Why Different For Susannah?

[jayson]

Or maybe she has never been born at all because her great-great-grandmother died early and she never had children.

Also possible.

Anything's possible. That to me is the essence of the multiverse, that for every possible outcome of a situation there is a world in which it happened, creating a virtual infinity of possible worlds. There are thus many worlds in which at that particular moment there is no Susannah/Odetta/Detta and the Suze who came through the door drawn by Patrick can assume that role.

[The King of Kings]

Or perhaps its the actual world she was drawn from in the first place and her returning was simply just that -- her going back home?

[jayson]

I can't think of a reason that couldn't also be the case.

[Wuducynn]

Or perhaps its the actual world she was drawn from in the first place and her returning was simply just that -- her going back home?

I can't think of a reason that couldn't also be the case.

Perhaps. But in the end it won't matter because she get's her loved ones back in one form or another. I think that's the important thing. </OprahMoment>

[Matt]

I agree but it would be stupid of her to assume they were the same people imo.

[jayson]

I agree Matt.

Suze settled for the consolation prize.

It makes me think of the Simpson's Halloween episode with Homer jumping worlds because of the toaster ("Time and Punishment"). He keeps coming back to different versions of his family and keeps trying again to get back to the real ones until he eventually comes to one that he deems "close enough."

[EdwardDean1999]

I agree with the notion of it being a consolation prize. Cheap, but close enough. Hot chocolate (with cream) beats getting raped by a demon any day.

[obscurejude]

I agree Matt.

Suze settled for the consolation prize.

It makes me think of the Simpson's Halloween episode with Homer jumping worlds because of the toaster ("Time and Punishment"). He keeps coming back to different versions of his family and keeps trying again to get back to the real ones until he eventually comes to one that he deems "close enough."

Two things:

1). Susannah had dreams sent to her by the tower that told her to go be with Eddie and Jake. It wasn't exactly an objective decision or "settling." She wasn't supposed to go to the tower, so I suppose she could have hung around with Patrick, but again, the dreams.

2). She forgot all about her time in mid world, so its unlikely she was bothered by her decision after a few days. I think this is stupid, like the end of IT where it fades for everyone. I don't understand why King does this, but he does. My point is that it isn't exactly "settling" when the point of comparison will be forgotten entirely.

[jayson]

She forgot all about her time in mid world, so its unlikely she was bothered by her decision after a few days. I think this is stupid, like the end of IT where it fades for everyone. I don't understand why King does this, but he does. My point is that it isn't exactly "settling" when the point of comparison will be forgotten entirely.

A good point, but also consider that Suze didn't know her memory would be wiped when she made the decision, so at the moment the decision was made, it can still be seen as "settling". I do agree with your wonder at why King uses this plot device. It seems like a cheat to the characters.

[obscurejude]

She forgot all about her time in mid world, so its unlikely she was bothered by her decision after a few days. I think this is stupid, like the end of IT where it fades for everyone. I don't understand why King does this, but he does. My point is that it isn't exactly "settling" when the point of comparison will be forgotten entirely.

A good point, but also consider that Suze didn't know her memory would be wiped when she made the decision, so at the moment the decision was made, it can still be seen as "settling". I do agree with your wonder at why King uses this plot device. It seems like a cheat to the characters.

Good counterpoint. I dunno. Maybe King erased her memory so the final impression wouldn't be settling? You could also make the case that she didn't know it was an alternate Eddie/Jake when she walked through the door- that doesn't become apparent until they begin chatting and by that time her memories are fading and the gun has already become transformed and discarded.

[Matt]

I'm not sure Suze would consider it "settling" at all. I think her opinion matters and she saw it as a way to end this crazy quest and get back with her man.

She was never into it imo, not from the very beginning. At that point, it was absolutely what she wanted more than the Tower

[jayson]

I'm not sure Suze would consider it "settling" at all. I think her opinion matters and she saw it as a way to end this crazy quest and get back with her man.

Yes, but the man she ended up with was not her man. He was like her man, but not her man. That is precisely why I compared it to that Simpsons' episode and why I consider it a consolation prize. I'm not necessarily saying it's not the choice she should have made in her situation, but I am definitely not about to say she's reunited with Eddie because that dude is not Eddie.

[Matt]

I totally agree--she did settle for a "alternate" Eddie, but I also believe the core of a person is essentially the same. Different shell because of experiences.

I just think Suze had it right and Roland could have learned something from her about what was important.

[Jean]

I totally agree--she did settle for a "alternate" Eddie, but I also believe the core of a person is essentially the same. Different shell because of experiences.

I just think Suze had it right and Roland could have learned something from her about what was important.

I think absolutely the same; I would even go as far as to say that, - bringing what you said to the logical end - she did settle on the same Eddie.

[jayson]

I totally agree--she did settle for a "alternate" Eddie, but I also believe the core of a person is essentially the same. Different shell because of experiences.

I think absolutely the same; I would even go as far as to say that, - bringing what you said to the logical end - she did settle on the same Eddie.

I'm not so sure about that myself. I think it's the experiences that make the person who they are. If this Eddie never had a Henry, never had a dead sister, never had a heroin addiction and all the other stuff than what's to say he's anything at all like the Eddie Dean we met in DoTT? It was those experiences that contributed to his overall Eddieness not something innate from his birth. Existence precedes essence. He's Eddie because of what he'd been through, not just because he's Eddie. Eddie Toren is a completely unique person than Eddie Dean imo.

[Jean]

would that mean that Eddie Dean at the age of 20 is not the same person as Eddie Dean at the age of 40? I don't mean difference in experience - that's obvious - but essentially?

[jayson]

would that mean that Eddie Dean at the age of 20 is not the same person as Eddie Dean at the age of 40? I don't mean difference in experience - that's obvious - but essentially?

In many ways, yes. I know, for instance, that I am not the same person at 38 that I was at 20 in any number of ways, some of them quite important ways (especially to someone who would consider being my companion). I think the things I've experienced have changed my entire outlook on life which informs any number of things about me.

I suppose it all gets to how we define a person's "essence" which is particularly difficult for an avowed existentialist like myself who doesn't necessarily believe there is such a thing. I tend to believe who we are is a function of the psyche and thus given to being a dynamic rather than static feature.

[Wuducynn]

I'm not so sure about that myself. I think it's the experiences that make the person who they are. If this Eddie never had a Henry, never had a dead sister, never had a heroin addiction and all the other stuff than what's to say he's anything at all like the Eddie Dean we met in DoTT? It was those experiences that contributed to his overall Eddieness not something innate from his birth. Existence precedes essence. He's Eddie because of what he'd been through, not just because he's Eddie. Eddie Toren is a completely unique person than Eddie Dean imo.

I agree that they are different, but I don't think completely unique is correct. To me Eddie Torn is a twinner of Eddie Dean so there are going to be more similarities than differences in the essence of him. Same with Jake Toren. I think Eddie and Jake will both be close enough to their other world counterparts to feel like coming home to Susannah.

[Jean]

would that mean that Eddie Dean at the age of 20 is not the same person as Eddie Dean at the age of 40? I don't mean difference in experience - that's obvious - but essentially?

In many ways, yes. I know, for instance, that I am not the same person at 38 that I was at 20 in any number of ways, some of them quite important ways (especially to someone who would consider being my companion). I think the things I've experienced have changed my entire outlook on life which informs any number of things about me.

Would that mean that your wife is married to an alternate you, a stranger, not someone she first fell in love with? If it's ok for people to put up with changes in their friends and lovers without considering them strangers, why should it be different in Susannah/Eddie case?

I suppose it all gets to how we define a person's "essence" which is particularly difficult for an avowed existentialist like myself who doesn't necessarily believe there is such a thing. I tend to believe who we are is a function of the psyche and thus given to being a dynamic rather than static feature.

Why, of course! And, since you know where I come from, you can totally understand that for me soul (essence) precedes existence (experience), being created unique in every particular case - and then, if we accept multiverse, sent for further development to different universes, but still as the same soul!

[jayson]

Would that mean that your wife is married to an alternate you, a stranger, not someone she first fell in love with? If it's ok for people to put up with changes in their friends and lovers without considering them strangers, why should it be different in Susannah/Eddie case?

It's different in that case because I am the same entity that experienced those changes and moreover, she experienced them right along with me. This is not Eddie Dean changed via experience, this is an Eddie who has different experiences (possibly entirely) from Eddie Dean. That's apples and oranges to me.

Why, of course! And, since you know where I come from, you can totally understand that for me soul (essence) precedes existence (experience), being created unique in every particular case - and then, if we accept multiverse, sent for further development to different universes, but still as the same soul!

Absolutely, and that's why I'm enjoying this discussion.

I agree that they are different, but I don't think completely unique is correct. To me Eddie Torn is a twinner of Eddie Dean so there are going to be more similarities than differences in the essence of him. Same with Jake Toren. I think Eddie and Jake will both be close enough to their other world counterparts to feel like coming home to Susannah.

As you likely know, I don't put much stock in the twinner concept outside of The Talisman. King became far too vague with it when he began incorporating it into DT. For instance, is Earl Harrigan essentially the same as Henchick of the Manni? I suspect not. For me it goes back to what I said to Jean about how we define the essence of a person. I don't personally hold that it's something innate within us, but that's it's a function of our constant interaction with the world around us.

[Wuducynn]

As you likely know, I don't put much stock in the twinner concept outside of The Talisman. King became far too vague with it when he began incorporating it into DT. For instance, is Earl Harrigan essentially the same as Henchick of the Manni? I suspect not. For me it goes back to what I said to Jean about how we define the essence of a person. I don't personally hold that it's something innate within us, but that's it's a function of our constant interaction with the world around us.

I didn't know that (sidenote: I don't care either) but no I don't view twinners to be the same in every way just like real world twins aren't the same. Just very, very similar which is what the idea that King was working with I believe. You have twin worlds, of Tower Rose and Tower Keystone, exactly the same? No, but twinners nonetheless.

[jayson]

You have twin worlds, of Tower Rose and Tower Keystone, exactly the same? No, but twinners nonetheless.

When it gets into twinner worlds in addition to twinner people I think King gets even further removed from whatever "twinner" once might have meant. How to define the essence of an entire world is a more difficult prospect than defining the essence of a person. What's the essence of a world? Geography? I just think the more he used the twinner concept, the looser it got. I think I hit on this in Monte's twinner thread, but I can always go another round or two with it.

[Wuducynn]

I think I hit on this in Monte's twinner thread, but I can always go another round or two with it.

Oh was that a gauntlet being thrown down, bitch? Bring it on! BRING IT ON!
Seriously though, it might be good to keep it in Greg's thread...don't want to veer too off topic.

[Jean]

It's different in that case because I am the same entity that experienced those changes and moreover, she experienced them right along with me. This is not Eddie Dean changed via experience, this is an Eddie who has different experiences (possibly entirely) from Eddie Dean. That's apples and oranges to me.

Let's imagine a Mad Scientist who, at a moment of your life, splits you into two people and sends them along different paths; maybe in different universes. Previously they were one, and had the same experience; now they are two; which would be you? For your wife, for example - if one, say, stayed with her, of course it would be easier for her to accept him as the "real" one, exactly because, as you said, she witnessed the change - but how would the other one become less authentic only on the ground of her not seeing him change?

[jayson]

Let's imagine a Mad Scientist who, at a moment of your life, splits you into two people and sends them along different paths; maybe in different universes. Previously they were one, and had the same experience; now they are two; which would be you? For your wife, for example - if one, say, stayed with her, of course it would be easier for her to accept him as the "real" one, exactly because, as you said, she witnessed the change - but how would the other one become less authentic only on the ground of her not seeing him change?

Which would be me is a question I can only answer if I know in which would my consciousness reside. To overcome that, let's assume that I (I being my conscious mind which is currently participating in this thread) is not either of them, that for the purposes of this hypothetical I am just an observer. So we have Jayson #1 (the one that stays) and Jayson #2 (the one that goes). I don't know that #2 is less authentic than #1, but I am fairly confident he would be a different person however many years down the line, and that difference would be proportional to the differences in experiences the two have had. Would my wife recognize #2 upon his return? Surely. Not everything about a person changes. Would they still be compatible? Not necessarily. Who knows what changed in that time (not just for #2 but for her as well). It's for this reason that I think her presence for the changes in #1 make all the difference in the world(s).

To bring us back to Eddie & Susannah, I don't know how much I feel the multiple Eddies match up with that hypothetical. I don't see them as the same up to Point A and then different. From the little information we get about Eddie Toren in the Coda, we really have no idea whatsoever how much he's like Eddie Dean other than the physical resemblance. They could have had radically different lives since birth and thus wouldn't be the same (to me) other than being similar in appearance.

ETA: Let's consider it the other way for a second. What if it were Eddie that went through that door to a Susannah that had never lost her legs, never had multiple personality disorder, never took part in the civil rights movement, et al.? Would she really be the same person as the Susannah we knew? Her entire world view could be radically different which I think informs so much of who we are.