Roland - General discussion

[Matt]

With great power comes great responsibility after all

I'm fine with the dropping Jake thing. But we have to remember that Jake was as different from the Jake through out the story as

Spoiler:

the one at the end

. I think our Jake throughout the story was keystone Jake though.

We can call him "original Jake" if you like.

When that Jake fell, he did not just resurrect in the Jake that Roland saves and then pulls through the door right?

So that begs the question, was Roland pulling from keystone on all three?

That may be off topic and fodder for a new thread I guess.

My point is that Roland did let Jake fall to catch the man in black. Let an innocent boy die for and goal. Again, I'm not saying I don't love him, because I do. But it still doesn't fit the description I have in my head and I really believe Roland himself would say the same.

I wonder what Kings opinion on it would be

[TerribleT]

With great power comes great responsibility after all

I'm fine with the dropping Jake thing. But we have to remember that Jake was as different from the Jake through out the story as

Spoiler:

the one at the end

. I think our Jake throughout the story was keystone Jake though.

We can call him "original Jake" if you like.

When that Jake fell, he did not just resurrect in the Jake that Roland saves and then pulls through the door right?

So that begs the question, was Roland pulling from keystone on all three?

That may be off topic and fodder for a new thread I guess.

My point is that Roland did let Jake fall to catch the man in black. Let an innocent boy die for and goal. Again, I'm not saying I don't love him, because I do. But it still doesn't fit the description I have in my head and I really believe Roland himself would say the same.

Roland agonizes over this right up to the point it happens, and afterward knows that he's sold a bit of his coul in his quest for the Tower. He hates himself for doing it on some levels. This is why I say Roland's quest for the Tower was not so much an adventure that he craved as it was a burden that he bore at great personal cost to himself.

[jayson]

My point is that Roland did let Jake fall to catch the man in black. Let an innocent boy die for and goal.

I think "to catch the man in Black" is selling it short. He did it to catch the man in black so he could reach the Tower. Everything was to reach the Tower. To save Jake's life at the expense of saving existence would be both foolhardy and selfish.

As to the "hero" concept, I try to neglect my personal views of what "hero" is. I am with Brice on that one. In the real world "hero" is subjective and fleeting. Nonetheless, there is a long literary tradition of heroes and Roland meets every last qualification. It all comes down to the same thing every time for me, in the end there WAS a Tower and Roland DOES save it thus saving existence. That's heroism.

[Matt]

I can see that point of view, I just don't subscribe to it. Roland has no way of knowing weather or not saving Jake means loosing the Tower (sure the man in black but not the Tower)

In fact, I'm almost ready to believe that its about saving Jake right then if there ever is an end.

[alinda]

excellent point there Matt.

[TerribleT]

I think "to catch the man in Black" is selling it short. He did it to catch the man in black so he could reach the Tower. Everything was to reach the Tower. To save Jake's life at the expense of saving existence would be both foolhardy and selfish.

Preach it!!!!!!

Roland has no way of knowing weather or not saving Jake means loosing the Tower (sure the man in black but not the Tower)

EVERYTHING, EVERY single scrap of information available to Roland at the point where he must make this decision would lead him to believe that the ONLY way to save/reach the Tower is to drop Jake. There is not a single bit of evidence to suggest otherwise anywhere in anything leading up to it. Every bit of information to this point leads him to believe that his entire purpose in life is to save the Tower, and that he must drop Jake to accomplish this purpose. He never had a choice. You can go with the what ifs forever, but there's nothing to suggest any different conclusion. Especially if you disregard the remaining books in the series, because they hadn't been written yet, and at the time when The Gunslinger was written, not even King knew they would be.

[Letti]

TerribleT, why did he have to drop Jake? Would it have been so horrible to lose 2 minutes or less? I could never understand why people say he had no other choice. I know it's off topic but somehow I don't get it.
The problem might be in my mind.

[jayson]

EVERYTHING, EVERY single scrap of information available to Roland at the point where he must make this decision would lead him to believe that the ONLY way to save/reach the Tower is to drop Jake. There is not a single bit of evidence to suggest otherwise anywhere in anything leading up to it. Every bit of information to this point leads him to believe that his entire purpose in life is to save the Tower, and that he must drop Jake to accomplish this purpose. He never had a choice. You can go with the what ifs forever, but there's nothing to suggest any different conclusion. Especially if you disregard the remaining books in the series, because they hadn't been written yet, and at the time when The Gunslinger was written, not even King knew they would be.

Could not have said it better myself T. From the time the oracle on, Roland knows what is to become of Jake under the mountains and we the reader are led to believe that if he loses Walter here the Tower will be out of his reach. It's a lot of fun to take the end of DT-7 and go back and analyze Roland's decision to drop Jake, but at the time both Roland and the reader had no reason to believe dropping Jake wasn't essential.

Also, as I pointed out, he dropped Jake once, he saved him a lot more times than that. By not pushing Jake when he was in Mort, Roland could have jeopardized everything. If Jake didn't die than he wouldn't come to the Way Station and he wouldn't have been available to be dropped and Roland wouldn't have palavered with Walter. Aware of this possible dichotomy, Roland refuses to "kill" Jake by pushing him in front of the car. To me, this act alone made up for dropping him in the first place, but even if it didn't, after he saves him from Lud all debts to Jake are paid as far as I see it. I still don't see Roland's loops as do-overs that he has to get "right" to be released. I see no reason the events are even remotely the same in each loop.

[Matt]

Well, like I said, those two Jakes aren't the same. The one in Dutch Hill and the one he dropped.

However, I'm not saying Roland and the story weren't written to give every indication that Roland had to let Jake fall to catch the man in black.

I'm saying that I don't think that action was written to be heroic, but more out of necessity. And even if it was to save all existence, the act itself was not heroic.

Love you Roland!!

[Letti]

Must heroes always be heroic anyway?

[Matt]

Nope, not to me. But the opposite is true as well.

not all heroism makes heros

[Brice]

To my mind yes, thus noone is a hero.

[Letti]

To my mind yes, thus noone is a hero.

Why? Why do they have to be heroic all the time?
Top models can be very ungly in the morning when they get up. I know it's not the perfect examples but heroes are humans and humans make mistakes and don't behave the same way all the time.
Hero is like a fairy for you? They exist just in tales?

Nope, not to me. But the opposite is true as well.

not all heroism makes heros

Oh yes, I agree.

[alinda]

I realize this is off topic, but come on Letti
you do not believe in fairies ?

[Letti]

I do.
For example here YOU are.

[alinda]

And now back to our topic ......Is Roland a hero ?




*kiss*

[Woofer]

I voted something else because my feelings for Roland are complicated. Ultimately I love him, but every re-read, every time I make the journey to the DT with him, I revisit all my old feelings: love, disappointment, hate, pity, embarassment for him, amazed, and ashamed of him.

I'm one of the freaks who loved the scene in Tull where he guns down the town. That was totally badass! And I didn't hate him for dropping Jake; I was disappointed in him.

[MonteGss]

My vote was amazement.

[stone, rose, unfound door]

Well, I also voted "no". He would have been a hero in any kind of story I guess, but I always feel that a hero should represent what's good, and Roland's got this addiction to the tower which would have made him leave Susan although she was pregnant with his kid (ok, he didn't know it at the time, but he'd have done it anyway) and he kills all these people in Tull at the beginning of the story without ever feeling sorry about them. And there's also the feeling you have about a character and I never felt he was a hero (he was too fascinating)

[Matt]

Straight to the point stone, I like that.

And I totally agree with you

[Darkthoughts]

I voted yes. But I tend to lean more towards Brice's point of view.

I think its (being a hero) a status that can be attained within a certain situation, and in relation to that moment in that situation, you'll always be a hero - but the person you carry on being (ie, yourself) once that moment has passed may or may not ever be heroic again.

For example, a man may be dishonest and generally disliked. He joins the army and is called up to fight in a war. In the war he risks his life to rescue a fallen comrade and is subsequently honoured by the army for being a hero.
Once he goes back to civilian life, he carries on as he was before. He has been a hero, but no-one around him would consider him to be one.

Thats how I see it

Other than that, if you are going to only view heroes as people without flaws, then no-one has ever really been a hero - or ever will be. Even the heroes of history and mythology were often selfish, unlikeable or downright nasty off the battlefield. Hero is not a day to day term, therefore I think exceptions of someones day to day personas should be made when bestowing the title.

[Matt]

Its not that he has flaws to me but I do agree with the rest. He certainly had heroic moments. Nothing can take that away from him.

Maybe heroism is about motivation. Saving Jake from Gasher wasn't about the Tower, it was just about saving Jake.

[Wuducynn]

I voted yes. But I tend to lean more towards Brice's point of view.

I think its (being a hero) a status that can be attained within a certain situation, and in relation to that moment in that situation, you'll always be a hero - but the person you carry on being (ie, yourself) once that moment has passed may or may not ever be heroic again.

For example, a man may be dishonest and generally disliked. He joins the army and is called up to fight in a war. In the war he risks his life to rescue a fallen comrade and is subsequently honoured by the army for being a hero.
Once he goes back to civilian life, he carries on as he was before. He has been a hero, but no-one around him would consider him to be one.

Thats how I see it

Other than that, if you are going to only view heroes as people without flaws, then no-one has ever really been a hero - or ever will be. Even the heroes of history and mythology were often selfish, unlikeable or downright nasty off the battlefield. Hero is not a day to day term, therefore I think exceptions of someones day to day personas should be made when bestowing the title.

I just wanted to say that I totally agree with every word. Very well put Lisa.

[MonteGss]

I voted yes, he is a hero.
I agree with some others who already posted.
All "heroes" have flaws, they all make decisions that aren't the best and that they regret.

[Storyslinger]

What Monte said, a hero with flaws.