Talk:Roland Deschain/Archive 1

Archive 1

Roland's Titles

As far as I can tell, he should be Baron of New Canaan (where Gilead is located -- mentioned in the original version of The Gunslinger). And, as the only living descendant of Arthur Eld (except possibly for Mordred Deschain and the Crimson King), shouldn't he be King of All-World? Perhaps a new section should be added. Any thoughts? Ratter 13:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm cleaning up The Dark Tower Characters and am thinning the Roland section considerably, since there is a main article on him. For legacy, or pasting into this article, here is the original text:

Roland Deschain, son of Steven Deschain, was born in the fictional Land of Gilead. Roland is the last gunslinger, charged with finding the Dark Tower (it is unclear if the hope of reversing the erosion of time and the universe that may be solved upon finding it is actually a goal of Roland's or if it is simply finding the Tower he cares about). This quest is obsession, monomania and geas to Roland: the success of the quest is more important than the life of his loved ones, family and friends. He is a man who lacks much imagination, and this is one of the stated reasons for his survival against all odds: He can't imagine anything other then surviving to find the Tower.

As the series opens, he is chasing Walter o'Dim, aka the Man in Black, across the seemingly endless Mohaine Desert. He finds Jake Chambers, an 11-year-old boy from 1977 New York City, at a way station and befriends him. Jake was walking down the street one day when someone pushed him under a Cadillac, then he woke up at a way-station in Mid-World and was found soon after by the gunslinger. Roland's relationship with Jake in The Gunslinger defines his personality: He can be friendly but is usually distant; he is wise and skilled but ignorant of our ways; he has no real sense of humor and is noble. However, he fails Jake: when confronted with the choice of saving Jake, who is dangling from a railroad trestle above an abyss, or finally confronting the Man in Black, he lets Jake fall. He catches up with Walter, the Man in Black, who tells Roland's fortune using some sort of Tarot cards during a very long palaver. Roland falls unconscious, to finally wake up (seemingly significantly aged) next to what seems to be Walter's skeleton. He makes his way to a beach, where he is attacked by a swarm of bizarre lobster creatures (called lobstrosities, portmanteau of lobster and monstrosity). One of these creatures catchs an exhausted Roland sleeping and devours the top two fingers (the index & middle finger) of his right hand and the big toe of his right foot. These wounds become infected from the lobstrosities' toxic venom and Roland begins to fall gravely ill.

He eventually recruits a new ka-tet for himself from a set of doors he finds along the beach, and heals his body as well with medicines from the other side. By the end of the 7th book, however, his ka-tet is either dead or gone, leaving him to climb the Tower on his own. And at the top, he finds...himself. Siguls or signs of his past life are scattered in various rooms. He walks through that final door (engraved on it is his own name) only to find to his horror that it opens up into the Mohaine Desert, sending him back to do his quest all over again like countless times before. His memory is wiped, he is made young again, and his fingers and guns are returned to him whole. The Tower, however, seeing that Roland has progressed so well from a soulless killer to a man of compassion for those who need him, gives him the Horn of Eld, an heirloom he lost long ago, as a symbol that perhaps things will be different next time he reaches the Tower. And so, "the man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed."

— RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 00:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

CAN SOMEONE FIX ROLAND'S PICTURE?

His head is cut off.Saltforkgunman 21:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's just what this particular painting (taken from DT II:The Drawing of the Three) looks like. - dharmabum 07:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Mortensen or Owen?

"Actor who could play him: Viggo Mortensen or King Arthur (movie) 's Clive Owen."

Is this statement based on any verifiable fact? Are either of these two actors in talks to portray the character of Roland? Has Stephen King suggested them as potential actors for the role? Or is this statement merely conjecture? If so, it should be removed, though I agree that both are fine choices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.13.84 (talk • contribs) May 3, 2005

Is there even a Dark Tower movie in production? Great idea, but I don't know who would try and take it on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.183.80 (talk • contribs) November 25, 2005

There is a Marvel Comic book series coming in 2007, but no known movie deals.. personally I believe Hugh Jackman could play the role if he aged 10 years :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.36.71 (talk • contribs) February 23, 2006

The only actor that could ever play Roland is mentioned in the book itself: Clint Eastwood, but the movie would come a bit late for him.

I don't see that statement anywhere in the article, what exactly are you referring to? Conjecture about who "could" play him isn't really encylopedic and doesn't belong in the article, although if there were talks about a movie (none that I've heard) that would change. - dharmabum 08:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (Edit: Ah, I see, the lack of formatting or signing confused me, and this is referring to a statement that used to be in the article. Reformatting to make things clear)

Why arent Jake, Sussanah, or Eddie in the table at the bottom?

I dont see why 3 vital charachters are left out of the table while many minor charachters remain.

--I agree to, and wish to reiterate this point. This seems to be a major hole here, not to mention that Oy as another character and ka-tet member has also been neglected.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.61.85 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Physical Appearance

As Roland had taken over somebody else's body at the time, and the reference is about the way he acted, i feel the comparison to the Terminator doesn't belong here. I'd correct this myself, but my english isn't all that, so...

I agree. The comparision to The Terminator is due to the pauses that occur as Roland consults the 'Mortpedia' to find out how to say something. This is similar to the way The Terminator talks. It is not a physical reference at all. I will edit out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Torouse (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning

I think this article needs cleaning up with some headers put in. I think there's too much of the article that doesn't look right somehow. Any volunteers to help clean it up? --Scott w 09:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Would it be too bold to suggest an additional picture of Roland? A younger picture of him, such as the one from the cover of The Gunslinger seems like it would be appropriate to add. I can get the cover picture quite easily, seeing as I have a copy of the book, and I could scan it in, however, I am not sure of the copyright details of the subject.

Thoughts? --Muna 08:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I think that at least one picture of Jae Lee's depictions of a teenaged Roland from The Gunslinger Born might also be a good addition to the article. --Pennyforth 12:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Move to "Roland Deschain"

I like this move (by CyberGhostface) from "Roland of Gilead" to "Roland Deschain", but do you think it would be beneficial to give a full series of titles to Roland in the opening of the article? To make it clear, the current article says:

Roland Deschain is a gunslinger...

and I'm thinking of something like this:

Roland Deschain of Gilead, son of Steven, the line of Eld, is a gunslinger...

Bolding could be dropped after the initial "Roland Deschain" if that would be preferable (I slightly prefer it), giving us:

Roland Deschain of Gilead, son of Steven, the line of Eld, is a gunslinger...

Thoughts? - dharmabum 10:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't like it. There's just something that's very "ugh" about it --Scott w 09:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Definitely a perceptable "ugh"-ness about it.Jiminezwaldorf 09:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ammunition

Doesn't Drawing of the Three specifically state that Roland uses .45 Winchester ammunition? I know that is stated within the original edition of the book - or is that something that is contradicted later in the series, or is it something that King changed in a later edition? (The only one I have access to is the original.)

From Drawing of the Three: "He turned the pages slowly. No... no... no... He had almost lost hope when he saw it. He looked up at the clerk with such blazing excitement that the clerk felt a little afraid. "There!" he said. "There! Right there!" The photograph he was tapping was one of a Winchester .45 pistol shell. It was not exactly the same as his own shells, because it hadn't been hand-thrown or hand-loaded, but he could see without even consulting the figures (which would have meant almost nothing to him anyway) that it would chamber and fire from his guns."

If anyone has more information on this, that'd be helpful. Fedallah 04:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

He only uses "Winchesters" after he takes them from Mort's when. Otherwise, his guns do use .45s, just the originals were hand-made. PrometheusX303 01:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That's understood, but the article states that he uses Long Colt, which I understand to be a different round. EDIT: I just did a bit of research and apparently the Winchester .45 handgun round is often colloquially referred to as Long Colt. Works for me. Fedallah 02:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the above comment does not wash. Someone above asked for information; let some be provided. The .45 Long Colt is a particular cartridge designed by the Colt firearms manufacturing company, whereas Winchester .45 Magnum is a completely different cartridge designed by Winchester. The legendary .45 Long Colt cartridge is not "colloquially" referred to as anything other than .45 Colt or .45 Long Colt. You will find .45 Long Colt manufactured by Winchester (as well as by Federal, Remington, etc.) but if you walk into a firearms store and ask for .45 Winchester, you are not going to be handed .45 Colt. If you see "Winchester .45 Colt" it means only that it is .45 Colt ammo produced by Winchester. The only "Winchester .45" cartridge in existence is the .45 Win Mag, which is actually an automatic pistol cartridge, not a revolver cartridge. This is not to say that auto pistol cartridges cannot be used with revolvers: there are some very popular revolvers chambered to fire such cartridges; a special "clip" attachment (similar to a speed loader) is employed. I made an edit to the Wiki, regarding the "curiosity" that Roland's ancient revolvers would chamber automatic pistol cartridges from the modern world, rather than using rimmed revolver cartridges. Apparently someone had a problem with that because it was promptly removed. An alternative way of thinking, if this bugs anyone, is just to figure that the .45 Win cartridge mentioned by King is a fictional, Old West "shoot-em-up" revolver cartridge along the lines of the .45 Colt, rather than the very real, very specific .45 Win Mag automatic pistol cartridge. Any other contrivances are just a way of standing the truth on its ear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.83.74 (talk • contribs)

I removed the statement from the article, and my "problem" with it is that it is original research and was worded as speculation. To continue into a little original research/speculation of my own, there have been millions of hints that Roland's world is ours in a far, far future. Why couldn't the gun that was handed down generation after generation be a .45? It takes a lot of machining to make a firearm, and a good amount to make a shell; since the world has "moved on" those capabilities no longer seem to exist. Which means that Roland's hand-loaded cartridges would have to be spent casings from the past that are reloaded since it is obviously not a muzzleloader. In the end, if King says he used a certain kind, then that's what the article says, because that is what is referenced; it's a fictional novel world, so it doesn't have to be "right." — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 11:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't a simpler solution to all this simply be to say ".45" and nothing else? Long Colt is never mentioned (though certainly a logical inference) in any of the books themselves, so why put it in at all? Even Winchester is in dispute, as it may be referring to a type of pistol round or just some manner of .45 pistol ammunition made by Winchester. Simply sidestepping the question and leaving .45 as the only reference would solve the problem elegantly enough. -willC- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.201.231 (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Marveldarktower.jpg

Image:Marveldarktower.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

spoiler warning

can we put a spoiler warning tag on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.1.190 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OR?

Is the following text/interpretation sourced or citable, or OR? Slight concern that it may be one person's idea about the book, only:

"However, if not for his actions, the Tower would have crumbled and fallen anyway. Furthermore, his "punishment" may be actually his redemption if taken through the right perspective; he is damned for his killings but ka and the Tower itself take their saving into account and allow him to make his choices of life and death over again, and thus he saves himself a little more at a time, piece by piece until he is ultimately freed."

In fact the book doesn't state the tower "would have fallen", doesn't call it his "redemption" (in fact it forewarns before the ending that there is a certain bitterness about it), and doesn't convey the last sentence. Hence checking. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mistdarktower.png

The image Image:Mistdarktower.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Thedarktower7.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

It might be helpful to clarify the meaning of "darkling" and "tinct" as verbs here. -- 219.165.164.126 02:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As soon as Stephen King defines these words, I'll get right on it. ROG 19 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Using "sigul" in the description is not very useful without a definition. If it can't be defined (as above) then perhaps it shouldn't be used here?Tommfuller (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Prounounseeashun

Don't throw rotten vegetables at me, but should we add a pronunciation at the beginning? I always pronounced it "DESS-CHANE" but I can see how it might be looked at sort of as if it's French in origin, like: "DISHAIN". Anyone know the actual pronunciation? I'm hoping I'm right. - Jiminezwaldorf 09:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

~I've always pronounced it as "De-shane"just because it sounds better, but unless King says otherwise, I don't think the pronunciation can be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.226.249 (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I double your request. Also, it would be great to add the accent/stress mark (is it pronounced as ROland or RolAnd? i've always thought that the first way is correct; however, i'm currently reading The Song of Roland, and "Roland" in that poem is clearly pronounced as RolAnd). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penartur (talk • contribs) 18:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

In 1988, Penguin Books released an audiobook where Sai King himself read excerpts from the first book, The Gunslinger, on the radio, and in 1989, New Audio Library released an audiobook of him reading The Drawing of the Three in its entirety. This would certainly be the first place to go to when it comes to pronounciations. Second in line would be Frank Muller's readings, after all Sai King referred to him as "hearing the voices in my head", and hadn't it been for his accident, Muller would've most likely read the entire series. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)