Original or Revised, if you HAD to choose

[Brainslinger]

my guess is the number 19 being forgotten by "Roland" ....

Spoiler:

he comments on how the day before or 2 days ago he would have said he knew thousands of Riddles but they just escaped his mind.

& he made a comment that perhaps he is moving on..? so my guess is that's what happend to him, he started to slowly move on as the world around him did.

That's in a later book so I've spoilerified part of that (although it doesn't really spoil much). Good call though, that makes sense. Even if he had forgotten

Spoiler:

I can't help thinking that later 19 stuff would have jogged his memory.

On the other hand, that event in Tull was one in many, so maybe that's not so surprising after all.

my question is did he do a revision of "DT2" or "DT3" ? at some point?

He intended to, but so far only The Gunslinger was revised. That explains the disparity in the books.

[Roland of Gilead 33]

i remember in the intro he DOES mentions that. but my guess he was "DT' burn out after having written 3 books in a row about it. plus re-writing the original book. so he prolly was on burn out. & thanxs for putting a spoiler on that. i wasn't sure if that would be considered one. & since most people have read the 1st book here that's also why i didn't add one.

anyways & thank you for the compliment. & i agree, "Roland" has been through a LOT through the years. hell he's been through stuff that "SK" never even wrote about i'm sure. so it would also make sense that he'd want to forgot about a LOT of it

[Brainslinger]

i remember in the intro he DOES mentions that. but my guess he was "DT' burn out after having written 3 books in a row about it. plus re-writing the original book. so he prolly was on burn out. & thanxs for putting a spoiler on that. i wasn't sure if that would be considered one. & since most people have read the 1st book here that's also why i didn't add one.

You're welcome. Basically the rules in Baronies are that you don't need to use spoiler tags if you're writing about stuff that happened in the current or previous books. The assumption is that a person shouldn't be in that thread if they haven't read that book and previous books unless of course they don't care about spoilers.

For example if you were in the Drawing of the Three section you could post spoilers of that book and The Gunslinger without the spoiler tags. Spoilers for The Waste Lands onwards would need to be tagged. Since this is a The Gunslinger thread any spoilers from the other books would need to be tagged, this being the first. (If that makes sense.) I think the spoiler you posted was from either The Waste Lands or Wizard and Glass. (It wasn't a big one though. Probably borderline as to whether or not it was really needed, but I was just playing it safe.)

If you are actually starting a new thread yourself, then another alternative is to simply write a spoiler warning in the thread title itself stating which books will be spoiled. Then anyone going in knows what to expect.

[Roland of Gilead 33]

ok thankee sai for the head's up

[MonteGss]

64% v 54% Interesting. It is starting to even out a bit, if I remember correctly.

[RolandLover]

I haven't read the original Gungslinger but I want to! Is this the original one? http://www.amazon.com/Gunslinger-Dar...3923203&sr=8-1
If not cry your pardon but could someone post the original for me please? TIA

[WeDealInLead]

That's the revised edition and it's also illustrated. Go for it.

I don't remember what I voted but I like the revised edition more.

[rolandesch]

I've only read the revised so I can't really say, however it becomes apparent to me that the inconsistencies in the original are better left revised.

[Brainslinger]

I've only read the revised so I can't really say, however it becomes apparent to me that the inconsistencies in the original are better left revised.

The trouble is, the revised edition made other minor inconsistencies. Don't get me wrong, I like the Revised Edition and prefer it overall. It certainly fits the later books better, and the inconsistencies are small.

[pathoftheturtle]

I'm not so sure. Is consistency really so important in literature, anyway? The original was an ambiguous romantic epic, like the poem. Does comicbook-style continuity necessarily improve that?

[Wuducynn]

The trouble is, the revised edition made other minor inconsistencies.

Like what?

[Brainslinger]

The trouble is, the revised edition made other minor inconsistencies.

Like what?

Okay, I'll spoilerify since it deals with later books:

Spoiler:

Mainly stuff concerning Walter.

In the revised version Roland realises during his conversation with the man in black that Marten became Walter. Then in the books leading up to Wolves of the Calla (where they're clearly described as the same person) he views them as separate entities again. So in short the revised Gunslinger fits with the last three books, but not entirely with the books in between.

I did say "minor inconsistency", Walter ending up quite a minor character anyway. One could even put it down to the moving on of that World and it's effect on Roland himself. (There's indication in the later books that his mind is affected.)

Personally, considering their history, I don't think that's the kind of thing he'd forget though. That being said, it's not a big deal at all, and it wouldn't even take much editing in those books to set things straight... and as such probably isn't really worth doing.

[Wuducynn]

The trouble is, the revised edition made other minor inconsistencies.

Like what?

Okay, I'll spoilerify since it deals with later books:

Spoiler:

Mainly stuff concerning Walter.

In the revised version Roland realises during his conversation with the man in black that Marten became Walter. Then in the books leading up to Wolves of the Calla (where they're clearly described as the same person) he views them as separate entities again. So in short the revised Gunslinger fits with the last three books, but not entirely with the books in between.

I did say "minor inconsistency", Walter ending up quite a minor character anyway. One could even put it down to the moving on of that World and it's effect on Roland himself. (There's indication in the later books that his mind is affected.)

Personally, considering their history, I don't think that's the kind of thing he'd forget though. That being said, it's not a big deal at all, and it wouldn't even take much editing in those books to set things straight... and as such probably isn't really worth doing.

I think when King was doing the revision his intention was to be revising books II, III and IV after that. I'm pretty sure I remember seeing an interview with him saying that now that he had gotten where he wanted to go with the series together in his mind which only came together when he started writing Wolves of the Calla that he had intended on revising the rest of the series.

[Jean]

Is consistency really so important in literature, anyway?

No.

[WeDealInLead]

I re-read the original version. I still feel the revised is superior in every way. If there were no DT series, the original would probably fare better in my mind but somehow, Roland saying 'How are they hanging?' (or whatever) to those boys in Tul is not the Roland we get to know later on. Just the way he carries himself in later books radiates I don't know... class? I get to feel his royal blood more in the revised edition. I'm not forgetting he's still a relentless killing machine but he's almost macho in the original version.

[Wuducynn]

Is consistency really so important in literature, anyway?

No.

For me it depends on who you are talking to. If King feels it's important to him that his series, his Great Work, be consistent then it's important for him and I can see why. I think he explained himself very well in the introduction to the revised edition as to why it was important for him to revise it and I respect his choice and agree with it.

[Merlin1958]

I gotta go with the Author's choice and say the Revised edition. It is, ultimately, the story he wanted to tell after all.

[Jean]

Is consistency really so important in literature, anyway?

No.

For me it depends on who you are talking to. If King feels it's important to him that his series, his Great Work, be consistent then it's important for him and I can see why. I think he explained himself very well in the introduction to the revised edition as to why it was important for him to revise it and I respect his choice and agree with it.

I am talking to, from, and on behalf of, a reader. I do not care a flying f**k about what an author intended, wanted, or endeavored to do - only what he actually did.

[pathoftheturtle]

Is consistency really so important in literature, anyway?

No.

For me it depends on who you are talking to. If King feels it's important to him that his series, his Great Work, be consistent then it's important for him and I can see why. I think he explained himself very well in the introduction to the revised edition as to why it was important for him to revise it and I respect his choice and agree with it.

Yes, I've read that introduction at least a dozen times, and I think he did explain why it was important for him very well -- he wanted to sell more books.

[fernandito]

...Yes, I've read that introduction at least a dozen times, and I think he did explain why it was important for him very well -- he wanted to sell more books.

Cynical ... but yes, I'd have to agree.

[Merlin1958]

Boy, tough crowd!!! LOL

[Wuducynn]

Is consistency really so important in literature, anyway?

No.

For me it depends on who you are talking to. If King feels it's important to him that his series, his Great Work, be consistent then it's important for him and I can see why. I think he explained himself very well in the introduction to the revised edition as to why it was important for him to revise it and I respect his choice and agree with it.

I am talking to, from, and on behalf of, a reader. I do not care a flying f**k about what an author intended, wanted, or endeavored to do - only what he actually did.

Well it's good you don't give a flying fuck. Because I don't give a stationary, earth-bound fuck about you not giving a fuck. So we're not giving a fuck together.

[Wuducynn]

I gotta go with the Author's choice and say the Revised edition. It is, ultimately, the story he wanted to tell after all.

Exactly.

[pathoftheturtle]

It is, ultimately, the story he wanted to tell after all.

That old ka-mai? Don't make me laugh.

But, look, my position hasn't changed: I'm glad that both versions exist. I can talk about my personal preferences, but I don't really understand the hypothetical "If you HAD to choose." Why would you have to? It's not like we've ever found it necessary on any forum to settle as a whole group on a single interpretation of the purpose of the series or of the truth of any particular point.

[Jean]

Well it's good you don't give a flying fuck. Because I don't give a stationary, earth-bound fuck about you not giving a fuck. So we're not giving a fuck together.

If you wonder who gave you a rep point for this post, it was me. Nice to see you back. Nice to hear you talk, too. Nothing like a good old Mattqhew at his most usual.