Psychologically speaking, no.
Magically speaking, yes yes yes.
I see.
But here we are not speaking about fairies angles or dragons or stuff like that. We are talking about humans.
Can we miss and not look at the psychological side?
I am sure it's nice to believe and think that they met and they fell in love with each other because of ka. And Susan was crying Roland's name while she was burning because it was ka and Roland couldn't forget her during his long long hard life because of ka but somehow for me it's more logical.. moreover it's more magical as well to think that happened what happend because
they loved each other
they met at the right time
they needed each other
and because they were who they were and their love was true.
I really wouldn't like to argue about it. It's nice that we believe in other things.
Anyway I don't say I don't believe in ka at all. There are things that must happen but I think we are the smith of our fate and we have responsibilites over our acts and we can't blame always ka.
Roland would have understood.
I believe all of those things are Ka working Letti. And you are right, its great that we all believe different stuff.they loved each other
they met at the right time
they needed each other
and because they were who they were and their love was true.
Destiny, to me, is not an excuse. More of a way to understand that we all have a purpose. But people look at stuff differently and that is great.
The kindness of close friends is like a warm blanket
It's a story about cowboys questing for the nexus of reality while fighting giant lobsters, killer trains, vampires and a giant baby headed spider.
Where's the logic there?
Why try to apply logic to some parts of the story, if you can't apply logic to others?
I don't answer this one because that would be absolutely about ka and in ka thread I think you have already read my thoughts about it.
For me this book is absolutely about humans, about their fights and fates. The frame... that's unique and tale/fantasy-like. Not ordinary.
But still logical. For my part I do see logic everywhere in it.
Roland would have understood.
Sure have, sorry about thatI don't answer this one because that would be absolutely about ka and in ka thread I think you have already read my thoughts about it.
The kindness of close friends is like a warm blanket
I don't know what to tell you Letti. I believe in Ka's place in the story as much as Roland does. Whether or not it exists is merely conjecture.
[quote=Letti;48620][quote=Matt;48614]Yes, absolutely!.....For me this book is absolutely about humans, about their fights and fates. The frame... that's unique and tale/fantasy-like. Not ordinary.
But still logical. For my part I do see logic everywhere in it .
OK, certain things in it may be outside the (narrow) confines of our 'real' world, but that does not add up to 'illogic' for me.
Great debate btw!
Jean, you are such a cynic!
I don't think we're doing first love or teenagers much justice here! I absolutely don't believe you fall in love for the first time with any old person just because "its time". Yes, she did find Cuthbert attractive, but you don't then fall in love with some one just because of asthetics.
No, you don't. Nobody knows why you do. I beg everyone here to remember their first love, and then tell me that it didn't just happen because it was time. And I think my position is rather romantic than cynical... I admire the force that drives the young to fall in love, you see... and, in extreme cases, to die for the sake of that love, whether or not the object was worthy of it - just because the one who sacrifices him- (more often her-) self is capable of integrity to the point of sacrificing. I hope it clarifies my position for Nikolett, too.
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 see your position more clearly Though I still disagree with the main point of the discourse, even thinking back on my first love.
Okay, just let me know Jean what you mean by "it was time".
Roland would have understood.
Jean, I just don't agree on the "....and then tell me that it didn't just happen because it was time...." idea.
But that's ok. I hear you, I just don't agree.
I think it has to be the right person (maybe at the right time as well?.. though no, I don't think so either - can easily be wrong time too...). It may not be the right person for-ever, but has to be the right person at that time ? (Maybe I've lost the plot here - have trouble following my own reasoning ! )
I know what you're trying to say MoW...its what I'm trying to say too
This time thing is not clear to me, either.
I mean, okay let's say they fell in love because it was time.
Do you say if Susan had been a stupid chick who can't put words together to make an understandable sentence and can't write down her name without a mistake Roland would still have fallen in love with her?
Or Susan would have loved Roland the same way if Roland had tried to grap her breasts without hesitation like a hungry dog in that evening?
I don't think so.
But if there were so many other things that made them love each other why is the TIME the main reason for you, Jean?
If there is a castle with lots of lost treasures inside you must find the door (time) to get into to get those treasures (their souls). And when you hold the treasure in your hand you become rich (love).
/// Letti, stop here because you are not too understandable.///
On that evening they found the door (the right time) to be able to see each others' treasures (souls) and because they needed each other and they found valuable what they saw in each other they became rich (because they fall in love.
So... what do you need to become rich or fall in love?
The time (door)?
Their souls (treasures)?
I think both. Neither of them could exist without the other.
They met at the right time AND they found something very loveable and pricesless in each other and that's why it became love.
But anyway I guess Jean you mean by time that they were teenagers - hungry for love.
*reads back*
If someone can understand this explanation I will pick up my hat for them.
I don't delete it because I have been working on it for so damn long...
Last edited by Letti; 12-31-2007 at 12:24 AM.
Roland would have understood.
Actually Letti, that's pretty well put.
... and do you mean you will '...eat your hat'?
I think she means tip her hat, but yes I agree, that clears up your stand point on it for me, and again, you have further drawn me to your ideas
Nah, they might have got it oooon But it wouldn't have been a relationship with the same intensity as Roland and her.