Even if it's an interesting decision in certain ways, I do find the final battle to be a huge letdown, compared to the expectations set forth by The (original) Gunslinger. It didn't need to be a...
Type: Posts; User: Random321321
Even if it's an interesting decision in certain ways, I do find the final battle to be a huge letdown, compared to the expectations set forth by The (original) Gunslinger. It didn't need to be a...
AKA, major retcons. One of many reasons I don't recommend the revised Gunslinger before reading the rest of the series, it's kind of a give away. I don't really recommend it after either as it comes...
Ah, ok. And Roland's mother's retroactive forgiveness for her own murder, did Old Roland make that up as well? Or maybe that wasn't addressed?
Any hints about how he addressed them, since we'll never get to see it, seemingly?
I think it's best to pretend the Kubrick movie and the book have nothing to do with each other. They each have their own merits, though I think the movie is better in its medium.
I never thought of it as 'sexual' violence. I just saw it as the way Roland had to remove the demon Marten left in her.[/QUOTE]
I.e. the technical explanation. You don't find anything 'sexual'...
I never thought of it as 'sexual' violence. I just saw it as the way Roland had to remove the demon Marten left in her.[/QUOTE]
I.e. the technical explanation. You don't find anything 'sexual'...
If King has contradicted himself, it's probably pointless to argue about the "real answer".
Regardless of the technical explanation, there's more than a tinge of sexual violence there, no?
The 19 incident is not in the original version of The Gunslinger, but in the Revised Version, written AFTER the accident. Yet another retcon.
I would extend the publishing order to reading the original Gunslinger first, and only reading the revised Gunslinger after W&G, if you must read it at all. (I think it's vastly inferior).
Yet another cop out along the lines of "the world has moved on" so such and such wasn't a continuity error.[/QUOTE]There is a Tower which stands at the nexus of time. The serpent swallows it's own...
Yet another cop out along the lines of "the world has moved on" so such and such wasn't a continuity error.
maybe he is, and we have just been missing everything[/QUOTE]
LOL. Thank you.
Of course not. I phrased my question poorly. What I really want to know is: what was the vague outline that King had in mind in which the events of Insomnia would be fully correct?
Once he called...
Yeah, he's not that subtle.
Only in the retcon Gunslinger is there any extensive discussion about her, so I was not anticipating her at all.
So Gabrielle/Roland inserted Marten into the story? That's also strange.
I see no reason I needed to hear about anything in this book at all by that reasoning.
[/QUOTE]
No argument here.
Fair answer, but this suggests the story is true, which I also find troubling.