Talk:The Dark Tower (2004 novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do: Novels WikiProject • (Novels, Novellas, Novelettes & Short stories) Announcements and open tasks (watch • edit • discuss) → Please help with tagging articles! Critique (Featured Article): no candidates currently - "10 achieved" Wikipedia wide peer reviews: Original Stories from Real Life Novels WikiProject Peer reviews : Master and Commander Improve: The Body in the Library • Furies of Calderon • Wolf Brother • The Monk • The English Patient • Bones of the Moon • More... Create: Black Cocktail • Blackthorn Winter • London, 1850 • More... Novel without Infobox (auto list): many novel articles do not have an infobox - and need one (auto generated list) - may need expansion of article too Our Collaboration Department is continuing with one more title The_History_of_Tom_Jones,_a_Foundling for the current month. Get collaborating on the article and also look at nominating other titles to be considered. The new article Fictional locations now exists - as a companion article to Fictional characters - but it is still a stub and could do with plenty more imput to improve it. Another new article A Taste for Death (P.D. James novel)‎ now exists - but it is also still a stub and could do with plenty more imput to improve it. A new Infobox exists to support the growing number of "Short Story" articles that are tagged as part of the project - take a look at it and comment on it's talk page. I would suggest we use it for "Short Stories and "Novelettes" and leave the main "Book infobox" for "Novels" and "Novellas". New hitlists added to the main worklist. List of literary works with eponymous heroes List of literary works with eponymous heroines Pages that only exist as redirects: Men at Arms changes

	This article is part of The Dark Tower WikiProject, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to The Dark Tower series of novels by Stephen King. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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) Small Text