Yes
No
By letting Mort live, only Jake will be affected. He pushed Susannah before ever seeing Jake. If he kills Mort, then Jake will never have come to Mid-World, so he'd have to go through the process of drawing him anyways
I would have to say that if Roland chose Jake, there wouldn't be much of a story period because it would take away from the fact that Roland obsesses over finding the Tower. Although he subsequently finds his ka-tet, people that he loves, he lives in the past as we have seen. His main goal is avenging the fall of Gilead in some way, thus avenging the loss of a world that was "full of light and love".
"What have I become? My sweetest friend...everyone I know goes away in the end...and you can have it all...my empire of dirt...I will let you down...I will make you hurt..." --Trent Reznor
I see you point, and it seems very likely that that is why he quests on
I think Roland's choice to let Jake fall, and his mass murder earlier in the book, show some of his character flaws quite glaringly.
It was so terribly sad when he let Jake fall - I cried so much over it. I've already had the ending spoiled for me, and I have to say I agree that he won't escape the loop without choosing Jake. It would show a more caring, emotional character - perhaps redeeming him. I think the Tower dislikes being obsessed over if you will. It wouldn't mind Roland reaching it, but for Roland to do something like let Jake fall for the tower... Ka won't bring Roland to salvation that way.
I totally agree phenol, great post.
I think Roland may have found something different at the Tower if he had not been so keen to sacrafice people to get there. The means do not justify the end sometimes and I believe Roland really didn't understand that.
The kindness of close friends is like a warm blanket
Ok, but if he doesn't sacrifice Jake, he never gets to the tower, and the world comes apart, because the breakers are already breaking down the beam. He has to catch the man in black in order to gain the information about the drawing. Without that he never gets Eddie, Susannah, or avenges Odetta/Detta. So he has to sacrifice Jake.
"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
Ahh spoilers *hides*
LOL, just kidding. I don't mind too much.
That's the POINT though. Roland has to *accept* that he might have to damn the tower to do what's right if he ever wants to escape the loop. For him to see the tower, he has to happen upon it, not quest for it so hard that he hurts so many fellow people along the way.
I agree. I don't believe not dropping Jake is a choice over reaching the Tower. I think it's the true path to the Tower.
"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 that was a pretty small spoiler so I wouldn't worry about it anyway.
"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
Jake had to die in the mountains. For the same reason that Isaac almost had to die on the altar; for the same reason that Iccarus did have to die in the clouds.
A Sacrifice is demanded. Belief IS demanded. And some gods are bloody.
And in the mountains Roland has allready sacrificed so much that he will let this child drop - his belief is in only himself and the thing that keeps him moving - and (as we saw in The Wizards Glass) - he will always make the sacrifice to attain "heaven" - The Tower.
He Must.
Childe: Isaac example is that of not demanding any human sacrifices, from then forever, amen. If there is any analogy here, it's that Jake stayed alive. Proof of belief doesn't have to be as pagan and barbaric the next time it is needed.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you look - I said - Isaac had to almost...
And I'm sorry, Jean - but for any Great accomplishment - sacrifice is almost always demanded. That is one of those "life tenants" that I believe in. It may be great or small - but achievement without some form of sacrifice is only wellfare.
Abraham had to be willing to go the distance - he had no belief that God would renounce and save his son - he only had the faith to believe that if God demanded it - It had to be for the greater good.
Much as Roland would always see that letting that boy drop would result in the Greater Good.
Not just this time phenol - but forever - and ever - amen!
I noticed. It doesn't change my point. Isaac was not asked for a human sacrifice. It was clearly proven by the further development of the events.
The meaning and contents of sacrifice are not the same every time. For example, sacrificing oneself is not the same as sacrificing an innocent child. Not letting Jake fall - renouncing the Tower - wouldn't be for Roland tantamount to sacrificing everything that he's been living for (with which he identifies; ultimately, himself)?And I'm sorry, Jean - but for any Great accomplishment - sacrifice is almost always demanded. That is one of those "life tenants" that I believe in. It may be great or small - but achievement without some form of sacrifice is only wellfare.
I am sure any thought of "greater good" was the furthest possible from Abraham's mind (unless we understand the "good" very differently, of course). I also hope Roland will be able to abandon this idiotic notion sooner or later (moreover, that his overcoming this "greater good" dogma is the point of the story).Abraham had to be willing to go the distance - he had no belief that God would renounce and save his son - he only had the faith to believe that if God demanded it - It had to be for the greater good.
Much as Roland would always see that letting that boy drop would result in the Greater Good.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sacrificing One's Self - IS EASY! We do it for our children and grandchildren - forever and ever - amen. Sacrificing THEM - no parent could do without OVERPOWERING belief. And the only 2 real examples I can even think of are Abraham - who was willing - and by being willing was saved(?); and Roland who Did - Twice!The meaning and contents of sacrifice are not the same every time. For example, sacrificing oneself is not the same as sacrificing an innocent child. Not letting Jake fall - renouncing the Tower - wouldn't be for Roland tantamount to sacrificing everything that he's been living for (with which he identifies; ultimately, himself)?
Why else would he do it?I am sure any thought of "greater good" was the furthest possible from Abraham's mind (unless we understand the "good" very differently, of course). I also hope Roland will be able to abandon this idiotic notion sooner or later (moreover, that his overcoming this "greater good" dogma is the point of the story).
Because God Told him To?
Yes - that is exactly why he did it. And he did it with the FAITH that something good would come of it. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son - as "HIS FATHER" later did - because he believed in the Greater Good.
Just as Roland "believed' that the sacrifices he made were necessary.
Gain without sacrifice is welfare.
Sorry Jean, couldn't you substitute the word pagan for christian? They are far more barbaric throughout their own history than those poor pagan scapegoats.
Abraham was willing to murder his son because he believed it was for the good. If that actually really happened it wouldn't have been for the good either way. Can you imagine a child trusting an adult who was willingly about to sacrifice them, only to be halted at the last moment by a voice he hears in his head?
For that same reason, I think Roland must chose to save Jake. Roland sacrifices his obsession with the Tower in doing this (and it is an equal sacrifice, we've seen how the Tower has utterly ruled Roland's very existance.) He believes that by saving Jake he will not reach the Tower, though (I believe) the real consequences of that action would be Roland reaching a tower where there is real salvation for him at the top.
You see, in the story that we read - Jake never fully trusts Roland, because of his betrayal. Even in the moments when Jake utterly loves Roland, the thought is in the back of his mind; don't let me fall. It's mentioned repeatedly, and so much so that I think it's to drum home a point with the reader.
No, I couldn't. Neither word here is used as derogatory, but as merely technical terms. The idea of human sacrifice belongs to paganism, and is rejected by Christianity. Also, I understand that everyone is tempted to attribute to Christianity all faults of human race in its historical development, but please, don't let us get all anti-historical 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Paganism started as an agricultural religion, sacrifices were animal in the main. Jews and Christians on the other hand sacrificed/slaughtered entire cities because God told them to. I don't attribute anything to Christianity that it doesn't freely divulge in the bible.
I actually originally intended the comment in humour though
I wouldn't say "Jews and Christians" as if it was the same, because the revolutionary role of New Testament isn't anything to spit on but you're right, let's bury this topic till we restart it in Religious Discussion thread (if we ever do, that is)
oh, I never said it should be without sacrifice. It's who is sacrificed we disagree on... also, it seems to me that the way you see it, it's rather fair exchange (something is sacrificed - something of equal value is gained); in other words, magic. I think it's another of those archaic (Lisa, I'll use this word if you prefer it, although it is far less specific or correct ) concepts Roland will have to overcome.Originally Posted by Childe 007
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!