Thanks for the advice. I'll definitely have to give the revised version a shot.

Yep, I would go with the revised version too. Stay away from the forewards and introductions and whatnot by King. They pretty much assume you've already read the books, for some reason.

Yes, read the revised over the original. You really have to force yourself through the original the way it is written. It is a very tough read. The new version flows so much better and is more in line with King's other works. As mentioned above though, you should be out of the thread by now so reading any further will ruin the series for you. Ye be warned!




I'm not sure if it was the revised version or the original but I always thought the ending of the entire series was heavily foreshadowed. I had a strong gut feeling about it not being the first time Roland woke up on the beach with no memory and starting this journey. That being said, having assumed it would end the way it did I was fine with it.

Did King specifically state that Roland was sent back in time each time he reached the top of the Tower? That doesn't sound right to me. To me he ended up on a slightly different path/parallel world that is very similar but slightly different since he had a new item beginning his travels. Flagg lived for centuries on multiple planes of existence, who's to say Roland didn't as well? Almost from a St. Agustine good vs. evil perspective. Roland cannot exist without Flagg or the Crimson King and vice versa. So once Flagg & the Crimson King are overthrown Roland is tossed back into a plane/world where they still exist, thus resetting the balance and then he starts his journey anew.

The only thing I really disliked about the entire series was Flagg's demise. It was very anti-climactic for such a seminal character.

You're thinking of the start of the 2nd book. The first book (both original and revised) open with Roland walking in the desert.

In the last few pages of the book, the trip through the door in the Tower is described as Roland being turned back, curved back, and traveling a loop. So time travel is definitely implied, as opposed to multiple worlds (which doesn't make as much sense since in the present, the Tower has been saved for all worlds).

There goes that theory.

I'm currently halfway thru Book 5 and I'm not sure I can get thru 6 and 7 (having read the spoilers and knowing how bad King Fubar'd the ending). Am I cheating myself if I listen to books 6 and 7 on CD?

Also, I heard that JJ Abrams owns the rights to this story... assuming he turns this into a feature film, any chance he changes the ending to avoid the stoning he'd most likely get from those that never read the books?

As long as you listen to an unabridged version, I don't see how you would be cheating yourself. But I consider unabridged audio books the same thing as reading the book. Is that not normal?

They were only important in how Roland saw them, they were bad mostly because of how much they bothered Roland. Roland has always been his worst enemy, a lot of the bad shit is Roland's fault. It's his mess ups and screw ups and obsession with the Tower that allows for the horrors in his life and those around him. So it's fitting how inconsequential they wound up being. It also shouldn't surprise anyone who's ever read King's work. The banality of evil is a large theme in his works.

I strongly disagree. Saying Flagg is only bad because of how he deals with Roland is belittling the character. The man shows up in every other book to ruin the day of all around him. He killed the king in Eyes of the Dragon. He tries to nuke half the survivors in The Stand. He bewitches an entire town so Roland is force to kill them. That guy is just bad to the bone.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/...phy/id/4700610

Strongly agree! A truly defining character in King's most defining work (The Stand).

Again, none of that has to do with Roland or his story. In his story, Flagg is sort of a minor player. Bigger in his own mind than in Roland's life. So he's dealt with by another minor character. Didn't really bother me.

I thought King throwing himself into the novel was crap. Otherwise, I enjoyed most all of it. Including the ending.

Just looking at it from a time standpoint... I can at least get thru a couple of chapters while driving versus my complete lack of time with work and two kids.

That said, I love King's ability to pull me into a story. The backstory for Pere Callaghan was completely engrossing. In the end, it was a bit of a letdown, but the whole time I was on the edge of my seat waiting for the payoff. King does a great job of setting the atmosphere.

When Flagg shows up at the end of The Wastelands, that's not the introduction of a minor character. That's King promising readers, "This is going to be BIG." I know it sent a chill through me the first time I read the scene. If it's a minor character, why use Flagg?

And making him Marten, the central antagonist of both Roland and his father in Gilead, further raises him above the level of minor player.

King also revised The Gunslinger so that Flagg is also the Man in Black.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dar...panded_edition

I finally finished the 7th book over the weekend. Having gone into the last two books knowing that King wrote himself in, I was prepared for the worst but wasn't totally disappointed in how it played out. I didn't like how King likened himself to God (or Gan) over these characters but it's only a minor gripe.

I agree that the Flagg death was a HUGE letdown -- while the death itself was graphic as hell, the manner in which it was handled was out of left field. To me he played a major role in the novel from the first page of book 1 to book 6. He antagonized Roland his entire life.

I understand JJ Abrams owns the rights to these novels for future movie possibilities... if it's true, I wonder how he'd handle a story as long as this.

My brother and sister-in-law were talking about that very topic over drinks a few weeks ago, Rob. I think the best possible scenario is an HBO mini-series or an up-front commitment for 30 or so episodes over 3 years.

No way any studio would bankroll it the way New Line did with LotR and even if they did, it would still be too rushed to do it any justice.

Either way, there's going to be a lot cut out.

I don't think it would have nearly the hype or "box office" power that LoTR did either. Having never read the LoTR books, I wonder if they had as many letdowns or plot question marks that TDT did (IMO)? With King adding himself to the novels it's not something you can really get away with in a feature film.

I could see a series on HBO, that would probably be the best way to handle it.

That, disappointingly, fell through last year. From wiki:

I'm kinda of surprised at his trepidation considering he rebooted Star Trek and most of King's adaptations to the big or small screen have been mediocre at best. The Stand was epic as a novel but fell flat to me as a TV movie. The Dark Tower would be hell to translate to a movie but I'd love to see him try.

The question is why would King do that? He was fully aware of what he was doing. How could he not be? To me it seems that King was saying Roland has always been his worst enemy, not Flagg, in spite of the antagonism. So it's fitting in many ways that Roland doesn't get to directly kill him (indirectly of course his son does). He still hasn't overcome his own demons, so he can have no bigger enemy. Roland doesn't kill the Crimson King either, but he does kill Mordred who is actually Roland's physical manifestation of his inner demons.

It also implies that Flagg was also his own worst enemy, getting himself killed by underestimating other forces.

Yeah, I really didn't have a problem with the way he handled Flagg. I always kind of thought Flagg was his own worst enemy.