I guess I'm the only one who thought along those lines about why the Calla's had so many twins..
I guess I'm the only one who thought along those lines about why the Calla's had so many twins..
"It's his eyes, Roland thought. They were wide and terrible, the eyes of a dragon in human form" - Roland seeing the Crimson King for the first time.
"When the King comes and the Tower falls, sai, all such pretty things as yours will be broken. Then there will be darkness and nothing but the howl of Discordia and the cries of the can toi" - From Song of Susannah
Well, maybe.
But now that I see it in black & white, I think you could well have a point.
they're robots, lets not forget there the possiblilty the machines leave the kids unconsious or drainned of energy. the wolves seem to have limited resources, useing the resources on the kids when theres another (abit less easier) way for them to dispose of them and accomplish the threat level at the same time.
There were people who ran the robots. Why did these people send the children back? Surely it would use less energy (resources) to snap a neck (kill them) than to put them on a train. There must be a reason.
Re: why they had twins: I always thought it was a breeding mutation from whatever it was the Old Ones did.
It'll take a lot more than words and guns,
A whole lot more than riches and muscle.
The hands of the many must join as one.
And together we'll cross the river.
Puscifer, "The Humbling River"
But the cruelty also serves a purpose. It makes the folken of the Calla's morale low so they are less likely to fight back to try and save their children. It makes them more morose...
This is my blog/page:
www.facebook.com/thespermwhaleandbowlofpetunias
This is my donation page:
https://www.razoo.com/br/causes/Maje...h-Resorption-1
... and having to look after them makes them vulnerable.
I wondered if the common occurence of twins was due to genetic manipulation by the Crimson King's followers too. After all they're not a common occurence in that world either. Only that arc.
Matthew: I know I didn't make myself clear enough in that post, I tried to expand here.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think the answer lies in the subtext...and I say that so you have an opportunity to ask, what in the blue fuck are you doing to me!...please note that I'm quoting from the text here...dadda-chum, ah, Chapter I, The Pavilion, section 6, p 281 in my paperback...but we probably don't have the same copy...when Eddie is asked to speak...
...subtext...been thinking about the Oz connection...heard it said that ole Frank, the guy who wrote about Dorothy Gale, intended his other caricatures to be taken as symbols for other things...the tin man as something, industry maybe...the scarecrow as I dunno maybe dumb farmers...etc...but if the kids were taken and not returned, maybe that'd be a different kind of subtext, but if the roont ones are a stand-in, symbol, for some other form of our life, what would it be? Where else are children sent to have their brains sucked dry and then returned to the world at large, help or hindrance?
I guess the beauty of symbols is they can be anything we want them to be and if nothing else, you could say, quoting the text again, "pissheads always hung around: it was almost a law of nature." Ma used to tell me I'm full of piss and vinegar, don't I know it, and now ya'll ka-no it too! A vibe. Maybe I'm wrong. (the quote is from the same chapter, section 7, Eddie and Telford)
Lisa ftw!
for the win. it's a reference to Hollywood Squares, an iconic American tv gameshow.
In that case...cool!
Where are you going with this exactly? Are you viewing WotC as some kind of social commentary?
Could be read that way, Darkthoughts, dontcha think? I'm not going to bother arguing it is one way or another. I don't, as they say, have a dog in that race. One could take a number of approaches to the Books. One could be right or one could be wrong and in the end the story still stands as it is. It'd be interesting to hear others' thoughts on the idea, i.e. The Wizard of Oz and the implied metaphors there...tin-man/industry...straw-man//farming...heard or read something along those lines, somewhere, sometime.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the analogy, but it'd be interesting to apply the same argument to the Books, 1-7, not only Wolves of the Calla. I tried doing a search for a thread like that and came up empty...been breathing drywall dust, so the brain is a bit foggy...a wise-acre way of saying I don't have a clue when it comes to message boards and computers. Thank you for the question.
Since you're from England?...the flag, and all...suppose we look at the Books as Gulliver's Travels...and perhaps there is an argument, like is and was made about Swift's commentary...that could be applied her, as well. Don't have a clue if anyone has made that argument, either professionally in a journal, thesis, dissertation, whatever, but the Books certainly seem open to one, no?
Like could one argue that the Breakers are part of the Academy? The big enchilada. I didn't go to Morehouse or no house...the finer post war Negro education...
Yes, I am UK - but I'm not overly familiar with Swift's works I'm afraid
Personally, while I don't doubt that there are reflections of one sort or another on our modern times and the direction we're (possibly) heading, in the DT series, I really don't see a lot of symbolism in things in life or literature. That's not to say I take everything at face value...but I quite often reach the same conclusion someone guided to a certain point by symbolism might, just through different channels. That's why I find it hard to grasp your meaning in a lot of your posts...I'm similarly no good at the cryptic clues in crossword puzzles and you have a tendancy (in my eyes) to read like one big cryptic clue
Lisa: I would strongly recommend Gulliver's Travels... maybe not in connection with the Dark Tower, though, but rather for its own merits. Of course, anything can be read into anything; sometimes this way leads to revelations, more often to dead end or utter confusion - I am afraid it's only common sense and personal experience (both in life, literature, and thought) of the reader that can serve as a guide here.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am familiar with Gulliver's Travels but I read it back in my childhood and don't remember enough of it to appreciate Whitey's comparisons
I think a lot of it has to go to the writer's intentions. Some things are meant to be read allegorically, some are free to interpretation but they do not specifically refer to anything. I think with DT it is the latter. Symbolism like this is always going to be subjective. If the artist doesn't in the "real" world ever confirm or deny any specific interpretation, than all readings are valid.
I've read Gulliver's Travels more recently, Darkthought, and I still don't have a clue. Milton, Shakespeare, all these literary allusions to other things. I enjoy that part of stories as much as other parts including the story as a whole. That some first, I guess. Just as nursery rhymes were supposed to be about what the kings and queens of their day were doing--couldn't very call the king an ass to his face w/o suffering consequences--the poets and artists and very likely, the common man, used words and symbols to convey a point, to help them suffer while evils were sufferable.
Maybe during their day--of the nursery rhymes--four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie....rub a dub dub three men in a tub...forgot what I was going to say...maybe it'll come to me...
I don't think it matters if you are familiar with Swift, the point I was trying to make, and you obviously got it, is that one could take TDT and make a fairly persuasive argument that like Swift, like Baum (?) in Oz, like the nursery rhymes, there's a message there, accept it or not. Like the simplicity of the nursery rhymes, reading it as such gives me a greater joy, (delight and instruct, as one of the major statements on art said)...
...and it's really unfortunate when I've come across great wits on the net who insist otherwise, who look down their long and narrow nose at anyone who gives a shit about wit, the boys I mean are not refined, as cummings wrote, before crumbling the page and tossing it in the garbage.
You obviously got was I was trying to say, but to clarify more - I do agree that there is symbolism in DT and obviously other literature, what I was saying in my other post is that - I don't always see it. I'm a very literal person and anything too subtle often goes straight over my head Not because I can't appreciate it, or comprehend it, but because thats not the line my logic follows
Conversely though, I do think that people sometimes read too much into certain works. I hated having to analyse paintings when I studied art...or poetry when I was likewise studying English Lit, because it detracted something from it for me. As an artist myself, I often paint on the whim of a particular emotion, so there is meaning to me to what I've painted - and someone else might try and read a whole lot more into it - but I would personally feel that they were trying to turn something simple, and enjoyable because of it's simplicity, into something complicated that made it crass or conceited somehow.
Must be cold in the UK, too, huh Darkthoughts...been below zero here for a time, Fahrenheit...I'll have to look at the Credit Union clock to see what Celsius says. Isn't that some Greek god? Keeper of the Thermostat, maybe?
I've never had a problem with people reading. Let's have more of it. If someone appears to be reading too much into something, give 'em points for trying and showing an interest. If someone seems to be reading too much into something, and it seems that way because you simply disagree with the reading, then reading imitates life I guess.
As Donnie Russert discovered, "some things people just won't believe, not even when you can prove em." 'The column of truth has a hole in it'...really into the Greeks this morning.
I dunno, sometimes I enjoy it and I find it clarifies matters (Tower Connections section for example) sometimes I think it's just obsolete.
I mean, what you're trying to say is - you can read something extra into everything. And what I'm saying is - that may be, but there isn't always any need to do so.
For example, I might say to you - "Isn't the blue sky beautiful!" And you could reply, "The sky isn't actually blue, it's just clouds absorbing the colour blue from the sunlight, which is infact made up of many colours. Funny also that you should find blue beautiful, did you know that it is naturally calming to the mind despite being traditionally associated with masculinity..." etc etc...
Do you see my point? You're suggesting that I'm shallow or near sighted for not wanting to read meaning into every little detail, but I'm saying that somethings can quite rightfully be appreciated for simply being/appearing to be what they are, even though I am fully aware of the details.