question from a man in Eastern Siberia about a little girl from the town inhabitants, who killed the

  • New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
  • Hot Topics is on indefinite hiatus.

  • The message board is closed between the hours of 4pm ET Friday and 8:30am ET Monday.

    As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.

Tiny

RECEIVED:Annoying Questions award
Nov 25, 2009
1,840
2,757
50
Wilmington DE, strange little place.
#46
No, it doesn't -- but I think it's safe to assume that the baby couldn't survive long in a remote town without anyone alive to look after it.
what im trying to say is that King could easily 'save' the babies/toddders andd write a whole new story about them and poppa Doc/Brown
King could do i million diff' thing.... if he wanted
 
#49
My personal view is that Brown, the corn farmer Roland encountered and told about his killing Tull, ventured back there after the Gunslinger moved on. The distance wasn't too great, nor had too much time passed. Brown wanted to see if the tale was true. There he found the town much as Roland described it, and amidst the buildings and bodies he found child barely clinging to life. And that, as we say, is the start of another tale.
 
Last edited:
Sep 15, 2017
30
92
39
#50
My personal view is that Brown, the corn farmer Roland encountered and told about his killing Tull, ventured back there after the Gunslinger moved on. The distance wasn't too great, nor had too much time passed. Brown wanted to see if the tale was true. There he found the town much as Roland described it, and amidst the buildings and bodies he found child barely clinging to life. And that, as we say, is the start of another tale.
I thought my strange question is not interesting anymore. Your suggestion appeals to me.
 

Aloysius Nell

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2014
306
995
46
#51
My personal view is that Brown, the corn farmer Roland encountered and told about his killing Tull, ventured back there after the Gunslinger moved on. The distance wasn't too great, nor had too much time passed. Brown wanted to see if the tale was true. There he found the town much as Roland described it, and amidst the buildings and bodies he found child barely clinging to life. And that, as we say, is the start of another tale.
It's been awhile, but I thought Brown was crazy. Like, pure-dee craaaaaazy!! If your guess is right, I wouldn't expect Brown to raise the child. More likely leave her or (sorry) even eat her. That's just where MY mind goes - I've probably read too much Stephen King, huh?
 
#52
It's been awhile, but I thought Brown was crazy. Like, pure-dee craaaaaazy!! If your guess is right, I wouldn't expect Brown to raise the child. More likely leave her or (sorry) even eat her. That's just where MY mind goes - I've probably read too much Stephen King, huh?
I think you are remembering incorrectly. The corn farmer was quite sane and friendly.
 

skimom2

Just moseyin' through...
Oct 9, 2013
15,668
91,910
USA
#53
Roland could not kill that little girl because she couldn't walk. She couldn't attack him together with other residents. Therefore he didn't kill her along with the rest
Yes, he could kill her. And likely did. Though Roland was a gunslinger, he was no longer an idealist (nor was he a Jedi, who cannot kill that which is not a threat). He was just...lost at the time he was in Tull. It reminded me of the scene in the movie where he is called out as not being a gunslinger because he was all about vengeance at that point--that aligns with this Roland at this point of his journey. Roland did not regain his purpose with a clean (ish) heart until after Jake.

Welcome!
 
#54
Yes, he could kill her. And likely did. Though Roland was a gunslinger, he was no longer an idealist (nor was he a Jedi, who cannot kill that which is not a threat). He was just...lost at the time he was in Tull. It reminded me of the scene in the movie where he is called out as not being a gunslinger because he was all about vengeance at that point--that aligns with this Roland at this point of his journey. Roland did not regain his purpose with a clean (ish) heart until after Jake.

Welcome!

I agree it is possible, but I also think the specifics of shooting a baby rather than it just dying of neglect after the mother is shot is pretty potent stuff. I think King, who rarely cries off the painful stuff, would have had it explicit. Thus, I think the baby was not shot by the Gunslinger, although it could have died indirectly because of his actions. I also, being the sentimentalist I am, think the corn farmer ventured there. What he found in regards to living or dead infants is up to the individual.
 

skimom2

Just moseyin' through...
Oct 9, 2013
15,668
91,910
USA
#55
I agree it is possible, but I also think the specifics of shooting a baby rather than it just dying of neglect after the mother is shot is pretty potent stuff. I think King, who rarely cries off the painful stuff, would have had it explicit. Thus, I think the baby was not shot by the Gunslinger, although it could have died indirectly because of his actions. I also, being the sentimentalist I am, think the corn farmer ventured there. What he found in regards to living or dead infants is up to the individual.
We don't know, of course, but I'm not a sentimentalist (despite being a mother--I must have some of Larry Underwood's tinfoil deep in my soul--lol). Tull Roland is about as low as a man can go. He cares about nothing or no one but the tower, and not in a pure way. It's just something he's doing to defy Walter. That Roland would kill whatever he had to kill, with no compunction (this is the reason I dislike the updated version of The Gunslinger--Mr. King softened Roland. I think that was a mistake). Note Jake. It was that betrayal of the trust of an innocent that set him back on the true path to the tower, for the right reason.
 
#56
We don't know, of course, but I'm not a sentimentalist (despite being a mother--I must have some of Larry Underwood's tinfoil deep in my soul--lol). Tull Roland is about as low as a man can go. He cares about nothing or no one but the tower, and not in a pure way. It's just something he's doing to defy Walter. That Roland would kill whatever he had to kill, with no compunction (this is the reason I dislike the updated version of The Gunslinger--Mr. King softened Roland. I think that was a mistake). Note Jake. It was that betrayal of the trust of an innocent that set him back on the true path to the tower, for the right reason.
Oh I agree with you there. I have no doubt that Roland shot the mother down along with the rest. What I disagree with is that he walked around, found the infant and shot it. Tull Roland would kill whatever he had to kill; the point being there was no reason to shoot an infant. It would have been time consuming and a waste of a bullet. Would he have have remembered the infant existed? Almost certainly. Leaving it to the tender mercies of fate to die alone doesn't exactly elevate him. It just means he isn't shooting toddlers down in cold blood. :) I'm not trying to soften the Gunslinger or act as an apologist for him. In fact, I think leaving the infant to die without looking for it speaks volumes on how jaded Roland had become. We know enough about him to be certain it isn't a detail he would fail to remember.

I think there is even more in play. Roland felt compelled to tell Brown about Tull. He had to get it off his chest. Why? Clearly he felt burdened by it; unclean perhaps. Survivors in Roland's world waste nothing. Roland also had to know that Brown would, assuming he didn't shoot the corn farmer too, go to Tull almost immediately. It would be an empty town full of useful things for someone like Brown. Waste not, want not. All things serve the beam. Roland, even as strange and low as he had become, would know that Brown would go to Tull to satisfy curiosity, take advantage of a town full of supplies, and perhaps tend to survivors. Brown would at least bury the dead; he was one of the holy men once. I've read the first book more times than I care to count, and it is always little details which get to me. Some things seem to interlock or follow the other.
 
Sep 15, 2017
30
92
39
#58
Yes, he could kill her. And likely did. Though Roland was a gunslinger, he was no longer an idealist (nor was he a Jedi, who cannot kill that which is not a threat). He was just...lost at the time he was in Tull. It reminded me of the scene in the movie where he is called out as not being a gunslinger because he was all about vengeance at that point--that aligns with this Roland at this point of his journey. Roland did not regain his purpose with a clean (ish) heart until after Jake.

Welcome!
She couldn't attack him. Physically could not
 
Sep 15, 2017
30
92
39
#59
Oh I agree with you there. I have no doubt that Roland shot the mother down along with the rest. What I disagree with is that he walked around, found the infant and shot it. Tull Roland would kill whatever he had to kill; the point being there was no reason to shoot an infant. It would have been time consuming and a waste of a bullet. Would he have have remembered the infant existed? Almost certainly. Leaving it to the tender mercies of fate to die alone doesn't exactly elevate him. It just means he isn't shooting toddlers down in cold blood. :) I'm not trying to soften the Gunslinger or act as an apologist for him. In fact, I think leaving the infant to die without looking for it speaks volumes on how jaded Roland had become. We know enough about him to be certain it isn't a detail he would fail to remember.

I think there is even more in play. Roland felt compelled to tell Brown about Tull. He had to get it off his chest. Why? Clearly he felt burdened by it; unclean perhaps. Survivors in Roland's world waste nothing. Roland also had to know that Brown would, assuming he didn't shoot the corn farmer too, go to Tull almost immediately. It would be an empty town full of useful things for someone like Brown. Waste not, want not. All things serve the beam. Roland, even as strange and low as he had become, would know that Brown would go to Tull to satisfy curiosity, take advantage of a town full of supplies, and perhaps tend to survivors. Brown would at least bury the dead; he was one of the holy men once. I've read the first book more times than I care to count, and it is always little details which get to me. Some things seem to interlock or follow the other.
That's what I meant
 
Sep 15, 2017
30
92
39
#60
Read finished the Dark Tower. Left more questions than answers. But the question about the fate of this little girl in the town of Tull still haunts me the most.
And the fate of this little girl will never change. Roland again and again begins his journey, leaving her alone in an empty city
 
Last edited:
We’ve created a Stephen King Library action for the 
			  Google Assistant and skill for Amazon Alexa. It'll give 
			  you a personalized reading recommendations based on your 
			  answers to a series of questions—so what are you waiting 
			  for? Find out which Stephen King book you should read 
			  next!