July 5, 2016
With the exception of [b:The Hobbit|5907|The Hobbit|J.R.R. Tolkien|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1372847500s/5907.jpg|1540236] and [b:The Lord of the Rings|33|The Lord of the Rings (The Lord of the Rings, #1-3)|J.R.R. Tolkien|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1411114164s/33.jpg|3462456], and possibly the Narnia books and [b:The Bridge to Terabithia|2839|Bridge to Terabithia|Katherine Paterson|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1327880087s/2839.jpg|2237401], I've re-read this book more than any other. I'm re-reading this time, of course, in anticipation of the movie starring Idris Elba and Matthew McConaughey.

Although the book hints at things to come, one of the things I like so much about The Gunslinger is that it is a standalone story. It hints at a before and an after, giving a taste of each without going into the insane amount of detail that bogs down later books. The plot is simple – the man in black flees, and the gunslinger follows – and straightforward, but the narrative is complex nonetheless, with flashbacks and diversions that help flesh out character and motivations of both Roland and Walter.

One thing I did this time through that I haven't done before was to read a summary of changes King made for the "revised and expanded" version that came out in 2003. (I have only ever read the original version in the form of a Plume trade paperback from 1988.) I am generally okay with revised and expanded versions of books, if it makes sense to do them – for example, I enjoyed the longer version of [b:The Stand|149267|The Stand|Stephen King|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1213131305s/149267.jpg|1742269] – but I generally think that in such situations, they should be made as unobtrusively as possible in service to the original story. So, for example, I know that King changed the direction in which Roland chased the man in black in several places, adjusting it to a southeast direction (from south, or at one point southwest) to follow the path of the beam, which is something that becomes important in later books – and apparently was not something that had occurred to King when he wrote the original story. He also adjusted ages and time periods, making Jake a little bit older and Roland (and his pursuit of Walter) much older. There are also some cultural changes, like the townie painting "reap charms" rather than "zodiac signs" on the whore's legs or changing a reference to Summer to Full Earth.

However, some of the changes that he apparently made, according to the comparison I found, seem unnecessary and/or heavy handed from a foreshadowing perspective. Is it really necessary to mention that billy-bumblers bones are part of the golgotha? Or to give Susan's last name? Or to mention that the pump at the way station is made by North Central Positronics? None of these things are part of the original story, and they don't need to be. I'm not even sure it was necessary to make it clearer that Walter and Marten are the same person. They're useless bits of information, even taking into account the longer series as a whole. It's King waving his hands to his fans and saying, "Hey guys, see what I did there?!"

But to return to the book I actually read, I still quite like the original story, even if it turns out that some of it is incompatible with the later books. There's just something about the idea of strapping on a pair of revolvers with sandalwood grips and chasing after an evil magician that I find appealing. Still.

---
Oct. 28, 2008
This book was my introduction to Stephen King, and I became an immediate fan. From the words "The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed"--a sentence that contains volumes worth of foreshadowing--to whatever the closing line is, I was sucked in all the way.

One of the great qualities of this book is its clarity. Later Dark Tower volumes became gratuitously expansive, as King became less concerned with refining the story and focusing on Roland Deschain's primary purpose of finding the Dark Tower. But The Gunslinger is about as tight as a story can be without snapping in two. King gives us just enough back-story to give us a taste of how messed up both the gunslinger and his prey really are, without going into the obscene amount of detail that becomes his fault later in the series.

The Gunslinger is definitely one of the most enjoyable books I've ever read.