Quote:That's in a later book so I've spoilerified part of that (although it doesn't really spoil much). Good call though, that makes sense. Even if he had forgottenSpoiler:On the other hand, that event in Tull was one in many, so maybe that's not so surprising after all.
He intended to, but so far only The Gunslinger was revised. That explains the disparity in the books.Quote:
my question is did he do a revision of "DT2" or "DT3" ? at some point?
01-23-2011 08:04 PMRoland of Gilead 33i remember in the intro he DOES mentions that. but my guess he was "DT' burn out after having written 3 books in a row about it. plus re-writing the original book. so he prolly was on burn out. & thanxs for putting a spoiler on that. i wasn't sure if that would be considered one. & since most people have read the 1st book here that's also why i didn't add one.
anyways & thank you for the compliment. :) & i agree, "Roland" has been through a LOT through the years. hell he's been through stuff that "SK" never even wrote about i'm sure. so it would also make sense that he'd want to forgot about a LOT of it 01-26-2011 01:07 PMBrainslingerYou're welcome. Basically the rules in Baronies are that you don't need to use spoiler tags if you're writing about stuff that happened in the current or previous books. The assumption is that a person shouldn't be in that thread if they haven't read that book and previous books unless of course they don't care about spoilers.
For example if you were in the Drawing of the Three section you could post spoilers of that book and The Gunslinger without the spoiler tags. Spoilers for The Waste Lands onwards would need to be tagged. Since this is a The Gunslinger thread any spoilers from the other books would need to be tagged, this being the first. (If that makes sense.) I think the spoiler you posted was from either The Waste Lands or Wizard and Glass. (It wasn't a big one though. Probably borderline as to whether or not it was really needed, but I was just playing it safe.)
If you are actually starting a new thread yourself, then another alternative is to simply write a spoiler warning in the thread title itself stating which books will be spoiled. Then anyone going in knows what to expect. 01-27-2011 06:32 PMRoland of Gilead 33ok thankee sai for the head's up 04-13-2011 09:38 AMMonteGss64% v 54% Interesting. It is starting to even out a bit, if I remember correctly. :) 08-21-2011 02:43 AMRolandLoverI haven't read the original Gungslinger but I want to! Is this the original one? http://www.amazon.com/Gunslinger-Dar...3923203&sr=8-1
If not cry your pardon but could someone post the original for me please? TIA 08-23-2011 05:03 AMWeDealInLeadThat's the revised edition and it's also illustrated. Go for it.
I don't remember what I voted but I like the revised edition more. 12-29-2011 08:45 PMrolandeschI've only read the revised so I can't really say, however it becomes apparent to me that the inconsistencies in the original are better left revised. 12-30-2011 12:44 PMBrainslinger 12-30-2011 03:09 PMpathoftheturtleI'm not so sure. Is consistency really so important in literature, anyway? The original was an ambiguous romantic epic, like the poem. Does comicbook-style continuity necessarily improve that? 12-30-2011 09:38 PMWuducynn 12-31-2011 10:11 AMBrainslingerOkay, I'll spoilerify since it deals with later books:
Spoiler: 12-31-2011 11:40 AMWuducynnQuote:I think when King was doing the revision his intention was to be revising books II, III and IV after that. I'm pretty sure I remember seeing an interview with him saying that now that he had gotten where he wanted to go with the series together in his mind which only came together when he started writing Wolves of the Calla that he had intended on revising the rest of the series. 01-01-2012 05:10 AMJean 01-02-2012 09:13 AMWeDealInLeadI re-read the original version. I still feel the revised is superior in every way. If there were no DT series, the original would probably fare better in my mind but somehow, Roland saying 'How are they hanging?' (or whatever) to those boys in Tul is not the Roland we get to know later on. Just the way he carries himself in later books radiates I don't know... class? I get to feel his royal blood more in the revised edition. I'm not forgetting he's still a relentless killing machine but he's almost macho in the original version. 01-02-2012 12:48 PMWuducynnFor me it depends on who you are talking to. If King feels it's important to him that his series, his Great Work, be consistent then it's important for him and I can see why. I think he explained himself very well in the introduction to the revised edition as to why it was important for him to revise it and I respect his choice and agree with it. 01-02-2012 06:18 PMMerlin1958I gotta go with the Author's choice and say the Revised edition. It is, ultimately, the story he wanted to tell after all. 01-03-2012 12:56 AMJean 01-03-2012 10:14 AMpathoftheturtle 01-03-2012 10:22 AMfernandito 01-03-2012 05:37 PMMerlin1958Boy, tough crowd!!! LOL
:rolleyes1: 01-03-2012 06:05 PMWuducynn 01-03-2012 06:08 PMWuducynn 01-05-2012 06:45 AMpathoftheturtleThat old ka-mai? Don't make me laugh.
But, look, my position hasn't changed: I'm glad that both versions exist. I can talk about my personal preferences, but I don't really understand the hypothetical "If you HAD to choose." Why would you have to? It's not like we've ever found it necessary on any forum to settle as a whole group on a single interpretation of the purpose of the series or of the truth of any particular point. 01-05-2012 07:43 AMJean