roland knows about the breakers?
deathboy
Near the end of wotc when roland is talking to slightman, roland says he
knows what the breakers are and that only one of the beams remains
operational. how does he know this? I dont recall him ever mentioning this
before (except to very generally say the beams were failing). am i just
forgetting? I dont remember the breakers ever being mentioned in any of the
actual dark tower books before and the only time i remember reading that
only one beam remained was in black house. since roland says he doesnt know
who the crimson king is i dont see how he could know about the breakers.
Jason Bodak
I thought there were two Beams left??? Well, anyway, I don't have an
answer for you. When I read this passage, I was also wondering how the
hell Slightman knew about the Breakers????? Why would he know the
reasons behind the Wolves stealing the "babbies"???? I guess Andy the
Robot could've told him, but why would he do that??? Ditto with the so
far unseen Finli 'o Tego.
--Jason Bodak
GaryB
says...
Atlantis called, oddly enough, Hearts in Atlantis
GaryB
Richard Edwards
> The Beambreakers are also mentioned in the first story from Hearts in
> Atlantis called, oddly enough, Hearts in Atlantis
That is odd, since it's called Low Men in Yellow Coats.
Later,
Richard
deathboy
"Jason Bodak" <jbo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6ae7b4e.03111...@posting.google.com...
> "deathboy" <t...@deathboy.com> wrote in message
news:<u8mdnWAiCvr...@comcast.com>...
> > slight spoiler for DTV
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Near the end of wotc when roland is talking to slightman, roland says he
> > knows what the breakers are and that only one of the beams remains
> > operational. how does he know this? I dont recall him ever mentioning
this
> > before (except to very generally say the beams were failing). am i just
> > forgetting? I dont remember the breakers ever being mentioned in any of
the
> > actual dark tower books before and the only time i remember reading that
> > only one beam remained was in black house. since roland says he doesnt
know
> > who the crimson king is i dont see how he could know about the breakers.
>
>
> I thought there were two Beams left???
well theres the beam that runs from the bear portal, through the tower to
the turle portal. i guess you can call that two beams or one, but either way
thats all thats left. besides roland saying it in wotc its also mentioned in
black house.
Well, anyway, I don't have an
> answer for you. When I read this passage, I was also wondering how the
> hell Slightman knew about the Breakers????? Why would he know the
> reasons behind the Wolves stealing the "babbies"???? I guess Andy the
> Robot could've told him, but why would he do that??? Ditto with the so
> far unseen Finli 'o Tego.
yeah they must have told him, though why they would do so is a good
question. maybe he just demanded a little bit of explanantion before
agreeing to help them? and i thought the whole brain food for the breakers
thing was pretty dumb actually. anyway, slightman didnt seem to really
understand what breakers were, so he probably heard but didnt really know
what was going on. roland on the other hand... if he knows about the
breakers why has he never explained it to the ka tet? i hate to sound like a
broken record but i think king goofed again. a much more interesting scene
would have been if roland replied "breakers? what the hell are those?" and
slightman told him what he knew and left roland to puzzle over the rest.
>
> --Jason Bodak
deathboy
oh yeah, and breakers is not listed in the dark tower concordance either.
JT Sports
"Richard Edwards" <ri...@pobox-removethis.com> wrote in message
news:HEbub.125527$sd5.16...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
GaryB
ri...@pobox-removethis.com says...
Jenn Liace
wrote:
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
>>Why would he know the
>> reasons behind the Wolves stealing the "babbies"???? I guess Andy the
>> Robot could've told him, but why would he do that??? Ditto with the so
>> far unseen Finli 'o Tego.
>
>yeah they must have told him, though why they would do so is a good
>question. maybe he just demanded a little bit of explanantion before
>agreeing to help them?
The way I read it was that because Benny Jr. was born a twin, he was
still vulnerable to teh Wolves. And since Ben the Elder had already
lost one child, he'd be more malleable under the promise of protecting
the other - a promise that I'm quite certain would have been broken by
the Wolves had Roland and Company not intervened.
I seem to recall reading that in each generation when the Wolves are
expected, one single pair of twins loses a half from "other causes"
prior to the anticipated arrival, and that Andy has essentially
recruited the parent of that lost twin using the same pressures as he
did on Ben the Elder.
Jenn
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx
deathboy
"Jenn Liace" <sewun...@wedontwantspam.com> wrote in message
news:71ilrv0s5fasi9a7p...@4ax.com...
yes. but none of this explains why andy or whoever would tell the older
slightman about the breakers. but thats not my original question anyway.
jewahe
Maybe the answer just felt right - that seems to be the general answer
to all the knowledge in the Ka-tet.
deathboy
"jewahe" <jew...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:86116603.03111...@posting.google.com...
if roland had nodded agreement to what slightman told him i'd say yes, but
roland adds more info to what slightman says, how does he have this info?
deathboy
"jewahe" <jew...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:86116603.03111...@posting.google.com...
for reference here is exactly what I am talking abiut--
slightman is speaking a lot of dialogue and ends with
"And I don't even know what it is they've been set to break!"
"The two beams that still hold the Tower." Roland said.
so first off theres the discrepency that in black house parkus says 1 beam
remains, though as each beam connects to 2 portals you can also call it 2
beams i guess. but the real question is that roland seems to know of the
crimson king's plans concerning breakers. if roland doesnt even know who the
crimson king is (he seems to know very little about any of CK's doings) then
how does he know about using breakers to destroy the beams? Its quite
possible this is knowledge that hes always had, but if he did why has he
never told the ka tet about it? I dont recall breakers ever being mentioned
in any of the actual DT books and the concordance has no entry for it.
then the last question is, why does slightman have this information? theres
no reason for him to have been told so many details of whats going on.
Jason Bodak
I normally like to top post, but there's some heavy spoilers in this
thread. Anyway, I thought Parkus said that one beam had fallen due to
simply natural causes??? I don't know the answers to any of your
questions (in fact, you incorporated my original question from the
beginning of this thread), but one guess is that Roland didn't mention
the Breakers before because Stephen King hadn't created them until he
wrote "Low Men in Yellow Coats"???? Just a theory???
--Jason Bodak
jewahe
You're way too serious and literal. That was sarcasm.
deathboy
Yeah i did work your very excellent point in. i agree with your theory, but
then they should have been worked into the actual DT books a little more
carefully. yeah parkus did say one failed naturally. he also says 2 are
still partially functioning or something and that only one beam still truly
remains intact.
> --Jason Bodak
deathboy
lol sorry. chalk it up to the fact that so many other things really are
explained that way that it almost seems like a reasonable answer.
jewahe
> lol sorry. chalk it up to the fact that so many other things really are
> explained that way that it almost seems like a reasonable answer.
Actually, I agree with you here. There is nothing to reconcile
Roland's knowledge. In this case, either King made a revision to a
previous book that fills in the gap, or he absolutely made a mistake.
Intuition and Khef has begun to wear a bit thin as an answer.
Aaron Sanders
I agree that how Slightman knows all that he knows doesn't quite make
sense.
However, "broken" may be the term for the beams when they fail. That
being said, Slightman describes the breaker's abilities, calling them
"telepaths and psychokinetics." I think Roland just put two and two
together, because the only answer he provides in that entire
conversation is what the breakers are breaking. And, is it not
possible that he is only guessing when he says that? We know it's
true, but maybe he only suspects?
-Aaron
deathboy
"Aaron Sanders" <aaro...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:42fd1f6a.03112...@posting.google.com...
> jew...@yahoo.com (jewahe) wrote in message
news:<86116603.0311...@posting.google.com>...
> > "deathboy" <t...@deathboy.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > lol sorry. chalk it up to the fact that so many other things really
are
> > > explained that way that it almost seems like a reasonable answer.
> >
> > Actually, I agree with you here. There is nothing to reconcile
> > Roland's knowledge. In this case, either King made a revision to a
> > previous book that fills in the gap, or he absolutely made a mistake.
> > Intuition and Khef has begun to wear a bit thin as an answer.
>
> I agree that how Slightman knows all that he knows doesn't quite make
> sense.
>
> However, "broken" may be the term for the beams when they fail. That
> being said, Slightman describes the breaker's abilities, calling them
> "telepaths and psychokinetics."
do you think roland knows what these words mean? slightman sure doesnt.
I think Roland just put two and two
> together, because the only answer he provides in that entire
> conversation is what the breakers are breaking. And, is it not
> possible that he is only guessing when he says that? We know it's
> true, but maybe he only suspects?
possible, but he states pretty cleanly as though he were stating a fact that
hes known for quite sometime, not something speculative that he just put
together.
>
> -Aaron
jewahe
> "Aaron Sanders" <aaro...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:42fd1f6a.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > jew...@yahoo.com (jewahe) wrote in message
> news:<86116603.0311...@posting.google.com>...
> > > "deathboy" <t...@deathboy.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > lol sorry. chalk it up to the fact that so many other things really
> are
> > > > explained that way that it almost seems like a reasonable answer.
> > >
> > > Actually, I agree with you here. There is nothing to reconcile
> > > Roland's knowledge. In this case, either King made a revision to a
> > > previous book that fills in the gap, or he absolutely made a mistake.
> > > Intuition and Khef has begun to wear a bit thin as an answer.
> >
> > I agree that how Slightman knows all that he knows doesn't quite make
> > sense.
> >
> > However, "broken" may be the term for the beams when they fail. That
> > being said, Slightman describes the breaker's abilities, calling them
> > "telepaths and psychokinetics."
>
> do you think roland knows what these words mean? slightman sure doesnt.
Why not? Roland had access to a relatively good education. And he has
retained a lot of knowledge that would probably surprise his father
and teachers, most of whom considered him "slow" (as has been said
several times). At least, that's the sense I've always gotten as
people called him "unimaginative."
>
> I think Roland just put two and two
> > together, because the only answer he provides in that entire
> > conversation is what the breakers are breaking. And, is it not
> > possible that he is only guessing when he says that? We know it's
> > true, but maybe he only suspects?
>
> possible, but he states pretty cleanly as though he were stating a fact that
> hes known for quite sometime, not something speculative that he just put
> together.
I agree. It was just too jarring a revelation, and completely
inconsistent with anything Roland's said before.
> >
> > -Aaron
deathboy
my question whether or not roland knows what telepaths are is more of
translation than of actual knowledge. i have my doubts that he would know
that word. hence, i dont think slightman telling him the breakers are
telepaths really explains anything to roland, which is what the other poster
is saying. roland could certainly know of such people, but my thinking is
its probably very likely he knows them by a different word.
Aaron Sanders
I can't agree or disagree with that...you have a good point. We don't
know if he would use the same word or not, because, as you said,
Stephen King never wrote of Roland talking about the breakers before.
However, jewahe said just previous to this post that SK has never
written about Roland knowing of the breakers before, as did you, but
(although this may not count in your mind, because it could be a
work-around) he did: on page 115 of the trade edition, Roland
speculates that these "wolves" may be... "Beam-breakers, if you ken."
So, he may have indeed just been guessing when Slightman was talking,
but somehow he does have this knowledge. I thought knowledge of the CK
breaking the beams was common in Gilead, was it not?
-Aaron
deathboy
wow i must have missed that first reference, i'll have to check it out. how
can we know if knowledge of the beam breakers was common in gilead when
rbeakers were never mentioned before in any of the actual DT books? also as
far as CK goes, roland has said several times in various places that he
doesnt know who the crimson king is. in fact this is one of the many
inconsistencies generated by the revised gunslinger. in that roland hears of
the crimson king a couple of times (which he didnt in the original) but in
W&G when the ka tet sees the "all hail the crimson king" graffitti, roland
says he does not know who the crimson king is. if the crimson king and the
breakers was common knowledge he would have explained it to the ka tet at
that point wouldnt you say? once again i'm sorry but i have to say king is
being very sloppy, and his research assistant isnt doing too great a job
either apparently. now dont get me wrong, i really like DTV in spite of
this, but the whole messiness of this isnt very reassuring for the next 2
books or for what will become of the series when looked at as a completed
whole.
jewahe
> wow i must have missed that first reference, i'll have to check it out. how
> can we know if knowledge of the beam breakers was common in gilead when
> rbeakers were never mentioned before in any of the actual DT books? also as
> far as CK goes, roland has said several times in various places that he
> doesnt know who the crimson king is.
It actually goes deeper than that - Roland, several times in the book,
has made reference to fixing whatever is wrong at the Dark Tower.
Never once has there been a hint about what is wrong there (only when
we finally got around to Hearts in Atlantis and Black House did
breakers even get mentioned), except in two cases:
1. When Jake sees the Rose in The Waste Lands, he gets the sense that
there is a dual heart beat, and understands that there is something
like an infection.
2. There are several references that blame the fact that Roland's
world is moving on to some failing at the Dark Tower.
But not once is the nature of the failing, or the nature of the
infection, explained. Here, all of a sudden, Roland knows exactly why
the Tower is failing, and who is responsible for it.
Of course, in the Revised Gunslinger, Roland is presented with more
evidence, so he could put things together fairly easily.
But it more jarring here - a huge leap from speculation to certainty.
Aaron Sanders
> > >
> >
I see exactly where you're coming from on that last comment. As to the
breakers not being mentioned before, it is true SK *should* have done
so if Roland had the knowledge, but I don't fault him for it. There is
much Roland knows that we do not, yet. That being said, I think SK is
making this knowledge up because he realized Roland needed to have it
when Slightman spoke of it. He certainly *would* have explained it to
his katet by now, but he still could have done it offscreen. I mean,
they don't show any indication of *not* knowing what he's talking
about in the next reference I make here (page 193). Maybe he *did*
talk to them about it. It would have been nice to have been included
in that palaver....
Here's another reference to the breaking of the beams for you: page
193, when they're looking at the rose. Roland mentions that they must
protect the land and the rose "until the Beams are reestablished…." I
think that it is quite reasonable to think that Roland may have
encountered no Beam where there was supposed to be a beam in his
travels. Furthermore, cities that lived near a Beam (such as that
small town and Lud) may have noticed when a Beam was broken and the
story was passed on (perhaps to Gilead). So, it is quite possible that
what was being done to the beams could have been known to gunslingers,
whose purpose is to protect the Tower.
On a side note, on page 192 it mentions the rescuing of a boy (Jake)
from a monster whose entire head seems to be made up of one eye (the
CK?) by four men (I can think of Roland, Eddie, and Father Callahan).
Any speculation on this? The fourth man may be Patrick Danville…. Hmm.
-Aaron
deathboy
> think that it is quite reasonable to think that Roland may have
> encountered no Beam where there was supposed to be a beam in his
> travels. Furthermore, cities that lived near a Beam (such as that
> small town and Lud) may have noticed when a Beam was broken and the
> story was passed on (perhaps to Gilead). So, it is quite possible that
> what was being done to the beams could have been known to gunslingers,
> whose purpose is to protect the Tower.
this one I can explain. Roland has always said the beams are failing or
something vague to that effect. the fact that he has said this but didnt
specifically speak of the breakers if he had such knowledge is part of the
disparity. basically if roland ahs just always known about the breakers then
he for some reason intentionally chose not to tell the ka tet about them
when he explained the beams to them in the wastelands and told them that the
beams are failing.
>
> On a side note, on page 192 it mentions the rescuing of a boy (Jake)
> from a monster whose entire head seems to be made up of one eye (the
> CK?) by four men (I can think of Roland, Eddie, and Father Callahan).
> Any speculation on this? The fourth man may be Patrick Danville.. Hmm.
>
> -Aaron
i have no idea what this reference means, and also i dont think theres
anything there to conclusively say that the boy is jake. what makes you say
that it is? or for that matter that the people rescuing him are characters
we know even.
by the way, i did go back and look at the other beam reference you
mentioned, the one on page 115 when roland says "beam breakers, if you ken"
that quote is even bothersome. first off it shows roland for some reason
concluding the wolves are beam breakers. is "beam breaker" now some kind of
slang term for any evil entity? it would make sense iof it were, but again
why has this never been mentioned before? secondly, the ka tets reaction or
lack there of shows that they know what hes talking about, again something
that hasnt been established.
and again theres the whole issue of reconcilingn roland's knowledge of the
beam reakers (if we assume he just has always know and it was discussed "off
camera") with his lack of knowledge of the crimson king.
Aaron Sanders
You speak true, say thankya. I jumped too far in my concluding. He did
already mention the "beam-breakers" before this comment, though.
>
> >
> > On a side note, on page 192 it mentions the rescuing of a boy (Jake)
> > from a monster whose entire head seems to be made up of one eye (the
> > CK?) by four men (I can think of Roland, Eddie, and Father Callahan).
> > Any speculation on this? The fourth man may be Patrick Danville.. Hmm.
> >
> > -Aaron
>
> i have no idea what this reference means, and also i dont think theres
> anything there to conclusively say that the boy is jake. what makes you say
> that it is? or for that matter that the people rescuing him are characters
> we know even.
>
I'm not saying for sure. I'm guessing. I thought we all liked to
speculate on what's to come.
> by the way, i did go back and look at the other beam reference you
> mentioned, the one on page 115 when roland says "beam breakers, if you ken"
> that quote is even bothersome. first off it shows roland for some reason
> concluding the wolves are beam breakers. is "beam breaker" now some kind of
> slang term for any evil entity? it would make sense iof it were, but again
> why has this never been mentioned before? secondly, the ka tets reaction or
> lack there of shows that they know what hes talking about, again something
> that hasnt been established.
>
True. I suppose you think SK forgot he never had the katet discuss
beam breaking in any of the books. I think he just doesn't think it
matters to us if they did or not (wrong, and a sign of some sloppy
writing, I agree). He expects that we will all know what breakers do,
and on the whole, he is right. Everyone complains about how wordy his
writing has become, and now we want to complain about him not writing
enough? I do admit, however, that the breakers are a cool subject.
However, if we all know about it, why bother?
> and again theres the whole issue of reconcilingn roland's knowledge of the
> beam reakers (if we assume he just has always know and it was discussed "off
> camera") with his lack of knowledge of the crimson king.
So he didn't know who was making them break the beams. So what?
-Aaron
deathboy
ok. i took your first post as stating that the boy was jake and
speculatingly on the other 4 people. i'd speculate too but i'm totally
clueless with ragrds to this so i wont bother.
>
> > by the way, i did go back and look at the other beam reference you
> > mentioned, the one on page 115 when roland says "beam breakers, if you
ken"
> > that quote is even bothersome. first off it shows roland for some reason
> > concluding the wolves are beam breakers. is "beam breaker" now some kind
of
> > slang term for any evil entity? it would make sense iof it were, but
again
> > why has this never been mentioned before? secondly, the ka tets reaction
or
> > lack there of shows that they know what hes talking about, again
something
> > that hasnt been established.
> >
>
> True. I suppose you think SK forgot he never had the katet discuss
> beam breaking in any of the books. I think he just doesn't think it
> matters to us if they did or not (wrong, and a sign of some sloppy
> writing, I agree). He expects that we will all know what breakers do,
> and on the whole, he is right. Everyone complains about how wordy his
> writing has become, and now we want to complain about him not writing
> enough? I do admit, however, that the breakers are a cool subject.
> However, if we all know about it, why bother?
i dont know which it is, but either way what its about is basically king
folding things into the story without actually writing them into the story.
the breakers have become part of DT canon since W&G so he just speaks of
them as if theyve always been there. same thing with 19. i mean the way the
series stands now you have the first book babbling incessantly about 19,
then you have 3 books where its nveer mentioned and then back to book 5
where everything is 19 all of a sudden again.
the passage of time is also problematic and effected by this, other people
have pointed this out in regards to sussanah's pregnancy. if we look at the
books and put them together, its been a few weeks since the encounter with
the demon but she speaks of regularly getting her period which implies
months have come and gone. basically what i think here is that since so many
years have passed between the actually writing of the story king is just
writing it as if alot of time has passed in the story, which it hasnt.
>
> > and again theres the whole issue of reconcilingn roland's knowledge of
the
> > beam reakers (if we assume he just has always know and it was discussed
"off
> > camera") with his lack of knowledge of the crimson king.
>
> So he didn't know who was making them break the beams. So what?
sure that can work as an explanation, but do i think king has intended that?
no. i could be wrong and am admitting it so lets not even argue over it.
>
> -Aaron
jewahe
> protect the land and the rose "until the Beams are reestablished?." I
> think that it is quite reasonable to think that Roland may have
> encountered no Beam where there was supposed to be a beam in his
> travels. Furthermore, cities that lived near a Beam (such as that
But there is a problem with that, too...In the Revised Gunslinger,
Roland was following a Beam (at least, it was suggested that he was).
It seem convenient that he found the only two beams still working, and
knew they were the only two beams still working.
Bev Vincent
Roland wasn't following a beam -- he was following Walter. Walter may have
been following a beam or he may just have been under its influence. In any
case, they weren't on the path of the Beam, they were just near it and going
parallel to it: southeast. Once the ka-tet finds the Beam, it's also heading
southeast and it's not possible to have two beams going in the same
direction given their geometry, intersecting at the Tower. Therefore, I
conclude that Roland and Walter were influenced by the same Beam Roland
ultimately finds. It's only about 60 miles away, after all, if you do the
math.
--
Bev Vincent
www.BevVincent.com
The Road to the Dark Tower, coming from NAL, November 2004
deathboy
oh god i am not getting into THAT mess again.
but i will say that prior to WOTC has roland ever mentioned knowing only 1
(or 2) beams were still working. i dont recall ever hearing that until black
house. finding the one remaining oen you probably have to chalk up to ka.
either that or it explains why hes been wondering the desert for decades.
Amanita, Private Dancer
muttered:
> As to the
> breakers not being mentioned before, it is true SK *should* have done
> so if Roland had the knowledge, but I don't fault him for it. There is
> much Roland knows that we do not, yet. That being said, I think SK is
> making this knowledge up because he realized Roland needed to have it
> when Slightman spoke of it.
It's things like this that make it clear, to me at least, that King didn't
write all of the series at once as someone suggested earlier. If he had,
much would have been fresh on his mind and such slippages would never have
occurred.
--
btw...FUCK
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SSDD
same shit, different day
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aaron Sanders
> >
> > True. I suppose you think SK forgot he never had the katet discuss
> > beam breaking in any of the books. I think he just doesn't think it
> > matters to us if they did or not (wrong, and a sign of some sloppy
> > writing, I agree). He expects that we will all know what breakers do,
> > and on the whole, he is right. Everyone complains about how wordy his
> > writing has become, and now we want to complain about him not writing
> > enough? I do admit, however, that the breakers are a cool subject.
> > However, if we all know about it, why bother?
>
> i dont know which it is, but either way what its about is basically king
> folding things into the story without actually writing them into the story.
> the breakers have become part of DT canon since W&G so he just speaks of
> them as if theyve always been there. same thing with 19. i mean the way the
> series stands now you have the first book babbling incessantly about 19,
> then you have 3 books where its nveer mentioned and then back to book 5
> where everything is 19 all of a sudden again.
>
I'm assuming that this will be remedied in the revisions, and remember
that 19 came in to play in the *revised* gunslinger only. Also, I
don't think it was mentioned enough to be called "babbling
incessantly." I think it was held back from the reader at first, IIRC,
sort of like the secret about the wolves.
> the passage of time is also problematic and effected by this, other people
> have pointed this out in regards to sussanah's pregnancy. if we look at the
> books and put them together, its been a few weeks since the encounter with
> the demon but she speaks of regularly getting her period which implies
> months have come and gone. basically what i think here is that since so many
> years have passed between the actually writing of the story king is just
> writing it as if alot of time has passed in the story, which it hasnt.
>
You may be right on this, however I didn't catch it so I must ask: how
did you come up with your timeline for the passage of time from the
end of W&G through the party being tailed by the Calla folk?
> >
> > > and again theres the whole issue of reconcilingn roland's knowledge of
> the
> > > beam reakers (if we assume he just has always know and it was discussed
> "off
> > > camera") with his lack of knowledge of the crimson king.
> >
> > So he didn't know who was making them break the beams. So what?
>
> sure that can work as an explanation, but do i think king has intended that?
> no. i could be wrong and am admitting it so lets not even argue over it.
>
Ok. I'd just like to add that it's not a matter of him intending it or
not. It's simply the fact that Roland didn't have to know about the CK
to know the beams were breaking down.
-Aaron
deathboy
page 38-
"They might have been back on the path of beam five or six weeks..."
if you add the time from the encounter with the demon until the
confrontation with flagg you get what? maybe 8 or 10 weeks total (thats
being generous i think)?
but then, if you go later on to page 246 when eddie and roland are
discussing sussanah, eddie says-
"If she caught pregnant when we pulled Jake through-while she was keeping
the demon of the circle occuppied- thats got to be four months at least, and
probably five. even allowing for the way time slips around now, its gotta
be."
so if it is 6 weeks from the time they left flagg outside topeka until they
met the folk from the calla. then maybe its two more weeks lets say until
this conversation between roland and eddie, lud and blaine and all that
happened in a day or two, that means from the time of the encounter with the
demon until they reached lud would had to have been about 10 weeks at least
in order to reach a total of about 4-5 months. now i havent read the
wastelands in a little over a year but i dont think the text bears that out.
in fact i think its more like 10 days at most.
Doug Cunningly
news:42fd1f6a.03120...@posting.google.com:
>> the passage of time is also problematic and effected by this, other
>> people have pointed this out in regards to sussanah's pregnancy. if
>> we look at the books and put them together, its been a few weeks
>> since the encounter with the demon but she speaks of regularly
>> getting her period which implies months have come and gone. basically
>> what i think here is that since so many years have passed between the
>> actually writing of the story king is just writing it as if alot of
>> time has passed in the story, which it hasnt.
I got the impression that it wasn't her period, but some internal body
adjustment to the foreign being, and she was pregnant all along.... Doug
bender2606
>>
>
> I'm assuming that this will be remedied in the revisions, and remember
> that 19 came in to play in the *revised* gunslinger only. Also, I
So there's gonna be revised editions of DT 2,3 & 4???
Any dates announced?
Bev Vincent
"bender2606" <bende...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.03....@hotmail.com...
King talked vaguely about possibly revising these books some day. I don't
think Amazon's ready to take orders quite yet!
deathboy
"Doug Cunningly" <Lo...@valhalla.org> wrote in message
news:cxozb.2560$Qd6...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
sussanah uses that shes still getting her period as rationalization for not
being pregnant, so whatever it is its happeneing roughly every 4 weeks and
i'm talking about the passage of time, whether its literally her period
thats happeneing or something else i wholly irrelevant. whatever it is must
be happening in close to the same time frame as her menstrual cycle or else
thered be some further comment on it and what she believes it to mean.
thanks anyway.
Matt Smith
"deathboy" <t...@deathboy.com> wrote in message
news:Zc2dnSBJiY9...@comcast.com...
---------------
she still could have gotten her period once, that would be enough to satisfy
her not preg. theory
M@
deathboy
"Matt Smith" <matt...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:Fwszb.4073$oe4.1...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
did you read my quote from the book where eddie tells roland its been 4 or 5
months at least?
i couldnt find the exact quotes, but i also remember sussanah speaking of it
as though shes gotten her period regularly over a length of time. if we were
really just talking about a 7 or 8 week window it'd be possible to have
gotten it once and still be pregnant, depending on how it fell.
Aaron Sanders
>
> page 38-
>
> "They might have been back on the path of beam five or six weeks..."
>
> if you add the time from the encounter with the demon until the
> confrontation with flagg you get what? maybe 8 or 10 weeks total (thats
> being generous i think)?
>
> but then, if you go later on to page 246 when eddie and roland are
> discussing sussanah, eddie says-
>
> "If she caught pregnant when we pulled Jake through-while she was keeping
> the demon of the circle occuppied- thats got to be four months at least, and
> probably five. even allowing for the way time slips around now, its gotta
> be."
>
> so if it is 6 weeks from the time they left flagg outside topeka until they
> met the folk from the calla. then maybe its two more weeks lets say until
> this conversation between roland and eddie, lud and blaine and all that
> happened in a day or two, that means from the time of the encounter with the
> demon until they reached lud would had to have been about 10 weeks at least
> in order to reach a total of about 4-5 months. now i havent read the
> wastelands in a little over a year but i dont think the text bears that out.
> in fact i think its more like 10 days at most.
>
>
I'm not sure about Wastelands; I would have to check as well. I agree
Eddie's comment about how long it's been seems like a goof, too.
-Aaron
Matt Smith
"deathboy" <t...@deathboy.com> wrote in message
news:862dnZ-xx6o...@comcast.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
CHAPTER 1,"The Face On The Water"
"Roland had told them that even such basic things as the points of the
compass could no longer be trusted in Mid-World;...There were days Eddie
could have sworn were forty hours long, some of them followed by nights
(like the one which Roland had taken them to Mejis) that seemed even longer.
Then there would come an afternoon when it seemed you could almost see
darkness bloom as night rushed over the horizon to meet you. Eddie wondered
if time had gotten lost..."
Face it they don't know how much time has passed. !0 days, 10 weeks, or 4
or 5 months. Susannah is impregnated by a demon, in a world like this, she
could have had a period every week. It's not any harder to believe than
believing a ball called "Black 13" could take them to New York, or a giant
bear is guarding the portal of the beam; or even a rose needs to be
protected in a vacant lot in the middle of a big city.
M@
deathboy
yes, BUT if you read the quote from eddie i took from later in the book,
eddie specifically says that even with the wird way time has been acting it
had to ahve been that long. king is making a point of here of saying that
the weird slippage of time is **NOT** a factor in this case, he is doing so
because it serves him one sense but he doesnt realize the conflict it
creates in another.
as for what you say about it not being any less beleivable than the other
points of this fantasy story, what you say is true, but ask yourself which
ones of these things are actual parts of the story and which ones are just
cover ups for goofs? kign could ahve amde it be as long as he wanted, hes
writing the story after all. all he ahd to do was go back, re read the
wastelands to get a feel for how much time passed and correctly write the
necessary amount of time into the opening of wotc. where it says 5 or 6
weeks it could have said anything king wanted it to say, the point is he
arbitrarily chose 5 or 6 weeks instead of analyzing how much time needed to
have passed. then people like you read the booka nd either pay as much
attention as king does or if you do even notice it you shrug and go "oh its
fantasy, so there must be some magical explanation" the explanation is king
just didnt think about what he needed to write in order to make the thing
make sense. theres little reason why "they had been on the road 5 or 6
weeks" couldnt have been "they had been on the road 2 or 3 months". king was
careless.
>
>
Matt Smith
"deathboy" <t...@deathboy.com> wrote in message
news:H9KdnRutO-r...@comcast.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's your quote from the book in an earlier part of this thread...
[but then, if you go later on to page 246 when eddie and roland are
discussing sussanah, eddie says-
"If she caught pregnant when we pulled Jake through-while she was keeping
the demon of the circle occuppied- thats got to be four months at least, and
probably five. even allowing for the way time slips around now, its gotta
be."]
Eddie sure doesn't sound that sure of himself. Sounds like he's trying to
convince himself and Roland. They don't know how long it's been.
M@
deathboy
time, how long do YOU think it has been?
>
>
Matt Smith
MINOR SPOILERS....
"deathboy" <t...@deathboy.com> wrote in message
news:9JednX9xP_T...@comcast.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
I never really thought about it but I guess I go with the 8 to 10 weeks
theroy. To me it's not that important, I'm just a dull person who reads and
enjoy the book. I don't try to dissect it to death. If I did that I would
worry about why Roland and Co. show up at the same time the "wolves" are due
to come, why are they "sneeches" instead of the other balls(I can't remember
their name) that actually fly around to knock off players-"sneeches" just
fly around trying not to get caught, why Roland shows up in Mejis right
after Susan has been promised to Thorin, why does Clark love Lana when Cloie
seems so much more fun.
M@
deathboy
you're still not appreciating that theres a difference between things that
have to happen to move the story forward and things that are abitrary, as i
said before king wrote "5 or 6 weeks" when he could have written any amount
of time he wanted, he just didnt put the thought into what he was doing.
deathboy
oh and if you want to say it just doesnt matter thats fine and you're
probably right, but then why are we having this discussion?
>
>
Matt Smith
"deathboy" <t...@deathboy.com> wrote in message
news:2NOdnSZwm-L...@comcast.com...
-----------------------------------------------
right King could have said any time because Eddie doesn't really know he is
just trying to make himself and Roland believe it has been that time..."it's
gotta be..."
>oh and if you want to say it just doesnt matter thats fine and you're
>probably right, but then why are we having this discussion?
I was just pointing out what I saw.
M@
deathboy
but when king speaks as the narrator he is omniscient, so he really does
know how long its been and HE said 5 or 6 weeks, not eddie or roland.
Matt Smith
"deathboy" <t...@deathboy.com> wrote in message
news:AeadnZ6iv5M...@comcast.com...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
the narrator didn't say it Eddie did
M@
deathboy
page 38-
"They might have been back on the path of beam five or six weeks..."
this is the narrator speaking, not eddie. if this line says "they might have
been back on the path of the beam 2 or 3 months" then we wouldnt be having
this discussion.
Matt Smith
"deathboy" <t...@deathboy.com> wrote in message
news:frWdnYEMKpA...@comcast.com...
------------------------------------------------------------
Right page 38---"They might have been back..."narrator
page 246---"...four or five months...it's gotta be." Eddie. Eddie has no
clue. The narrator does.
M@
deathboy
but what eddie says makes more sense than what the narrator says. if there
is an error its the narrators line about it being 5 or 6 weeks.
but that aside, the idea that "anything goes" because its fantasy doesnt
seem kind of cheap to you? it does to me.
Bluephlegm
I think we still are forgetting that "time" ever since Roland was
tracking across the desert hasn't been quite right.... whose to say
Eddie is totally correct? Also we are led to believe at this point
that it more than likely is not human and no one knows the gestation
period of this thing.... I'll stick to my feelings that "time" is
really beyond our ka-tets comprehension currently.... (after all
Roland is 130 something? and doesn't look a day over 40!!!)
BTW I think that the "four men rescue a little boy from a monster
whose entire head seems to consist of a single eye" is reference to
Black House and the boy of that story not Jake....
oh also BTW and is it me or is every single character I run into while
reading this making you want to check the history of that character in
other books? I mean even the Claudia y Inez Bachman reference on the
Charlie the Choo-Choo is Richard bachmans wife (see "the regulators"
AND it isn't a character in the regulators its in the editor notes!!!)
(I'm just starting to read this so I've skipped a few of the "spoiler"
posts so if things have been answered....sorry!)
Bluephlegm
ald
wrote:
>but what eddie says makes more sense than what the narrator says. if there
>is an error its the narrators line about it being 5 or 6 weeks.
>
>but that aside, the idea that "anything goes" because its fantasy doesnt
>seem kind of cheap to you? it does to me.
Have either of you two ever heard of "snipping"? :-(
--
ald
reply via e-mail to a717 at erols dot com
Aaron Sanders
>
> BTW I think that the "four men rescue a little boy from a monster
> whose entire head seems to consist of a single eye" is reference to
> Black House and the boy of that story not Jake....
>
OMG!
*slaps forehead*
Mr. Malshun! How could I be so *stupid*!
Thank you!
-Aaron
jewahe
> if you piece together the events of the books, even given the weirdness of
> time, how long do YOU think it has been?
I did the math in a previous post. While I didn't look all that
carefully, I found that using Jake's drawing the basis, as Eddie did
in his comment):
-Between Jake's drawing and River Crossing: 4 days (the 4th day
was the day they picked up Oy and had the Palaver at River Crossing)
-Between River crossing and Lud: 9 days (It was the second day
after leaving River Crossing that they had their own Palaver, and
three days after that they encountered the downed plane and had the
discussion that Eddie would later remember on Blaine; the 7th day,
they encountered the bees). Believe it or not, all of the events in
Lud and on Blaine took place on *one* day - the 9th day out from River
Crossing, and the 13th day Jake had been with the band. On that night,
they bunked down on I-70 outside of Topeka.
-Between Topeka and the Castle of Flagg: 2 days (It was night 1
outside Topeka that Roland told his story - the bulk of W&G; On day 2,
they found the shoes)
-Between the castle and waking up on the path of the beam: 1 day
(although this isn't really clear - Eddie does think that "Roland's
world was like a transmission with its gear-teeth all but stripped
away; you never knew when time was going to pop into neutral or race
you away into overdrive). At the beginning of WOTC, he says thinks
they were perhaps 30 miles from the castle - maybe two day's walk.
-Between waking and the meeting with the Calla folken: Time
breaks down here - we know that it's 5 or 6 weeks to the road, but
after
that it's not clear how long, but it seems no longer than a week - and
a few extra days (3 or 4) between that and the discussion between
Eddie and Roland outside of Callahan's.
Just for the sake of rounding, there about three weeks between Jake's
drawing and encounter with Flagg, and perhaps 8 weeks between the
encounter and the discussion - that's *at most* 3 months. Time would
have had to slip terribly to get extra time.
Stephen Gross
> drawing and encounter with Flagg, and perhaps 8 weeks between the
> encounter and the discussion - that's *at most* 3 months. Time would
> have had to slip terribly to get extra time.
I've tried off and on to calculate how long Roland has been pursuing
the Dark Tower... According to DTV, Roland was 25 at the last battle
at Jericho. If he started pursuing Walter then, here's the breakdown I
see: 12 years searching for Walter (as per DTI), which is where the
book series picks up. Adding in all the travel time, plus an unknown
period of time (100 years?) after Roland & Walter's palaver at the end
of DTI, and you've got at least 112 years of searching.
--Steve
Humble Will Teach
Gross) wrote:
Unless I've competely missed the point of this thread, this might
help. Roland himself says he's been questing for the Tower for 1000
years.
--
Just so you know, I'm ashamed the Dixie Chicks are from Texas.