The nature of the Rose *hard spoilers*

[Letti]

*Big Spoilers all around*

*Big Spoilers all around*

*Big Spoilers all around*

I am rereading WoC these days and the more I read about the rose and how the ka-tet wants to protect it the more I am confused and amazed...

So...
what is the rose in fact? What do you think? What would happen if anyone could ruin it? How would it be possible at all?
Some people say the Dark Tower wasn't in danger at all do you say the same about the rose as well?

And why is it so important who owns the vacant lot where it grows? I mean is that piece of paper so important? The men of Red couldn't hurt it just if they owned that field? Or how does it work?
Because in my mind those pieces of paper aren't so important when we talk about the universe.... how can be the ownership so important?

I feel there are many questions around the Rose.

[jayson]

Good one Letti. Let's see if I can take a stab at it. I think the Rose IS the Dark Tower, or at least it's placeholder on Stephen King's level of the Tower. Remember Roland saying "two, there are two hubs of existence." As far as its saftey, I think the legal contracts were a bit of a cheat. I agree with you that it seems unlikely that if the Red wanted to try to destroy it that a piece of paper would stop them. I'm not sure how it all works in King's mind that a contract between Calvin and Tet could just call off the dogs against the Rose, but apparently that;s what he wants us to believe. I'm not altogether sure the Rose could be destroyed, or plowed under. It seems to be able to take care of itself. All I know is, the flower IS the Tower. Some worlds in the multiverse are so small they are inside that Rose and I think Roland's just might be one of them.

[Letti]

But why did Roland just visit the rose in this case?

It's good to know that I am not the only one who doesn't really get the contract part...

[jayson]

But why did Roland just visit the rose in this case?

It's good to know that I am not the only one who doesn't really get the contract part...

I think the only version of the Tower Roland can enter is the one in End-World, his own world. I think his seeing the Rose was somehwat a reminder to him of the "size vision" given to him at the Palaver with the Man in Black at the end of DT-1, to show him that inside something as small as that Rose there could be millions of worlds. Also, he had to go to the Tower itself bc that's where the CK was and he had to be stopped.

[Letti]

But he himself said that the Rose might be a door to the Tower... to the top of the Tower.
Why didn't he give it a try? I know he didn't have a lot of time...

[jayson]

But he himself said that the Rose might be a door to the Tower... to the top of the Tower.
Why didn't he give it a try? I know he didn't have a lot of time...

i think that maybe:

(a) he thought it was a door to the Tower but maybe not how to open it, or

(b) he was just wrong about what it really was, that it wasn't a door, but a version of the Tower itself

[Letti]

But he himself said that the Rose might be a door to the Tower... to the top of the Tower.
Why didn't he give it a try? I know he didn't have a lot of time...

i think that maybe:

(a) he thought it was a door to the Tower but maybe not how to open it, or

(b) he was just wrong about what it really was, that it wasn't a door, but a version of the Tower itself

a - Roland is not that type of man who gives up things because he doesn't know "how to".

b - Still he couldn't have been sure about it so maybe it would have been worth a try.

[jayson]

i agree with you, although maybe he did know right away upon seeing it that it wasn't a door, but our worlds' placeholder for the Tower itself. I don't know for sure. you are right though, if he did think it was any kind of door he seems the kind to give it a try.

[LadyHitchhiker]

But he himself said that the Rose might be a door to the Tower... to the top of the Tower.
Why didn't he give it a try? I know he didn't have a lot of time...

Maybe he didn't have the key? Maybe he didn't know how to open it?

Maybe ka willed it that he follow a certain path - the paths of the beam - and that the only way for Roland to get to the tower was by following that path.

To have just gone to the rose would have been to cheat, and would also have not enforced the structure of the beams, thusly making the tower fall and all worlds die... Maybe he was on a one-way street, unless he gave up the tower, then all things were possible.

Just a crazy idea from my muddled be-rains...

Maybe he was protecting the rose so that someone else along the way could come to the tower and take his place as guardian? There are so many ideas I have rambling through my head that I can't even get them out...

[Letti]

And could anybody hurt it anyhow? What do you think?

[jayson]

That is where I am very unclear. I know Roland and crew seemed to think it could be hurt. I don't think a person could hurt it, but perhaps a machine like in Eddie's dream of the bulldozer. A bulldozer could be to the Rose what Breakers are to the Beams of the Tower, and all the worlds in it would be destroyed or merged, or something else bad.

[KO1]

My theory of the rose is that it is the representation of the tower in the keystone reality. Further if you pictured all the realities in lets say a multiverse being stacked on oneanother, the keystone world would be the top slice, while Rolands world would be the bottom.

Since events in the keystone world are set and there are no do overs so to speak this theory makes sense, at least to me. This also goes to partially explain why one can only enter the tower from Rolands world, al it is the base world, or the bottom world, and where would a door to the tower be but at the bottom.

[jayson]

My theory of the rose is that it is the representation of the tower in the keystone reality. Further if you pictured all the realities in lets say a multiverse being stacked on oneanother, the keystone world would be the top slice, while Rolands world would be the bottom.

Since events in the keystone world are set and there are no do overs so to speak this theory makes sense, at least to me. This also goes to partially explain why one can only enter the tower from Rolands world, al it is the base world, or the bottom world, and where would a door to the tower be but at the bottom.

i like it metaphorically. almost as if the tower is the root of all and the rose is the flowering of the multiverse.

[Letti]

I don't think machines could hurt it... maybe breakers... but I am not sure about that, either. However I guess we can't be sure about anything here.
Maybe the more our world moves on the more fragile the rose becomes. And if our world slips into the dark... the rose can be picked off by a simple weak human hand.

Was the contract something Roland was just wasting his time with? Do you say that?

[KO1]

In simpliest terms I think the rose was in danger. The contract things makes sense in some terms. If one owns the lot its easier to protect it. Further if one owns the lot, it would easier to devote the time and energy to destroy it.

[Letti]

Why is it easier with the contrect?
Sorry if I am picky... I am just interested in your view, K01.

[KO1]

I don't think The rose could just be plucked or bulldozed. Look at the time and energy it took to break beams alone, and if the rose truly represents the tower, it would be an entirely different undertaking than the beams. Owning the lot would allow either side to basically set up shop at the site to either protect it, or in the case of the red destroy it.

[jayson]

i see what you are saying KO1. It's about access. The owner of the Lot is at an advantage by being able to keep others away from the Rose and thus have more time to do whatever it is they want to do to it.

[Letti]

i see what you are saying KO1. It's about access. The owner of the Lot is at an advantage by being able to keep others away from the Rose and thus have more time to do whatever it is they want to do to it.

Okay, Roland and his tet bought the lot.
And?
What could he have done if anyone had appeared there with their men to destroy it? They wouldn't have known about it at all...
And as I see we all agree that the rose can't be hurt by such things as axes or stuff like that.

[jayson]

i see what you are saying KO1. It's about access. The owner of the Lot is at an advantage by being able to keep others away from the Rose and thus have more time to do whatever it is they want to do to it.

Okay, Roland and his tet bought the lot.
And?
What could he have done if anyone had appeared there with their men to destroy it? They wouldn't have known about it at all...
And as I see we all agree that the rose can't be hurt by such things as axes or stuff like that.

i dont think the rose can be hurt by human beings. like the roses in the can-ka-no-rey, it can protect itself from people.

[pathoftheturtle]

...What could (Roland and his tet) have done if anyone had appeared there with their men to destroy it? They wouldn't have known about it at all...

That's why they appointed caretakers. "The Old Farts of the Apocaylpse," who became the Ka-tet of the Rose. With legal title, they could even have called the police. Having the general public learn about the monsters against them would be hard on the Red.

However, this also serves a symbolic purpose. Even without fantasy elements, rampant development as epitomized by New York City construction can be seen as bad and potentially disastrous.

Still I wonder: are the Rose and the Tower the same thing?
There's really no logical explanation for the idea. It's either a simple metaphor or a purely mystical circumstance. If Tower Keystone was a possible future of Keystone Rose, then saving the latter, removing what small corruption the Rose had in it, preventing its growth, should have automatically meant that the world-shaking corruption levels seen in the Tower would never have come to pass. That's not the case at all, though; as I understand it these are two separate universes with equal claim to "realness." And that is a hell of a paradox if they are also fundamentally the same.

The Dark Tower starts with a grim storyline about a detached gunslinger in a decaying world out to confront his maker. And this line is never lost or broken; the author carries it through to the end. It is complicated, though, by this second storyline. It is as though King were making an analogy to show that there can be another side to something like the Tower, that it might be different from another perspective. And yet, here it is also shown that the character of Roland has another side, as well. To the Rose he is hero and protector.

It is a serious duality. When we interpret the series poetically, looking just at the symbols and their relationships, TDT is a sweet fable about respecting nature. When we interpret it prosaically, however, trying to comprehend the overall plot, it is a horror story about reality gone mad.

[candy]

In simpliest terms its not the piece of paper that matters, but the legal principles that are enacted by the signing of it. Once either side had legal ownership of the lot they now had access to the rose to either protect it or begin whatever actions would be necessary to destroy it
Time they would not have had had others owned it.

...What could (Roland and his tet) have done if anyone had appeared there with their men to destroy it? They wouldn't have known about it at all...

That's why they appointed caretakers. "The Old Farts of the Apocaylpse," who became the Ka-tet of the Rose. With legal title, they could even have called the police. Having the general public learn about the monsters against them would be hard on the Red.

Still I wonder: are the Rose and the Tower the same thing?


it is a horror story about reality gone mad.

a few things come to me while reading this thread
firstly, while i agree that the rose could not be destroyed, i feel it could be corrupted. which in turn would harm the dark tower,
i dont feel the rose is the tower - more a representative -an ambassador??
and if the representative is corrupted then this in turn feeds the dark tower.

i am not really talking of corruption in terms of good and evil, as noted on a seperate tread i beleive the tower is above that. no, the corruption i think of is more like a corrosion where the rose and the tower may become husks of what they where - thereby distorting reality

you say true that the rose can defend itself, however constant battering would have worn it down.

i agree that the 'piece of paper that made the contract' in itself could not help protect the rose - how.ever i agree that the time taken to sort this out would help the rose gather itself again

sorry if this is all waffle and does not make sense, trust me it does it my head, its just really hard to try to explain it to you all.

plus its early morning - i shall put my thoughts in order and return

[Letti]

I might sound retarded but I am not able to see why a piece of paper that could be burnt or eaten or anything could help to destroy the rose... sorry.

[KO1]

But by that logic then what of Sai King. After all, if he didn't write certain words on other pieces of paper then the the end result would have been the same.

[Letti]

But by that logic then what of Sai King. After all, if he didn't write certain words on other pieces of paper then the the end result would have been the same.

Yes, but those words had certain messages and after reading it just once (ownership or keeping them didn't come to the view at all) those pieces of paper were no more but some white dead wood.