Gunslingers - discussion of their roles, social positions and functions

[pathoftheturtle]

...simply yelling "fire" might not be the best way to get people out of the theatre. ...

Yes, it might not be. What I'd like to do now is to move past the metaphor and consider whether there really IS a better way to run a society in Mid-World than the one they managed.

I'm afraid that I may not be making my point very well; I'll have to give it some more thought. I've been thinking about Desperation and the moral order of the universe in King's works. Given his powers-that-be, is it really possible for humans to overcome the ultimate tragedies?

...My problem with the gunslgers is that their whole ideology doesn't leave any place for anything higher than, or different to, their values.

...

Well, that is certainly nothing to take lightly. As I said earlier, I'm definitely of two minds about their attitude. Definitely not trying to brush off your concerns here, my friend.

Another loose end from before:

Their rules are to uphold justice. This is where they are most similar to Jedi.

Their weapons may be different, but the way they use them is similar. With the exception, of course, that gunslingers can attack, while Jedi are never supposed to initiate combat.

Good point and one that we shouldn't lose sight of. ...

Agreed. And yet, ironically, the whole point of the Star Wars saga, between discoveries of Luke's and of Qui-Gon Jinn's, appears to be about the shortcomings of dispassion in the Jedi philosophy. Obviously, the evil of the Sith also failed, in the long run. Still, in the SW universe, a whole new approach had to be developed.

[jayson]

What I'd like to do now is to move past the metaphor and consider whether there really IS a better way to run a society in Mid-World than the one they managed.

Whether or not it would work somewhere like Gilead is rife for speculation, but democracy seemed to work out all right for the Calla folken so it's not out of the realm of possibility.

[Darkthoughts]

Merged as discussed

[pathoftheturtle]

What I'd like to do now is to move past the metaphor and consider whether there really IS a better way to run a society in Mid-World than the one they managed.

Whether or not it would work somewhere like Gilead is rife for speculation, but democracy seemed to work out all right for the Calla folken so it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Except for the Wolves, that is.
That's just my point: we've got numerous examples from King of what it takes to overcome a supernatural crisis, (Desperation, It, Cycle of the Werewolf, etc.) and that seems (to me, at least) to be what the gunslinger's "ruthlessness" is all about. As for the claim that they extended martial law too far beyond that, I'm unsure. We really do have little to go on.
Mostly, what we know is Roland.

...I do think you've let Roland colour your perception of gunslingers in general. ...

Interesting. One way of looking at the story is that Roland's experiences (or just bad choices) made him into a morally worse person than his forbearers. On the other hand, it could be that they were actually terrible role-models and Roland's choices made him relatively good.

If Steven Deschain had heard about the American model of government, (not democracy, so much, but republicanism: elected representatives) I think that he would have given some reasons why it wouldn't work for them. What I wonder about, though, is whether or not he would have, anyway, shared Roland's wistful admiration for it.

[jayson]

Whether or not it would work somewhere like Gilead is rife for speculation, but democracy seemed to work out all right for the Calla folken so it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Except for the Wolves, that is.

It seems to me democracy worked just fine for them in that situation as well. Tian called a meeting wherein the majority decided they needed to resist the Wolves (their method of resistance being an appeal to Roland's tet for aid and succor). Perhaps the one element of the Calla Bryn Sturgis form of democracy to which I'd object is that it seems to be open only to males. Perhaps after seeing how prominent a role the women of the Calla played in the resistance this will change in their future dealings.

Or perhaps I've just misinterpreted your statement. If that's the case, please clarify because I am enjoying this line of discussion.

[Brice]

I think the old town meeting style of democracy is far superior to what we call democracy today (excluding the whole excluding women thing).

[jayson]

I largely agree with that Brice (which I suspect comes as not much of a surprise to you). It seems to me that the interest of the populace is more accurately represented in small communities than a republican representative system of significantly larger swaths of population.

[mia/susannah]

I agree with Brice and ROG.

[obscurejude]

I largely agree with that Brice (which I suspect comes as not much of a surprise to you). It seems to me that the interest of the populace is more accurately represented in small communities than a republican representative system of significantly larger swaths of population.

Many expiraments in this type of government worked well at the beginning, but it becomes increasingly difficult as the population grows. I think both the Old and New Testaments deal with this in large part, but that would be a post the size of an essay.

I don't know, I suppose its something I'll wrestle with for much of my adult life (until I'm old and sipping vodka in a wicker chair).

In regards to the Dark Tower series, I think it is, in large part, King re-interpreting Childe Roland. Browning was using chronological contrast to comment on his own time (a common method in Victorian poetry). Its an overly romanticized view of the Middle Ages, to indict the the ideological fragmentation that permeates modernity.

[pathoftheturtle]

...please clarify because I am enjoying this line of discussion.

Thanks. Me too.

...the majority decided they needed to resist the Wolves (their method of resistance being an appeal to Roland's tet for aid and succor). ...

An appeal to gunslingers. “Aid and succor” was a part of the culture of Gilead, not of the Callas. Credit where credit’s due, ya ken?

If we're making comparisons, I have to ask what would have happened if the tet hadn't been there. However, maybe there were some Calla-like baronies under the old Affiliation. There seemed to be some room for local independence in Mejis.

The point is that the gunslingers existed to fight evil.

...Its an overly romanticized view of the Middle Ages, to indict the ideological fragmentation that permeates modernity.

Precisely!

[jayson]

An appeal to gunslingers. “Aid and succor” was a part of the culture of Gilead, not of the Callas. Credit where credit’s due, ya ken?

Not initially. Remember that it was Tian Jaffords that called the meeting and requested that the Calla resist the Wolves. It wasn't until Callahan informed them that there were Gunslingers nearby that the means of resistance became specified.

I have to ask what would have happened if the tet hadn't been there.

Had they not been there (or had Callahan not known of and told the Calla folken about their presence) the vote would very likely have gone against Tian. Perhaps he and some others would have waged some form of token resistance like Tian's grandfather did in his day, but they'd not have accomplished much and would likely have all been killed.

Still, it would have been an execution of democracy as the majority would have won out. Sometimes the majority is cowardly. Personally, I'd have rather stood and died than let the Wolves take my children but I suppose that's a different discussion altogether.

[Jean]

On the other hand, it could be that they were actually terrible role-models and Roland's choices made him relatively good.

That's what I am inclined to think - going by how deeply he is impressed by anything that doesn't fit the model he has in his mind, and that which he used to be himself.

I don't know about democracy - anyway, I wasn't thinking in those terms. What I firmly believe is that the monopolarity of their society was deeply wrong, as it is always the case when all virtues belong to one group, and it is the group at power. Strength is their only kind of holiness, virtue, and truth. There's nothing to counterblance it. There's no system of values built on anything else but gunslinging; there's nobody to control those who try control everything - I am talking about popular perception now more than social institutes. Where would Socrates, Francis of Assisi or Mahatma Gandhi be in Gilead? Unknown at best, but normally, I'm afraid, outlawed and eradicated*. The power and the truth cannot reside with the same group if we want a society to be viable; if there's the power of the strong, there must be the truth of the weak.

*Which always made me think that was how Farson evolved. An idea is outlawed, and in clandestinity it naturally degenerates and is usurped by the worst of the worst. That's what brought about the end of Gilead - the unwillingness to accept difference in values and give it legal room inside society. (say hi to Communist regimes)

[obscurejude]

Socrates would be martyred for sure in Gilead. Ghandi ignored. And St. Francis sent west.

Apt insights Jean. I'm going to think about their implications some more.

[Darkthoughts]

I love to hear your point of view whenever it concerns Roland, Jean - you've lived such a different life to most of us here on the board that your input really opens my eyes, to the DT fanatsy and life in general

[jayson]

Yes, the bear's views on Roland always intrigue me as well.

[pathoftheturtle]

"Go ahead, put all of your eggs in one basket... and then watch that basket!
-- Mark Twain

Ahem. In all seriousness, I think that

what brought about the end of Gilead - the unwillingness to accept difference in values and give it legal room inside society.

is a very reasonable theory, in the main. I kind of doubt that it was as absolutely bad in Gilead as all that you've said, but it is quite likely that they weren't as politically advanced as they should have been.

However, I can also understand the vulnerability that might have conversely come from being too liberal. A society with no solid values would certainly have been doomed, as well.
Anyway, it was not only the Red that I was thinking of when I said that it does matter if the myth of an ideology is true. There's also the intrinsic validity of the ideal. In this world, we might agree that your opinion is worth no more than mine, but it'd be a different case if you actually were telepathic.

...Nowhere in history can I find examples of an elite keeping to any noble principles for any historically long time. In the long run, the elite starts pursuing their own interests, which deviate from those of society further and further. ...

Yeah, and it is hard to imagine that it could be otherwise. Wouldn't that be fantastic?

Matt asked us, originally, to speculate on how gunslinging was part of keeping the White on top in All World. Now, I would be the first to agree that establishing whether that was what they were really about is fundamental to the very question, but I would like to inject a suggestion at this point that, in theory at least, their chief defense against corruption was the magic of ka-tet. Having diverse perspectives within their caste, (and bringing them together) was ostensibly vital to them.

Without The Dark Tower, I might never have had any appreciation for such a concept as the dinh, and all that goes with it. Even if that is really no more, on one level, than the same primitive, dictatorial crap, I'm glad to have the insight.
I don't know if I'll be able to fully communicate my whole point of view here in the long run, but I do hope that, if nothing else, that I have not created the impression that I myself would encourage or accept any variety of self-serving bullshit.
I think it's great to analyze fiction and to relate various elements to our own philosophies. That helps us to grow. Nonetheless, the life of a work remains its own gestalt. I think there's still much more about these novels than any of us has yet said.

[pathoftheturtle]

When a gunslinger has a problem for which he cannot find any acceptable solution, he can seek help from his dinh. He is expected to open himself completely, and to follow the dinh's advice absolutely. This is really just patriarchal authoritarianism, but it is one of the most beautiful expressions of it that I've ever read. The formalism involved would make the dinh acutely aware of the weight of his responsibilities.
The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that TDT and The Stand include a lot of escapist fantasy for the disillusioned conservative.

[cozener]

When a gunslinger has a problem for which he cannot find any acceptable solution, he can seek help from his dinh. He is expected to open himself completely, and to follow the dinh's advice absolutely. This is really just patriarchal authoritarianism, but it is one of the most beautiful expressions of it that I've ever read. The formalism involved would make the dinh acutely aware of the weight of his responsibilities.
The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that TDT and The Stand include a lot of escapist fantasy for the disillusioned conservative.

I don't feel that one has to venture into fantasy to see this kind of relationship. You can see this kind of relationship anywhere where there is a hierarchy. If you have respect for your superiors its really quite natural to open yourself up completely and follow their advice to the letter. I have found myself in this situation a couple of times myself; once in the marines and once in the corporate world. I went to my 'dinh' with an open mind and heart seeking his guidance, got it, followed it. I do see the difference. I was not expected to follow the advice I was given. (although in the case of the military it was made pretty clear that if I didn't do what he was suggesting he'd think I was a pussy and in the marines thats pretty much a no choice situation but thats another story)

Gunslingers...are hard to classify. When it comes to their training, both physical and mental, I liken them to the samurai. When it comes to their duties I feel that they more resemble a European knight in that they are all at once warriors, policemen, diplomats, and judges.

Although I don't feel that their training makes them ruthless as much as it strengthens them emotionally. Being emotionally hardened does not necessarily mean that you lose touch with your emotions. It seems to me (and I think I've said something like this before) that people look at Roland and think of him as the typical gunslinger. I don't think he is. I daresay he isn't like most other gunslingers. He is, in some respects, the best of them. But in other ways he might have been one of the worst. I think gunslingers personalities can be as varied as any other group of folks and how ruthless they are is more a matter of personality and even with such long lasting and intense training as they go through some personality traits are impossible to change. Some people are just more compassionate than others. Some people are more affable than others. Some are more empathic than others. And some folks are just straight up fucking meaner than others. Typical gunslingers were guys like Cuthbert, Stephen, Alain. Roland, in a very real way, is something of a monster...but a necessary monster. I mean...only Godzilla could take down Megalon...if y'all get what I'm saying.

Roland could handle diplomatic duties following the standard operational procedure laid out in Cort's How to Be a Gunslinger, chapter 39, subsection 18 but he wouldn't come at it with half the creativity and charm that Cuthbert would. He would never be as empathetic of a judge as Alain would be nor would he ever be the strategist his father was. But if you want someone tracked, if you want a bunch of bad guys dead...if you want a Tower protected...sure, the other three might get the job done but we all know that Roland is your best bet.

[pathoftheturtle]

Oh, yes; to be certain, there are plenty of conservatives who aren't disillusioned with it at all. Maybe someone should tell Sai King that the sixties are over.

I just don't see much real anti-totalitarian subtext in these novels. I still have mixed feelings about the gunslingers, but, if anything, the message seems to be just that all human politics is inherently tragic. It's easy to point to one system or another and show that it is bad... but where is the good? "Do you think that people ever learn?"

The basic political theory of conservatism is that order is often more important than liberty, and isn't that the meaning of "White over Red" ...? I think that SK in RL is a little more uncomfortable with hierarchical relationships, Coz. Yet, on another level, I don't think that he's comfortable without them, either.

Things to keep in mind when considering the design of Gilead and TDT.

[jwill]

Ok this is a little bit of a change from what u guys were talking about before, but does

anyone think that maybe eddie, susannah, and jake could all be from the actual line of eld.

I mean the Arthur from our world the legendary arthur. Or maybe they are the same guy and

he could travel between the worlds. just a thought

[pathoftheturtle]

Its an overly romanticized view of the Middle Ages, to indict the the ideological fragmentation that permeates modernity.

This still seems right on to me.
Isn't it obvious that the fall of Gilead is largely based on the fall of Camelot?
In my mind, John Farson appears to be SK's version of the original Mordred from Arthurian legend. We rarely sympathize with the rebellion of that figure; possibly because Camelot was our supposed past, and we don't expect perfection from a past society. The idea that it was a step forward is enough. TDT hinges on the premise that a civilization not unlike ours has already fallen. Thus, it's harder to accept that only tragedy after tragedy follows.
At best, Farson probably was just a simpleminded anarchist or proto-socialist. We'd like to think that he was backing revolutionary democratic ideas, but these just don't spring up overnight. If all record of our political progress were lost, what are the odds that a single commoner would reinvent it? I think we take too much for granted.

[19eye-rosecrow-gun]

The Gunslingers fell because they could not see deception. They only saw their power.

[RainInSpain]

I keep thinking and thinking about the fall of Gilead, with questions far outweighing the answers.

On the one hand, the gunslingers rule had served the baronies relatively well for, what, a few centuries? Which means that it wasn't all that bad, and it must not only have served the purposes of the ruling class, but also matched the then-current stage of the societal development. Sure, they must have had their share of internal 'opposition', for lack of a better word, but would their government have fallen when it did, had it not been for the outside intervention?

Or, on the other hand, we do not know much about their society as a whole, so perhaps, it was just that the time had come for the political system to change because it became obsolete for the needs of the society, and it would have changed even without the aid of an outside force? (With Farson and his master being just agents of change in this case - and this touches another huge question of whether there is a greater force in their world that's beyond the Crimson King and Gan.)

[a fan]

the gunslinger were the ruling class the poice fore the millitary and the juecial sestum with that amont of control not every one is going to be happy and with flaggs inflwence, the crimsen kings far reaching power, and the decline of the beams the gunslingers had no chance ta servivle nomatter how well the lead or how powerfull thay were in the end it was hunderds of thowtands agenst a few hundered at best it wasnt a far fight and after the battle at jerico hill it was all over

[a fan]

The Gunslingers fell because they could not see deception. They only saw their power.

they saw it but had noway to stop it