Here's a good question:
If he hadn't met Susan, would he still have been as obsessed with getting to the tower or do you think this is a vengeance quest, to make meaning out of Susan's death?
Printable View
Here's a good question:
If he hadn't met Susan, would he still have been as obsessed with getting to the tower or do you think this is a vengeance quest, to make meaning out of Susan's death?
Now, seeing as we are talking about their love not happening, what would of happen had he not gone to Mejis at all?
He wouldn't have seen the "crystal ball" and he wouldn't have ended up looping again?
I don't have the slightest idea, I was wondering what everyone else thought. But, that sounds very possible
Maybe that's the thing... in the next loop he's not supposed to go to Mejis?
Just an idea.
[QUOTE=Jean;68593I] [time is the only test of true love (QUOTE]
Then by your definition we can never really know whether Roland and Susan's love for each other is true or not, because it never had the opportunity to to take the test of time. So the only barometer that we have, as you defined it is that Roland still carries a torch for Susan LONG after their time together, in spite of his quest for the tower, and the other trials he's endured. It was obvious to me that Roland loved Alain, Cuthbert, and Jamie long after they had been killed, but that love for his "brothers" is not questioned. Call me a romantic, but I don't believe that time is a test of anything. I think people often stay together for a long time more out of habit, than a true desire to be together. I think often they are too lazy, or scared to move on and they stay together and put the stamp of "true love" on it to excuse their own laziness or fear.
(bear in mind that this is coming from someone who's longest relationship lasted 5 years, who has the social skills of a pissed off gorilla, so I'm probably full of shit)
Going off of Jeans quote, that would mean that their love did stand the test of time, at least for Roland, who thought about and missed her his whole life.
TerribleT: see my example about gold and chocolate: if I maintain that only time can prove that a relationship is love, it doesn't follow that any time-tested relationship is love. I think in Roland/Susan case we have no barometer at all, and his remembering her only shows us how capable of remorse he was. Love for brothers, or friendship, is for me an entirely different matter, that should be discussed separately.
(bear in mind that this is coming from someone who is always obsessively nitpicking on logic and trying to define and redefine all notions within or without reach, and disagreeing with everyone around... From bear to gorilla! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k2.../0134-bear.gif)Quote:
Originally Posted by TerribleT
EDITED: Storyslinger, I just saw your post; as you could see I disagree... again...
I see your point, and I do agree, I'm just playing the opposite card.
I personally didn't like Susan, and thought she just played Roland, so there was never any love
Well... I'm a romantic, and I'd like to believe as Letti that their love was pure and wonderful and all of that, and it would stand the test of time, and perhaps I should reread it, and I'm going to start to ramble but I didn't feel the deep connection between Roland and Susan that a lot of other people did. I wanted to, I guess I just never got attached to Susan because I knew she was going to die and I guess I was mad that SK took a big step back for half a book to explain their love, when I wanted to know what was going on with the ka-tet. But that's just me. Reading them again and again and again - as is my way - I will find new meaning every time.
But as for love lasting forever, if it is with the right one, it can. There are some people that I will love forever, in different ways and not just because it is a habit. Maybe I'm just helplessly in love, but my heart still pounds in my chest when my husband calls me on the phone, and when he walks in the door...
Jean, I'm ok with that, but your assertion was that time was the ONLY true measure of a relationship. If that's your assertion, then logic dictates that the abusive relationships, and the friendships all fit within your assertion. They've stood the ONLY true test. So, using your measure, we can't judge their relationship at all. We can only say that it was untested, given the criteria set forth.
wow! no, I never went as far as to doubt her sincerity. Anything to confirm that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Storyslinger
This is EXACTLY the assertion that I'm trying to make, which others earlier in this thread had discounted as not true love. I think the heart pounding excimtement when you see or talk to your love IS true love, whether it's for a week, a month, or a lifetime.
Isn't love just love? To my thinking it is at least. There is no "true love", there is only love, and it is everything. People have, and will continue to find lots of rationaliztions for ending a romance or whatever (i.e. Your angel belching after a glass of beer :lol: , a violent or abusive relationship, betrayal, etcetera) , but from what I've seen and experienced the love is always still there. Otherwise there would be no pain or hurt in these situations. No the love is as real and true as it ever was. I don't think there is a "test of time" or a test at all. Love isn't something which is proven ever. It can't be. It just is or it isn't. In short ...I think any/every love is true, so I must say that I think Roland's and Susan's was at least from the perspective of the characters and so it is equal to your love or mine or any other. As for whether it would have lasted if Susan hadn't become fuel for a fire... *shrug* It's a story. I don't see how you can say. There are too many possible directions a relationship can take. It ended short.
(sorry to quote myself, but it was a good example and I am not as bright as to think of a new one) If I said that gold can be recognized because your teeth can make imprint on it (that's how gold coins used to be roughly tested), it wouldn't mean I said that chocolate or chewing gum was gold.
The only test doesn't mean the complete definition.
Yes, - if it being untested was all we could judge by, we could say we couldn't say anything about it. (I have my personal reasons to doubt their love, mostly because both the female protagonist and the whole story were so annoyingly cliched.)Quote:
So, using your measure, we can't judge their relationship at all. We can only say that it was untested, given the criteria set forth.
Brice: I think you and Nikolett see eye-to-eye on this subject. I see your point very well; I think the intrinsic difference between our points of view is more epistemological than essential; it mostly depends on whether you've chosen to find differences or essential similarities in phenomena. Both approaches, I believe, are indispensable if we want to discover the truth, or at least to come as close to it as it is humanly possible.
I agree Jean. She wasn't a very deep character. That's probably why I had a hard time with liking her.
When I first ever read WaG it was instantly my favourite book (it no longer is, it lost some of it's sparkle over too many rereads) and I found nothing insincere in Roland, Susan or their relationship.
I don't think she played Roland, I think she genuinely adored him, perhaps even more so because she was a prisoner in her own life and he represented the unknown and adventure - things she equated to freedom.
I didn't take that as anything to read too much into, more the sort of inner monologue we all have where it's ok to think things that would probably be taken the wrong way if we said them out loud.
Yes, you say true, my main reason is just personal stuff at the time of reading it. I'm sure she wasn't written as a deciteful character, and she did stand true at the time of her death.
:couple:
:D
Oh my... http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p...SmileyTHUD.gif
Guys, sometimes you can shock me.
I do respect your opinion Brian but PLEASE reread this book. ;)