Talk:The Dark Tower: The Gunslinger

Over-edited?
While I appreciate what appears to have been considerable time given to the Dark Tower page, I was really disappointed to come back here after a year or so. It feels like all the life had been sucked out of the story. I realize that conciseness and clarity is very important. However, the other end of the balance is depth and breadth of information. Someone who had never read the series would get very little from this page. Some people wouldn't know that the real information is within the Project pages and the discussion page. Where is all the information on the Dark Tower???? Why was so much removed? This body of work can be considered to have huge literary and cultural significance. Even if you don't believe that, the number of books sold should be reason enough to give Wikipedia users more info to help them understand the connections. CandaceID —Preceding unsigned comment added by CandaceID (talk • contribs) 20:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is the Man in Black?
m.i.b=randall flagg

that is man in black is randall flagg and this should be mentioned (should any other misunderstandings would occur)

I don't think this is true. While Randall Flagg appears in the Dark Tower, I'm pretty sure the "man in black" in the Gunslinger is simply working for Flagg. Flagg always goes by names starting with R.F., and Walter/Marten don't fit the bill.

He is Flagg, it says so somewhere.


 * It is stated several times throughout the series that Walter o'Dim is Randall Flagg. During Flagg's meeting with Mordred Deschain, this is stated to be one of many names that he took. Please remember to sign your name with four tildes. --MwNNrules (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Jake's push
I don't think Jake was pushed by Jack Mort -- the gunslinger realizes that the man in black will push Jake later, not the day he takes over Mort. This style of "knowing" for the gunslinger is used to mean that something is true throughout the series.


 * Please remember to sign your name with four tildes. I am pretty sure that Mort pushed him. Could you please elaborate on Roland's style of "knowing"? --MwNNrules (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis
What the heck is wrong with the synopsis? It is, to put it delicately, completely unencyclopediac. Needs to be totally rewritten, IMO. RobertM525 (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

i agree, it reads like a book review. 222.154.0.248 (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I replaced it with a version from November 2007, which was much better IMO. If someone wants to tackle cleaning up the longer version, feel free; this will serve in the meantime. Jgm (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Still far from top shape. Put in some recent edits to try and help it. May become focus of the week for Wikiproject Dark Tower. MwNNrules (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do we need a synopsis and a plot summary? Or would a more complete plot summary eliminate the need for a Synopsis category? Leafschik1967 (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We just need a plot summary that is linear, and easy to follow for readers. The current one is okay, but it skips everything about Tull, and the farmer, both of which should be mentioned at least briefly. Especially Tull. The farmer doesn't matter so much, because nothing of importance happens. The next part about The Way-Station should be elaborated upon, because of Jake and Jake's short meeting with Walter o'Dim. Than a better explanation on the speaking demon (as this becomes important later in the series), and a sentence explaining their encounter with the slow mutants. Link should be provided for slow mutants, because than the phrase will explain itself. After Jake's death and Roland's meeting with Walter o'Dim are elaborated upon, than the summary should be fine. --MwNNrules (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I fleshed this out, just to get an outline. I figured once it was there people could modify it more easily than writing it completely from scratch. Feel free to make any adjustments if I missed anything. Leafschik1967 (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Good job. I completely forgot about all the flashbacks to Roland's childhood. --MwNNrules (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

magnum opus
I too have heard that King considers this his magnum opus, but can we get that cited before it looks like original research? Expressing my concerns. MwNNrules (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll check out some of my books, I know I have heard it described as such.Leafschik1967 (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I know where to find one. In the preface to The Little Sisters of Eluria, King states that it is probably his magnum opus. Note the probably. I just have a paperback edition. Do you have a first edition hardcover? Because than we could find the page number and cite it. Maybe it would go better as a reference here: The Dark Tower (series). In any case, it is a valuable referene to have. --MwNNrules (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know that it is in that one - but I believe it is in one of the Concordances, and I have those. I'll double check when I have a chance. Leafschik1967 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's in Little Sisters (Everything's Eventual with the 1408 movie cover paperback, pg.167) King starts out "If there's a magnum opus in my life it's probably the yet unfinished seven-volume series about Roland Deschain of Gilead and his search for the Dark Tower which serves as the hub of existance." Good memory MwNN.  Black   ngold29   21:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. We can probably use that for the reference. The copy doesn't really matter, I just like first editions. --MwNNrules (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Tower WP AoF
This section can be used for the members of the Dark Tower WikiProject to put forth ideas about improving the article. If you would like to adopt a section of the article to write (or team up with someone else to do so) then let us know here. There are many articles concerning novels which are Featured Class, this article should be modeled after those.  Black   ngold29   15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes in the editions
Would anyone be able to explicitly define what changes where made in the 2003 edition from the original? I'd be interested to know. 68.165.229.136 21:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)artemisstrong


 * Here's a list (archive link). --Gwern (contribs) 21:52 27 April 2007 (GMT)


 * I say thankya.Artemisstrong 19:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the article would benefit from a more detailed explanation of the differences between the two versions. I will work on it when I have some time. Its pretty rare to have a book reissued 20 years later with actual changes made to it, so it would make for a solid section of the article. Leafschik1967 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

RESUMPTION
Is this the subtitle of the expanded edition? Could somebody inform me? It was recently deleted by an editor who said it wasn't in his book. At first I had the impression that he had the original edition, but I don't remember a subtitle in the revised edition. So is RESUMPTION in the expanded edition, or not? --MwNNrules (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll check later today. I'm pretty sure it is either in there, or in the Concordances. leafschik1967 (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How to document the "subtitles" is an interesting question. If they were real subtitles, they would appear on the cover and/or title pages of the books.  To my knowledge, at some point King started putting the statement "the subtitle of this novel is RXXXXXXX" in the author's forewards to the books; for books that were released prior to this affectation, he added the statement in later editions.  I don't think we can baldly say that these are subtitles since they don't appear as such and weren't part of the original books in some cases.  Jgm (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I only have the "revised editions" so I can only speak for them. But each book, after the foreward, has two pages: the first says 19, and the second says a different word each starting with "Re...". I haven't finished the final book, but it doesn't seem evident that these come into play throughout the actual story. I don't know if it should be added here or on the Dark Tower (series) page, but it seems like it's at leaset somewhat notable.  Black  ngold29   19:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am the editor who removed the "RESUMPTION" fact. The word is indeed in the book ("revised and expanded" edition here), but being after the title page, after the dedication, after the introduction, after the foreword, after the longish quote, and after the page with just "19" on it, I believe that it hardly qualifies as a subtitle, as it is. Of course, if somebody finds King's claim that it is indeed, this would, in my opinion, be worthy mentioning. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've always thought that the book was called "The Dark Tower" and the subtitle is "The Gunslinger", "The Waste Lands", etc. So I think we are all in agreement that it is not the "subtitle". But like I said above, I think it is notable, we just have to figure out what to call it.  Black  ngold29   21:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In Wolves of the Calla, King writes in the forward titled "The final argument" - "The subtitle of this novel is RESUMPTION." He goes through each book in the series and gives their subtitles in a similar fashion.  If King calls it a subtitle for his own work, I don't think its our place to say otherwise, no matter where it appears during the printing process.  leafschik1967 (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If King calls it a subtitle, we should mention that. I think it is a subtitle in a less literal sense; it's not below the title, it is something to think about before you begin. RESUMPTION (as well as 19) should be noted as appearing the revised edition. Call it what you like, it is new material, and it should be mentioned. Comments? Objections? I don't want to start a conflict of interest, so I think it is best that we decide now, before adding it in. --MwNNrules (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If King calls it a subtitle, and nothing else published contradicts this, isn't it original research for us to decide that its anything but the subtitle of the novel? Sure, its a quasi-primary source (its the authour, but he's writing about his own writing), but it can be easily cited and its better than deciding its not a subtitle because of how the book is printed.  leafschik1967 (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the REXXXXX's should be mentioned. But we can't just say "the subtitle of this book is REJECTION" (for example), because:
 * That wasn't the subtitle when the book was first published
 * It isn't a subtitle in the traditional sense (that is, it isn't on the cover, title page, etc.)
 * So we have to use something like:
 * In later Dark Tower books and the revised editions of the earlier books, King mentions "subtitles" for each book in the author's foreword (this is the only place the "subtitles" appear); King gives this book the subtitle RETARDATION . . ..
 * Which is pretty tortured (and I doubt my example is even accurate), but is needed to get the real facts across. Jgm (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why the issue of the subtitle is to be placed in the section discussing the Revised and Expanded Edition. --MwNNrules (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was originally in the section about the revised and expanded edition. I haven't seen a copy of that (R&E) book without mention of the subtitle.  The Gunslinger was the only book that was revised.  The others have been issued in various formats and printings, but they were not altered.  I think all that is needed is The Gunslinger (Revised and Expanded edition) was subtitled "RESUMPTION".  The authour's forward is not the only place where the subtitles appear - they are in the books. leafschik1967 (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jgm. We should mention the "subtitle" in the section about the revised and expanded ed., but in a way similar to what Jgm suggests. Indeed, as it is not at all obvious that that word is a subtitle, we must give a source. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The comment you reverted was "The expanded edition of the novel is subtitled RESUMPTION." in the section about the Revised and Expanded edition. It was lacking a citation, but hardly worthy of being reverted with a rather backhanded "Not in my book" comment.  Indeed, as I thought it was obvious that the word was a subtitle (it can't be anything else, and it appears in similar fashion in all 7 novels), I wouldn't have thought it needing a citation anymore than the original title of the novel. leafschik1967 (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mistakes and petty matters aside, the general consensus between all of us is that we should add it back in. Since it is not a subtitle in the strictest definition of the word, we will add the citation in to prove that King considers it to be a subtitle. That seems to be pretty fair, so I think someone should add it back in now. I don't have the material needed to cite it myself, but if anybody does, would they please get putting it in? --MwNNrules (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reinserted the RESUMPTION sentence, somewhat rephrased, but I have not the precise King reference. Sorry if my previous reversion sounded polemic! Has anybody the details about King's claim at hand? Goochelaar (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Question on first edition cover
Is this actually the first edition cover? I know I have a copy in my attic that does not have the words "the dark tower" on it. Just "The Gunnslinger." Does anyone know when this series started being called Dark Tower? Or am I just nuts. Ebonyskye (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I have no way of proving that the cover currently in the article is the first edition. Could you give us some publication data from your copy. With a little bit of work and fact checking, we could figure this out. --MwNNrules (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is indeed the first edition cover. See here: http://www.thedarktower.com/palaver/showthread.php?t=1100 Jmj713 (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction). Ikip (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of pages.
Hey guys, I switched it to 300 after just reading, but somebody switched back. I guess I didn't think that it could have been a different version that was less pages, but the most current (U.S.) version is 300. What is the standard for what cover and pagenumbers on a books page? Surely you would want the most recent cover, so it would be most identifiable, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.105.1 (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Books are identified by first editions. Jmj713 (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clarification! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.217.52.143 (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Misinformation.
In the Synopsis, it sounds like its says the Amoco gas pump is in the tunnel throught the mountain. Actually, thats just where Roland is when remembers the pump and relates it to the handcar they find in the tunnel. 168.26.184.61 (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)tonton315

The paragraph about the flashback should be split. They don't even happen in the same chapter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonton315 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)