUUUURRRRRREEEEEE, Blame it on the IT guy :angry:

[Daghain]

Oh no, you totally blamed it on corporate before I could pin it on you. :D

But yeah, I was totally going to go there. :lol:

[Letti]

Before I read the last book I picked respect.
Now that I have finished it, love got stronger.

[Brice]

Before I read the last book I picked respect.
Now that I have finished it, love got stronger.

I have picked the same. :huglove:

[Jean]

makes three of us then: 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]

makes three of us then: 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

:grouphug:

[alinda]

I picked amazed, because I love him too!

[LadyHitchhiker]

Pity...

[Letti]

I asked it somewhere else too but it was one of my favourite threads ever... so let me repeat it.
The question is quite simple, or is it not?

Is Roland a hero?

[Jean]

I'm glad to repeat here what I said at .net: he is a hero according to all main definitions of the word, as well as to how I personally feel about him.

[jayson]

Absolutely.

[Letti]

We have a "no" already. ;)

[alinda]

Hard to believe it Letti, its me.
I guess as with all things it is perception
that nails something down for you,
and Rolands obsession with the DT
dosent fit that definition for me.
Don't get me wrong he behaves heroic
for sure at times, and I love him but....no.

[Matt]

I'm afraid I am going to echo alinda's sentiment exactly. I totally agree.

But how "hero" is defined is different for everyone I believe.

[alinda]

May I add Letti, to me YOU are more a hero then he.:fairy:

[Jean]

Nikolett definitely is.

Back to Roland: I wish anyone who says "no" would give their definition of "hero"; then we could argue.

[Matt]

I personally reserve the word for very extreme cases but I think my base definition would be all around self-sacrifice and selflessness, Roland didn't seem to big on that.

But like Linda said, I think he had heroic moments but not that he was a "hero"--his actions in a lot of cases negated that title imo.

[alinda]

Hello Jean, ((hugs))

One could argue that a difinition of the word hero might be ...
a person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: soldiers and nurses who were heroes in an unpopular war. for instance.

[jayson]

a person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life:

and that doesn't sound like a description of Roland?

[jayson]

Here are some "official" definitions. Other than not being a sandwich, Roland fits all of these. My personal definition is more in line with #1 and he certainly fits the bill there.:rose:

he·ro (hîr)
n. pl. he·roes

1. In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods.
2. A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: soldiers and nurses who were heroes in an unpopular war.
3. A person noted for special achievement in a particular field: the heroes of medicine. See Synonyms at celebrity.
4. The principal male character in a novel, poem, or dramatic presentation.
5. Chiefly New York City See submarine. See Regional Note at submarine.

[Brice]

Aside from the sandwich ( *drools*) I think there are no heroes...just sometimes ordinary people act heroic.

[Matt]

:D

Very well said.

[Brice]

Thank you!

[Woofer]

Hrm, only yes or no as options. I am forced to vote...no. I think he is heroic and could, ultimately, be a hero, but he is not yet. IMO, the fact that we see him repeating the journey at the end of Book 7, Horn of Eld in hand this time, shows that he still has much to overcome before Gan/ka/god favors him and allows him to move forward past the tower. Once he has grown enough to move on to the afterlife (or higher plane or whatever), then he will be heroic. I think he and whatever ka-tet originally helped him get to the tower saved it long ago, but the cost of saving the/all universes, was having his soul ripped apart one piece at a time over the years. Thus, he is cursed repeat his quest until he can complete it with his soul (mostly) intact at the end.

[sarah]

YES! Roland is a hero to me. I absolutely love roland. He is complex, strong, willing, able, forceful, and everything i could ever ask for in a fictional quest. I love roland and everything, even his flaws, that he is. Thank you stephen king for Roland of Gilead!

[Letti]

Hrm, only yes or no as options. I am forced to vote...no.

Yesyes. You are absolutely right. You are forced. :D

Linda, thank you for the nice words and I am not shocked at all if someone says Roland is not a hero to them. It's a hard choice to me, too. Roland is not a typical hero.
I think he got the deficition "hero" in my mind after Calla. I am not sure but the way he acted there... wow.

[alinda]

Letti & Maerlyn,

Good day ladies, you see I find no fault with Roland,
I very much love him too. Its just that every day
I meet people who sacrifice so much for others
and this may be what colors my perception of
the idea of hero. While I believe as you do that
heroic deeds were done by Roland ( and many others)
in the story, to truly be a hero I think ones motivation
comes into play. I would place Rolands character closer
to selfish than heroic, and add that this quality may even
endear him to me more, as I can so readily relate to it being
so myself. See?

Letti, I do see quite well what you mean about Calla.
:nana:

[Jean]

I am re-reading the dictionary definitions given by R_of_G (remarkably like the ones given by me at .net, which served to confirm by opinion of Roland being a typical hero), and can't see where the category of (un)selfishness comes in.

alinda: he was a soldier at a lost war, wasn't he?

Brice: even if nobody can (in all likelihood) be an absolute, undiluted epitomy of anything - heroism in our case - isn't Roland the closest possible to a hero, according to all those definitions?

[Brice]

I am re-reading the dictionary definitions given by R_of_G (remarkably like the ones given by me at .net, which served to confirm by opinion of Roland being a typical hero), and can't see where the category of (un)selfishness comes in.

alinda: he was a soldier at a lost war, wasn't he?

Brice: even if nobody can (in all likelihood) be an absolute, undiluted epitomy of anything - heroism in our case - isn't Roland the closest possible to a hero, according to all those definitions?

It's all subjective man. IMO noone (not just Roland) can ever be a hero. Sometimes he is heroic...sometimes he is not.

[Jean]

yes, but if no-one can anyway, the word must still mean something?

[Brice]

Not to me really...I mean yes, it has a definition, but to me that is an ideal noone can live up to.

[sarah]

alinda, I don't think of Roland as a typical fictional charcter hero. He is just a hero for me. He has flaws and trials. He doesn't have "super powers" he has talent and history. He is just a man and he is an interesting read.

[jayson]

Alinda - I believe it came up in the Susannah thread as well, but I don't see where Roland is selfish. Again I ask you to look at the palaver between Roland and Slightman the elder right before the Wolves come. Roland tells him they are the same as far as practicing betrayal, but the difference is that Roland has never taken anything for himself as Slightman did the spectacles. This is key to me. If there never was a Tower in trouble it'd be easy to chalk up Roland's decisions as selfish, but there is a Tower, it is in danger and everything he does is to save it, so that is not selfish in my eyes. I never said Roland was a role model, but there is a world of difference between role models and heroes.

Brice - while I agree with you almost entirely about applying the word to people in the "real world," there is a long literary and mythological tradition of hero stories [back to the Joseph Campbell again]. Roland's story matches so many of the key ingredients that it is difficult for me to see him as anything other than a literary hero.

[fernandito]

Great answers everyone.

To me, Roland is the perfect definition of an anti-hero. His methods for obtaining what he wants are at times the very opposite of what a hero has traditionally stood for, like letting little boys plummet to their deaths to catch a mysterious man clad in black. He may also have saved people on his journey from impending doom, but I think it was only in a means-to-an-end way; they were just another obstacle standing between him and his obsession, his tower.

[alinda]

alinda: he was a soldier at a lost war, wasn't he?

yes, and I dont mean to seem so staunch in my oppinion.
For the sake of the argument ....life dosent fit all
one way and no other , I see alot of gray most days.
In this case I do understand your proposal, but beg
to be the devils advocate a minute longer....

Maybe to me Rolands too much as I'd be if I were
single natured, selfish enough to follow only what was
important to me..... maybe its my female speaking,
or my parentness, but in my view being a hero is
more subtle.

Other than these things I agree with you all
as far as the worlds idea of a hero ( tv, movie hero mostly)
in that light Rolands tops, and I'm with you all the way!

[ATG]

Yes

[Matt]

This is so very interesting--I'm transfixed, literally.

I have to continue agreement with Linda, Brice and Fever--the entire journey Roland laments that fact that he will do literally whatever it takes to get to the Tower, does that very thing over and over.

I don't want to give the impression I don't love Roland, I do. He is easily the most engaging and well written character I have ever read. I said my favorite King character was Stu, but Roland is so very much a part of my being I lay awake at night thinking about him, his motivation.

In the end, he is a lot of things in his quest for the Tower but I think even he would say he was no hero

[Letti]

I guess lots of things depend on the definiton of hero. For my part I don't give a damn about it.
Superman is not a hero for me, for example. Nor is Spiderman.
But Roland is. However he is quite selfish (like most of us) and he is not perfect at all. But he is a human being so for me it's quite understandable.
Moreover there are lots of people out there who - in my tiny world - are heroes. They are quite simple people with lots of mistakes but still they are heroes for me because they keep on doing things that make them heroes in my mind.

There is this conversation in Die Hard (yeah, kill me now) somewhere:
(as much as I remember)

- Jesus, man you are a hero!
- No, I am not.
- Look, what you did. You are.
- No. I am not a hero. I make it because there is noone else who makes it.

For me they are the heroes. The ones who might not like what they are doing... they might be broken the might be bored they might be scared like hell they might be fed up with the whole life but still they are doing and keep on doing because there is noone else to do it.

[Spencer]

Roland is BECOMING a hero. That's what the whole cycle is about.

[Jean]

Brice: what I meant here isn't even how the word is applied to Roland, but the merely logical aspect. There's no absolutely "white" in the "real world", but we still call snow or paper "white" for lack of a better white... because it's as close to the absolute as they can get, so there's no reason to reserve this word for anything else since we know it can't be achieved in the real world anyway. The example may not be ideal, but I believe you get the idea: if no perfect examplification of a notion is achievable in reality, we kinda have to make do with the next best and say it is how the notion is manifested. http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

[TerribleT]

I think he is. As to the self sacrifice, I think his quest for the Tower is more a burden he bears, than a personal quest. I think he does many things in the service of this burden, that on the surface may appear to be selfish acts, but when examined more closely they are really unselfish. Dropping Jake seems to be a selfish act, but it's not something he does because he wants to, it's something he hates to do, but feels he must in order to serve his purpose. I think his quest for the tower is a wholly unselfish quest in which he gives up all notion of doing what he might want to do, and sacrifices love, and anything else in order to accomplish his mission. I would also point out that he protects the weak, the sick, and does no wrong to anyone who doesn't have it coming. Yeah, I know, he dropped Jake, and I know many of you can't get over that. I think it's something he felt he must do to achieve his purpose, and something that he did at great cost to himself.

[jayson]

Yeah, I know, he dropped Jake, and I know many of you can't get over that. I think it's something he felt he must do to achieve his purpose, and something that he did at great cost to himself.

I agree with you T, I can't see why people can't get past this one event. For starters, when Roland was in Jack Mort he refused to participate in killing Jake, and thus creating the paradox. His actions at Jake's drawing into Mid-World and his rescue of Jake in Lud should certainly stand in equal regard to the dropping of Jake. Yes, he drops him. He also rescues him and gives him a "truer" life.

[TerribleT]

Yeah, I know, he dropped Jake, and I know many of you can't get over that. I think it's something he felt he must do to achieve his purpose, and something that he did at great cost to himself.

I agree with you T, I can't see why people can't get past this one event. For starters, when Roland was in Jack Mort he refused to participate in killing Jake, and thus creating the paradox. His actions at Jake's drawing into Mid-World and his rescue of Jake in Lud should certainly stand in equal regard to the dropping of Jake. Yes, he drops him. He also rescues him and gives him a "truer" life.

*marks this day on the calendar* :rofl:

[jayson]

*marks this day on the calendar* :rofl:

:dance:

We seem to agree more about Roland's world than we do our own T. lol

[fernandito]

Superman is not a hero for me, for example. Nor is Spiderman....

-----

For me they are the heroes. The ones who might not like what they are doing... they might be broken the might be bored they might be scared like hell they might be fed up with the whole life but still they are doing and keep on doing because there is noone else to do it.

And Spiderman and/or Superman don't fall under this description?


(pardon if this is a bit off topic)

[TerribleT]

Superman is not a hero for me, for example. Nor is Spiderman....

-----

For me they are the heroes. The ones who might not like what they are doing... they might be broken the might be bored they might be scared like hell they might be fed up with the whole life but still they are doing and keep on doing because there is noone else to do it.

And Spiderman and/or Superman don't fall under this description?


(pardon if this is a bit off topic)



Superman and Spiderman are both pussies. Roland would have beat both their asses.

[Letti]

Superman is not a hero for me, for example. Nor is Spiderman....

-----

For me they are the heroes. The ones who might not like what they are doing... they might be broken the might be bored they might be scared like hell they might be fed up with the whole life but still they are doing and keep on doing because there is noone else to do it.

And Spiderman and/or Superman don't fall under this description?


(pardon if this is a bit off topic)

They do what they do because they have super powers. Or it's a big part of it.

[Matt]

With great power comes great responsibility after all :lol:

I'm fine with the dropping Jake thing. But we have to remember that Jake was as different from the Jake through out the story as the one at the end. I think our Jake throughout the story was keystone Jake though.

We can call him "original Jake" if you like.

When that Jake fell, he did not just resurrect in the Jake that Roland saves and then pulls through the door right?

So that begs the question, was Roland pulling from keystone on all three?

That may be off topic and fodder for a new thread I guess.

My point is that Roland did let Jake fall to catch the man in black. Let an innocent boy die for and goal. Again, I'm not saying I don't love him, because I do. But it still doesn't fit the description I have in my head and I really believe Roland himself would say the same.

I wonder what Kings opinion on it would be :excited:

[TerribleT]

With great power comes great responsibility after all :lol:

I'm fine with the dropping Jake thing. But we have to remember that Jake was as different from the Jake through out the story as the one at the end. I think our Jake throughout the story was keystone Jake though.

We can call him "original Jake" if you like.

When that Jake fell, he did not just resurrect in the Jake that Roland saves and then pulls through the door right?

So that begs the question, was Roland pulling from keystone on all three?

That may be off topic and fodder for a new thread I guess.

My point is that Roland did let Jake fall to catch the man in black. Let an innocent boy die for and goal. Again, I'm not saying I don't love him, because I do. But it still doesn't fit the description I have in my head and I really believe Roland himself would say the same.

Roland agonizes over this right up to the point it happens, and afterward knows that he's sold a bit of his coul in his quest for the Tower. He hates himself for doing it on some levels. This is why I say Roland's quest for the Tower was not so much an adventure that he craved as it was a burden that he bore at great personal cost to himself.

[jayson]

My point is that Roland did let Jake fall to catch the man in black. Let an innocent boy die for and goal.

I think "to catch the man in Black" is selling it short. He did it to catch the man in black so he could reach the Tower. Everything was to reach the Tower. To save Jake's life at the expense of saving existence would be both foolhardy and selfish.

As to the "hero" concept, I try to neglect my personal views of what "hero" is. I am with Brice on that one. In the real world "hero" is subjective and fleeting. Nonetheless, there is a long literary tradition of heroes and Roland meets every last qualification. It all comes down to the same thing every time for me, in the end there WAS a Tower and Roland DOES save it thus saving existence. That's heroism.

[Matt]

I can see that point of view, I just don't subscribe to it. Roland has no way of knowing weather or not saving Jake means loosing the Tower (sure the man in black but not the Tower)

In fact, I'm almost ready to believe that its about saving Jake right then if there ever is an end.

[alinda]

excellent point there Matt.

[TerribleT]

I think "to catch the man in Black" is selling it short. He did it to catch the man in black so he could reach the Tower. Everything was to reach the Tower. To save Jake's life at the expense of saving existence would be both foolhardy and selfish.


Preach it!!!!!!



Roland has no way of knowing weather or not saving Jake means loosing the Tower (sure the man in black but not the Tower)


EVERYTHING, EVERY single scrap of information available to Roland at the point where he must make this decision would lead him to believe that the ONLY way to save/reach the Tower is to drop Jake. There is not a single bit of evidence to suggest otherwise anywhere in anything leading up to it. Every bit of information to this point leads him to believe that his entire purpose in life is to save the Tower, and that he must drop Jake to accomplish this purpose. He never had a choice. You can go with the what ifs forever, but there's nothing to suggest any different conclusion. Especially if you disregard the remaining books in the series, because they hadn't been written yet, and at the time when The Gunslinger was written, not even King knew they would be.

[Letti]

TerribleT, why did he have to drop Jake? Would it have been so horrible to lose 2 minutes or less? I could never understand why people say he had no other choice. I know it's off topic but somehow I don't get it.
The problem might be in my mind. :)

[jayson]

EVERYTHING, EVERY single scrap of information available to Roland at the point where he must make this decision would lead him to believe that the ONLY way to save/reach the Tower is to drop Jake. There is not a single bit of evidence to suggest otherwise anywhere in anything leading up to it. Every bit of information to this point leads him to believe that his entire purpose in life is to save the Tower, and that he must drop Jake to accomplish this purpose. He never had a choice. You can go with the what ifs forever, but there's nothing to suggest any different conclusion. Especially if you disregard the remaining books in the series, because they hadn't been written yet, and at the time when The Gunslinger was written, not even King knew they would be.

Could not have said it better myself T. From the time the oracle on, Roland knows what is to become of Jake under the mountains and we the reader are led to believe that if he loses Walter here the Tower will be out of his reach. It's a lot of fun to take the end of DT-7 and go back and analyze Roland's decision to drop Jake, but at the time both Roland and the reader had no reason to believe dropping Jake wasn't essential.

Also, as I pointed out, he dropped Jake once, he saved him a lot more times than that. By not pushing Jake when he was in Mort, Roland could have jeopardized everything. If Jake didn't die than he wouldn't come to the Way Station and he wouldn't have been available to be dropped and Roland wouldn't have palavered with Walter. Aware of this possible dichotomy, Roland refuses to "kill" Jake by pushing him in front of the car. To me, this act alone made up for dropping him in the first place, but even if it didn't, after he saves him from Lud all debts to Jake are paid as far as I see it. I still don't see Roland's loops as do-overs that he has to get "right" to be released. I see no reason the events are even remotely the same in each loop.

[Matt]

Well, like I said, those two Jakes aren't the same. The one in Dutch Hill and the one he dropped.

However, I'm not saying Roland and the story weren't written to give every indication that Roland had to let Jake fall to catch the man in black.

I'm saying that I don't think that action was written to be heroic, but more out of necessity. And even if it was to save all existence, the act itself was not heroic.

Love you Roland!! :couple:

[Letti]

Must heroes always be heroic anyway?

[Matt]

Nope, not to me. But the opposite is true as well.

not all heroism makes heros

[Brice]

To my mind yes, thus noone is a hero.

[Letti]

To my mind yes, thus noone is a hero.

Why? Why do they have to be heroic all the time?
Top models can be very ungly in the morning when they get up. I know it's not the perfect examples but heroes are humans and humans make mistakes and don't behave the same way all the time.
Hero is like a fairy for you? They exist just in tales?


Nope, not to me. But the opposite is true as well.

not all heroism makes heros

Oh yes, I agree.

[alinda]

I realize this is off topic, but come on Letti
you do not believe in fairies :cry: ?

[Letti]

I do.
For example here YOU are. :rose:

[alinda]

:thumbsup: And now back to our topic ......Is Roland a hero ?




*kiss*

[Woofer]

I voted something else because my feelings for Roland are complicated. Ultimately I love him, but every re-read, every time I make the journey to the DT with him, I revisit all my old feelings: love, disappointment, hate, pity, embarassment for him, amazed, and ashamed of him.

I'm one of the freaks who loved the scene in Tull where he guns down the town. :shoot: That was totally badass! And I didn't hate him for dropping Jake; I was disappointed in him.

[MonteGss]

My vote was amazement.

[stone, rose, unfound door]

Well, I also voted "no". He would have been a hero in any kind of story I guess, but I always feel that a hero should represent what's good, and Roland's got this addiction to the tower which would have made him leave Susan although she was pregnant with his kid (ok, he didn't know it at the time, but he'd have done it anyway) and he kills all these people in Tull at the beginning of the story without ever feeling sorry about them. And there's also the feeling you have about a character and I never felt he was a hero (he was too fascinating)

[Matt]

Straight to the point stone, I like that.

And I totally agree with you :rock:

[Darkthoughts]

I voted yes. But I tend to lean more towards Brice's point of view.

I think its (being a hero) a status that can be attained within a certain situation, and in relation to that moment in that situation, you'll always be a hero - but the person you carry on being (ie, yourself) once that moment has passed may or may not ever be heroic again.

For example, a man may be dishonest and generally disliked. He joins the army and is called up to fight in a war. In the war he risks his life to rescue a fallen comrade and is subsequently honoured by the army for being a hero.
Once he goes back to civilian life, he carries on as he was before. He has been a hero, but no-one around him would consider him to be one.

Thats how I see it :)

Other than that, if you are going to only view heroes as people without flaws, then no-one has ever really been a hero - or ever will be. Even the heroes of history and mythology were often selfish, unlikeable or downright nasty off the battlefield. Hero is not a day to day term, therefore I think exceptions of someones day to day personas should be made when bestowing the title.

[Matt]

Its not that he has flaws to me but I do agree with the rest. He certainly had heroic moments. Nothing can take that away from him.

Maybe heroism is about motivation. Saving Jake from Gasher wasn't about the Tower, it was just about saving Jake.

[Wuducynn]

I voted yes. But I tend to lean more towards Brice's point of view.

I think its (being a hero) a status that can be attained within a certain situation, and in relation to that moment in that situation, you'll always be a hero - but the person you carry on being (ie, yourself) once that moment has passed may or may not ever be heroic again.

For example, a man may be dishonest and generally disliked. He joins the army and is called up to fight in a war. In the war he risks his life to rescue a fallen comrade and is subsequently honoured by the army for being a hero.
Once he goes back to civilian life, he carries on as he was before. He has been a hero, but no-one around him would consider him to be one.

Thats how I see it :)

Other than that, if you are going to only view heroes as people without flaws, then no-one has ever really been a hero - or ever will be. Even the heroes of history and mythology were often selfish, unlikeable or downright nasty off the battlefield. Hero is not a day to day term, therefore I think exceptions of someones day to day personas should be made when bestowing the title.

I just wanted to say that I totally agree with every word. Very well put Lisa. :harrier:

[MonteGss]

I voted yes, he is a hero.
I agree with some others who already posted.
All "heroes" have flaws, they all make decisions that aren't the best and that they regret.

[Storyslinger]

What Monte said, a hero with flaws.

[Darkthoughts]

I just wanted to say that I totally agree with every word. Very well put Lisa. :harrier:
Thanks :couple:

I liked your comment about motivation, Matt. I'd even go one further and say that in most cases it would appear that acts of heroism are more spur of the moment decisions, not at all premeditated.

[childeluke]

i put 'no' because i think Roland is an anti-hero

[sai blaine]

:lol: I said it before and i'll say it again...Roland and Letti get a room :ninja: i mean...no...he's not a hero

[Letti]

i put 'no' because i think Roland is an anti-hero
Why? May we get more information about it.
I can understand if someone says he is not a hero but an anti-hero... that's over me so I am listening to you, sai.

[jayson]

i still believe an anti-hero is still a type of hero. he's certainly not a villain. he definitely meets all the criteria to fit into the archetypal "hero" role in literature/myth.

[mia/susannah]

I am re-reading the dictionary definitions given by R_of_G (remarkably like the ones given by me at .net, which served to confirm by opinion of Roland being a typical hero), and can't see where the category of (un)selfishness comes in.

alinda: he was a soldier at a lost war, wasn't he?

Brice: even if nobody can (in all likelihood) be an absolute, undiluted epitomy of anything - heroism in our case - isn't Roland the closest possible to a hero, according to all those definitions?

Jean, I totally agree with you. In my personal opinion, Roland is very mych a hero along with Jake, Susannah and Eddie. I love them all. :rock:

[Mark]

" 'It's true. You share your thoughts so naturally that you haven't been aware it's happening, but it has been. It's easier for me to see, no doubt, because i am not a full member of this ka-tet- possibly because i am not from your world- and so cannot take part completely in the thought-sharing ability' "- Roland

"Roland understood that he was not a full member of this ka-tet"

These two quotes, both from "The Waste Lands", made me think, how can Roland be Dinh if he's not a full member?

[Jean]

thank you Mark, it is certainly something to think about. For example, is the dihn ever a full member of his ka-tet, or does the same that makes him dihn also set him apart forever?

[Mark]

I'd have thought he should be part of his tet, Jean, because its like the idea of "Can a German be the king of Britain?", and i'd have said no, unless he conquered of course, and that's what the Dinh is isn't he? The leader of the tet.

[mia/susannah]

I don't see how Roland could be anything but part of the ka-tet and well as being the dinah. They are all a family.

[Letti]

Roland is part of his own ka-tet but not the same way as the others. Roland is the engine the others are the wheels... it might be a bad example.

[aurora]

I have always thought of it as more like a small puzzle, with each member a individual piece and the Ka-tet as the completed whole.

The ability to feel and share between Jake, Susannah and Eddie could be likely from the fact that they are from a different earth, maybe even the same one. Roland is not and he though that that might have something to do with it too.

[ManOfWesternesse]

......how can Roland be Dinh if he's not a full member?
Well, first off, I don't think it prevents him from being Dinh?

I can certainly see why Roland would see himself as not being a 'full member' or maybe 'not as full as the others', from th epoint of view of their better ability to share thought. And I can only assume it's based on their being from a same world. But he most assuredly is a member of the ka-tet - and he most assuredly is it's Dinh.

Great question/topic though!

[Jean]

I'd have thought he should be part of his tet, Jean, because its like the idea of "Can a German be the king of Britain?", and i'd have said no, unless he conquered of course, and that's what the Dinh is isn't he? The leader of the tet.
hmmmm

Adolf Hitler was as Austrian; Joseph Stalin (Djugashvili) a Georgian.

Not to give only bad examples, another two that come to mind immediately (there are more, though): Henry II of England, - the first Plantagenet and father of further kings Richard the Lionheart and John, - can't be called Frenchman only for lack of France at that time; he was born in Anjou from Count of Anjou, and raised in French-speaking parts of continent. Catherine II of Russia, one of our most prominent rulers, was a Prussian.

[Storyslinger]

Roland is more a member of many tets, because on some level of the worlds, he is semi-above ka. Its because of the loop and the creation of the writer.

[mia/susannah]

very well put storyslinger

[obscurejude]

thank you Mark, it is certainly something to think about. For example, is the dihn ever a full member of his ka-tet, or does the same that makes him dihn also set him apart forever?

This has been my thoughts on the matter as well Jean. If they are all equal, then a leader is not necessary. It gives Roland a degree of objectivity that the others might lack (if only to a small degree). This isn't to say that Roland's leadership is perfect, but only, that it remains a distinguishing feature.

[LadyHitchhiker]

So if the Roland from his earth met Jake, etc.,. would he be able to share thoughts?

[Letti]

So if the Roland from his earth met Jake, etc.,. would he be able to share thoughts?

What do you mean? They were able to share thoughts indeed.

[jayson]

So if the Roland from his earth met Jake, etc.,. would he be able to share thoughts?

also, i don't think there is more than one Roland.

[MonteGss]

I don't think so either, it is not possible in my view. R_of_G is so damned smart. :)



(except when it comes to Twinners) ;) :lol:

[ManOfWesternesse]

So if the Roland from his earth met Jake, etc.,. would he be able to share thoughts?

What do you mean? They were able to share thoughts indeed.
Yes Letti - but Roland himself thought it was limited - he could share some thought with Jake, but less than perfectly.



So if the Roland from his earth met Jake, etc.,. would he be able to share thoughts?

also, i don't think there is more than one Roland.
Agreed - there's only one of him.

[alinda]

Alright nobody get mad okay?

If its Rolands katet, how is it possible he's not part of it?:pullhair: j/k

[ManOfWesternesse]

Alright nobody get mad okay?

If its Rolands katet, how is it possible he's not part of it?:pullhair: j/k

Oh he is part of the tet Linda, and is indeed its Dinh- I have no doubt on either of those.
It's just that there's an argument that says he's not as much part of it in certain ways as the others (in my mind that's only really manifest in his lesser ability to share thoughts with the others.)

[obscurejude]

Did Arthur rule Camelot or not? They sat at the round table, but he was still King. They were not king.

[Storyslinger]

I agree with R of G when he says there is only one Roland.

[Wuducynn]

Right, hes one of the few beings that has no twinner.

[Jean]

Right, hes one of the few beings that has no twinner.
it's not only a matter of twinners - many don't have twinners; it's not having any other versions of oneself, like Jake or Eddie seem to have. There's only one Roland; but the same is true for Walter. I think.

[Wuducynn]

Those versions you speak of are twinners...so maybe twinner is a limited word because it assumes only two. But when I use the word I mean other versions.

[Jean]

but sure there must be difference? it must work differently for twinners (as described in The Talisman) and versions, as Jake and Jake? this is for another thread, though.

[Matt]

They were not king

I love that line, very well done obscure.

I will agree with ManofWesternesse in that I believe the quote was Roland expressing the fact that he would always be outside of the three by the nature of his origin in contrast to theirs.

I believe he was katet and dinh--but not fully as others have said.

[MonteGss]

but sure there must be difference? it must work differently for twinners (as described in The Talisman) and versions, as Jake and Jake? this is for another thread, though.

You're right!! :D

This one: http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=1169 :cool:

[Jean]

very cool Monte http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_rolleyes.gif

[LadyHitchhiker]

Are we sure there's only one Walter? Because he is a pretty complex guy.... And he likes to not stay dead...

[aurora]

Are we sure there's only one Walter? Because he is a pretty complex guy.... And he likes to not stay dead...

I'm 'thinking' and I was that word loosely, that there are no twinners for anybody born in Rolands world. I'm not sure why I think that but I do. I guess is that His world is unique in that its the only one where the tower itself actually stands and all other multi-verses pivot around it.
Now having said that I have another question. I was going to ask it here but instead started a whole new thread for it. http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?p=131732#post131732

[LadyHitchhiker]

So which world was Walter born in?

[aurora]

Actually wasn't Walter born on keystone Earth?

[Wuducynn]

He was born in Delain, but probably in an alternate All-World, not Tower Keystone.

[Jean]

friends and lovers, there are Walter threads around! If you don't consider them sufficient, start another, but don't pollute a Roland thread with his foul shadow.

[Wuducynn]

friends and lovers, there are Walter threads around! If you don't consider them sufficient, start another, but don't pollute a Roland thread with his foul shadow.

I better be on the lover end of that spectrum, Jean. Or I'm going to be awfully hurt, and might need to seek counciling.

[MonteGss]

friends and lovers, there are Walter threads around! If you don't consider them sufficient, start another, but don't pollute a Roland thread with his foul shadow.

Thank you Jean! :grouphug:
I don't think they will have any trouble finding a Walter thread as there are about a million. :lol:

[Wuducynn]

Personally it seemed to me that Roland was a full member of their ka-tet, it was just himself trying to keep a distance from them because he didn't want to love them more than the quest, so he was trying to convince himself that was not as connected to them as the rest of the ka-tet was.

[jayson]

Personally it seemed to me that Roland was a full member of their ka-tet, it was just himself trying to keep a distance from them because he didn't want to love them more than the quest, so he was trying to convince himself that was not as connected to them as the rest of the ka-tet was.

true matthew. additionally, on some level roland knew that since they were all from very similar wheres and whens, they shared something that he did not, a basis of collective memory in which roland cannot participate.

[MonteGss]

I think you guys (R_of_G, CK) pretty much covered how I feel about it.

[Wuducynn]

additionally, on some level roland knew that since they were all from very similar wheres and whens, they shared something that he did not, a basis of collective memory in which roland cannot participate.

I have to wonder if that was part of the excuse he built up to distance himself though. I would figure that he would know that afterawhile the shared wheres and whens would not matter and their ka-tet would solidify including, especially since he was their dinh.

[jayson]

additionally, on some level roland knew that since they were all from very similar wheres and whens, they shared something that he did not, a basis of collective memory in which roland cannot participate.

I have to wonder if that was part of the excuse he built up to distance himself though. I would figure that he would know that afterawhile the shared wheres and whens would not matter and their ka-tet would solidify including, especially since he was their dinh.

seems like it could be an effective device for him to create that distance. it maintains them as "other" than him in his mind.

[Letti]

Somehow I started to think about it and I realised it would be great to see your thoughts, guys.
What's Roland's relationship like with Gan?
Has he got peace with him deep inside? Is he angry with him?
I don't think we have ever seen him praying... am I right? We know that he believes in ka very hard but does it mean that he believes in Gan as well?
I mean I know people know do believe in faith but they are not religious at all.

Friends, mark the spoilers if it's possible, please.
It would be great to see everyone's opinion.

[Wuducynn]

I don't think we have ever seen him praying... am I right?

We see him praying several times in the saga...I'm surprised you forget DT7 spoilers his prayer for Jake after he was killed by the van

Roland is an odd bird, because he states to Callahan that he doesn't hold to any god, and yet he does pray to them and sure seem to have a strong belief in them.

[MonteGss]

Roland only seems to pray to them when it suits what he's doing. He is rather odd but I would not say he is religious at all. Roland only seems to care about the Tower and if the Tower is Gan, that is just a side note to Roland.

[Letti]

I didn't remember that part. I mean the praying. Moreover to tell you the truth I don't remember it now, either. I will reread DT7 in English soon and I am sure I will have much more clear memories. (I have read it just once.)

Anyway I feel he believes in some kind of Gan... he doesn't talk about it but the way he acts and speaks give me this feeling but I can't really put my finger on it. I might change my mind.