DT Maps, Addresses, and Locations

[LadyHitchhiker]

Okay, soapbox time...
RF's death sucked and his character should have been even mroe developed than in The Stand because he had more time to develop RF's character even more...
Oy's death sucked and seemed pointless.
Mordred's character should have been involved more in the story
Oh and I'm starting to like the ending but it really pissed me off when I first read it because I just thought it was a meanhearted thing to do to Roland..... but now I am seeing that maybe it couldn't be changed, because Ka is a wheel...
*steps off box*
Have a great day!
Aw crap those probably all have their own thread anyways... except maybe the Mordred thing... well just ignore me then.

[jayson]

No, not plausible at all. No "still" about it. We're just going to have to suck it up and deal with the fact that its just a big plot hole, however much we dislike to admit it.

i have no prob admitting the plot hole, i didn't write it.

[Wuducynn]

Yes you did.

[Jean]

[Lord_Vertigo]

I honestly can't stand the first book. I'm discovering that on my second read-through. I had trouble with it the first time, too. Even the revised version is rough-going. I just couldn't care less about Roland's sexual escapades, I don't understand why he had to blow everyone in town, and I just don't like the overall "emo-writer on Lord-knows-what" tone of the book. Even though King was a lot older when he did the revision, it still sounds like a college kid's immature attempt at being dark and soulful. It drives me up the wall. I only read it, because it's so necessary for the rest of the series, which I happen to love.

[Jean]

I would agree 100% if book one wasn't for me counterbalanced by R.Browning poem at the end. The latter is a finale, the former an epigraph (rather lengthy, I agree). I am talking only of the Original, of course, - in this light, by the way, there was no more sense in revision than it would be in pulling Browning text by the ears towards fitting the rest of the text.

[Wuducynn]

I would agree 100% if book one wasn't for me counterbalanced by R.Browning poem at the end. The latter is a finale, the former an epigraph (rather lengthy, I agree). I am talking only of the Original, of course, - in this light, by the way, there was no more sense in revision than it would be in pulling Browning text by the ears towards fitting the rest of the text.

So you finally got around to reading the revised?

[Jean]

No, why? I didn't make any evaluative comment on its content, I only said I didn't see any sense in revision.

[Wuducynn]

You said there was no more sense in revision...how can you accurately make that judgement if you haven't read the revision?

[Brice]

You said there was no more sense in revision...how can you accurately make that judgement if you haven't read the revision?

If you believe revision shouldn't have been made to begin with as general principle, than you can.

[Wuducynn]

I see what you're saying, you damn cozening Canadian. Part of me still feels that you can't make an accurate judgement on anything unless you've experienced it. Its kind of like a little kid saying they don't like peas when they've never eatin them before.

[Brice]

They might not like how they look.

[jayson]

the revision [which i have read] smacks of a musician going back into the studio to "remake" his/her previous hit with new technology. it may sound "fuller" than the older one, but something invariably gets lost in the transformation. i never minded the seeming inconsistencies in style from the first through the rest. in fact, i liked that it showed King growing as a writer. all the revisions just make it seem like he went back and forced some things into alignment with the rest of the story as it played out years later. they may make it more 'consistent' with the rest of the story, but i read the original for so many years and never had an issue with it.

[Jean]

I see what you're saying, you damn cozening Canadian. Part of me still feels that you can't make an accurate judgement on anything unless you've experienced it. Its kind of like a little kid saying they don't like peas when they've never eatin them before.

No. There's a fine line easy to overlook. It is never advisable to pass judgement on anything someone hasn't no first-hand knowledge of, but I certainly have a perfect right to make a statement about the unnecessity of enhancing or altering something that suits me. Very much like a man who refuses to check if other women are better in bed than his wife if he is satisfied with her.

[Wuducynn]

the revision [which i have read] smacks of a musician going back into the studio to "remake" his/her previous hit with new technology. it may sound "fuller" than the older one, but something invariably gets lost in the transformation. i never minded the seeming inconsistencies in style from the first through the rest. in fact, i liked that it showed King growing as a writer. all the revisions just make it seem like he went back and forced some things into alignment with the rest of the story as it played out years later. they may make it more 'consistent' with the rest of the story, but i read the original for so many years and never had an issue with it.

So did you read the revised edition or are you one of those who don't on principle?

[Wuducynn]

No. There's a fine line easy to overlook. It is never advisable to pass judgement on anything someone hasn't no first-hand knowledge of, but I certainly have a perfect right to make a statement about the unnecessity of enhancing or altering something that suits me. Very much like a man who refuses to check if other women are better in bed than his wife if he is satisfied with her.

Sure you have a right to say or do what you like, I'm not questioning that. I do question that you can accurately judge something unless you've experienced it yourself.

[jayson]

.... the unnecessity of enhancing or altering something that suits me. Very much like a man who refuses to check if other women are better in bed than his wife if he is satisfied with her.

well said Jean. pretty how much how i feel about the revisions. sure it could be argued that it is "better" or "more consistent" but i found it an unnecessary endeavor on King's part.

[Wuducynn]

the revision [which i have read] smacks of a musician going back into the studio to "remake" his/her previous hit with new technology. it may sound "fuller" than the older one, but something invariably gets lost in the transformation. i never minded the seeming inconsistencies in style from the first through the rest. in fact, i liked that it showed King growing as a writer. all the revisions just make it seem like he went back and forced some things into alignment with the rest of the story as it played out years later. they may make it more 'consistent' with the rest of the story, but i read the original for so many years and never had an issue with it.

So did you read the revised edition or are you one of those who don't on principle?

Well chummy?

[Jean]

Matthew: do I fail to make myself clear (which is, of course, possible, but not very probable in this case since Jayson and Brice understand what I say) or do you refuse to understand what I am saying on principle, to see what happens when someone teases a bear long enough?

[Brice]

I have myself read the revision and while it isn't bad I gotta' agree with Jayson, something is missing in the transition from the original to the revised.

[jayson]

the revision [which i have read] smacks of a musician going back into the studio to "remake" his/her previous hit with new technology. it may sound "fuller" than the older one, but something invariably gets lost in the transformation. i never minded the seeming inconsistencies in style from the first through the rest. in fact, i liked that it showed King growing as a writer. all the revisions just make it seem like he went back and forced some things into alignment with the rest of the story as it played out years later. they may make it more 'consistent' with the rest of the story, but i read the original for so many years and never had an issue with it.

So did you read the revised edition or are you one of those who don't on principle?

Well chummy?

sorry i missed that one. you might note that in my post that you quoted though i do say "the revision [which i have read] smacks of a musician going back...." so there's your answer. I have read the revised several times, though i prefer the original for many reaons.

[Wuducynn]

Matthew: do I fail to make myself clear (which is, of course, possible, but not very probable in this case since Jayson and Brice understand what I say) or do you refuse to understand what I am saying on principle, to see what happens when someone teases a bear long enough?

Jean, I see what you are saying and what I'm saying is I disagree with you. Now do we understand each other?

[Wuducynn]

the revision [which i have read] smacks of a musician going back into the studio to "remake" his/her previous hit with new technology. it may sound "fuller" than the older one, but something invariably gets lost in the transformation. i never minded the seeming inconsistencies in style from the first through the rest. in fact, i liked that it showed King growing as a writer. all the revisions just make it seem like he went back and forced some things into alignment with the rest of the story as it played out years later. they may make it more 'consistent' with the rest of the story, but i read the original for so many years and never had an issue with it.

This is your original post Jayson and it didn't say whether or not you read it.

[Brice]

It does now.

[jayson]

the revision [which i have read] smacks of a musician going back into the studio to "remake" his/her previous hit with new technology. it may sound "fuller" than the older one, but something invariably gets lost in the transformation. i never minded the seeming inconsistencies in style from the first through the rest. in fact, i liked that it showed King growing as a writer. all the revisions just make it seem like he went back and forced some things into alignment with the rest of the story as it played out years later. they may make it more 'consistent' with the rest of the story, but i read the original for so many years and never had an issue with it.

This is your original post Jayson and it didn't say whether or not you read it.

um, you need reading lessons my friend... the third thru sixth words of my post are "which I have read." these words follow "the revision" implying that it is the revision which i have read. need some coffee or something matthew?