***Possible Spoilers*** Roland opened the door at the top....

[JohnDalglish]

I too felt a little cheated at first, but after thinking about it I decided it follows the wheel. I loved the series, but was sad for it to end.

Hi,

But does it end?

More than any other work in literature DT benefits from multiple re-reads, you'll see something new every time IMO.

Long days and pleasant nights

[wally wonder]

You are missing the point. Roland's failure to save Susan wasn't a conscious choice. He had no intention of sacrificing her. It was simply a failure of judgement and bad luck. In the case of Jake's death (first death) the Gunslinger made an intellectual choice to sacrifice the boy to achieve the goal knowing full well what he was doing and the outcome. He cast aside everything he knew was right and even thought about what would happen (in that split second) if he did stand and be true. There is no shame or damnation in failure as long as one "stands" which is a point Sai King makes in several books, not the least of which is "The Stand" itself.

you are missing my point. roland and susan hiding their love was a conscious choice. by hiding their love, susan was sacrificed to roland's goal. and it is ironic because of how he viewed the relationship between martin and his mother. roland's old man knew "for two years" but that knowledge wasted roland, changed him to the point where that is where he should have been recycled. but he wasn't. he was returned to the desert. so maybe i'm wrong and the next reread will change my mind. but thanks for the reply. nobody has expressed the argument, as you have, and that should help my next take on the tower.

[Robert Gray]

You are comparing apples an oranges. Your point is irrelevant. Young Roland and Susan aren't doing anything "untrue" in being in love, nor in hiding it. Roland isn't choosing to sacrifice Susan. You seem unable to discern the difference between right and wrong on the scale of morals and morays versus good and evil. It would be impossible for me to teach you the difference. It also isn't my place. It suffices to say that "standing and being true" isn't about being a Boy Scout. There is however, a big difference between the mistakes and choosing to sell one's soul. We need look no further than the Gunslinger himself to know the only important right from wrong. He says it to himself time and time again, throughout all of the books.

[wally wonder]

You are comparing apples an oranges. Your point is irrelevant. Young Roland and Susan aren't doing anything "untrue" in being in love, nor in hiding it.

how so?...the comparing part of your post? how does what young roland and susan do differ from what martin and gabriel do?

[Robert Gray]

If you can't see the difference then you are incapable of telling the difference whether I point it out or not.

[JohnDalglish]

how so?...the comparing part of your post? how does what young roland and susan do differ from what martin and gabriel do?

Hi,

One is love and the other is lust.

I think many people's problems stem from being unable to distinguish the fundamental difference between the two.

Long days and pleasant nights

[wally wonder]

If you can't see the difference then you are incapable of telling the difference whether I point it out or not.

no, i asked what you meant, apples oranges, thinking that, one, you might be referring to jake/susan, discussed moments earlier, or that, two, you might be referring to susan/gabrielle. i simply asked for clarification.

that said, and at the risk of scarlett hurling a vase across the room (saw a pink and gray car today, an oldie, parked by itself, nice colors) , consider this: why are we told "they were doomed" after roland and susan consummated their love on the drop?

i think roland is to blame for susan's death, even more so than for stepping over jake. when the coffin hunters jug roland and the boys, when jonas had 'two-pounds of pull on a three-pound trigger", lordy, pointing that gun at roland, "susan was absent from his mind." he's feeling shame at being caught.

shame, the reason i mention it is because there is one thing puzzling about the whole affair: coral thorin reminds him of his mother. (this at the banquet) coral's expression is the same as that of his mother (at the window)..."maybe that [he'd] understand and forgive."

there's a time, on the drop, as susan's and roland's passion grows and after roland realized that susan had as much passion as he did, he realized that she was "no longer her own mistress; she might consequently be his. he could do to her what marten had done to his own mother, if that was his fancy."

yeah, okay, love/lust. i can buy that. what confuses that issue is the twinning of coral thorin and gabrielle. if marten was acting on gabrielle, and if roland begins to realize, in a way, that gabrielle played her part...no, wait now...i don't think roland knows that yet...he is comparing gabrielle to thorin and he doesn't seem to have accepted the idea that gabrielle tooted on the flute

apples? oranges? in gone with the wind, during a 1940 reading and up to the late 50s perhaps, most of the gals in the class wanted to be melanie. today, if asked, if the story is even read, most gals want to fill scarlett's shoes, her of the flinging vase (cybola my life for you)

.

but is it, apples? oranges? duck! and cover! . dunno what it has to say for reading, or the subject of "art". but suppose the question was asked in the 40s...was it fitting and proper for roland and susan to hide their love, to even pursue it in the first place? wasn't that a bit like marten and gabrielle? and isn't roland to blame, then, seeing how he seems to see himself as actor, acting upon, rather like he still sees marten and gabrielle, marten, acting upon gabrielle. he seems unable to believe, or want to believe, that "such evils of the heart seemed necessary"?

gabrielle is married, some will say, susan is not yet. still, she made some sort of commitment. do we incorporate our morals into the story? or do we accept the morals implied in the story? did susan and roland do something that would have been received badly (seems it was, no?) in their time?
or does it have to do with the gone with the wind analogy...in the 40s, the young ladies who read the story wanted to be melanie, today, they want to be scarlett?

[Robert Gray]

Like I said before, we have no common frame of reference to discuss this with each other further. If I thought there was anything I could say which would clarify it to you I would do so. There isn't, so we will have to agree to disagree.

[Kacee]

It just wouldn't have done us any justice if Roland Deschain opened the door, only to discover he was a reincarnation of Arthur Eld

I almost expected Jake to reach the Tower and go to the top, with Roland or without, only to learn that he (Jake) is Arthur Eld, King Arthur, the Boy King, the true origin of the Gunslingers that will be. Mayhap King Arthur was as strong as Jake in the touch, to be able to free Excalibur from the stone.

Who knows... maybe that's to be determined later. Does it not make sense, though?

[costanza]

Arthur gets Excalibur from the Lady in the Lake.

Disney decided to put it in the stone.