11/22/63 ******Spoilers!!!

[Bev Vincent]

Dark Tower.

[ICry4Oy]

He may not have meant to, but all things serve the beam!

Oh how we danced...

[Merlin1958]

Dark Tower.

That's kinda funny in a way as, by his own hand (bold "also by the author" list) he has connected other books to the DT with less obvious connection threads. "1408", immediately comes to mind, but I am sure there are others. It would seem on the surface that just the "IT" connection would denote "bold-face", not to mention the vaque portal in time and all the "19's".

Then again, he's the author so who am I to say otherwise, right? Interesting.

[pixiedark76]

Dark Tower.

That's kinda funny in a way as, by his own hand (bold "also by the author" list) he has connected other books to the DT with less obvious connection threads. "1408", immediately comes to mind, but I am sure there are others. It would seem on the surface that just the "IT" connection would denote "bold-face", not to mention the vaque portal in time and all the "19's".

Then again, he's the author so who am I to say otherwise, right? Interesting.

How did "11/22/63" connect to "1408" I am not sure I see the connection between the two books.

[Merlin1958]

Dark Tower.

That's kinda funny in a way as, by his own hand (bold "also by the author" list) he has connected other books to the DT with less obvious connection threads. "1408", immediately comes to mind, but I am sure there are others. It would seem on the surface that just the "IT" connection would denote "bold-face", not to mention the vaque portal in time and all the "19's".

Then again, he's the author so who am I to say otherwise, right? Interesting.

How did "11/22/63" connect to "1408" I am not sure I see the connection between the two books.

"1408" is considered a "DT related" story, that's all. "11/22/63" would only be connected if it was deemed "DT Related" as per SK's "other books by author" list and denoted in "bod" type. Bev is saying that King has stated it is not a "DT related" book or story like BH, Talisman, HiA and Insomnia and 1408 are.

Sorry for the confusion. Does that clear it up, my dear?

[Jean]

Dark Tower.

That's kinda funny in a way as, by his own hand (bold "also by the author" list) he has connected other books to the DT with less obvious connection threads. "1408", immediately comes to mind, but I am sure there are others. It would seem on the surface that just the "IT" connection would denote "bold-face", not to mention the vaque portal in time and all the "19's".

Then again, he's the author so who am I to say otherwise, right? Interesting.

You are, obviously, a reader - one, that is, who sees what an author wrote, not what he thought he wrote, or wants to have written.

[mae]

I think King meant there are no overt Dark Tower references. But he can't help himself, there are a few wee ones.

[pixiedark76]

Dark Tower.

That's kinda funny in a way as, by his own hand (bold "also by the author" list) he has connected other books to the DT with less obvious connection threads. "1408", immediately comes to mind, but I am sure there are others. It would seem on the surface that just the "IT" connection would denote "bold-face", not to mention the vaque portal in time and all the "19's".

Then again, he's the author so who am I to say otherwise, right? Interesting.

How did "11/22/63" connect to "1408" I am not sure I see the connection between the two books.

"1408" is considered a "DT related" story, that's all. "11/22/63" would only be connected if it was deemed "DT Related" as per SK's "other books by author" list and denoted in "bod" type. Bev is saying that King has stated it is not a "DT related" book or story like BH, Talisman, HiA and Insomnia and 1408 are.

Sorry for the confusion. Does that clear it up, my dear?

Yes it clears everything up. Thanks.

[Merlin1958]

Dark Tower.

That's kinda funny in a way as, by his own hand (bold "also by the author" list) he has connected other books to the DT with less obvious connection threads. "1408", immediately comes to mind, but I am sure there are others. It would seem on the surface that just the "IT" connection would denote "bold-face", not to mention the vaque portal in time and all the "19's".

Then again, he's the author so who am I to say otherwise, right? Interesting.

How did "11/22/63" connect to "1408" I am not sure I see the connection between the two books.

"1408" is considered a "DT related" story, that's all. "11/22/63" would only be connected if it was deemed "DT Related" as per SK's "other books by author" list and denoted in "bod" type. Bev is saying that King has stated it is not a "DT related" book or story like BH, Talisman, HiA and Insomnia and 1408 are.

Sorry for the confusion. Does that clear it up, my dear?

Yes it clears everything up. Thanks.

I aim to please Ms. Dark!!! LOL

[Silenoz]

Just finished today, I really did love the ending. King mentions in the afterward that the ending was changed at his son's suggestion. I do wonder what the original ending could have been.

As far as Dark Tower connections.

Spoiler

The It connection was the most overt, but there were some others that were pretty strongly implied. The ripping sound that Harry explains to George when he returns to 2011, and the warning of the green card man that reality itself could be collapsing, sounds an awful lot like something having to do with the beams. I hope that the rabbit hole guardians are revisited at some point, the idea that they are actually just humans trained and assigned to guard the time portals is great, it made me think they had something to do with the Tet corporation.

Also, does anyone recall in DT7 where there are time travel tourist attractions to historical atrocities? I thought that the Kennedy assassination was mentioned there, but I'm not sure.

[Bev Vincent]

"One such portal links Fedic – in Thunderclap – to Dallas (November 1963), allowing time travelers to witness the JFK assassination."

A Doorway to 1963

[mae]

Plus the chimes.

[Darkthoughts]

Then I started seeing a lot of references to the novel, and to my pleasant surprise, Richie and Beverley showed up to make a cameo. "IT" being my favorite novel, I was so happy to see these two again. It felt like I was seeing a couple of old best friends. This, so far, has been the biggest delight of this novel so far. What did you all think?

Absolutely! That was one of my favourite parts of the book.

Hm, The Guardian doesn't like the book: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011...?newsfeed=true - the first negative review I have seen. Must be a British thing

I assure you it's not a British thing, I haven't enjoyed a King book this much in ages, it's just a snobby "I can't possibly rate King highly or my colleagues will think I'm so low brow" Guardian thing I liked that most of the reader comments underneath said the reviewer was wrong.

[mae]

My God this book is amazing. I couldn't put it down last night, reading well past three in the morning when I just had to. I think I read all the way from Chapter 23, start of Part 5, and till Chapter 30, inclusively, when Jake goes back to 2011 and meets Harry Dunning. I've never in my life read anything so large that fast. That must've been around 300 pages.

[mae]

Well I just finished the novel, and I loved it. I do, however, have two things that bother me about it:

First, the Card Men. I wish King had expounded more on that (maybe there's another story in that?), because the whole time-bubble thing made my head spin. For instance, do people like Zack exist outside time? If they stay at the rabbit-hole all the time, then, in this particular case, it must always be 11:58 am, September 9, 1958 for them, doesn't it? But then how can they interact with people around them, and time-travellers like Al and Jake? I realize this is physically not possible, it's just a story, but still...

And the other thing was the alternate history of the world as a result of JFK surviving. I loved everything about the novel except that. I just could not buy into the idea that with JFK surviving there would be such drastic differences. Sure there would be differences, but I believe, had JFK lived, world history would go on pretty much the same way. The past is obdurate, isn't it? But of course, I think the point wasn't that JFK was the source of all this, but just that saving his life changed the course of history in many many different ways. Still I maintain, no matter what, such awful consequences would be very very unlikely. But I'm not the writer and I understand King was making a point. I just felt that was too over the top. At the end of the novel King says "changes are never for the better", and I just can't accept that as true. Changes are neither for the worst or the better, they're changes.

[Bev Vincent]

Spoiler:

King needed a worse case scenario to keep Jake from simply going back, doing it all over again and staying with Sadie (after saving her). He had to find out that by going back and tinkering, he had a massively negative impact on the timeline. He asked JFK experts to tell him their ideas about worst case scenarios if JFK had lived.

Also

Spoiler:

the card man didn't always have to live at the same moment -- he just always had to be there at that moment. Over and over again. A subtle but tangible difference

[mae]

Also

the card man didn't always have to live at the same moment -- he just always had to be there at that moment. Over and over again. A subtle but tangible difference

I realize debating time travel is useless, but how is that possible? How would the Card Man be at the place at the exact moment each time, yet still be free to roam and buy liquor at the greenfront.

[Bev Vincent]

Spoiler:

Some time travel stories (like Doctor Who) refer to "fixed points" where the same thing always happens involving the same people. The card man is free to wander, but must always be present at the bottom of the stairs at that specific time.

[mae]

Still hurts my brains. Thanks anyway, Bev

I do think a sequel novel or short story dealing with that aspect of the novel couldn't hurt and would be very interesting. But I think King's said he's done with time travel.

[Merlin1958]

Pablo, I agree with you regarding the "Yellow/Orange/Black Card Man" I felt there was more to the story that we didn't get. I was somewhat disappointed that this wasn't more explained, but could also see the reasoning behind it. The entire "Time Travel" premise was a plot device to tell another story, I thought.

As far as the aftermath of JFK living, I whole-heartedly agree with Bev's reasoning, but also think that it was appropriate without the plot device. It would have been very predictable and contrite to have everything "magically" become better as a result of his survival. It took a little more Chutzpah to reveal the future he did in the book IMHO.

In anycase, that's just one man's opinion. Regardless, GREAT BOOK!!! His Best in years!!!

[mae]

Oh, no doubt. I'd say he hasn't written such a gripping novel since The Green Mile, personally. Definitely since Duma Key.

[jhanic]

People, the header of this thread warns of spoilers, so why are you hiding stuff in spoilers?

John

[CyberGhostface]

It took me a longer time to finish this than usual for King but since it was due back at the library I pretty much forced myself to finish it. Probably read the second half of "Sadie and the General" all the way through the end in two days. It was a bit slow at times but at the end it was a very rewarding read. I'm a bit surprised that King released two very long and ambitious novels (Under the Dome and then this) in a relatively short time. I would have thought that he would have been pooped.

One thing I'm wondering is how I have no idea how this can be condensed into a standard film unless they're going to chop it to pieces. There's a lot going on here.

[Jean]

People, the header of this thread warns of spoilers, so why are you hiding stuff in spoilers?

John

Precisely; this was the question I came here to post.

Dear friends: the only spoilers that need to be marked are the ones that spoil something else. Otherwise, please, for the sake of readability and consistence, please do not add spoiler tags. I would be very grateful if those who have already posted either edited their posts to remove the unnecessary tags, or gave me their kind permission to do so.

[mae]

I'll remove mine, not a problem. But Jean, you shouldn't be here ("the Yellow Card Man said"), you haven't read the book yet. Aren't you afraid of spoilers?