It says that he is the beast in the first book which i thought implied that he wasnt human. Secondly he supposedly killed himself so as to make himself immortal. And King says it maybe repeatedly in some of his other novels includung Insomnia and Black House. In fact i read the concordance too and i believe it stated that he wasn't human. And he does have powers just look at Insomnia and how he just transported between world in the blink of an eye without the use of a magick door. For all of these beings to follow him as well suggests that he is some sort of god. I mean he did wipe out Rolands world rather easily. I think even IT may have been one of his servants as well and do you think that a creature such as that would follow a human. Trust me Marc he is in no way shape or form human i mean look at the way Mordred turned out do you think his abilities came from Roland. Read that last dark tower book again and see if you change your mind.

ALOWERDEEP

It says that he is the beast in the first book which i thought implied that he wasnt human.

Are you talking about the original edition or the revised and expanded edition?

Secondly he supposedly killed himself so as to make himself immortal.

I thought that was a tale told to people in Roland's world but never proven. Much like the rumors of the guardians.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I haven't read Insomnia or Black House since they came out. I'm looking at from just The Dark Tower perspective.

As for Mordred, I could argue that he got his spider-like abilities from the demon.

Flagg is not the Beast mentioned in the first book, The Gunslinger. In fact, Flagg (as Walter) tells Roland of the Beast's existence, but will not speak of the beast itself out of fear. Is the Beast the Crimson King? I don't think so, as the Crimson King was never mentioned until Insomnia was written. If you are looking for a possible letdown, its that there is no beast residing within the tower for Roland to slay as was foreshadowed in the earlier books. Looking at it another way, however, you may feel that Roland himself is the beast he must slay, and if once, just once, he relents to his quest, and turns away from his obsession or addiction, his purgatorial cycle will cease and he can move on, like the rest of his world. He is given the opportunity time and time again.

Flagg is but a magician, not as powerful as he would like to be, and not immortal, but maybe close to immortal. I would have to reread, but I think the Crimson King was who killed himself to attain immortality, which is why the only way past him was for Patrick Danforth to erase him. Flagg spreads chaos, thrives on it in fact, and is a menace, but Roland views him as a pest more than anything, probably because he has a sense that he does not matter at the end.

In the revised version of the Stand, Flagg vanishes prior to the nuke going off and awakens on the island. He is a magician, and needs no doors to move between worlds, so he did not survive a nuke, nor did he survive being shot in the eye with an arrow at the end of Eyes of the Dragon. He vanishes prior to the arrow hitting him, again escaping death, but not necessarily by immortality.

There is much more to this series than some of us realize, and only after a good deal of thought are we going to realize the depth of this work. King has become a lot more intellectual than he is given credit for, and while I can agree that Flagg was disposed of a bit too easily, as was Mordred and his Crimson Father, I can also say that there is still more for me to find in this series. It may be awhile before these books surrender all of their secrets...

i dont know i always thought flagg was more than just a magician. I mean it was because of him that everything started to collapse in Rolands kingdom. As for Roland only considering him a pest i would have to disagree, the man slept with his mother and had her planning to kill Rolands father. Than he brings down Rolands entire world on behalf of the Crimson King. I would have to view him as more than a pest. As for the Beast that is mentioned in the first gunslinger before revision, it is revised so that the beast part is replaced by the Crimson King which in fact means he is the beast. The ending of the series was premature and stupid due to the fact that King put restraints on himself only doing seven books. Issues that needed to be resolved weren't. I mean after six books now a gunslinger dies and two of them at that C'MON! The series started out as something totally different and only changed because of Kings car accident. This started out as a fantasy and all of the sudden hey let me throw myself in to boost my ego. King did not need to be in the book and he may have single handedly ruined what could have been one of the greatest stories of all time. The ending was rushed and characters that should have played roles in earlier books were all thrown in (Brautigan, Sheemie, DInky) and gone shortly thereafter. Does anyone remember the early books with mentions of thunderclap and how there were supposed to be vampires and wolves and the undead (zombies) and how they all served the master of thunderclap who was supposed to be Marten. I mean what the hell happened? I get angry just thinking about how mush i was mislead....but whatever i guess its okay cause KIng just wanted to be done with it and retire.


ALOWERDEEP

Just because King changed The Beast to The Crimson King in the the revised edition of The Gunslinger doesn't mean they are the same. All it means is King changed his mind within the last twenty-five years of the characters and events within the story. I don't think the ending is different from what he originally planned only the journey there.

As for King retiring, not gonna happen. He may not publish as frequently but he's definitely not retiring.

i dont know i always thought flagg was more than just a magician. I mean it was because of him that everything started to collapse in Rolands kingdom. As for Roland only considering him a pest i would have to disagree, the man slept with his mother and had her planning to kill Rolands father. Than he brings down Rolands entire world on behalf of the Crimson King. I would have to view him as more than a pest. As for the Beast that is mentioned in the first gunslinger before revision, it is revised so that the beast part is replaced by the Crimson King which in fact means he is the beast. The ending of the series was premature and stupid due to the fact that King put restraints on himself only doing seven books. Issues that needed to be resolved weren't. I mean after six books now a gunslinger dies and two of them at that C'MON! The series started out as something totally different and only changed because of Kings car accident. This started out as a fantasy and all of the sudden hey let me throw myself in to boost my ego. King did not need to be in the book and he may have single handedly ruined what could have been one of the greatest stories of all time. The ending was rushed and characters that should have played roles in earlier books were all thrown in (Brautigan, Sheemie, DInky) and gone shortly thereafter. Does anyone remember the early books with mentions of thunderclap and how there were supposed to be vampires and wolves and the undead (zombies) and how they all served the master of thunderclap who was supposed to be Marten. I mean what the hell happened? I get angry just thinking about how mush i was mislead....but whatever i guess its okay cause KIng just wanted to be done with it and retire.


ALOWERDEEP

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinions. I don't necessarily agree with any of them, but that's just me. My understanding of the facts may be different than yours, but that is one of the chief delights of fiction. It's open to interpretation and debate, and I would never tell you that this passage or that passage absolutely means one thing or another. You have a right to feel cheated I guess, but I think you're in the minority. The final book alone is complex, and looking at the entire series, the complexities only multiply. Anything that takes thirty years to complete is going to have discrepancies from beginning vision to final output.

I really don't think Flagg was as responsible for all of the unraveling as you make him him out to be. He certainly takes advantage of what is going on around him, and is clearly out to get in Roland's way, but he only plays a minor part in the actual events. He is always in the picture, but never front and center. He is always off to the side, ready to slip away when things go wrong. If you go back through all of the works, you will see that Flagg fails constantly in all his efforts.

***SPOILERS***

I finally finished it today at lunch. I was very happy with it. It is either my favorite or second (behind the Gunslinger) in the series. I admit that I was somewhat disappointed in the quick death of Marten/Flagg. But that was mainly based on his presence in books other than the seven Dark Tower books. I was somewhat underwhelmed by Eddie's death, but overwhelmed with emotion at Jake's death, and to a slightly smaller extent Oy's.

The ending was perfect in my opinion. It combined Roland's persistence and single-mindedness into both a strength and weakness. It showed that fate (ka) plays a role but at the same time a person can learn and change his fate (Roland picks up the Horn of Gilead).

Immediately upon finishing the book I was filled with all kinds of opposite emotions: happiness, sadness, anger, calm, etc. But these emotions weren't conflicting with each other inside me; they were complementing each other. The only analogy I could think of was yin and yang.


To address some of the criticisms mentioned in previous posts:

There is no resolution.
I think the point of the story is that there is often no resolution. Life is a journey, a quest. The joy and wonderment is in the journey not in reaching the destination.

Marten and The Crimson King and Mordred were killed too easily.
This is symbolic of the fact that the evils and obstacles of this world that we face are often not as significant as we perceive them to be. We spend so much time chasing or being chased by some things that when we finally catch them or are caught by them they are often a let-down.

The motivations of the evil characters were stupid and shallow.
I think this is basically a statement about evil in general. It is so minor and insignificant relative to the force of GOOD (whatever you want to call it). It is ultimately self-defeating.

Important characters were left out.
First of all, I think it would be nearly impossible to work all the characters into the main story. That is why there are sub-plots to begin with. Characters such as Jack Sawyer were important to their own sub-plots but not directly to Roland's quest. More on that below.

Stephen King writes himself into his books due to ego.
I honestly don't believe this to be true. I believe him when he says that he just writes down the story as it comes (is presented) to him. I think he felt that his inclusion in the story was both necessary and unavoidable.

I want to specifically address Mailedbypostman and ALowerDeep on a couple of issues, respectively:

1) Why do you think that reading the Dark Tower "obliterates any reason to read other Stephen King books"? I find it to be exactly the opposite. I feel the desire to go back and read much of his early work to re-examine how it all fits into the recently-completed puzzle, especially Insomnia (which I didn't honestly care much for the first time), Eyes of the Dragon (same), and 'Salem's Lot (the Father Callahan arc mainly).

2) You state that Jack Sawyer saves "the most powerful breaker ever in Black House" and that "he most certainly saved the tower single handedly." I would posit that Jack is unknowingly doing a bad thing, just as Dinky Earnshaw was in Everything's Eventual. The Breakers are trying to destroy the beams and, therefore, saving Tyler was actually a bad thing; it helped to advance the purpose of the Crimson King.


Finally, I am intriqued by cyber-jack's idea of breaking the cycle, of Roland relenting and turning away from his quest.

Well i don't want to address everything you said but let me just say these few hings real quick. When i said Jack Sawyer saved the ost powerful breaker i meant that he saved him form the Crimson King using him (RE:BLACK HOUSE). And secondly your telling me that the Crimson King's motive was logical i mean come on this is a epic collection of novels and the main villains motive is crap look at Rasalom he has a real motive and he doesn't die with a single gunshot. King is a egotist and he wasnt necessary screw all the real world messages with evil being self defeating. When i read a book that pits good against evil i want a real battle not some philosophical nonsense to justify and ending. Nightworld was a real battle of good vs evil and Rasalom isnt taken out with a eraser either fpw puts King to shame in every aspect. A message to mr king try and be more like fpw....

ALOWERDEEP

Well i don't want to address everything you said but let me just say these few hings real quick. When i said Jack Sawyer saved the ost powerful breaker i meant that he saved him form the Crimson King using him (RE:BLACK HOUSE).

As much as I appreciate what you're trying to say I still disagree with your entire argument that Jack Sawyer should have been in The Dark Tower series. I have read a lot of King's work and I like the fact he is working the stories together but for the average Joe that may not be reading everything King it might be too much. A Jack Sawyer addition would be great for the fans but may have become overwhelming for the average reader.

And if you think about it, King may be trying to keep The Talisman series seperate from The Dark Tower series even though they exist within the same universe. I mean, it's the only other "series" he has.

And secondly your telling me that the Crimson King's motive was logical i mean come on this is a epic collection of novels and the main villains motive is crap look at Rasalom he has a real motive and he doesn't die with a single gunshot.

The Crimson King's motives ARE logical. He's insane and wants to destroy the tower so he can rule Todash or, at least, beat Roland to the tower. Why is that such a bad motive?

Nightworld was a real battle of good vs evil and Rasalom isnt taken out with a eraser either fpw puts King to shame in every aspect.

Nightworld is a great battle of good vs evil. No one will dispute you on that. But The Adversary Cycle and The Dark Tower series are two different monsters altogether. Comparing the two is as illogical as comparing apples and pork.

Jack Sawyer is Jake Chambers.