Talk:The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower

The Top Of The Tower

It is stated in the Gunslinger that Roland's quest is to find out who resides at the top of the Tower. Due to the books' cyclical nature, it seems to me that the Man in Black is at the top. Am I incorrect? Is this just a personal hypothesis and unsubstantiated by the text?Artemisstrong 23:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a personal way to describe the cycle. Roland himself could be said to be at the top of the tower. –Pomte 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If the question is "what resides at the top of the Tower," then the most complete answer seems to be Roland's quest itself. When Roland opens the door, what he finds inside is himself, endlessly pursuing his goal. It is as if his quest, journeying to the the Tower and mounting its steps, is the water turning the wheel of Ka. Walter's position there seems incidental. Althafain (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Roland sacrifices everything for his quest for the tower. So when he climbs the tower, what else could be left for him but his quest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.33.73 (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This Section of the article is kind of wrong, can i edit this a little?

Much of what was established in Insomnia was also ignored or retconned. In that novel, the Crimson King was shown as a godlike being of immense power locked at the top of the Dark Tower. It was foretold that Patrick Danville would die in the future while saving two important men, one of whom must not die. However it is revealed that Ves-Ka Gan's song that delivers the story to King was muddled, and that much of the information in Insomnia was false. For example, the character of Ed Deepneau, a psychotic who crashes his plane into a building, is really a harmless distant relation to an inoffensive lawyer, Aaron Deepneau. The Crimson King is shown as a screaming old man who is reduced to throwing robotic 'sneetches' at Roland. And Patrick Danville, while succeeding in defeating the Crimson King, does not die saving two people. 68.193.87.97 04:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

How is it wrong? Everything thats stated is fact from the book. Is it because you disagree with it?--CyberGhostface 04:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up

I think the article is "cleaned-up" enough to warrent removal of the cleanup tag, yes? --Lachatdelarue (talk) 02:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Difficult to say- most of the plot is glossed over and there is little (legitmate, NPOV) mention of the criticism the book received (just check Amazon's reviews if you do doubt its mixed reception); but then again, the worst POV is gone, and it is a lot more than most books receive. Go ahead. --maru 02:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Amazon.com Reviews

How can you qualify the statement that "many readers were unhappy with the "controversial" ending". How many reviewers counts as "many"?

I looked at the 10 reviews here in the link and only one of them specifically mentioned the ending of the book as being bad (the one titled Idiotic by Buster Cretin) The book has an overall rating of 3.5, the same rating as Book 6. And a rating of 3.5 is actually quite good at amazon.com

I really do not see the need for the statement regarding Amazon.com reviewers, as it is very POV. --210.50.112.24 07:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

There are 427 reviews of the book on Amazon. It seems that many people rated it with 4-5 stars, and almost as many people rated it with 1-2. I know for a fact that many people are disappointed with this book, because I've heard them say so. Hell, I was disappointed, even though I loved the book. Unfortunately, that is "original research", and can't be used on Wikipedia. The Amazon reviews reflect this, so please leave the comment in the article. --Lachatdelarue (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Firstly, the ending disagreed with many earlier concepts. Secondly, the quest started out as to see the miraculous nature of the dark tower, but it never satisfied this. There must be some *proper* method to show these changes in direction of the books in the series that will satisfy all. --Thodin 22:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

It still does not seem completly NPOV to me. If the the ending was universally held to not be suitable by every reader of the book then maybe, but like Lachatdelarue said many people rated it with 4-5 stars. In fact 261 reviewers rated the book 4 or 5 stars out of the 427 total link. That's 61% of all amazon.com reviewers who reviewed the book! Would any of you have any qualms if I included that statistic in the article? --210.50.202.184 07:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I think what everyone is getting at is two things: first, the ending did no live up to the promises (King even went back and rewrote/re-issued the Lone Gunslinger to remove the most glaring of broken promises); and secondly, did any of the others get disapproved by a full 39% of the devoted readership which slogged through all the thousands of pages? It took me severall weeks to read them all, and I'm a damn fast reader. Only people predisposed to think well of it would ever even read it- and 40% of them hated it! That is defintely something to be mentioned. (And as long as you characterize it aright, I have no problem with its inclusion.) --maru 12:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

If 61% of fans (ie the majority of fans) rate the book highly I really don't think it is appropriate for this article to imply that the ending was inadequate, given that it is a minority of fans that feel this way. The % who rated the book at 4 or 5, is also roughly the same for book 7 as it is for book 6 (which is 62%). Furthermore, it is not fair to characterise reviewers who rate the book at 3 or lower as hating the book. I highly doubt anyone who gives the book a rating of 3 hates it. A rating of 3 out of 5 implies an average or slightly more than average book. If you only look at reviewers who voted 1 or 2, it's around 24% of the reviewers. So in my opinion less than a quarter of reviewers hate this book. --210.50.112.206 14:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't have to imply- it is perfectly possible to include some of the criticism whilst remainging NPOV. And it isn't so much that it's a minority, it is how big the minority is. Did many of the other books have such a big dissenting population? I do not think so- I recall Drawing and Wizard as having much better receptions. And nobody on Amazon rates a book they like at any less than a 4. Just the way it goes. 3 is saying it was pretty darn mediocre, 2 saying it was outright bad, and a 1, the lowest you can go, it sucked so badly that you are writing a review to save people's time and sanity. And even if we grant your number, more than a fifth of readers hate it? That isn't significant? --maru 15:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me both sides need to be represented in the comment, but it does need to be mentioned. And if the percentages are similar to those of book 6, then the Song of Susannah article should have a similar comment. What would be POV, is not mentioning it at all, which makes it seem like a user or users want to cover up the fact that many people didn't like the book too much. --Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

What were the original broken promises of the ending that Stephen King edited out? As for fan reviews, I was disapointed by how Stephen King ended it but I enjoyed the book until I saw the ending -- so the rating may be factored in for the other parts of the book. Someone may have rated it a 3 or above for liking all but the ending. For maru who compared it with other books, then you could show that the reviews are less high than other books or (IDEA THAT I THINK IS BEST) that "It has received more criticism than previous books due its ending." For NPOV, you should represent the information of POV, but you must do it in an objective way. --Thodin 00:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Funnily enough, La Chat asked the very same question, Thodin. Rather than clutter up this page, I'll just post a [1] to the section on my talk page where I answered La Chat. And I concur with adding the POV- it is something that should be mentioned. --maru 13:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The aformentioned discussion is kind of hard to find, so I'm puting it here:

In the discussion on the Dark Tower VII page, you mentioned that Kingrewrote/issued the Gunslinger to 'remove the most glaring of brokenpromises'. What promise? What did he change? It's been many yearssince I read the first book, and I don't remember any details fromit... --Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you read the Gunslinger many years ago, you are right to notremember the changes- the new edition I believe was published 2000(check: but Amazon claims it was 2003. Hmm.)

The most significant of the changes was in Roland's meeting withWalter- a lot of the dialogue was changed; since I happen to have theold edition at hand, I'll copy from it.

"Who is your master?"

"I have never seen him, but you must. In order to reach the Toweryou must reach this one first, the Ageless Stranger."

pg 211

"This Stranger, this Maerlyn, is a minion of the Tower? Likeyourself?"

"Much greater than I. It has been given to him to live backward intime. He darkles. He tincts. He is in all times. Yet thereis one greater than he.

"Who?"

"The Beast," the man in black whispered fearfully. "the keeper ofthe Tower. The originator of all glammer."

pg 212

Notice how little resemblance to the actual ending all this has.

Also, a good reason why so many felt cheated by the ending- considerthis passage, which is one of the first to really speak of the DarkTower:

Yet suppose further. Suppose all worlds, all universes, met in asingle nexus, a single pylon, a Tower. A stairway, perhaps, to theGodhead itself. WOuld you dare, gunslinger? Could it be thatsomehwere above all of endless reality, there exists a Room...?

You dare not.

You dare not.

pg 209

And so on. Lists of the differences are available online, but I thinkI've lost the link. Oh well. Left as an exercise to the reader...

--maru 15:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Walter IS the Ageless Stranger, and I do believe The Beast refers toThe Crimson King. --Anon.

You're only fooling yourself. --Maru (talk)Contribs 06:57, 28 November2005 (UTC)

I put that in because I think it raises some interesting points that should be addressed on this page. --mosesroth

there were no broken promises. the revised gunslinger took care of that. there is no reason to even read the unrevised in the context of the series. its like using windows 95 nowadays, it just doesn't make sense. as a result, any mention of broken promises,imo, should be deleted

Blu elph44 00:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There's still a lot of broken promises outside the Revised.--CyberGhostface 04:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. Any broken promises only serve to give the story a greater impact and relevance to real life, IMHO. Pomte 04:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, its just sloppy and inconsistent. King refused to use an outline and it bit him on the ass at the end.--CyberGhostface 04:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't expecting much, especially considering the car accident and the "rushed" writing. I have not read a lot of King (only 3 books outside this series, I think) but I always got an overwhelming sense of deus ex machina from him. These are not good excuses, so what are the broken promises? Actually, I'm not sure I can recall the context, and I probably won't care enough since I greatly enjoyed the series as a whole, caring less about the sum of its parts. Pomte 05:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps since you've only read three outside books you don't know what I'm talking about, but King has had DT seep into quite a bit of his work, and in some cases, promise that these books will finish up by the end of DT7.--CyberGhostface 15:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read nearly everything King has written (except on writing and creepshow)and, honestly, king didn't promise anything. its his baby and it became what he wanted. incosistancies, which all happen in the prequal work he did in W&G (i.e. the belt, rhea, and the dennis and thomas problem [although this wasn't set up in W&G, it was set up in the time frame just after the events of W&G. it happens just before the destruction of gilead]) and that sets up the comics to answer these questions. don't call them broken promises until they are for sure broken. Blu elph44 19:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So you don't think how King tossed away Insomnia's plot and making up some lame excuse about how ka was muddled doesn't count as breaking a promise? Or stating that there would be a place for Dennis and Thomas to return and then forgetting about them count as breaking a promise? He says a lot of stuff would happen, and they didn't. Nothing more complicated than that, honestly.--CyberGhostface 19:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

They didn't happen, yet

Blu elph44 01:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

When would they happen? The Dark Tower series is over, and I doubt King would reintroduce it in the comics.--CyberGhostface 03:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

why would you doubt it? there'll be 5 arcs, 30 issues, and it all occurs in the right time frame to explain the so called "problems" he left in the series. there's ample space and ample opportunity, why wouldn't he use that to his advantage and appease some fans? Blu elph44 15:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying its impossible and I would very much like to see some questions answered. I do think we'll get unanswered questions to stuff like Jericho Hill and Rhea, both of which I am very enthusiastic about. But at the same time, I don't believe he'd bring in connected books, as he's probably trying to reach new audiences, and featuring continuations of past storylines like Eyes of the Dragon would only confuse people. The way it is now its starting off with a blank slate.--CyberGhostface 18:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The comics are not written by King though, are they - what does "overseeing" mean, just guiding the general scope of the plot? Please add the source for the 5-arc 30-issue fact to The Dark Tower (series)#Prequels and References. So it's definitely 6 issues in the first arc, and not 7? Pomte 18:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Robin Furth is writing the general plot, but king is definatly overseeing. but, yes 5 arcs and 30 issues. the first arc is 7 issues, the second (so they say) is 5, and the rest are 6[[2]] there's your source. Blu elph44 19:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There's tons of inconsistencies in the books, yes, but they only serve the story. The Dark Tower is as much about the art of storytelling as it is about Roland's quest. If King missed an opportunity or failed to pay off a character, oh well, that's how the story went. The Dark Tower series hints at a much larger world, much like Tolkien's Lord of The Rings series. Much like any huge writing endeavor.

If people are going to get hung up on inconsisitencies, why just focus on one or two elements, anyhow? How about, say, thinnies? The thinnies were never fleshed out properly, their attributes seemed to mutate from the beginning of Wizard to the end, and I'm left not quite sure how they come to be. Or what of Andrew Quick? He's played up just as much as a future potential villain by the end of Waste as Flagg ever was, yet he is dispatched almost instantaneously, never to be mentioned again. What of the doors themselves? Their properties are never nailed down, yet they are one of the most prolific images in the books. What of the Tower? It is described early in the series(I believe Waste Lands, don't have the books beside me, have to go and chaeck) thus: "Despite its name, it was an ashy white" (I'm paraphrasing). Of course, by VII, it is a dark grey.

So, what I'm getting at, is maybe there should be an entire page devoted to inconsistencies, retcons and un-payed-off character arcs. What say you?Artemisstrong 23:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A list of inconsistencies would be purely in-universe with less chance of being verifiable by reliable sources, and so belongs more in a fan-devoted site like TowerWiki. –Pomte 00:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, the whole "Thats how the story goes, no big deal" response to King's inconsistencies and plotholes is a huge cop out.

And listing inconsistencies, provided they are referenced with the specific incidents, can be relevant. I did a section on Patrick Danville examining how Insomnia contradicted his role in DT7.--CyberGhostface 00:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was on a dodgy wi-fi connection that dumped me before I could get my lengthy "logic flaws" response posted. Let's try again, shall we?

What my original post said was that I'm not an apologist for King's mistakes, but I was trying to say that all the mistakes and inconsistencies are a part of the Dark Tower and there's nothing we can really do about it. I agree with Ghostface (and myself :]) that there should be an inconsistencies page. It should be neutral and avoid any statements such as "fans did not like this" or "many wondered what happened with that" because, frankly, I'm a fan and I actually like all the logical and plotline flaws in the book.

It is my personal interpretation (and therefore inadmissable in the Wikipedia entry proper) that many of these flaws, especially in volumes V - VII, are intentional twistings of story conventions, many of the same conventions that King made a fortune off of. (To me) the books are reflective and thoughtful meditations on not only the mythology that King has produced, but the varied stories that influenced that mythology; I like to think of it on the same level as "On Writing" and "Danse Macabre" (a reading of Danse would be very helpful to anyone with the series fresh in their minds). It's also more than that, but this isn't a forum to espouse my intellectual probings of the series, so I'll move on.

Basically, in my aborted post, I laid out several of the topics that would make for a nice and accurate "Inconsistencies" page. They included:

The Working of Time in the Dark Tower- Time can only flow in one direction in the Keystone-Rose World? How do Jake and Pere travel to '99 New York before Roland and Eddie travel to '77 New Hampshire? How can Jake have done all that back-and-forth travelling between Keystone-Rose and Keystone-Tower in Gunslinger and Waste Land? The way King spins the tale, I didn't notice all the logical flaws in the "one-way only" rule until long after reading the tales.

The Doors- In Drawing, we have three magic doors that open up at first, directly into people's heads. Once the person is "drawn" however, it seems the doors then open on whatever space the drawee had been in. In Waste Lands, after Eddie investigates a sealed door at Shardik's clearing, it is explained via exposition by Roland that there were 12 magic doors that were eventually replaced by the Old One's mechanical doors. These doors lay at the ends of the beams and were gateways to other worlds. It is implied, then shown via the story-event at the Speaking Ring, that new doors can be created via-magic. By Wolves, though, it seems these doors are everywhere, both in Keystone-Tower and, more prolificly, in Keystone-Rose. These are a mix of old one's doors and magic doors. These dont appear to be in connection with the beams or the guardians at all and really seem to disagree with Roland's story of them in Waste Lands.

Cuthbert & King- Fictional King (aged 5) met Cuthbert after being frightened by a red spider (the Crimson King) in his uncle's garage. How does Cuthbert get there? It is never explained.

Todash- This concept seemed to evolve mid-story in Wolves. It changes drastically from its first concept (another way of travelling between worlds, but only in your mind) to the final one in Dark Tower (the void between worlds).

Broken Promises- While I agree with some that King (nor any writer) promised the readers anything, but only wrote against expectations, there are a few of these that are noticeable enough to mention. The omission of Roland and Rhea's final confrontation, Walter's sudden demise before payoff, the references to Jamie De Currie (a character we never properly meet in the novels), the build-up, then tossing aside of Andrew Quick, the disparity of Fimalo's description of the Crimson King's current status and what we actually read of in the end, and more can be viewed as structure flaws (though I still hold they are intentional).

Patrick Danville- The existing material could be folded in to this larger article.

The Guardians, IT, Bag of Bones- The concept of both the Guardians and the Others described in IT and Bag of Bones had always been said by King to factor into the Dark Tower, but in the end these inclusions are only passing nods and not very relevant to the story. In fact, the closest relation to IT I can see (beyond the name "Stuttering Bill") is a brief description of the shape-shifting bug-man Dandelo momentarily taking on the face of a clown during his death throes. But beyond this, I see no connection. In IT, Maturin lives in space, the IT lives outside of space, but Dandelo is certainly a Prim-made creature of Roland's world.

So, I'd like to get some feedback on these, see which ones you think are valid, and then we can get a page up (or at least a section).

BTW, is anyone confused by the compass directions on the beach in Drawing? Roland is said to be headed North, yet the Western Sea is on his right and the sun sets on his left. Now, compass drift aside, doesn't that mean Roland's headed due South? Any explanation would make me very happy.Artemisstrong 05:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It is explained multiple times that the direction the sun sets has no bearing on what is East/West. Look at books VI and VII

Weasel words

Regardless of the merits of the arguments above about whether King broke promises or whether this was good or bad, the entire "Literary significance and criticism" section is weasel-worded original research. If the fan reaction is so significant that it deserves to be mentioned in the article, it will probably have come up in some reliable source. Otherwise, the material as presently organized simply doesn't belong here, regardless of any fan's strong feelings about it. Brendan Moody 22:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it's been a month and no sources have been provided, I've removed the section. Brendan Moody 17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis - Oy

"It is implied that an alternate version of Oy, a dog with a long neck whose barks sometimes sound like words, will also join them."

I do believe this sentence should be removed from the synopsis - as neither Oy nor a dog are mentioned in this chapter. Yes one would *hope* that Oy will rejoin what's left of the Ka-tet of 19 but this is not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.143.51 (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)