Talk:The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower

message: It is stated in the Gunslinger that Roland's quest is to find out who resides at the top of the Tower.  Due to the books' cyclical nature, it seems to me that the Man in Black is at the top.  Am I incorrect?  Is this just a personal hypothesis and unsubstantiated by the text?Artemisstrong 23:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a personal way to describe the cycle. Roland himself could be said to be at the top of the tower. –Pomte 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If the question is "what resides at the top of the Tower," then the most complete answer seems to be Roland's quest itself. When Roland opens the door, what he finds inside is himself, endlessly pursuing his goal. It is as if his quest, journeying to the the Tower and mounting its steps, is the water turning the wheel of Ka. Walter's position there seems incidental. Althafain (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Roland sacrifices everything for his quest for the tower.  So when he climbs the tower, what else could be left for him but his quest?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.33.73 (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Top Of The Tower 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: This Section of the article is kind of wrong, can i edit this a little?

message: I think the article is "cleaned-up" enough to warrent removal of the cleanup tag, yes? --Lachatdelarue (talk) 02:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Clean Up 

message: Regardless of the merits of the arguments above about whether King broke promises or whether this was good or bad, the entire "Literary significance and criticism" section is weasel-worded original research.  If the fan reaction is so significant that it deserves to be mentioned in the article, it will probably have come up in some reliable source.  Otherwise, the material as presently organized simply doesn't belong here, regardless of any fan's strong feelings about it. Brendan Moody 22:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's been a month and no sources have been provided, I've removed the section. Brendan Moody 17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words

message: "It is implied that an alternate version of Oy, a dog with a long neck whose barks sometimes sound like words, will also join them."
I do believe this sentence should be removed from the synopsis - as neither Oy nor a dog are mentioned in this chapter. Yes one would *hope* that Oy will rejoin what's left of the Ka-tet of 19 but this is not mentioned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.143.51 (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis - Oy