PDA

View Full Version : The Dark Tower, Insomnia and Different Levels *Spoilers!!*



Merlin1958
04-28-2009, 12:29 PM
I recently finished a re-read of the series and thought why not re-read Insomnia as well. Well I'm almost finished but I was struck by confusion after reading the part where "the levels" are explained by Mr. C & Mr. L to Ralph and Lois. I failed to grasp the correlation of the Tower levels as explained in Insomnia and by understanding of it as detailed in the DT series.

Anybody out there have theories? Given the description in Insomnia what "level" is Roland on? or Midworld itself for that matter? Also, when Roland climbs the Tower he is not described as achieving higher levels as he goes, just as seeing events in his life. Doesn't seem to jibe.

So please discuss and all thoughts on the matters are welcome!!!

:orely::orely::orely:

Darkthoughts
04-29-2009, 05:37 AM
For my part I think of the physical Tower as being a Tower within a Tower. So, you can climb the levels inside the physical Tower as you would levels on any normal building, and they are pertinent to you and your life experiences. But the metaphysical Tower and it's levels are at the same time an intangible place, where the physical Tower exists on a particular level of it.

Did that make sense? I sorta equate it to Buddha being everything and one being at the same time.

turtlex
04-29-2009, 05:44 AM
Shite that was impressive, Lisa. :couple:

ManOfWesternesse
04-29-2009, 06:13 AM
Shite that was impressive, Lisa. :couple:
:lol:
... yeah - but what's she mean? :unsure:

Merlin - always bear in mind that King presumably saw the same potential conflicts between these 2 Books, and therefore introduced Insomnia into the DT tale and discredited it as being relevant to the quest.

jayson
04-29-2009, 06:41 AM
I agree Brian. The representations of the Tower in Insomnia and DT-7 are two different thoughts of King's on a similar concept.

I don't think King intended for them to necessarily fit together perfectly. King has enough issues keeping continuity within the series itself. :P

Though as Lisa's excellent theory shows, there are interpretations which make them fit together.

turtlex
04-29-2009, 06:44 AM
<--- Impressed with Lisa's interpretation and agrees.

( no way i could have explained it nearly as well as she did there )

pathoftheturtle
04-29-2009, 08:25 AM
For my part I think of the physical Tower as being a Tower within a Tower. ...Oh yes, I totally agree. The Tower which the LBDs were talking about was the multiverse itself; the different "levels" are the various realities. Me, I have a theory that all of that is also called "The Dark Tower" because it is created by and centered on the physical tower(s), through the actions of Roland, the CK, and etc. As they darkle and tinct up to higher levels, they're turning the wheel of ka. That fits with what they said about the CK existing on higher levels of the Tower than their own.

We've talked some about this topic on Letti's The Tower (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=1814) thread.

Wuducynn
04-29-2009, 09:19 AM
For my part I think of the physical Tower as being a Tower within a Tower. So, you can climb the levels inside the physical Tower as you would levels on any normal building, and they are pertinent to you and your life experiences. But at the same time, the metaphysical Tower and it's levels are at the same time an intangible place, where the physical Tower exists on a particular level of it.

Did that make sense? I sorta equate it to Buddha being everything and one being at the same time.

Agreed.



For my part I think of the physical Tower as being a Tower within a Tower. ...Oh yes, I totally agree. The Tower which the LBDs were talking about was the multiverse itself; the different "levels" are the various realities. Me, I have a theory that all of that is also called "The Dark Tower" because it is created by and centered on the physical tower(s), through the actions of Roland, the CK, and etc. As they darkle and tinct up to higher levels, they're turning the wheel of ka. That fits with what they said about the CK existing on higher levels of the Tower than their own.

We've talked some about this topic on Letti's The Tower (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=1814) thread.

This is something very interesting, that I would like to explore.

obscurejude
04-29-2009, 11:36 AM
One of the things that kind of disappointed me as the series progressed was how unnecessary definite articles became when discussing anything related to the Dark Tower. I agree with what Lisa said and found the discussion in Insomnia similar to Mia and Susannah's in Song. I think Insomnia was an attempt to explain the dueling metaphysical forces of the cosmology of King's universe while the Tower that Roland visits is simply All World's tangible representation. King was clear that the Dark Tower is represented differently in other worlds, particularly the rose in the Keystone and the back of a dog in a nameless world.

The whole thing made Roland's quest lose some of its significance for me, i.e., he wasn't sworn to find the Dark Tower, but a Dark Tower. Just a blade of grass, but not the blade of grass as originally foreshadowed.

Brainslinger
04-29-2009, 06:13 PM
I think the Tower Roland finds and the metaphysical Tower (if you like) are the same Tower. It's just the former isn't all the latter is. Or to put it another way, the human mind wouldn't be able to process the totality of the completeness of the Dark Tower, so on any particular world one is presented with something within their grasp. A building, a rose, an ur-dog, etc.

If you've worked with a database system, think of it like a defined view, i.e. something that provides access to some fields of the database but not others. (Probably a poor example. I find myself thinking of that vision the little Doctor's sent the heroes of Insomnia of a man scooping from an ocean, although that actually referred to the amount of energy absorbed from aura's but the simile applies here.)

One thing I noticed about Insomnia is that the reference to levels seems to be describing different levels of functionality and awareness within a specific world. I.e. when the two main characters go up levels, they can see auras and move through solid objects like ghosts, and time speeds up.(Or did it slow down? Been a while since I've read it.)

In the Dark Tower series however, 'level', seems to equate to 'world'. Our world is on one level of the Tower. Mid-world another. Stand-world another, etc. There are even 'balcony worlds' to represent the more fanciful things we imagine, like Sheemie's gingerbread house and (I think, this is just my theory) Flagg's crystal palace. And then we've got the levels of the literal Tower that Roland passed where he saw reminders of days past.

I don't see these different types of level as contradictory though. Remember when Walter explained the Tower to Roland. He stated something along the lines, the Tower is the epitomy of size. It's big. Infinitely so. It connects everything together and ecompasses everything. That means it contains all levels of all types in all dimensions.

Darkthoughts
04-30-2009, 12:55 AM
Shite that was impressive, Lisa. :couple:
Thanks, I try :D


I think the Tower Roland finds and the metaphysical Tower (if you like) are the same Tower. It's just the former isn't all the latter is.
Yes, exactly. The physical Tower is the Tower, but because the Tower is omnipresent it's also only a manifestation of itself.

flaggwalkstheline
04-30-2009, 09:48 AM
Sai King seems to have thrown in a fair amount of Sufi style mysticism into the DT stories
IE this nugget of wisdom "There are no beginings and there are no endings, there is only when you start observing a thing and when you stop"

Wuducynn
04-30-2009, 12:26 PM
Shite that was impressive, Lisa. :couple:
Thanks, I try :D



It's good to know that there's more to Lisa than just a great set of tits.

pathoftheturtle
05-01-2009, 08:17 AM
That's the first clue you've noticed? :rolleyes: Beep-beep, Matthew.

...The whole thing made Roland's quest lose some of its significance for me, i.e., he wasn't sworn to find the Dark Tower, but a Dark Tower. Just a blade of grass, but not the blade of grass as originally foreshadowed.Well, if that were literally true, his quest would have ended when he found "a" Dark Tower.
It is a little disappointing that the book series portrayed Roland's true quest only in part, but, then again, you could practically hear between the lines the author whimpering at trying to chew all that he had bitten off. I prefer to just be grateful for what is suggested and all that we were given.


...I have a theory that all of that is also called "The Dark Tower" because it is created by and centered on the physical tower(s), through the actions of Roland, the CK, and etc. As they darkle and tinct up to higher levels, they're turning the wheel of ka. ...

This is something very interesting, that I would like to explore.
Alright. For one thing, with each iteration of Roland's journey, new timelines come into being, and others are eliminated (such as Jake-gets-pushed and Beryl-Evans-wrote-Charlie). This reshaping of the multiverse occurs as a virtually collaborative result of their struggles. That's ka.

Here's a favorite quote of mine that appears to support the "All-Timers" concept as part of DT7:
Destiny of John Cullum
From "On Turtleback Lane," DT7:
ÖFrom time to time Rolandís sigul sent him dreams of a field filled with roses, and a sooty-black tower. Sometimes he was visited by terrible visions of two crimson eyes, floating unattached to any body and relentlessly scanning the horizon. Sometimes there were dreams in which he heard the sound of a man relentlessly winding his horn. From these latter dreams he would awake with tears on his cheeks, those of longing and loss and love. He would awake with his hand closed around the cross, thinking I denied Discordia and regret nothing; I have spit into the bodiless eyes of the Crimson King and rejoice; I threw my lot in with the gunslingerís ka-tet and the White and never once questioned the choice.Note that Roland has the horn, so this is not merely (so to speak) a vision of the future. It comes down to John from another loop, and/or a higher order of reality.

obscurejude
05-01-2009, 09:25 AM
That's the first clue you've noticed? :rolleyes: Beep-beep, Matthew.

...The whole thing made Roland's quest lose some of its significance for me, i.e., he wasn't sworn to find the Dark Tower, but a Dark Tower. Just a blade of grass, but not the blade of grass as originally foreshadowed.Well, if that were literally true, his quest would have ended when he found "a" Dark Tower.
It is a little disappointing that the book series portrayed Roland's true quest only in part, but, then again, you could practically hear between the lines the author whimpering at trying to chew all that he had bitten off. I prefer to just be grateful for what is suggested and all that we were given.


That's why I said "some" significance and not all. "Whimpering at trying to chew all that he had bitten off" is a good way to put it. I've really started to think about the first book as complete in and of itself because it seems to fit in with the others less and less the more I think about it. I'm not suggesting that King should have known how every little detail would work out so early on but I do wish that some of the major themes and foreshadowing had played themselves out a little better. I wish he'd stuck to the poem a bit more... For instance, the Hoary Cripple of the first stanza is clearly what inspired Walter, but as the story progresses he leaves that behind as Walter comes to exist in different wheres and whens with different personalities. I was a little heartbroken when Dandelo came to represent the Hoary Cripple. The poem is largely about the half truths of the Cripple and how Roland is only able to see the tower after coming to realize the grotesque meaninglessness of the universe as represented by the Dark Tower, which was always before him and waiting to be acknowledged. Roland's fear that the top of the tower might be empty is perfectly in step with this.

I could go on for pages and pages, but suffice it to say, that a lot of the existential angst of the first volume became less significant as the series progressed.

jayson
05-01-2009, 09:35 AM
Ryan, that is a very interesting take on it and I am coming more and more to realize it's one I agree with in large part. It's not that I don't enjoy the rest of the series, obviously I do very much, but The Gunslinger reads more like myth and metaphor whereas the rest (particularly the final three) seem like King trying too hard to pin down specifics for the metaphysical ideas he had when he began the endeavor. Once he began to tread that path, the inconsistencies were inevitable.

Path's phrase "whimpering at trying to chew all that he had bitten off" is extremely apt in this case.

Merlin1958
05-01-2009, 09:38 AM
Ryan, that is a very interesting take on it and I am coming more and more to realize it's one I agree with in large part. It's not that I don't enjoy the rest of the series, obviously I do very much, but The Gunslinger reads more like myth and metaphor whereas the rest (particularly the final three) seem like King trying too hard to pin down specifics for the metaphysical ideas he had when he began the endeavor. Once he began to tread that path, the inconsistencies were inevitable.

Path's phrase "whimpering at trying to chew all that he had bitten off" is extremely apt in this case.


BINGO

I agree 110%

obscurejude
05-01-2009, 10:23 AM
Ryan, that is a very interesting take on it and I am coming more and more to realize it's one I agree with in large part. It's not that I don't enjoy the rest of the series, obviously I do very much, but The Gunslinger reads more like myth and metaphor whereas the rest (particularly the final three) seem like King trying too hard to pin down specifics for the metaphysical ideas he had when he began the endeavor. Once he began to tread that path, the inconsistencies were inevitable.

Path's phrase "whimpering at trying to chew all that he had bitten off" is extremely apt in this case.

I tweaked my post a little more as it was the first of my day upon waking. I don't know why I write in the passive voice so often first thing in the morning. :lol:

I agree about the details of the later books overriding the mythic themes and implications of the first volume. The way that Browning was super imposed in the last book really bothered me because he was wrapping Browning in that same digression. I'm thinking that I might just start re reading the Gunslinger once a year or so without moving on to the other volumes. That's not to say its better, but only that I prefer it that way upon studying Browning's poetry in my academic career.

jayson
05-01-2009, 10:34 AM
I agree about the details of the later books overriding the mythic themes and implications of the first volume. The way that Browning was super imposed in the last book really bothered me because he was wrapping Browning in that same digression. I'm thinking that I might just start re reading the Gunslinger once a year or so without moving on to the other volumes. That's not to say its better, but only that I prefer it that way upon studying Browning's poetry in my academic career.

I've read it a few times without moving on to the rest. It's interesting how it works as well (if not better) independently as it does as part of the greater whole.

pathoftheturtle
05-02-2009, 10:39 AM
Well then, why don't you guys go post in that forum. :P

jk, lol.

You know, the older I get, the more I realize that man is mortal.

Also, things don't always look the same to the old as to the young.
Nonetheless, I'm pretty sure that even King would not call the TDT series an unqualified success.
I'd certainly agree that it's not as good as a whole, as are some of the individual books, when looked at in their own different ways. I have read some better sagas.
Never written any, though. I still find the work quite impressive.

obscurejude
05-02-2009, 12:25 PM
I wasn't trying to insinuate that the work wasn't impressive Path, not at all. Further, I think that my posts were on topic as Insomnia dealt with more of the mythos of the Dark Tower like The Gunslinger.

I often enjoy first books by authors because of how ridiculously ambitious they are with ideals. I think its unfair to expect that kind of ideological stamina to continue for 35 years. Its just that after I went to college and then grad school and got the opportunity to really study Browning and King from that perspective, I've realized some of the significant pitfalls to King's "organic" writing style. I don't mean to belittle the man or his works, and I'll continue to read just about anything he puts out. I was just very disappointed with many of the turns the series took towards the end and I've expressed that discontentment elsewhere. The Ves Ka Gan motif along with the numerous other god machines illustrate that sometimes its better to just leave it alone rather than write from the hip after laying out such cosmologically significant themes as found in the first volume.

To be clear, I'm a fan first and a critic second. Its just hard to approach the series the same way I did before my education. I'm hoping that my time off the next year will help me to return to the simple pleasures of fantasy once the dust settles.

flaggwalkstheline
05-02-2009, 01:38 PM
You know, the older I get, the more I realize that man is mortal.



quoting mel brooks here: seer to caesar, "remember thou art mortal, remember thou art mortal, remember thou art mortal!"
caesar (Dom Deloise) "Blow it out your ass! More Gold! More Girls! More Wine!"

pathoftheturtle
05-04-2009, 06:25 AM
You know, the older I get, the more I realize that man is mortal.



quoting mel brooks here: seer to caesar, "remember thou art mortal, remember thou art mortal, remember thou art mortal!"
caesar (Dom Deloise) "Blow it out your ass! More Gold! More Girls! More Wine!":rofl:


...Insomnia dealt with more of the mythos of the Dark Tower like The Gunslinger. ...See, I don't know if I agree; as I've been trying to show, I do not see DT7 as being totally at odds with Insomnia. However, each and every one of these books really has its own style that only partly relates to any other.
Still, what you're saying is an interesting point. I was just trying to express thoughts of my own; I apologize if my tone made it sound like a personal attack. Thanks for clarifying further, Ryan. :)
...I've realized some of the significant pitfalls to King's "organic" writing style. ...For sure. King criticizes younger authors who try to use an outline, but there are some classic works that are much more well organized and pre-planned than any of his have ever been, often without sacrificing creativity at all. His style has produced some interesting effects, though, and seems quite relevant when we think about possibilities in the future of literature.

obscurejude
05-04-2009, 11:47 AM
Still, what you're saying is an interesting point. I was just trying to express thoughts of my own; I apologize if my tone made it sound like a personal attack. Thanks for clarifying further, Ryan. :)


...I've realized some of the significant pitfalls to King's "organic" writing style. ...


For sure. King criticizes younger authors who try to use an outline, but there are some classic works that are much more well organized and pre-planned than any of his have ever been, often without sacrificing creativity at all. His style has produced some interesting effects, though, and seems quite relevant when we think about possibilities in the future of literature.

No offense taken Mike, I just wanted to make sure I was being clear. :couple:

I think King's organic style has produced some great things for us. For me, IT remains one of the most impressive works I've read in terms of sheer force and consistency. The book contains deep characterizations and imaginative themes without ever straying from the plot too significantly.

That being said, I think the Dark Tower series does stray quite a bit in plot and consistency as has been already mentioned. I think his original themes were too epic and he let too much time pass between volumes which is a threat to organic styles of writing.

Other writers I admire, like Kafka, were known for possessing a similar style as King's and they all struggled with novels. Personally, I think King works best with the novella format and short stories. Sometimes the longer books work really well, but I'm coming to realize, that many of them don't from certain perspectives. I've been critical of The Stand elsewhere and do not wish to continue that debate here... I just wanted to respond to what you were saying Mike because King's style has much to do with the topic at hand in my opinion.

pathoftheturtle
05-08-2009, 11:19 AM
...King's style has much to do with the topic at hand in my opinion.I agree. Merlin seems to have a better attitude than many who have broached the topic in the past; generally, it's implied that SK failed to live up to his earlier performance. Interesting, though, that Insomnia was left in the dust in our Constant Reader best book award race, finishing at #20 to DT7's #4.

...IT remains one of the most impressive works I've read in terms of sheer force and consistency. ...Absolutely, it's one (the greatest, IMO) of King's few triumphs of literary structure. Yet Insomnia is mostly a pale reflection of it, muddled further with conventions and themes from a few other past works.
The main complaint over it, apparently, is that the foreshadowing in Insomnia is not capitalized on in the plot of the main series. Instead, we just get more foreshadowing. :orely: Well, SK once said something interesting in Danse Macabre, speaking about an
...idea...expressed by William F. Nolan at the 1979 World Fantasy Convention. Nothing is so frightening as what's behind the closed door, Nolan said. ...The audience holds its breath along with the protagonist as he/she (more often she) approaches that door. The protagonist throws it open, and there is a ten-foot-tall bug. The audience screams, but this particular scream has an oddly relieved sound to it. "A bug ten feet tall is pretty horrible," the audience thinks, "but I can deal with a ten-foot-tall bug. I was afraid it might be a hundred feet tall." ...And if what happens to be behind it is a bug, not ten but a hundred feet tall, the audience heaves a sigh of relief (or utters a scream of relief) and thinks, "A bug a hundred feet tall is pretty horrible but I can deal with a hundred-foot-tall bug. I was afraid it might be a thousand feet tall." The thing is -- and a pretty good thing for the human race, too, with such neato-keano things to deal with as Dachu, Hiroshima, the Children's Crusade, mass starvation in Cambodia, and what hppened in Jonestown, Guyana--the human consciousness can deal with almost anything...which leaves the writer or director of the horror tale with a problem which is the psychological equivalent of inventing a faster-than-light space drive in the face of E=MC2.Clearly, he is conscious of the different levels of meaning in fiction. While he's admitted to "trying too hard" with Insomnia, I'm not so sure about the rest of TDT: let's remember that one of his "epic themes" all along was the nature of rhyme and reason. (magic and science, etc.) It just may be that displaying those "inevitable inconsistencies" was actually a part of the point. :orely:

Tik
05-16-2009, 06:45 AM
For my part I think of the physical Tower as being a Tower within a Tower. So, you can climb the levels inside the physical Tower as you would levels on any normal building, and they are pertinent to you and your life experiences. But at the same time, the metaphysical Tower and it's levels are at the same time an intangible place, where the physical Tower exists on a particular level of it.

Did that make sense? I sorta equate it to Buddha being everything and one being at the same time.

I think Insomnia was an attempt to explain the dueling metaphysical forces of the cosmology of King's universe while the Tower that Roland visits is simply All World's tangible representation. King was clear that the Dark Tower is represented differently in other worlds, particularly the rose in the Keystone and the back of a dog in a nameless world.

I don't see these different types of level as contradictory though. Remember when Walter explained the Tower to Roland. He stated something along the lines, the Tower is the epitomy of size. It's big. Infinitely so. It connects everything together and ecompasses everything. That means it contains all levels of all types in all dimensions.
I fully agree! This is basically what I thought the Tower was when reading the books.

Insomnia and the Dark Tower series idea of levels are not contridictory. In The Dark Tower each alternate world/universe is described as another level of the Tower. In Insomnia it is the unimaginable levels above these that the bald doctors are trying to explain to us short-timers.

For example, you can start on Earth A then walk through a door to an alternate Earth B - a different level of the Tower. Whilst on Earth B you, through a series of supernatural events, open up the way to a higher plane of consciousness - again, you are now on a different level of the Tower. The Tower is everything afterall.

Intrestingly when Blaine talks about the levels of the Tower he seems to be using them in an Insomnia sense rather than in the sense of the other Dark Tower novels - "IT IS PLAYED ON ONE OF THE UPPER LEVELS OF THE TOWER."

The whole thing made Roland's quest lose some of its significance for me, i.e., he wasn't sworn to find the Dark Tower, but a Dark Tower. Just a blade of grass, but not the blade of grass as originally foreshadowed.
All this shouldn't make you feel Rolands quest is not as significant though - it is quite clear the Dark Tower representation on Mid-World is unique. It is the only representation you can enter. It is the only one you can climb to the "room" above all of endless reality and meet God. In that respect it is very unique as you cant do that with any of the other representations (the rose, the Talisman, the ur-dog, etc).

It is also the only one that has been messed around by the Great Old Ones. North Central Positronics have made their representations of the Beams around the Dark Tower making it the only one to have them (eg the rose doesn't have Beam representations, etc, etc). This in turn makes the Dark Tower the only one you can attack successfully via destroying these Beam represntations that North Central Positronics created. It is the only one which the Crimson King can use to destroy reality itself.

This is why Rolands quest is so significant.

Merlin - always bear in mind that King presumably saw the same potential conflicts between these 2 Books, and therefore introduced Insomnia into the DT tale and discredited it as being relevant to the quest.
This I dont agree with at all. Insomnia was not discredited, Roland mearly thought it was a mind-trap. When Roland was tempted to take a picture of the Dark Tower with him, he explains why he didn't take Insomnia or the picture:

"...he had an idea that both of them might spend too much time looking at it. The picture might distract them or, even worse, hypnotise them.

In the end maybe its another mind-trap, he thought. Like Insomnia."
Roland fears that reading Insomnia will distract them from his quest. He will be obsessed with the book, leaving him wide open to an attack by Mordred. If Insomnia was truely irrelevent to the quest, Patrick Danville would not have been in DT7.

Brainslinger
05-16-2009, 11:16 AM
While I think you're likely right with this....



It is also the only one that has been messed around by the Great Old Ones. North Central Positronics have made their representations of the Beams around the Dark Tower making it the only one to have them (eg the rose doesn't have Beam representations, etc, etc).

I don't think this is necesarily so:

[QUOTEThis in turn makes the Dark Tower the only one you can attack successfully via destroying these Beam represntations that North Central Positronics created. It is the only one which the Crimson King can use to destroy reality itself. [/quote]

There was a strong suggestion that if Say're's organisation had bought the Vacant Lot, they would have been able to destroy the rose. Not in the same way as the Tower, certainly, but, point is, the representation of the Tower in other worlds are still vulnerable. I agree that the Tower version may be the only version one can enter though.

On saying that (Talisman Spoilers): I have read suggestions that the Black Hotel from the Talisman might be another representation of the Tower in Jack's world. I disagree with that though. The Tower does seem to be fundamentally a good place while the Black Hotel was evil. If anything the Talisman itself is the closest representation to the Tower in that world, but I'm not sure that's quite right either, what with it being used up and all.

pathoftheturtle
05-17-2009, 08:43 AM
...it is quite clear the Dark Tower representation on Mid-World is unique. It is the only representation you can enter. It is the only one you can climb to the "room" above all of endless reality and meet God. ...However, it is not so clear that Mid-World itself is unique, in light of the ending. We see a new Roland in a new version of the desert. We might solve this by agreeing that the "one Mid-World" is not just a single universe but a whole series of alternates joined together along a fifth-dimensional axis. If there is a tower which has that highest room, it has not been reached yet, but it is possible that that is merely a higher level of the one we saw, not a completely separate entity in an entirely distinct world. Still, destroying any tower on any level of this greater Tower might bring down the entire house of cards.

However, IMHO, all of this really makes Roland's quest more significant, not less. If the multiverse made sense, and was arranged in a way that was orderly and safe, then Roland would be just wasting his time. Why confront God if all is right with the world?
...I have read suggestions that the Black Hotel from the Talisman might be another representation of the Tower in Jack's world. ...Oh, no. Another book brought in... and another thread running willy-nilly.:rolleyes:
...The Tower does seem to be fundamentally a good place.../SPOIL]It does? :unsure: You mean, The Dark Tower? :orely: I really don't know where you get that idea from. Oh, wait...
...the rose...the representation of the Tower in other worlds...Okay, yeah; if you believe that then I can see how it might seem like a good place.
[SPOIL="The Talisman"]...If anything the Talisman itself is the closest representation to the Tower in that world...Hm. Interesting. I'm not sure I agree, but it is a good thought.Personally, I've always wondered if there's any connection between the Talisman and Maerlyn's Rainbow.

Tik
05-18-2009, 03:17 PM
There was a strong suggestion that if Say're's organisation had bought the Vacant Lot, they would have been able to destroy the rose. Not in the same way as the Tower, certainly, but, point is, the representation of the Tower in other worlds are still vulnerable. I agree that the Tower version may be the only version one can enter though.
Oh, I quite agree that other representations of the Tower like the rose can be destroyed. However, while this probably causes untold destruction this act by itself cannot undo all of creation - the Beams are still there to hold reality in place while the other representations of the Tower take the burden. Its the Beams that are the weakness - destroying them AND the Tower is the only way to undo existance.

Remember why the Rose was so important to Rolands quest? It was because it was helping protect the Beam:

"You gut to take care of that Rose in New York, dont you?"

"Yes," Roland said.

"Because thats whats kep' one of those Beams safe while most of the others has been broken down by these what-do-you-call-em telepathics, the Breakers."

Eddie was amazed at how quickly and easily Cullum had grasped that....
The Rose is being used by the White to lessen the destructive power of the Breakers. If that Rose was destroyed the Beam would no longer be protected and the Beam would snap instantly due to the damage the Breakers have already done to it.

As for the Talisman:

I agree that the Talisman itself is the representation of the Tower and not the Black Hotel. The way the Talisman is described makes this a certainty in my mind:

....he was in them, and in an infinite number of other worlds as well, and all at the same time. Nor was he simply in one place in all those worlds; he was in them everywhere because he was those worlds. The Talisman was not just the axle of all possible worlds, but the worlds themselves - the worlds, and the spaces between those worlds....

And I dont think it was used up. It completed the task Jack had retrieved it for so Jack put it aside. When he tried looking for it later it had disappeared, possibly to a new hotel.

I dont think there is much connection between Maerlyns Rainbow and the Talisman except that the Talisman is the White and Maerlyns Rainbow is Maerlyns corruption of all the colours that make up white.

mia/susannah
05-18-2009, 03:23 PM
For my part I think of the physical Tower as being a Tower within a Tower. So, you can climb the levels inside the physical Tower as you would levels on any normal building, and they are pertinent to you and your life experiences. But at the same time, the metaphysical Tower and it's levels are at the same time an intangible place, where the physical Tower exists on a particular level of it.

Did that make sense? I sorta equate it to Buddha being everything and one being at the same time.

Very well put. I totally agree!!!

Brainslinger
05-22-2009, 05:44 PM
However, while this probably causes untold destruction this act by itself cannot undo all of creation - the Beams are still there to hold reality in place while the other representations of the Tower take the burden. Its the Beams that are the weakness - destroying them AND the Tower is the only way to undo existance.

I disagree. There is only one Tower, although it looks different in different worlds. But if you destroy it in one, it is destroyed in all.

As for the Beams, we know destroying the beams will bring down the Tower. However, I think it works the other way too. If you could destroy the Tower without breaking the beams first, the beams would automatically break. I see it as a circuit where the beams hold up the Tower and the Tower in turn feeds the beams. (I know there is more too it than that, what with the Beam portals, roses and all, but as I said it's a circuit.)


Remember why the Rose was so important to Rolands quest? It was because it was helping protect the Beam:

"You gut to take care of that Rose in New York, dont you?"

"Yes," Roland said.

"Because thats whats kep' one of those Beams safe while most of the others has been broken down by these what-do-you-call-em telepathics, the Breakers."

Eddie was amazed at how quickly and easily Cullum had grasped that....
The Rose is being used by the White to lessen the destructive power of the Breakers. If that Rose was destroyed the Beam would no longer be protected and the Beam would snap instantly due to the damage the Breakers have already done to it.

I think that's right, but that doesn't really contradict what I said. I am a bit confused as to what the Rose represents though as sometimes it seems to be the Tower itself, other times one of the Beams. However, since they're all codependent anyway, I guess it amounts to much the same thing.



As for the Talisman:



I agree that the Talisman itself is the representation of the Tower and not the Black Hotel. The way the Talisman is described makes this a certainty in my mind:

....he was in them, and in an infinite number of other worlds as well, and all at the same time. Nor was he simply in one place in all those worlds; he was in them everywhere because he was those worlds. The Talisman was not just the axle of all possible worlds, but the worlds themselves - the worlds, and the spaces between those worlds....


Yes I wondered about that too. I don't actually think it was the Tower though (I just mentioned that as an interesting theory others have mentioned.) Why? Because the Talisman appears to be the same in all worlds*, while the Tower appears different.

It's description in that passage is certainly close to that of the Tower though. I have an idea that while the Tower was around since it rose from the Prim, the talisman was an object created later. A powerful object with the essence of the Tower, maybe but not the Tower itself.

*I might be wrong about that though. It might just be the same in the two worlds of The Talisman, i.e. Jack's world and The Territories. I don't think that was the implication though.


And I dont think it was used up. It completed the task Jack had retrieved it for so Jack put it aside. When he tried looking for it later it had disappeared, possibly to a new hotel.

The outer shell was placed aside after the power had been used. That's the bit that vanished. I wouldn't discount the possibility that it regenerated elsewhere though, but I don't think so. I think the idea was that it was made to perform one marvelous function. It healed the Queen, and in effect the world too, as I think the Queen and the Territories are linked (much like the old idea of the King and the country being one, if the King is sick so is the country.) And since the Territories is also linked to our (well Jack's) world, that was saved too.


I dont think there is much connection between Maerlyns Rainbow and the Talisman except that the Talisman is the White and Maerlyns Rainbow is Maerlyns corruption of all the colours that make up white.

Yes that makes sense.

obscurejude
05-22-2009, 08:53 PM
Nobody has to use spoiler tags in this thread, so please stop. Its getting damn confusing.

Brice
05-23-2009, 04:58 AM
Yes, there is no need for spoiler tags for either the DT series or Insomnia in here. In fact it would be better if you didn't.

Brainslinger
05-23-2009, 06:54 AM
Nobody has to use spoiler tags in this thread, so please stop. Its getting damn confusing.

We don't need spoiler tags if I'm talking about Dark Tower or Insomnia stuff. I was talking about stuff from The Talisman as well there*. That's the part I 'spoilerized' so to speak.

*Arguably off thread, for which I apologize. It seemed a natural flow of the conversation though, you know how it goes.

obscurejude
05-23-2009, 01:14 PM
Nobody has to use spoiler tags in this thread, so please stop. Its getting damn confusing.

We don't need spoiler tags if I'm talking about Dark Tower or Insomnia stuff. I was talking about stuff from The Talisman as well there*. That's the part I 'spoilerized' so to speak.

*Arguably off thread, for which I apologize. It seemed a natural flow of the conversation though, you know how it goes.

It was just getting hard to follow Brainslinger and I enjoy reading your thoughts as well as many others in this thread. No need to apologize, man. Its all good.