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

[woodpryan]

I couldn't find a discussion page for this, surprisingly enough. Lets discuss!
So far, I am enthralled by this novel. This is easily the best thing King has put out in a long time. But, here's what I really want to discuss:
Spoiler from pages 1-145
When Jake first went to Derry of 1958, it took me a second, but I thought, "something serious happened in Derry in 1958. Was it what I think it was?" I opened up my copy of "IT," and there it was. It had recently been put to a long sleep by the "losers" club. 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?

[woodpryan]

Oops. Shit. No wonder I didn't see it. I'm in the wrong damn forum. What a moron. Sorry about this, but could someone move this for me, please?

[Jean]

yes, someone could!

we don't seem to have such a thread here anyway. I will add it to the list later today.

[mae]

Just started reading. Got a big hankering for root beer.

[Heather19]

So far I'm absolutely loving the story :)


I couldn't find a discussion page for this, surprisingly enough. Lets discuss!
So far, I am enthralled by this novel. This is easily the best thing King has put out in a long time. But, here's what I really want to discuss:
Spoiler from pages 1-145
When Jake first went to Derry of 1958, it took me a second, but I thought, "something serious happened in Derry in 1958. Was it what I think it was?" I opened up my copy of "IT," and there it was. It had recently been put to a long sleep by the "losers" club. 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?

I agree 100% with your spoiler. I just got to that part. And It is my favorite novel, so I was so excited to see references to it in this one.

[Ricky]

I'm going out to pick up some copies today. So far it's great to see that everyone else seems to be loving it.

[Erin]

I'm so into this book. Here's something I'm wondering about though (I'm to the part where he's teaching in the small town in Texas):

I'm just waiting to see what was the meaning behind the Yellow-card man becoming the Orange-card man and then the Dead-card man. That just seems way to significant to not eventually play a part. Especially since he was always the Yellow-card man when Al went through the rabbit hole.

[Bev Vincent]

Hang in there -- all will be revealed.

[jhanic]

I'm about halfway through my reread of the book. I had some trouble getting into the book the first time around, but this time I'm having a ball. A great read!

John

[mae]

So absorbing and immersive. I've plowed through 130 pages reading most of the day for the first time in years. Man, the fifties were so awesome.

[biomieg]

I finished it fifteen minutes ago and I LOVED it.

[Bev Vincent]

I want to reread sections after my visit to the book depository yesterday.

[Merlin1958]

I want to reread sections after my visit to the book depository yesterday.

Ahhh, why? Spoiler-ize!!!!

[Bev Vincent]

Just because I now know what the place looks like. The scene of the crime, so to speak.

[mae]

Set my XM radio to 50s on 5 :)

[jhanic]

I'd like to make a suggestion to the mods--please add "Spoilers" to the title of this thread so we don't have to be bothered hiding the spoilers in the text.

Thanks,
John

[Jean]

right

[mae]

http://entertainment.time.com/2011/11/02/in-stephen-kings-latest-trying-to-stop-lee-harvey-oswald/

I’ve only read three books by Stephen King. When I was 10 I read The Long Walk, one of his pseudonymous Bachman books. In my early 20s, while trapped on a family vacation, I read The Dark Half, which taught me a word I have never forgotten: psychopomp. Now I have read 11/22/63.

It’s not like I was avoiding King. I just never felt drawn to his stuff. I’m not a big horror reader, and his prose isn’t unmissably lapidary or anything. Judging from other people’s reactions to his work, something important was going on in there, but I could never really feel it. It’s like he was transmitting on a frequency I wasn’t calibrated to receive.

And plus Gilbert Cruz — who edits this blog, or whatever it is — is practically a one-man King bureau, so I got in the habit of just forwarding everything King wrote to him. But with 11/22/63, I took matters into my own hands. I turned vigilante. Like Lee Harvey Oswald.

I started 11/22/63 because I was curious, just from a technical, writerly point of view, what King was up to. I finished it because I liked it. 11/22/63 isn’t your typical King outing: it’s a time-travel novel about a guy who finds a portal back to 1958 and uses it to try to prevent the assassination of President Kennedy. It’s not a horror novel. It’s hard to say what it is, exactly.

But whatever it is, it’s obviously the work of a master craftsman. You feel safe immediately: sit back, relax, a professional will be handling matters. Everything is in sharp focus: the details are precise, and even minor characters and extras are given distinct individual faces (it’s surprising how few writers bother to do that). The boxes you need a book to check are firmly and methodically checked. By page 5 we’ve got our hero, Jake, and we’re already firmly on his side. He’s a teacher; his wife just left him; he’s nice to a borderline-mentally disabled janitor; he likes John Irving. We like him. Check.

Then there’s another kind of box, which doesn’t get checked: King opts out of the cliches of the genre. No mad scientists, no gleaming time machine, no grandfather paradox, no Tesla coils, nobody coming back from the deep past with a dinosaur for a pet. You’ve read plenty of time-travel stories, so your sensors will be on high alert, but King walks right past them. No alarms go off. Nothing here is stock or off-the-rack: this story is custom-made, one of a kind. The first hint Jake gets that he’s dealing with a time-portal is that a friend of his goes from healthy to wasted-by-cancer in a day. Turns out the friend, Al, just spent four years in the past. He came back because he was dying.

Al owns a diner, which has a pantry, and the pantry is a hole into the past, specifically to September 9, 1958. King doesn’t try to explain this, which is just as well. Jake and Al decide that Jake is going to go back and stop Lee Harvey Oswald.

As it turns out, Jake likes the past. King does too. The root beer was better. The music was better. Life was simpler. Neighborhoods were safer. The best thing about 11/22/63 is King’s warm, precise portrait of the 1950’s, for which he clearly feels a powerful longing. It’s pleasant watching Jake set up his life there. He has a fake identity. Like Biff in Back to the Future Part II, he bets on sporting events that he knows the outcome of. He’s clever and efficient. It’s like watching Robinson Crusoe set up house on his island.

Since the time-hole is permanently set on 1958, and JFK died in 1963, Jake has five years to kill. So he rights a few local historical wrongs in Derry, Maine (where King has set a couple of other novels; according to Professor Cruz, some characters from It make a cameo), then he moves to Texas, the better to surveil Oswald. Jake becomes a teacher in a small town near Dallas, where he finds a tall, lovably gawky librarian named Sadie to fall in love with.

We have a lot of time to kill too. The big question, of course, is will-he-won’t-he stop Oswald, but it’s a long haul to the fateful day, and the wires go slack from time to time. Much of the book’s tension comes from the fact that the past doesn’t like being changed. It throws up barriers to keep Jake from changing the timestream—a fallen tree, a sudden illness, a stalled car—and the more major the change, the more serious the barriers. (There’s a whiff of Final Destination in 11/22/63.) But Jake spends a lot of time noodling around inspiring his students and flirting with Sadie, too. The book wanders in the middle, from genre to genre, from thriller to romance to mystery to period piece to Friday Night Lights.

Only rarely does King go to his horror-writer chops, but those are the moments when I really felt the master’s presence—King is a diligent journeyman when it comes to staging a romance, but when he does horror the book snaps into hi-res. When Jake emerges from the time-hole, or whatever it is, he’s immediately greeted by a drunken bum who seems to realize that there’s something different about Jake—he doesn’t belong there. The bum carries a yellow card on his hat, and Al has named him the Yellow Card Man, though sometimes his card changes color for reasons that are obscure. The Yellow Card Man calls Jake “Jimla,” a nonsense word that recurs in odd places throughout Jake’s story, and slowly but surely fills with dreadful meaning. The Yellow Card Man is a surreal presence who hovers over much of the book, reminding us that, even as he lives out a 1950s idyll, Jake is messing with forces beyond his understanding. Maybe it’s dangerously self-indulgent to think that one man can rewrite history to his specifications. Maybe he’s not so different from Oswald.

Given the discipline and the cold, cutting skill with which King handles the few horror elements of 11/22/63, it’s surprising how sentimental he’s willing to go. He actually talks us through a high-school performance of Of Mice and Men—starring a protégé of Jake’s, a football-player-turned actor—in something close to real-time. The audience collapses in sobs; I didn’t. When a cheerleader receives a disfiguring scar in a car accident, the whole school pitches in and puts on a revue to pay for plastic surgery. Sadie herself, as a lonely small-town librarian, is at least half-cliché.

King also curses Sadie with a crazy and abusive but not very interesting ex-husband, the better to obtain our sympathy for her. I don’t mind being manipulated — as a reader, that’s what I’m here for — but gently does it. Just as Jake feels the fell hand of history pushing him this way and that, I felt the hand of King rubbing my nose in Sadie’s misery, demanding that I feel sorry for her. He’s overplaying a winning hand. I already liked Sadie! I didn’t need to pity her too. (Because of said ex’s craziness, by the way, Sadie is still a virgin when Jake meets her. All for Jake!)

But I stuck with 11/22/63. I had to: it was simply too pleasant living in King’s vision of the past, where the entire world is suffused in a golden glow arising from the absence of cell phones and e-mail and homeland security and all our other modern miracles. And I was too interested in the grand loop of King’s time-travel conceit. It’s rare that time travelers have really good, specific reasons to go back in time, beyond averting a chrono-flux vortex or whatever. But Jake does, and I cared about him. And I wanted to know: what kind of twist does an 800-page time-travel novel lead up to?

I found out. The build-up is better than the payoff, as it almost always is. But there’s a lot to be said for a good build-up, and it’s not a cop-out. 11/22/63 asks a good question: what if this world—as cruel, tragic and horrifying as it is—really is the best of all possible worlds? If there’s no good answer to that question, it’s not King’s fault.

So that’s three down, out of King’s 50-novel oeuvre, and I believe I’ll make it four. What should I read next?

[mae]

Hm, The Guardian doesn't like the book: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/nov/13/stephen-king-112263-kennedy-review?newsfeed=true - the first negative review I have seen. Must be a British thing :)

[Jean]

Hm, The Guardian doesn't like the book: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/nov/13/stephen-king-112263-kennedy-review?newsfeed=true - the first negative review I have seen. Must be a British thing :)

"King has delivered a self-indulgent book that is too long (a whopping 740 pages), too complicated and too barmy for words"

when one finds a book too complicated, most often it is not the author's fault...

[Storyslinger]

Hm, The Guardian doesn't like the book: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/nov/13/stephen-king-112263-kennedy-review?newsfeed=true - the first negative review I have seen. Must be a British thing :)

"King has delivered a self-indulgent book that is too long (a whopping 740 pages), too complicated and too barmy for words"

when one finds a book too complicated, most often it is not the author's fault...

So true. If one is not willing to give an author fair criticism on the "meat and potatoes" of a novel, maybe one thinks to highly of their own opinion.

[DoctorDodge]

Hm, The Guardian doesn't like the book: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/nov/13/stephen-king-112263-kennedy-review?newsfeed=true - the first negative review I have seen. Must be a British thing :)

"King has delivered a self-indulgent book that is too long (a whopping 740 pages), too complicated and too barmy for words"

when one finds a book too complicated, most often it is not the author's fault...

As Storyslinger said, incredibly true. It's not even just the case with books, but films and tv, as well. As long as that story deals with characters, with emotions and the psychology of it, with the heart and soul of the story, essentially, then I don't care how complicated or simple a story is. I do plan to read 11/22/63 when I can, but something tells me I just might enjoy it. Under the Dome and Duma Key first, though, I think.

[Brice]

Hm, The Guardian doesn't like the book: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/nov/13/stephen-king-112263-kennedy-review?newsfeed=true - the first negative review I have seen. Must be a British thing :)

"King has delivered a self-indulgent book that is too long (a whopping 740 pages), too complicated and too barmy for words"

when one finds a book too complicated, most often it is not the author's fault...

He left out that the cat in the hat was too complicated for him too. :lol:

[Storyslinger]

Hm, The Guardian doesn't like the book: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/nov/13/stephen-king-112263-kennedy-review?newsfeed=true - the first negative review I have seen. Must be a British thing :)

"King has delivered a self-indulgent book that is too long (a whopping 740 pages), too complicated and too barmy for words"

when one finds a book too complicated, most often it is not the author's fault...

He left out that the cat in the hat was too complicated for him too. :lol:

:rofl:

[mystima]

will have to wait for this book till i finish his last one i have...UTD...when I finish that one I will definitely get this one.

[mae]

I cannot get over how good this is.

[pixiedark76]

I have finished 11/22/63 and I have this to say on the book. The Irish have a saying "What's done is done; can't be undone." In other words leave the past in the past! After reading 11/22/63 I never have realized how true this really is. You should leave the past alone and don't ever think about changing it! Things might end up a lot worse!

[Brice]

Just finished. Damn, this was good. Now i wanna use my time machine to see what i can screw up. :emot-cthulhu:

[mae]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/11/20/national/a230628S78.DTL&ao=all

Stories about time travel generally share one trait: They believe, by implication or open statement, that yesterday remains a malleable canvas, if only you could access it. "The past," author William Faulkner once wrote, "is never dead. It's not even past."

In the United States, one of the most obsessed-upon pivot points of our recent past — the moment when people felt the country took a hard turn down a fraught and unpleasant path — was the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Dallas. The date is etched forever upon the American psyche: 11/22/63.

Which is exactly the minimalist title of Stephen King's new book. The behemoth "11/22/63" postulates what might have happened if an English teacher named Jake Epping slipped back in time from now to 1958, then lived out five years of his life waiting for Kennedy's appointment with Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet 48 years ago Tuesday — and possibly preventing it.

In other words: One of the Baby Boomers' most celebrated authors is spending three pounds of bookage examining whether the course of the 1960s and the decades beyond would have changed if a single traumatic event had been averted. It's like a mashup of "Back to the Future" and "In the Line of Fire."

This is a wrenching and subtle book, but that's not what we're here to discuss. More important is this: The 849 pages of "11/22/63" channel the angst and longing that so many Boomers feel about a past that, perhaps, didn't go in the direction they had hoped — and possibly even about lives that didn't turn out quite as planned.

The cover of "11/22/63" distills this duality. On the front is a newspaper bearing the familiar headline: "JFK Slain in Dallas, LBJ Takes Oath." On the back, though, is a might-have-been banner from another lifetime — "JFK Escapes Assassination, First Lady Also OK! Americans Breathe Sigh of Relief." It almost hurts to read it, to envision the possibility.

Imagine: giving someone a pen to rewrite the 1960s and beyond — to make Beatles survive, new presidents emerge, things turn out differently. Imagine how that could play with Americans who watched the Kennedy mystique peter out and dreams of revolution melt into ads that use Janis Joplin tunes to sell cars.

King is able to address questions that have been raised so often in the years since that lunch hour on Dealey Plaza in Dallas: Would we have gone so far into Vietnam? Would so many have died? Would JFK, had he lived, have produced an enduring foundation for peace and prosperity? Would the children of the 1960s have come of age in a different world?

Those are the obvious tensions. But, through the eyes of Jake Epping and his Brave-Old-World road trip through pre-Vietnam-era America, King also burrows into some less frequently articulated national themes, both philosophical and theological. Among them:

_Even if we could put a rewrite guy on the history books, could a single man, even one with foreknowledge, have changed everything? In a culture so based on individualism, this is a central question.

_Is there such a thing as fate? Are some things just destined to happen?

_Was the American past actually better, simpler, kinder, more bursting with possibility? Is the national zest for yesterday justified, or is it just a crutch that we use when we want to escape?

As the 1960s dawned, the future was a central part of the American experience. From "The Jetsons" to Kennedy's New Frontier, we shaped and shared optimistic visions of it, made it part of the political dialogue, elevated it to one of the fundamental expressions of our national optimism.

That has long since faded. Today, visions of the future are generally dystopian and menacing. Instead we look back, using entertainment and shopping and casual dining and home decor to evoke pasts that we never lived, to surf among our yesterdays without having to grapple with the tough questions.

This makes King impatient. At one point in 1963, the woman Jake loves in the past learns of his origin and his intent and snaps at him: "That's what all this is to you, isn't it? Just a living history book." King is gentle about it, but he indicts people who bathe themselves in the aura of nostalgia, who look back rather than forward and blindly glorify what came before.

Yes, Jake Epping allows, in 1958 we hadn't destroyed the environment quite so much yet, independent businesses were still serving great pie a la mode and life didn't move quite so fast. But things were a lot smellier, a lot smokier — and, most saliently, a lot more unfair to people who weren't white and male. It wasn't, Jake says, "all Andy-n-Opie."

By the book's end, King's constant readers can place "11/22/63" in the context of his previous work and legitimately wonder: After all the rotting corpses and sharp-toothed clowns, after all the ghosts and aliens and possessed cars and possessed dogs, could this, at long last, be the thing that truly haunts Stephen King? Could the master of American horror, he who bravely shepherded us through the unspeakable in the 2000s, the 1990s, the 1980s and the 1970s, be afraid of the 1960s?

And could the sheer capriciousness of history, and how it rearranges all of us like tiny chess pieces, be the most terrifying thing of all?

King actually addresses this. Toward the end of the book he writes, in Jake Epping's voice, one of the most eloquent passages he's ever produced:

"For a moment everything was clear, and when that happens you see that the world is barely there at all. Don't we all secretly know this? It's a perfectly balanced mechanism of shouts and echoes pretending to be wheels and cogs, a dream clock chiming beneath a mystery glass we call life. Behind it? Below it and around it? Chaos, storms. Men with hammers, men with knives, men with guns. Women who twist what they cannot dominate and belittle what they cannot understand. A universe of horror and loss surrounding a single lighted stage where mortals dance in defiance of the dark."

Revealing how "11/22/63" ends would, of course, spoil the book. But it kind of doesn't matter, because the lesson is clarion: Don't mess with yesterday. It may bite. Pulling at the threads of time's tapestry is done at our own peril, and the conventional assumption that changing one thing about the past would make today better is simplistic. Besides, King writes: "The past doesn't want to be changed."

Boomers and Beatles may have believed in yesterday, but salvation doesn't necessarily lie there. No matter how deeply we feel, King seems to say, the answers were never just blowin' in the wind. They weren't even about whether one young president lived or died. They were, and remain, far more complicated.

[JQ The Gunslinger]

Half way into the book. The first 100 pages or so I was like Ehh, this plot is moving to fast for me. But once Jake visited Derry I was in for the ride. Can't wait to finish the rest. And am eager to find the explantion of the yellow-card man.

[pixiedark76]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/11/20/national/a230628S78.DTL&ao=all

Stories about time travel generally share one trait: They believe, by implication or open statement, that yesterday remains a malleable canvas, if only you could access it. "The past," author William Faulkner once wrote, "is never dead. It's not even past."

In the United States, one of the most obsessed-upon pivot points of our recent past — the moment when people felt the country took a hard turn down a fraught and unpleasant path — was the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Dallas. The date is etched forever upon the American psyche: 11/22/63.

Which is exactly the minimalist title of Stephen King's new book. The behemoth "11/22/63" postulates what might have happened if an English teacher named Jake Epping slipped back in time from now to 1958, then lived out five years of his life waiting for Kennedy's appointment with Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet 48 years ago Tuesday — and possibly preventing it.

In other words: One of the Baby Boomers' most celebrated authors is spending three pounds of bookage examining whether the course of the 1960s and the decades beyond would have changed if a single traumatic event had been averted. It's like a mashup of "Back to the Future" and "In the Line of Fire."

This is a wrenching and subtle book, but that's not what we're here to discuss. More important is this: The 849 pages of "11/22/63" channel the angst and longing that so many Boomers feel about a past that, perhaps, didn't go in the direction they had hoped — and possibly even about lives that didn't turn out quite as planned.

The cover of "11/22/63" distills this duality. On the front is a newspaper bearing the familiar headline: "JFK Slain in Dallas, LBJ Takes Oath." On the back, though, is a might-have-been banner from another lifetime — "JFK Escapes Assassination, First Lady Also OK! Americans Breathe Sigh of Relief." It almost hurts to read it, to envision the possibility.

Imagine: giving someone a pen to rewrite the 1960s and beyond — to make Beatles survive, new presidents emerge, things turn out differently. Imagine how that could play with Americans who watched the Kennedy mystique peter out and dreams of revolution melt into ads that use Janis Joplin tunes to sell cars.

King is able to address questions that have been raised so often in the years since that lunch hour on Dealey Plaza in Dallas: Would we have gone so far into Vietnam? Would so many have died? Would JFK, had he lived, have produced an enduring foundation for peace and prosperity? Would the children of the 1960s have come of age in a different world?

Those are the obvious tensions. But, through the eyes of Jake Epping and his Brave-Old-World road trip through pre-Vietnam-era America, King also burrows into some less frequently articulated national themes, both philosophical and theological. Among them:

_Even if we could put a rewrite guy on the history books, could a single man, even one with foreknowledge, have changed everything? In a culture so based on individualism, this is a central question.

_Is there such a thing as fate? Are some things just destined to happen?

_Was the American past actually better, simpler, kinder, more bursting with possibility? Is the national zest for yesterday justified, or is it just a crutch that we use when we want to escape?

As the 1960s dawned, the future was a central part of the American experience. From "The Jetsons" to Kennedy's New Frontier, we shaped and shared optimistic visions of it, made it part of the political dialogue, elevated it to one of the fundamental expressions of our national optimism.

That has long since faded. Today, visions of the future are generally dystopian and menacing. Instead we look back, using entertainment and shopping and casual dining and home decor to evoke pasts that we never lived, to surf among our yesterdays without having to grapple with the tough questions.

This makes King impatient. At one point in 1963, the woman Jake loves in the past learns of his origin and his intent and snaps at him: "That's what all this is to you, isn't it? Just a living history book." King is gentle about it, but he indicts people who bathe themselves in the aura of nostalgia, who look back rather than forward and blindly glorify what came before.

Yes, Jake Epping allows, in 1958 we hadn't destroyed the environment quite so much yet, independent businesses were still serving great pie a la mode and life didn't move quite so fast. But things were a lot smellier, a lot smokier — and, most saliently, a lot more unfair to people who weren't white and male. It wasn't, Jake says, "all Andy-n-Opie."

By the book's end, King's constant readers can place "11/22/63" in the context of his previous work and legitimately wonder: After all the rotting corpses and sharp-toothed clowns, after all the ghosts and aliens and possessed cars and possessed dogs, could this, at long last, be the thing that truly haunts Stephen King? Could the master of American horror, he who bravely shepherded us through the unspeakable in the 2000s, the 1990s, the 1980s and the 1970s, be afraid of the 1960s?

And could the sheer capriciousness of history, and how it rearranges all of us like tiny chess pieces, be the most terrifying thing of all?

King actually addresses this. Toward the end of the book he writes, in Jake Epping's voice, one of the most eloquent passages he's ever produced:

"For a moment everything was clear, and when that happens you see that the world is barely there at all. Don't we all secretly know this? It's a perfectly balanced mechanism of shouts and echoes pretending to be wheels and cogs, a dream clock chiming beneath a mystery glass we call life. Behind it? Below it and around it? Chaos, storms. Men with hammers, men with knives, men with guns. Women who twist what they cannot dominate and belittle what they cannot understand. A universe of horror and loss surrounding a single lighted stage where mortals dance in defiance of the dark."

Revealing how "11/22/63" ends would, of course, spoil the book. But it kind of doesn't matter, because the lesson is clarion: Don't mess with yesterday. It may bite. Pulling at the threads of time's tapestry is done at our own peril, and the conventional assumption that changing one thing about the past would make today better is simplistic. Besides, King writes: "The past doesn't want to be changed."

Boomers and Beatles may have believed in yesterday, but salvation doesn't necessarily lie there. No matter how deeply we feel, King seems to say, the answers were never just blowin' in the wind. They weren't even about whether one young president lived or died. They were, and remain, far more complicated.

AMEN!! Don't mess with the past! THE PAST IS GONE!!! FORGET ABOUT IT!

[mtdman]

I thought King did a great job creating an atmosphere of what the 50s and 60s were like to live in, especially for someone who came from the future to live in the past. IMO it's his best job of creating an atmosphere as a character since Salem's Lot.

I pretty much loved the book. However, I could have done without so much day to day stuff about Oswald and his family. God that bored me and slowed the book down waaaay too much there for a while. I understand the historical aspect of that stuff, but it bored the crap out of me.

[Brice]

He could have given another five thousand or so pages and I'd have been happy.

[Erin]

I finished this a few days ago and LOVED it! A great book with characters I really cared about. I also think the ending was very satisfying, but bittersweet of course.

[Heather19]

I just finished it and absolutely loved it! The ending was perfect. I think this is definitely one of my favorites of his, and one of his best. The only part that frustrated me was Jake's gambling. I mean come on, that was bound to have extreme consequences.

[divemaster]

Finished this today. Like most here, nothing but the highest praise from me.

I was very pleased to see King reference (prominently!) the Saki short story The Open Window toward the end of the novel. Just by coincidence I happened to read The Open Window for the first time a couple of weeks ago. (Coincidence? Or harmonics, hmmm?) I encourage anyone not familiar with the sotry to give it a read--it's only a few pages long. You'll see why Jake Epping referred to it in his tale!

[Silenoz]

I'm a little over 300 pages in, it keeps surprising me how good this is. It's ridiculously absorbing so far. I love that it's long too, Jake is only just starting to get introduced to the Oswald family, and it's already been a great ride. Seems like it's going to have a great payoff at the end.

[Heather19]

I think this one has one of the most satisfying endings to a King book. Sometimes I get a little let down by the endings to his stories, but not this one. It was perfect in every way.

[Merlin1958]

I'm about 700 pages in and I'm starting to think Sadie won't make it in the end!!! That would suck big time!! I also hazard a guess that Al, the portal, the Yellow card man and the Obdurate past have a common link. That's just speculation though!!

[Randall Flagg]

What if any Dark Tower references are in the book?

[jhanic]

I don't know of any Dark Tower references in the book, unless the comment "There are other worlds than these" applies. Of course, that would apply to any fantasy book.

John

[mae]

What if any Dark Tower references are in the book?

There are, I believe, mentions of the Takuro Spirit. Also, the town of Arnette figures into it, but that's a reference to The Stand.

[Bev Vincent]

And the obligatory mention of #19 -- Al's cottage is at #19.

[Merlin1958]

Well, there are quite a few "19" references in numbers and otherwise, but that could just be a result of "knowing to look". Of course the big one is the nod to "IT", other than that nada.

[divemaster]

A couple of references to the turtle. But of course that ties into It as well as The Dark Tower.

[Merlin1958]

I suppose the portal itself could be construed as a TDT reference.

In retrospect the portal (rabbit-hole) could be considered a "natural" door between worlds on this was more time specific. He really doesn't go into much detail regarding how it works. There are vague references to multiple "strings" resulting from Jake's changes that could be interpeted as A/R's but none of that was the main focus of the story.

I wish he had explained the Yellow card men more. That was a very interesting component of the story to me.

[mae]

Plus, of course, Jake's fake name is a reference to George Amberson from the Booth Tarkington novel The Magnificent Ambersons. Here's what Wikipedia has:


The novel and trilogy trace the growth of the United States through the declining fortunes of three generations of the aristocratic Amberson family in an upper-scale Indianapolis neighborhood, between the end of the Civil War and the early part of the 20th century, a period of rapid industrialization and socio-economic change in America. The decline of the Ambersons is contrasted with the rising fortunes of industrial tycoons and other new-money families, which did not derive power from family names but by "doing things." As George Amberson's friend (name unspecified) says, "don't you think being things is 'rahthuh bettuh' than doing things?"

The titular family are the most prosperous and powerful in town at the turn of the century. Young George Amberson Minafer, the patriarch’s grandson, is spoiled terribly by his mother Isabel. Growing up arrogant, sure of his own worth and position and totally oblivious to the lives of others, George falls in love with Lucy Morgan, a young though sensible debutante. But there is a long history between George’s mother and Lucy’s father, of which George is unaware. As the town grows into a city, industry thrives, the Ambersons’ prestige and wealth wanes and the Morgans – thanks to Lucy’s prescient father – grow prosperous. When George sabotages his widowed mother's growing affections for Lucy's father, life as he knows it comes to an end.

[ICry4Oy]

I held off but finally started reading it on 11/22 since it seemed (harmonic?). Yep, I'm still under its' spell. Tried to make it last as long as I could but a week was all I could take and had to finish it. Simply an amazing story! My ride home from work is almost an exact backtrack of the route Jake/George and Sadie took on the bus and Studebaker into Dallas, just not all the way into Ft Worth since I live over by Love Field. But the ride home yesterday was slightly surreal as the story was still so fresh in my mind. King actually made me believe in these characters and very much care for them. Loved how 19 pops up so many times and I agree about the rabbit hole being a version of a door. I could be stretching here but to me anyway, all the harmonizing was akin to Ka.

The ending to me had to be one of, if not the most satisfying of any King story. This story also had real places and addresses of places I have been to and anyone can google streetview. Also a fictitous old frightening familiar place (Derry) and a new comfortable place (Jodie). Bevie from the levee and Ritchie from the ditchie were a most pleasant surprise!!! This was a horror story of a different kind and a love story that tears at the heart.

I definitely have to put this book near the top of my favorite King stories list.

[Bev Vincent]

According to Ms. Mod: Now that the book has been out and folks have had a chance to read it, I now feel it's okay to say that as far as their being connected, Steve said he intentionally did not connect these two stories.

[Heather19]

What two stories are you referring too? It and 11/22/63?

And ICry, I agree. I thought it was a very emotional book. Especially once you get to the end. It was heartbreaking, but fulfilling at the same time.

[Bev Vincent]

Dark Tower.

[ICry4Oy]

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

Oh how we danced...:dance:

[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. :confused:

[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. :confused:

"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. :confused:

"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. :thumbsup:

[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. :confused:

"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. :thumbsup:

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.

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 (http://www.fearnet.com/news/b24420_news_from_dead_zone_doorway_1963.html)

[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/nov/13/stephen-king-112263-kennedy-review?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 :D 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]

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

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]

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?

[Jean]

No, I am not; never been.

: brave bear :

[alinda]

I can not believe that I am still reading and came here too... ahhh well loving the story so far.

[Jean]

:rose: :rose: :rose:

[Heather19]

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?

I was just going to say the same thing. I don't want the book to be spoiled for you Jean :couple:

[Darkthoughts]

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 actually thought it was a bit more intense than that, that he was stuck at the rabbit hole for as long as Jake/Al/other time traveller was in 1958 (or wherever depending on which doorway) but that while the traveller is back in his/her own time the Yellow Card Men are also free to go back to their own times. If this was the case it would explain the rapid breakdown of their mental health and alcohol (or oblivion) craving, as when the traveller makes repeated trips, the Card Men are constantly struggling with the tangling timelines.

[mae]

http://singledadhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/things-i-dont-understand.png

[Darkthoughts]

:lol:

[mtdman]

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.



The Card Men didn't have to be there at the same moment all the time, they had to be there at the bubble at the start of each new time thread. They basically stood there at the bubble like door men. And they had to be there in each thread, and keep track of each thread, and that was the reason why they were going crazy. Otherwise they were free to roam within a distance of that door.

I've listened to the story entirely through twice now. I really enjoy this book and Craig Wasson did a great job with this book. Frankly, I could read about Jake/George in 1950s/60s Jodi, Tx for 1000s of pages. Kind does a great job bringing that time period to life.

[Flygrl]

Could somebody give me a very quick rundown of the plot with no major spoilers? I have to wait until Christmas for the book and it's KILLING me inside.
><

[Brice]

A dude travels back in time to stop the jfk assassination cause he thinks it'll make things better.

This thread will be merged once someone with mod powers in this forum sees it.

[Flygrl]

Thanks! Oh, and okay!

[Brice]

Yup! :)

[Cook]

Hey flygrl,
If you have a Costco anywhere near you, you can pick it up for $19.99



Could somebody give me a very quick rundown of the plot with no major spoilers? I have to wait until Christmas for the book and it's KILLING me inside.
><

[Flygrl]

I would but information was leaked about what Santa is going to drop under the tree this year.
:wink:

[Brice]

Socks?

[Flygrl]

Socks to your jaw.

[Brice]

:cry:

[Flygrl]

:innocent:

[Brice]

I dare say innocent is one thing you're not.

[Flygrl]

I'm a good girl! : Draws cheek smiley with two fingers :

[Brice]

:lol:

[Jean]

Merged

Please look around before starting new threads. Also, threads whose only purpose is to inform their starter on the plot of a book are not very welcome.

Thank you.

[Brice]

Yes, in fact a good rule of thumb is if you expect to be the only one that benefits from the thread it probably shouldn't be a thread, but should merely be a question to ask in a preexisting one.

[Merlin1958]

Not sure anymore what the policy is for spoilers here, so I'll be safe than sorry, but the Yellow Card Men were a part of the "Reset" having been there the first time around. Therefore they were "Always" there at that same moment in Sept., 1958. The major difference being that they were aware of the consequences/changes to the overall timelines.

However, what I really wanted to point out (that I just recently somehow realized) is that while I truly enjoyed the ending as is and would not necessarily change it one iota,

it seems to me that a major flaw (in theory) to the ending is that Sadie still dies (or is at the least horribly maimed) without Jake going back one last time to prevent the husband from attacking her. To me, that didn't "feel" like "time" echoing itself as in the other instances, but was an event due to happen just like the killing of JFK. In retrospect, seems even more cruel in the end that Jake didn't go back one final time, prevent the event and live happily ever after in the '50's. Also, while I realize it was a plot device, wouldn't it have made more practical sense to accumulate wealth via the Stock Market? Always, loved that advice from the Dennis Quaid movie where he tells his friend to buy "Yahoo". LOL Still over the years there would be plenty of opportunities to capitalize on the Market, legally. Hughes, Co., IBM, AT&T, etc.

Just throwing that out there for discussion!

[Jean]

Bill: the policy of spoilers here is just as elsewhere. If spoilers are specified in the name of a thread, one does not have to mark spoilers that spoil the book to which the thread is dedicated; moreover, I would say one should not mark them, for the sake of readability and convenience.

If, however, some other book is being spoiled, one should use spoiler tags.

[mae]

Hey Jean, is your copy en route then? Can't wait for you to weigh in on all of this.

[Merlin1958]

Bill: the policy of spoilers here is just as elsewhere. If spoilers are specified in the name of a thread, one does not have to mark spoilers that spoil the book to which the thread is dedicated; moreover, I would say one should not mark them, for the sake of readability and convenience.

If, however, some other book is being spoiled, one should use spoiler tags.

No, I know, Jean. It was just that a thread had been merged and a few have posted that they have not read it yet (including you), and what I was posting was extremely "spoiler-ish" so I was just trying to be extra cautious for the benefit of others. I'll remove them if you prefer.

[Jean]

Hey Jean, is your copy en route then? Can't wait for you to weigh in on all of this.
Oh, I so hope it is!! I can't wait, either!



Bill: the policy of spoilers here is just as elsewhere. If spoilers are specified in the name of a thread, one does not have to mark spoilers that spoil the book to which the thread is dedicated; moreover, I would say one should not mark them, for the sake of readability and convenience.

If, however, some other book is being spoiled, one should use spoiler tags.

No, I know, Jean. It was just that a thread had been merged and a few have posted that they have not read it yet (including you), and what I was posting was extremely "spoiler-ish" so I was just trying to be extra cautious for the benefit of others. I'll remove them if you prefer. Actually, I am torn between an urge to enforce the rules I myself invented (I was a big pain in the ass when the spoiler policy was being developed) and a desire to support the way you care for others; since I can't choose between the two, you can remove the tags, or keep them, as you wish! Either way bears will be pleased! (in this particular case, I mean. In all others I hope current policy will be strictly adhered to)

And don't worry about me, I have never been afraid of spoilers. As far as others are concerned, - I hope that they won't venture here now that it is a Spoilers thread.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

[Brice]

For me nothing is a spoiler. :)

[mae]

I dunno, I like to be surprised by twists in a plot and such.

[Brice]

If your memory was as bad as mine you could forget within about a week anyway. :lol: Every book and movie is a new.

[Ben Mears]

Not sure anymore what the policy is for spoilers here, so I'll be safe than sorry, but the Yellow Card Men were a part of the "Reset" having been there the first time around. Therefore they were "Always" there at that same moment in Sept., 1958. The major difference being that they were aware of the consequences/changes to the overall timelines.

However, what I really wanted to point out (that I just recently somehow realized) is that while I truly enjoyed the ending as is and would not necessarily change it one iota,

it seems to me that a major flaw (in theory) to the ending is that Sadie still dies (or is at the least horribly maimed) without Jake going back one last time to prevent the husband from attacking her. To me, that didn't "feel" like "time" echoing itself as in the other instances, but was an event due to happen just like the killing of JFK. In retrospect, seems even more cruel in the end that Jake didn't go back one final time, prevent the event and live happily ever after in the '50's. Also, while I realize it was a plot device, wouldn't it have made more practical sense to accumulate wealth via the Stock Market? Always, loved that advice from the Dennis Quaid movie where he tells his friend to buy "Yahoo". LOL Still over the years there would be plenty of opportunities to capitalize on the Market, legally. Hughes, Co., IBM, AT&T, etc.

Just throwing that out there for discussion!

The main character in the time travel novel Replay accumulated his wealth that way. Maybe SK felt he would be coming too close to replicating that device although the sports betting angle he settled on was used in Back To The Future 2.

[Heather19]

How is him not saving Sadie a flaw? I thought that was the whole point. He couldn't go back and save her and he couldn't live happily in the 50's. It needed to happen. He had to go back and reset time so that even the little things such as the girl in the woods, or saving the janitors life didn't happen. At least that was my interpretation. It can be a cruel world sometimes, and it's not always a happy ending. That's what I loved most about this book. It was truly heartbreaking.

[TCCBodhi]

I'm lucky(?) enough to live in Dallas too. The whole are is just a few minutes drive for us. Didn't realize it until a few years after when our drive down town took us by a familiar street. "What are all these people doing here?" Turned the corner by another building that seemed REALLY familiar, wondering why everyone was pointing at the Xs on the road, and then it hit me when I looked up and saw the overhead bridges. I lost my breath for a moment, and think I demanded another turn around.

I mean, I knew it happened in Dallas, but until that moment I guess I had it happening in the same Dallas where they drink Nazzola cola.

[ICry4Oy]

Did you laugh when he kept calling the radio station K-LIFE? Everyone in Dallas knows it is and always has been "the cliff".

[Bev Vincent]

He commented on that during his appearances in Dallas. Also the fact that he misspelled Killeen despite having gone to the trouble of looking it up.

[TCCBodhi]

I'm still working my way through the book although it's beginning to keep me up too late at night. I'm just now at the start of the 2nd trip down the rabbit hole, so I'm barely back to the Fruit Co.

[Randall Flagg]

Not sure anymore what the policy is for spoilers here, so I'll be safe than sorry, but the Yellow Card Men were a part of the "Reset" having been there the first time around. Therefore they were "Always" there at that same moment in Sept., 1958. The major difference being that they were aware of the consequences/changes to the overall timelines.

However, what I really wanted to point out (that I just recently somehow realized) is that while I truly enjoyed the ending as is and would not necessarily change it one iota,

it seems to me that a major flaw (in theory) to the ending is that Sadie still dies (or is at the least horribly maimed) without Jake going back one last time to prevent the husband from attacking her. To me, that didn't "feel" like "time" echoing itself as in the other instances, but was an event due to happen just like the killing of JFK. In retrospect, seems even more cruel in the end that Jake didn't go back one final time, prevent the event and live happily ever after in the '50's. Also, while I realize it was a plot device, wouldn't it have made more practical sense to accumulate wealth via the Stock Market? Always, loved that advice from the Dennis Quaid movie where he tells his friend to buy "Yahoo". LOL Still over the years there would be plenty of opportunities to capitalize on the Market, legally. Hughes, Co., IBM, AT&T, etc.

Just throwing that out there for discussion!
He needed to collect quick cash, not establish an account with a stockbroker.

[Randall Flagg]

I just finished the book and really enjoyed it. I do think King needs an editor. The novel was bloated and could have been much tighter-Think The Dead Zone. I believe no one wants to trim King because an 800 page novel sells for $35 retail, but a 600 page book retails for $25.

[jhanic]

Just curious, could the "rabbit hole" also be termed a thinny?

John

[Merlin1958]

Not sure anymore what the policy is for spoilers here, so I'll be safe than sorry, but the Yellow Card Men were a part of the "Reset" having been there the first time around. Therefore they were "Always" there at that same moment in Sept., 1958. The major difference being that they were aware of the consequences/changes to the overall timelines.

However, what I really wanted to point out (that I just recently somehow realized) is that while I truly enjoyed the ending as is and would not necessarily change it one iota,

it seems to me that a major flaw (in theory) to the ending is that Sadie still dies (or is at the least horribly maimed) without Jake going back one last time to prevent the husband from attacking her. To me, that didn't "feel" like "time" echoing itself as in the other instances, but was an event due to happen just like the killing of JFK. In retrospect, seems even more cruel in the end that Jake didn't go back one final time, prevent the event and live happily ever after in the '50's. Also, while I realize it was a plot device, wouldn't it have made more practical sense to accumulate wealth via the Stock Market? Always, loved that advice from the Dennis Quaid movie where he tells his friend to buy "Yahoo". LOL Still over the years there would be plenty of opportunities to capitalize on the Market, legally. Hughes, Co., IBM, AT&T, etc.

Just throwing that out there for discussion!
He needed to collect quick cash, not establish an account with a stockbroker.

Well sure, at first, but then to avoid violence he coulda gone the Stock route.

Also, Heather19, I.m not saying the novel didn't end well. I'm just trying to spark debate. IMHO, and to an extent even in King's own words in the book, he coulda got away with going back one more time, save the Janitor and family, Save the girl and then save Sadie and live happily everafter along the slightly modified timeline as long as he didn't make any significant changes (at least according to the TT scenario utilized). In truth I was sorta rooting for the Sappy ending!!! LOL To me, it ends well both ways. OK maybe slightly better the way it was written. LOL Course, I guess he woulda killed or drove crazy another YCM. LOL

[Merlin1958]

Just curious, could the "rabbit hole" also be termed a thinny?

John

IMHO Absolutely!!

[Randall Flagg]

Just curious, could the "rabbit hole" also be termed a thinny?

John
Not according to the definition in our DT Dictionary: Thinnies are the signs the world has moved on. Where the existence has gotten really weak and worn out thinnies appear. A thinny has a very disturbing sound; no one can bear it for long.

A thinny also has some kind of sense because it can catch small animals and can hypnotise people as well."

[Bev Vincent]

But it's also a place where the separation between two universes has worn thin. Robin Furth speculated that the Arrowhead Project created a thinny that allowed the monsters through in The Mist, which means that Mrs. Todd might also have found a thinny while looking for shortcuts.

[ICry4Oy]

Maybe the world Jake came back to after saving JFK could be a thinny - that ripping sound. Maybe.

[Merlin1958]

Well now, in retrospect I seem to recall several times when King seemed to be steering us away from that sort of DT parallel, meaning Thinnies, doors, etc. Also the way he describes the timelines felt more like the old rock in the stream analogy often utilized in TT stories not a "Multi-Verse" typical scnario. Of course, everyone is entitled to believe the scenario that fits best for them.

[mae]

http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/booknook/Stephen_Kings_112263_his_best_in_a_decade.html?ref =428

Until I finished Stephen King’s newest novel, “11/22/63,” I’d only cried at the end of three of his books.

I remember tears filling my eyes during the scene in “The Stand” where Stu Redman is left behind by his team to die as they slowly make their way to Las Vegas. I was then caught off-guard by Johnny Smith in “The Dead Zone.” And King once again caught me with “The Green Mile.”

King excels at creating characters with whom you get emotionally involved. He does it again with “11/22/63,” which is about a man traveling into the past to prevent President Kennedy’s assassination.

Jake Epping is an English teacher in Maine. One night after an adult class, he’s reading a paper by one of his students, Harry Dunning, a janitor at the school. The paper deals with the night the janitor’s life changed forever — the night when his father murdered his mother, sister, two brothers and crippled him for life. That the paper moves Jake emotionally is beyond question. It prompts him to get to know Harry and find out more about that horrible night.

Later, when the owner of a hamburger diner shows Jake a way to go back in time, an idea starts to jell in the teacher’s mind. The owner of the diner has spent nearly five years of his life in the past with the intent of keeping John F. Kennedy from being assassinated. Cancer, however, brought his mission to an end. Now, he wants Jake to take over. One of the problems, however, is that the time portal only takes you back to the fall of 1958. You then have five years to spend while you wait for the right moment to act.

Jake decides to give it a shot, but first he wants to see if he can prevent Harry’s family from being killed in 1958. If he can accomplish that, then maybe he has a chance of saving Kennedy.

Here are the basic rules for time travel in “11/22/63.” You can go back to 1958 as many times as you want, but each time you do, you erase any changes that were made. When you leave 2011, go back to 1958, and then return to the present, only two minutes have passed. You, however, have aged whatever amount of time was spent in the past. Another rule is that time doesn’t want to be changed and will attempt to stop you by throwing problems in your path. Also, for every change you make, it will have a profound effect on the future with the possibility of it being more negative than it was originally meant to be.

After his Dunning family mission, Jake decides to tackle the assassination of John F. Kennedy. But he has to find a place to live and to wait out the time.

Leaving Maine, Jake travels to Florida where he finds trouble with some bookies after winning large bets. He heads to New Orleans for a while and then to the Dallas/Fort Worth area, where he meets the woman of his dreams, Sadie Clayton. In time, the fact that Jake has no past catches up to him and he’s forced to shift focus to Lee Harvey Oswald. (All, however, is not lost between Jake and Sadie.)

Though this novel is nearly 900 pages in length, there are very few action scenes — maybe 40 to 50 pages — but you don’t notice because you’re so wrapped up in the character of Jake Epping.

Another vital thing here is the ending. That’s what hit me in the heart, but I won’t give anything away. I don’t know whether to thank King for it, or his son, Joe. King mentions in the afterword that Joe Hill suggested a better ending for the book and he decided to go with it. For me, the ending is what shot this novel from the A list to the A+ list.

King’s “11/22/63” is his best novel in more than a decade. This is what great writing and storytelling is all about. This is the type of book you don’t want to end, but know it must. And, when the novel finally wraps up, you feel a sense of happiness from the ending, yet also a sense of loss at having to say goodbye to the main characters.

[mikeC]

This is the first book since Blaze that I actually considered not finishing. It was the whole "stay in the play" scene followed by the dancing section that bored me to tears.
Maybe I just don't like Of Mice and Men references, haha.
I'll put on my Vaseline gloves and try to power through.

[jhanic]

You won't regret it. It's one of King's best.

John

[mae]

Definitely! Top 5 for me.

[Bethany]

I loved it. I want Jake to hook up with Lisey Landon.

[Ricky]

I just finished it about a half hour ago and loved it! There were definitely some slow parts (I think King's editor is afraid to tell him to condense) but overall I thought it was really well done. One of his best in awhile. I was incredibly worried when it was announced that it would be too historical and predictable, but was pleasantly suprised that it was far from it. I actually loved the parts with the Oswalds.


Just curious, could the "rabbit hole" also be termed a thinny?

I don't think so. I take a thinny to be a destructive, wearing down between universes/worlds, while a "rabbit hole" is a natural (or unnatural?) portal to another time.


he coulda got away with going back one more time, save the Janitor and family, Save the girl and then save Sadie and live happily everafter along the slightly modified timeline as long as he didn't make any significant changes (at least according to the TT scenario utilized).

See, that's just it what constitues a "significant" change? Just saving Sadie more than likely caused the YCM headaches. I couldn't imagine what would happen in 2011 if Jake brought her to the present.

[Merlin1958]

I just finished it about a half hour ago and loved it! There were definitely some slow parts (I think King's editor is afraid to tell him to condense) but overall I thought it was really well done. One of his best in awhile. I was incredibly worried when it was announced that it would be too historical and predictable, but was pleasantly suprised that it was far from it. I actually loved the parts with the Oswalds.


Just curious, could the "rabbit hole" also be termed a thinny?

I don't think so. I take a thinny to be a destructive, wearing down between universes/worlds, while a "rabbit hole" is a natural (or unnatural?) portal to another time.


he coulda got away with going back one more time, save the Janitor and family, Save the girl and then save Sadie and live happily everafter along the slightly modified timeline as long as he didn't make any significant changes (at least according to the TT scenario utilized).

See, that's just it what constitues a "significant" change? Just saving Sadie more than likely caused the YCM headaches. I couldn't imagine what would happen in 2011 if Jake brought her to the present.

I didn't mean "bring her to the present". He probably could have got away with saving her and living on in 1963. Just a thought and as I meant, just being a "Devil's Advocate".

[Ricky]

Oh, okay. I guess he could've if he never went back to 2011. Hmm...that's an interesting thought.

[Heather19]

I'm glad you enjoyed it Ricky!

And I don't think he could ever live happily with Sadie. Wasn't that one of his revelations at the end? That he had to let her go? And don't forget he did still save her life.

[Ricky]

That reminds me: we know that each trip creates a new time "strain", so would it be safe to assume that there's still the version where Sadie's dead (among others)?

[wahlers]

This is the first book since Blaze that I actually considered not finishing. It was the whole "stay in the play" scene followed by the dancing section that bored me to tears.
Maybe I just don't like Of Mice and Men references, haha.
I'll put on my Vaseline gloves and try to power through.

I felt entirely the same way and have now just finished it after almost 2 months and feel that it was pretty much a waste of my time.

People can criticize me all they want but it was just incredibly boring to me. I liked the premise and loved the set-up and the first two trips, especially the visit to Derry.

However, once he fell in love & settled in and there were the however many hundreds of pages of a boring middle-aged man falling in love and dating a plucky, younger, "tough only when I have to be" woman, I really had trouble wading through it. King's characters have gone from being determined, strange, or interesting to being bored, unmotivated, and sorely in need of some viagra. Characters in their 30s or even 40s seem a lot closer to King's real age (and attitude) and seem only thinly veiled as being younger. Oh, and I'm really tired of him throwing in the unnecessarily descriptive sex scenes just to try and prove something or maybe titilate himself. It's just creepy to me now.

I also thought that going from the sappy Peggy Sue Got Married romance into Back to the Future, Part II only to end the book with something closer to Cocoon really irked me.

Maybe I'm just not a hopeless romantic. However, it really seems like his books are steadily marching towards the point where the only people who are going to want to adapt them anymore are Lifetime and the Hallmark channel.

I've been enjoying his recent short stories, but novels like Lisey's Story, Under the Dome and now 11/22/63 really make me wish he had retired when he said he was going to years ago.

And for the record, I'm not saying that people who enjoyed it are stupid or lying. I just feel that people who dislike the recent King novels often get unfairly shot down as just being unintelligent readers.

It it's deemed necessary, call me stupid or a troll or whatever you want, but I'm sure other people feel this same way and are scared to post it for whatever reason, and maybe they'll feel a little better that they also didn't like the book if they know they're not alone.

[divemaster]

Wow. I'm not sure what to say. You certainly aren't wrong to have your opinion and nothing I might say here is an attempt tp have you reassess your impression.

But I think the strength of this book is its characters and sense of setting. I think one of the most compelling aspects of the book is not "wooo-time travel!" but the conflicts that Jake faces as he has to process information that only he knows. Coupled with the uncertainty of how this is supposed to work for him--and the future history of the world. That's a heavy burdern for one man to shoulder and I think King does a great job of conveying that.

Plus, the race against the clock aspects worked for me. As did the romance. They just did. YMMV.

And sex scenes? When has King ever written a sex scene that was remotely titilating? He's one of the tamest hi-profile authors out there as far as I can tell.

[mae]

Agree, everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion, but the novel has been pretty much universally praised as some of King's best work in years if not decades. The New York Times selected it as one of their five best fiction boks of the year, a first for a King novel. I agree that the time travel was not at all the point of the story, but the setting and the characters and the situation.

[wahlers]

That's exactly my point about the sex scenes. No, they're definitely not as graphic as some authors, and I'm certainly not puritanical, but he always goes further than it really needs to in order to get the point across. Plus I always feel like it's his attempt to write titilating soft-core porn, but, in my opinion, it just comes across as someone who should stick to writing other things, cause it always feels amateurish to me (and always has) when he writes the sex scenes. Like some 18 year old college novice writer trying to sound all grown-up cause he's writing about sex!!!

Even more than when he was younger I think he really needs a gutsier editor who has the balls to say, "Hey Steve, does this really need to be in here? Don't you think we could cut a couple of hundred pages from this and still have the same effect, or maybe even a better, more intense one?"

And, honestly in regards to strength of his characters, to me they end up feeling more like caricatures than characters. I can honestly say that I feel I know more about many of the characters in most of Salinger's short stories than anyone in 11/22/63. I can definitely say I care more about the people in, for example, "Uncle Wiggily in Connecticut" than anyone in 11/22/63.

A good example of this was how I cared more about Ollie Dinsmore in Under the Dome than anybody else in that book, probably because he spent less time telling us what he was thinking and how he was feeling, and instead put him in some terrible situations and let us just see what happened to him and make up our own minds about him.

[Merlin1958]

Wow. I'm not sure what to say. You certainly aren't wrong to have your opinion and nothing I might say here is an attempt tp have you reassess your impression.

But I think the strength of this book is its characters and sense of setting. I think one of the most compelling aspects of the book is not "wooo-time travel!" but the conflicts that Jake faces as he has to process information that only he knows. Coupled with the uncertainty of how this is supposed to work for him--and the future history of the world. That's a heavy burdern for one man to shoulder and I think King does a great job of conveying that.

Plus, the race against the clock aspects worked for me. As did the romance. They just did. YMMV.

And sex scenes? When has King ever written a sex scene that was remotely titilating? He's one of the tamest hi-profile authors out there as far as I can tell.

I gotta agree with you whole-heartedly, I really enjoyed 11/22/63 start to finish. Could it have been a tad shorter? Maybe, but then I would have had to stop reading too early. Plus, it's a book that has a good viable ending IMHO and that has been hit and miss, somewhat, for King to me.

I do agree with Wahlers with regard to Lisey's Story and UTD in that I hated Lisey's Story and UTD was great until the anti-climatic, IMHO, ending. Duma Key was cool and of course his two short story compilations were great. So I for one am glad he chose to "Un-retire"!!!

[onlylivingboyinny]

Yes, I too was terrified of an UTDome style ending (that conclusion cheapened the otherwise excellent story for me). Thankfully,11/22 did not disappoint.

[Heather19]

Yes, I too was terrified of an UTDome style ending (that conclusion cheapened the otherwise excellent story for me). Thankfully,11/22 did not disappoint.

Agreed! I loved Under the Dome up until the end. And I thought the ending to 11/22/63 was perfect, probably his best ending ever.

[Ricky]

EVER?

Louis Creed begs to differ. :lol:

[Bethany]

A thought I had in the shower this morning regarding the rabbit hole/bubble. If it were just a freak of nature or what have you, wouldn't it be like the cave in DT or a swirling vortex or something, you know, natural? How did a fully hidden doorway and and stairs just happen?

[Merlin1958]

A thought I had in the shower this morning regarding the rabbit hole/bubble. If it were just a freak of nature or what have you, wouldn't it be like the cave in DT or a swirling vortex or something, you know, natural? How did a fully hidden doorway and and stairs just happen?

I agree. It had to have it's "roots"? in the DT universe. Just was not germane to the DT story. Make sense?

[Heather19]

EVER?

Louis Creed begs to differ. :lol:

Well one of his best :D



A thought I had in the shower this morning regarding the rabbit hole/bubble. If it were just a freak of nature or what have you, wouldn't it be like the cave in DT or a swirling vortex or something, you know, natural? How did a fully hidden doorway and and stairs just happen?

I agree. It had to have it's "roots"? in the DT universe. Just was not germane to the DT story. Make sense?

And why can't it? I don't think everything needs to be tied back to the Dark Tower...

[Ricky]

A thought I had in the shower this morning regarding the rabbit hole/bubble. If it were just a freak of nature or what have you, wouldn't it be like the cave in DT or a swirling vortex or something, you know, natural? How did a fully hidden doorway and and stairs just happen?

Good point, but then you have to consider the same thing in regards to the DT doors. They're just plain wooden doors, yet open up into other dimensions/places/universes. Did they just appear one day? Did someone come along and build them?

Maybe Al's rabbit hole is one of our versions of the DT doors. Maybe something is causing the visibility to become diminished (i.e. steps) and the portal will eventually collapse on itself?.

[Bethany]

I didn't say this was DT related. I was just pointing out that it reeks of something deliberate rather than a naturally occurring thing.

[Heather19]

Oh ok, I understand. I think I'm more inclined to think it is natural though. But then I wonder because there are people guarding it, so obviously someone is aware of it.

[Iwritecode]

I haven't quite finished the book yet thus I haven't read through this entire thread but I wanted to mention something. Apologies if somebody else has already posted about it.

On page 410 (chapter 16 section 2) Jake uses the duplicate key he paid Ivy Templeton to make for him to go inside the apartment to actually set up the fake lamp with the bug in it.


"I had a bad moment when the key refused to work, but it was just new. When I wetted it with some salivia and jiggled it a little, it turned and I went in."

Yet on page 478 (chapter 18 section 11) when he goes back to actually activate the bug, he says that he never used the key.


"During my time in Fort Worth, I never once used the key I'd purchased from Ivy Templeton."

Just a minor slip but it stuck out to me the second I read it.

[Ricky]

Good catch!

[Bethany]

Ivy Templeton was the little girl in Audrey Rose. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Sid]

Hello all,


Just finished reading the book myself. One of the best King's novels I've read in a long, long, time.

Couple of things I saw in the thread that I thought I might comment on though:


Oh ok, I understand. I think I'm more inclined to think it is natural though. But then I wonder because there are people guarding it, so obviously someone is aware of it.

I caught that too, but was too into the book to not continue (and finish) it to go back and check.

He says it's an irony that he never used the key while living in Fort Worth.

I think when he used it (the only time) to place a bug, he was still living in Jordi, and had not moved in across the street.

I also saw someone comment on the stock market. From what I remember in the book, Jake at one point wishes Al had given him a book on the stock markets, as that would have worked out better long term. Al, usually only focused on buying beef for his restaurant didn't need one that would pay out long term- and by the time he meant to go back for JFK, Al thought he had enough money.

What I'm not entirely clear on is the alternative future Jake saw when he came back in 2011. I'm under the impression that the world wasn't a nuclear wasteland due to JFK living directly- a lot of it had to do with reality 'harmonizing' itself and collapsing. The earthquakes caused a lot of it, including the nuclear meltdown in Vermont- I think what JFK dropped the ball on in the book was Vietnam (if I understand correctly) and the race riots.

I'm still not sure why Chicago had to be 'firebombed', however. What exactly changed there? I'm not American so I'll admit my U.S history is a bit spotty.

The early emergence of Al Qeada around the collapse of the USSR and accessing nukes from the collapsed USSR in the early '90s was the past 'harmonizing' itself, I think.

[Jean]

I really really wish Mr.King had an editor. What Oswald says to his wife, presumably in Russian, is not Russian, nor is it any other language. Worse, in the word that is supposed to represent the Russian for "bitch" there is a mixup of latin and cyrillic letters.

Also, I might like the story when it develops - I sincerely hope I will - but I hate the dialog so far. I have to remind myself that it is not a parody every time Al opens his mouth to announce that his mother didn't raise no fools or something of the same kind.

[mtdman]

What I'm not entirely clear on is the alternative future Jake saw when he came back in 2011. I'm under the impression that the world wasn't a nuclear wasteland due to JFK living directly- a lot of it had to do with reality 'harmonizing' itself and collapsing. The earthquakes caused a lot of it, including the nuclear meltdown in Vermont- I think what JFK dropped the ball on in the book was Vietnam (if I understand correctly) and the race riots.

I'm still not sure why Chicago had to be 'firebombed', however. What exactly changed there? I'm not American so I'll admit my U.S history is a bit spotty.

The early emergence of Al Qeada around the collapse of the USSR and accessing nukes from the collapsed USSR in the early '90s was the past 'harmonizing' itself, I think.

The point of things going wrong by him changing history wasn't because of what JFK did directly. It was that the events that happened in the alternate timeline turned out to be worse than what happened in reality. The whole point of stopping JFK from being shot was that things would be so much better, Viet Nam wouldn't have happened, and all of life would have been a lot better in the alternative timeline. By changing one thing all the rest of the 20th century would have turned out better. But as it turned out, that didn't happen because things happened for the worse, not for the better. And neither he nor Al ever seriously contemplated that.

A lot of what happens in the alternate history is because of different people being in power, etc. The firebombing thing was part of that, I do believe that was in reference to the Democratic Convention riots that got out of control then.

The whole point of the alternate history was that things were a lot better the way it originally happened, the way it was supposed to happen. Not perfect, but better. And that messing with timeline changes was a no-no.

[pixiedark76]

What I'm not entirely clear on is the alternative future Jake saw when he came back in 2011. I'm under the impression that the world wasn't a nuclear wasteland due to JFK living directly- a lot of it had to do with reality 'harmonizing' itself and collapsing. The earthquakes caused a lot of it, including the nuclear meltdown in Vermont- I think what JFK dropped the ball on in the book was Vietnam (if I understand correctly) and the race riots.

I'm still not sure why Chicago had to be 'firebombed', however. What exactly changed there? I'm not American so I'll admit my U.S history is a bit spotty.

The early emergence of Al Qeada around the collapse of the USSR and accessing nukes from the collapsed USSR in the early '90s was the past 'harmonizing' itself, I think.

The point of things going wrong by him changing history wasn't because of what JFK did directly. It was that the events that happened in the alternate timeline turned out to be worse than what happened in reality. The whole point of stopping JFK from being shot was that things would be so much better, Viet Nam wouldn't have happened, and all of life would have been a lot better in the alternative timeline. By changing one thing all the rest of the 20th century would have turned out better. But as it turned out, that didn't happen because things happened for the worse, not for the better. And neither he nor Al ever seriously contemplated that.

A lot of what happens in the alternate history is because of different people being in power, etc. The firebombing thing was part of that, I do believe that was in reference to the Democratic Convention riots that got out of control then.

The whole point of the alternate history was that things were a lot better the way it originally happened, the way it was supposed to happen. Not perfect, but better. And that messing with timeline changes was a no-no.

The whole point of this book IMHO is that messing with time and timelines is a very huge "NO-NO" This book is saying that you should leave the past in the past! Get all of the "What if this happened or did not happen" out of your head! Or any kind of "What if" Stop dwelling on the past and wanting to change it. Like the Irish say "What's done is done, can't be undone!" Maybe my parents are right, "Forget the past"
(Pardon me for the rant I am in an cynical mood tonight)

[blavigne]

Finished the book tonight. While the premise was great and the beginning was good, the whole thing really fizzled for me. I am sorry but this goes on my hated it list.

[Merlin1958]

Finished the book tonight. While the premise was great and the beginning was good, the whole thing really fizzled for me. I am sorry but this goes on my hated it list.

"Shot through the heart and you're to blame....................." LOL I thoroughly enjoyed it and I think it was his best in years!!! Sorry you didn't!!

Viva la Difference'!!!

:lol1:

[blavigne]

Finished the book tonight. While the premise was great and the beginning was good, the whole thing really fizzled for me. I am sorry but this goes on my hated it list.

"Shot through the heart and you're to blame....................." LOL I thoroughly enjoyed it and I think it was his best in years!!! Sorry you didn't!!

Viva la Difference'!!!

:lol1:

I am glad you liked it!! It wasn't that the story was bad, it actually was really good but what happened to all the weird, dark, scary Stephen Kingy stuff that is supposed to happen around the "love story" part? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I did not live through that time, I was born after the Kennedy assassination. I have heard about the fears about nuclear war and such but I did not live it although of course we all went through 911 but that was a whole different world by then. Bottom line is what disappointed me was that I honestly thought Lisey's Story was scarier than this. I would have liked to see a lot more of the card men and what they do and mean. I would have also liked Jimla to amount to something. But on a positive note, the love story was really touching.

[Iwritecode]

I am glad you liked it!! It wasn't that the story was bad, it actually was really good but what happened to all the weird, dark, scary Stephen Kingy stuff that is supposed to happen around the "love story" part? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I did not live through that time, I was born after the Kennedy assassination. I have heard about the fears about nuclear war and such but I did not live it although of course we all went through 911 but that was a whole different world by then. Bottom line is what disappointed me was that I honestly thought Lisey's Story was scarier than this. I would have liked to see a lot more of the card men and what they do and mean. I would have also liked Jimla to amount to something. But on a positive note, the love story was really touching.

That's interesting. Usually I hear people say they don't like SK because "all he writes is horror stuff". You go the opposite direction by saying there wasn't enough in this book.

[mae]

Hm, going into this one I didn't expect it to be scary. Thrilling and suspenseful, yes, and it was. It's been pretty much universally hailed as one of King's best works in a long time, if not ever.

[jhanic]

I find it rather interesting that many of the people who don't like the book have a similar complaint: the book isn't what they expected. Few real complaints about the writing, etc., just that they expected something different that what was done.

John

[divemaster]

I think King is much better these days when he is not trying to shoehorn all that "weird, dark, scary Stephen Kingy stuff" into his novels. For example I thought Duma Key was very good, but it was not helped by the horror at the end. He can still write horror, of course--I thought Full Dark, No Stars was effective in that vein, but that was the point. 11/22/63 was not meant to be a horror novel and I for one am glad King laid off for the most part.

[Merlin1958]

If I remember correctly, I believe this book (11/22/63) was specifically aimed at a broader market. King was trying to "shake" off the "horror" tag a bit. I, for one, think he accomplished this effectively with this novel. As I said, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[Ben Staad]

I loved this book. Out of SK's newer work this and Duma Key our easily my favorites. Plus I loved the vision he provided of the "future" changed world. Good stuff.

[Merlin1958]

I loved this book. Out of SK's newer work this and Duma Key our easily my favorites. Plus I loved the vision he provided of the "future" changed world. Good stuff.

So, now you are "Glorious Beacon of Light" Jr.? LOL

Welcome to the circle of Light Beacon's!!!!

:clap:

[Ben Staad]

I loved this book. Out of SK's newer work this and Duma Key our easily my favorites. Plus I loved the vision he provided of the "future" changed world. Good stuff.

So, now you are "Glorious Beacon of Light" Jr.? LOL

Welcome to the circle of Light Beacon's!!!!

:clap:

We need to come up with a "secret" handshake! LOL

[Merlin1958]

I loved this book. Out of SK's newer work this and Duma Key our easily my favorites. Plus I loved the vision he provided of the "future" changed world. Good stuff.

So, now you are "Glorious Beacon of Light" Jr.? LOL

Welcome to the circle of Light Beacon's!!!!

:clap:

We need to come up with a "secret" handshake! LOL


Shhuusshh GBOL's communicate on a whole different level!!!


:ninja:

[Ricky]

I wasn't expecting 11/22/63 to be horror at all, but I can definitely see how some readers felt it was "missing" something in that regard. I love that King is so versatile and able to go down the completely dark and depressing horror route, or write an exciting, still well-written character-driven novel. His more "human" novels (i.e. Duma Key, Lisey's Story, etc.) are great, but I wish he would go back to some of the horror stuff he used to write (I wasn't a big fan of Full Dark, No Stars). It seems like he's gotten a bit tame in his retirement.

[Ben Staad]

(I wasn't a big fan of Full Dark, No Stars). It seems like he's gotten a bit tame in his retirement.

Really? I thought FDNS was pretty intense and scary in some places. It wasn't onpar with some of his early work but even his new stuff is better then most anything else I read now a days.

[blavigne]

(I wasn't a big fan of Full Dark, No Stars). It seems like he's gotten a bit tame in his retirement.

Really? I thought FDNS was pretty intense and scary in some places. It wasn't onpar with some of his early work but even his new stuff is better then most anything else I read now a days.

I'm with Ricky here, I guess I can't say I didn't like 11/22/63, but I was disappointed, it felt like a novel that could have been written by anyone, not an SK special. but still the story was good but FDNS I did not like at all. None of it. Sorry SK. All of my hopes are hanging on the new DT novel........I cannot wait!!

[Jean]

I hated most of FDNS (except Fair Extension, which was passable). 11/22/63 is bland, faceless, and written in a very mediocre way. It is still a marginally enjoyable read, but it has nothing of the intensity and sincerity of - I am speaking only about the latest work - Duma Key and Under the Dome. To me it reads as a sad case of a good, unique, outstanding writer trying to be "like the real authors". Someone must have told him that being entertaining is incompatible with the Real Literature. You know what, Sai King? They lied. Probably out of envy.

[Heather19]

:(
I'm sorry Jean, I thought for sure that you were going to love this one.

[blavigne]

I hated most of FDNS (except Fair Extension, which was passable). 11/22/63 is bland, faceless, and written in a very mediocre way. It is still a marginally enjoyable read, but it has nothing of the intensity and sincerity of - I am speaking only about the latest work - Duma Key and Under the Dome. To me it reads as a sad case of a good, unique, outstanding writer trying to be "like the real authors". Someone must have told him that being entertaining is incompatible with the Real Literature. You know what, Sai King? They lied. Probably out of envy.

eloquently said as usual and I totally agree

[Ben Staad]

I hated most of FDNS (except Fair Extension, which was passable). 11/22/63 is bland, faceless, and written in a very mediocre way. It is still a marginally enjoyable read, but it has nothing of the intensity and sincerity of - I am speaking only about the latest work - Duma Key and Under the Dome. To me it reads as a sad case of a good, unique, outstanding writer trying to be "like the real authors". Someone must have told him that being entertaining is incompatible with the Real Literature. You know what, Sai King? They lied. Probably out of envy.

Well I'm not as well spoken as most folks here but I felt some of the old King in FDNS and in 11/22/63. I really did not like UTD because I felt SK was pushing an agenda more then telling a story. Anyway, at least we agree that Duma Key was a good book...right?

[Jean]

I really did not like UTD because I felt SK was pushing an agenda more then telling a story.

LOL, that's exactly how I felt about FDNS!


Anyway, at least we agree that Duma Key was a good book...right?
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

Heather :rose: :rose: :rose: : I am always halfway through, and there are some places that I liked: namely, the cribbage thing, and the glimpse of Oswald's mother. I am not saying I dislike it like I did Lisey's Story and Bag of Bones, or especially FDNS and JAS, nor does it bore me to the same extent as The Eyes of the Dragon or Hearts in Atlantis. I know I am in the minority as far as all of the above are concerned, so it is not the first time that bears manifest their difference from people...

Barbara: I think I know what you mean when you asked what happened to the dark, weird, scary King. I will thnk about it some more - and I will have to finish the book first - and will try to post what I think about it. http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bearheart.gif

[Ricky]

To me it reads as a sad case of a good, unique, outstanding writer trying to be "like the real authors".

I couldn't disagree more with 11/22/63 being "mediocre", but I can see how you see SK "trying to be like the real authors."

[mae]

I must respectfully disagree, Jean ol' bear. The prose is unmistakably and recognizably King. When he was describing that root beer, I could taste the soda in my mouth. Great, great novel.

[blavigne]

I must respectfully disagree, Jean ol' bear. The prose is unmistakably and recognizably King. When he was describing that root beer, I could taste the soda in my mouth. Great, great novel.

Pablo. I have to give it to you there, his technique is excellent and he is writing well, my issue is that this book feels watered down, tame and bland compared to his "regular" stuff, I wanted to laugh and cry, love and fear, and most of all have that feeling of dreading what is to come but not being able to wait to get there anyway.......that is what is missing for me here

And Ben, I can't speak for anyone else but I really loved Duma Key!!

[Merlin1958]

I hated most of FDNS (except Fair Extension, which was passable). 11/22/63 is bland, faceless, and written in a very mediocre way. It is still a marginally enjoyable read, but it has nothing of the intensity and sincerity of - I am speaking only about the latest work - Duma Key and Under the Dome. To me it reads as a sad case of a good, unique, outstanding writer trying to be "like the real authors". Someone must have told him that being entertaining is incompatible with the Real Literature. You know what, Sai King? They lied. Probably out of envy.


Wow, just when you think you know a bear............. Duma Key was OK, FDNS was very good and UTD was a richly told story, sweeping character landscape and all, until he screwed the pooch on the ending!!!

To Jean and Barb, I think this (11/22/63) was another King experiment. You can say a lot of things about Mr. King but reluctance to experiment is not one of them. I believe he intentionally wrote this story to appeal to a broader audience to see if he could. You can already see that it's back to business as usual with TWTTK and Dr. Sleep already slated to be published this year.

[Ben Mears]

I tend to take each SK book as they come and not compare them to others. I found 11/22/63 to be an enjoyable read. Time will tell if I liked it well enough to read it again.

[wahlers]

Looking back at it, I almost think it could have been a Bachman book.

[flaggwalkstheline]

Looking back at it, I almost think it could have been a Bachman book.

then that would explain why I like it so much

[jhanic]

Looking back at it, I almost think it could have been a Bachman book.

I don't think I agree. It seems too "soft" to be a Bachman book. Just my opinion, of course.

John

[Merlin1958]

Looking back at it, I almost think it could have been a Bachman book.

I don't think I agree. It seems too "soft" to be a Bachman book. Just my opinion, of course.

John

I can see what you both mean!!! There are dual elements. Maybe it's something "in-between"?

[Ben Mears]

Looking back at it, I almost think it could have been a Bachman book.

I don't think I agree. It seems too "soft" to be a Bachman book. Just my opinion, of course.

John

I agree John. Not nasty or depressing enough!

[Bethany]

Should we do a quick poll to see how many of us that love 11/22/63 also have some kind of fascination or vested interest in the assassination?
As I have my own copy of the Warren Commission Report, I think you know what my vote is.

[wahlers]

Okay, for the poll, I strongly disliked the bulk of the book and definitely the ending and have a passing interest in the assassination.

I've never done my own research on it for numerous reasons, and definitely don't want to start a JFK conspiracy debate, but I believe there was some kind of conspiracy, although I don't conform to any specific theory. I just don't think it was a simple case of a lone gunman.

I was admittedly a bit depressed that King went so very plain vanilla on the whole thing. It seemed less like he was doing what was best for the story and more that this is what he believes and was using the book as a soap box to stuff his feeling down the reader's throat. Like this book was a very public way of him telling off all the lone-gunman ney-sayers. I tried to not let this taint my view of the novel as a whole, and honestly believe that my dislike of this aspect of the book was little more than a mild annoyance by the end.

I quite liked the parts about Oswald and his interactions with his wife, mother and acquaintances, although I'll admit that in my mind's eye, I was picturing Gary Oldman the whole time. :) :unsure:

[Merlin1958]

Okay, for the poll, I strongly disliked the bulk of the book and definitely the ending and have a passing interest in the assassination.

I've never done my own research on it for numerous reasons, and definitely don't want to start a JFK conspiracy debate, but I believe there was some kind of conspiracy, although I don't conform to any specific theory. I just don't think it was a simple case of a lone gunman.

I was admittedly a bit depressed that King went so very plain vanilla on the whole thing. It seemed less like he was doing what was best for the story and more that this is what he believes and was using the book as a soap box to stuff his feeling down the reader's throat. Like this book was a very public way of him telling off all the lone-gunman ney-sayers. I tried to not let this taint my view of the novel as a whole, and honestly believe that my dislike of this aspect of the book was little more than a mild annoyance by the end.

I quite liked the parts about Oswald and his interactions with his wife, mother and acquaintances, although I'll admit that in my mind's eye, I was picturing Gary Oldman the whole time. :) :unsure:

Sorry, but I didn't get those vibes at all!!

Oh well, Viva la Difference'!!!!!

[Ricky]

I really thought that SK was going to come up with something else in the assassination plot rather than having Oswald really be the lone gunman. I won't say that I was disappointed, but I was suprised.

[Merlin1958]

I really thought that SK was going to come up with something else in the assassination plot rather than having Oswald really be the lone gunman. I won't say that I was disappointed, but I was suprised.

Yeah, actually knowing a bit about his political tendencies, I think he showed amazing restraint in not getting on a soap-box. Would've figured him for a conspiracy theory in a heart-beat. Though, accepting the "lone gunman" premise was central to being able to tell this type of story. Any "conspiracy" theory would have been prohibitive and too complicated for a TT novel.

[divemaster]

I really thought that SK was going to come up with something else in the assassination plot rather than having Oswald really be the lone gunman. I won't say that I was disappointed, but I was suprised.

Yeah, actually knowing a bit about his political tendencies, I think he showed amazing restraint in not getting on a soap-box. Would've figured him for a conspiracy theory in a heart-beat. Though, accepting the "lone gunman" premise was central to being able to tell this type of story. Any "conspiracy" theory would have been prohibitive and too complicated for a TT novel.

I'm sure I read somewhere (heck, it could have been in the intorduction to the book) that King himself mentioned that he went into his research with a pretty open mind but that the further and deeper he looked, the more he was convinced that Oswald acted alone. I agree with that. I don't for one second buy into any kind of conspiracy theory or second gunman or whatever.

[Jimimck]

I loved this book. Yes it had a softer approach to it than a lot of his other work, but so what. It had great characters, made you feel as though you were right there in 1958 along on the ride, and had a great ending (IMO).

To me, the tell of a great book is that you are sad the story is over and miss the characters, and that is how I felt at the end of this...

[Ricky]

Though, accepting the "lone gunman" premise was central to being able to tell this type of story.

Exactly. I thought he did it well.

And whenever the "lone gunman" theory is mentioned in the book or Jake and Al talk about it, it just seemed like SK was setting us up for something else, something..."bigger" and King-y.

[Merlin1958]

Though, accepting the "lone gunman" premise was central to being able to tell this type of story.

Exactly. I thought he did it well.

And whenever the "lone gunman" theory is mentioned in the book or Jake and Al talk about it, it just seemed like SK was setting us up for something else, something..."bigger" and King-y.

Yes! However he dutifully stayed away from jumping up on a soap box and for the most part did not let his politics get the better of him. Like I said knowing his political views, I thought that was very.........professional(?) of him and that he sacrificied his persoanl preferences for the benefit of the story. All very admirable IMHO

[mtdman]

I really thought that SK was going to come up with something else in the assassination plot rather than having Oswald really be the lone gunman. I won't say that I was disappointed, but I was suprised.

Yeah, actually knowing a bit about his political tendencies, I think he showed amazing restraint in not getting on a soap-box. Would've figured him for a conspiracy theory in a heart-beat. Though, accepting the "lone gunman" premise was central to being able to tell this type of story. Any "conspiracy" theory would have been prohibitive and too complicated for a TT novel.

I'm with you on this one. I thought for sure it was going to be a biased book but I was pretty happy about how he treated the whole thing. Pretty straight forward. Also knowing how much the new englanders love JFK I thought it would be a Kennedy love fest. But it turned out to not be the case.

All that being said, I am not real interested in the whole JFK thing. I'm pretty sure Oswald did it alone, even though there were lots of people who wanted Kennedy dead and didn't like him. I think that was just coincidental and the atmosphere at the time. But I don't get the people that think he was just the greatest President ever and worship him. Maybe it's because he was shot and people romanticize what he did.

[Merlin1958]

Oh yeah, he had his good points as President and his bad ones. Just like almost any President except the "Great" ones I suppose. He does get a lot of build up for 11/22/63 and probably rightly so.

Personally, I don't subscribe to the full out "Conspiracy theories", but I do think that some faction or other sort of set it in motion or assisted it and said "Let's see if he can pull it off". Or something to that effect. It's very hard to swallow that some lone asshole could change the world like that single handedly. Ever notice it's always a "Lone Gunman" in these scenario's? Someone, somewhere had to have had some form of an agenda besides the killer, no? Martin Luther, Kennedy (x2), Reagan, George Wallace, heck even Lincoln, had no help at all? Then again, maybe that's just me

[Jean]

I am inclined to agree with you. Not because such things are not, or cannot be, done by individuals, but since they are possible at all, I don't see why organizations wouldn't use the opportunities before an individual had a chance to.

[lowdown]

Me too.......I kept waiting for something bad to happen.......but everything was so perfect for much of the book ,this was so different from all his other books

[blavigne]

That's what I'm saying, this book ended with a big " where is it" for me

[Ben Mears]

That's what I'm saying, this book ended with a big " where is it" for me

I think that was the point. SK chose a quiet, thoughtful, and personal conclusion rather than a grandiose, "payoff" finish. I found myself re-reading the last few pages the same way I did when I first read The Dead Zone, which I think is SK's finest ending.

[jhanic]

Ms Mod and company have posted King's original ending to 11/22/63:

http://www.stephenking.com/other/112263/112263.html

I'm glad Joe Hill persuaded him to change it!

John

[Ricky]

Thanks for posting that, John! I'm glad that he changed it, too. So, where are we supposed to figure that this ending comes into play (between what events)?

[Iwritecode]

Is Trevor Anderson really Jake? The millionaire and former school teacher makes me think so, but that last line adds doubt.

[mae]

No, that's just the past harmonizing, I guess.

[mtdman]

I would have preferred the original ending.

[pixiedark76]

Ms Mod and company have posted King's original ending to 11/22/63:

http://www.stephenking.com/other/112263/112263.html

I'm glad Joe Hill persuaded him to change it!



John

I'm not! This ending was much better! In the new ending she was an old maid! the new ending is much more depressing than this one! Poor woman was all alone for all these years!

[Jean]

Ms Mod and company have posted King's original ending to 11/22/63:

http://www.stephenking.com/other/112263/112263.html

I'm glad Joe Hill persuaded him to change it!

John

Yes. The ending was one of the very few things I liked about the book.

[Heather19]

Jean, what did you think about the Derry portions?

[Jean]

well - at least it was not boring. I liked that old guy a lot (can't remember his name now - the one with a grudge and a bayonet) - this whole scene, and the diarrhea part, were among the best. As far as the Bev/Richie scene is concerned, it was very well written, sweet and sad and nostalgic - and left a terrible aftertaste, like I had seen someone shamelessly exploit something that was dear to me.

[Heather19]

Oh on, really? I guess I can understand that, but I liked how it was just a nod to them and nothing more. But I did love seeing Derry again, especially from a new perspective. And finding out some other things that were going on in that town.

[Merlin1958]

nostalgic - and left a terrible aftertaste, like I had seen someone shamelessly exploit something that was dear to me.

Oh c'mon Jean. That's a bit unfair, no? I thought he treated the "sneak Peek" into IT's Derry with grace and reverence. It was the author winking at the reader. Don't you think? I thought it also added a little continuity or Ret Con for the DT books and IT as well. You're usually much better than that statement IMHO.

[Jean]

you know Bill, if I had liked the book, I would have felt the same as you. I mean, if this "wink" was placed inside a worthy context, I would have greeted it with all my heart. Since I intensely disliked the book - except very few aspects - I can't help but feeling as I did.

[Merlin1958]

you know Bill, if I had liked the book, I would have felt the same as you. I mean, if this "wink" was placed inside a worthy context, I would have greeted it with all my heart. Since I intensely disliked the book - except very few aspects - I can't help but feeling as I did.

Ah well, I tried!!! LOL Sorry you were disappointed!! Go and re-read Black House!!! LOL

[mae]

Jean, care to post your review of 11/22/63? I'd love to know what you did like about it, and what it was exactly that made you dislike it in the end so intensely. Especially since almost universally it has been praised.

[Heather19]

I'm quite curious as well. It's easily one of my favorites by him and I thought for sure that you were going to love it too.

[Jean]

I will post, but the magnitude of the task frightens me at the moment - I have tons of thoughts, and I need to put them together

[ICry4Oy]

I thought the book and the ending as it was made it the most satisfying King book to come around in a very long time. It was a heartbreaking love story about love that could never be. I thought the whole Derry part was wonderful. There is nothing about this book that I did not like.

[Jean]

I loved the ending, by the way

[Merlin1958]

I loved the ending, by the way

Hated the love story, but loved the ending. You're a dark one Mr. Jean!!!!


:evil:


:P

[Lost Rose]

I just finished it last week...I'm so glad he didn't go with the first ending..it would have ruined everything...I can honestly say that the ending brought a tear...I haven't cried in ages and that about put me over the edge..wow...I liked it..it was different..a nice change. Under the Dome irritated me to no end..guess it's because I knew too many people like the asses in it..this one kept me wanting to read..and that hasn't happened with one of his books since Duma Key...

[CRinVA]

Well I just finished it last night! Gotta say that I loved it thoroughly. Perhaps there were slower pars and parts I liked less, but nothing turned me off. Loved the ending. To me the ending is incidental anyway, and do not care if things are not wrapped up in a pretty bow.

Now I am going to read The Woman by Jack Ketchum. Got the special edition in the mail yesterday from CD Pubs.

[NeedfulKings]

Done! I did love it, though I felt a "drag" through some of the lengthier portions involving Jodie, Oswald, etc, so as RF said, a good editor may have tightened it a bit.

I absolutely loved the premise of the book! I typically don't like time travel because it bends my mind in ways I don't like. King pulled it off pretty damn good, though! I had the feeling all along that something would cause him to "reset" it all, even if he saved Kennedy. I was right on that, but didn't expect the apocalyptic consequence...

...in fact it made me really sad (and mad?). I hate to think that by saving a great leader from a senseless assassination would cause that much bad. It was a little over the top for me.

The more I think of it, the more critical I become of the story. I figure it this way; with 5/6 of the novel completed, King had two options:

OPTION 1. Jake returns to a world where prosperity reigns, 9-11 didn't happen, peace is abundant throughout the world. Thus, Jake can never go back through to save Sadie, in fear of upsetting the current 2011 situation he finds.

OPTION 2. Jake returns to find exactly what he found; a world raked in despair, disease, and destruction, making it an easy decision to reset the past and then return to 2011.

Since we got OPTION 2, I feel that King (whether intentional or not) said that Oswald did the world a favor by killing a US President. So, Oswald is the real hero in this book? I know you can say there are many other factors that caused the world to self-destruct, but this was the genesis of it all.

The Derry trip was a wonderful breath from the past. I love, love, love that part!!!! I will be reading IT again soon....I actually started it, but put it back on the shelf for this one.

I loved the actual ending. I truly believe that she will remember him on some level.

If you asked me my top ten SK novels, this one wouldn't make the list.

In closing, I will say that I have visited Dallas and stood on the grassy knoll. I walked every step of the Book Depository and peered through the sniper's nest. I was surprised at how close it was to the street. I think Lee acted alone, even though I think his acquaintances and beliefs played a large role in his act. And I think that if he had missed, we would have been okay.

Peace.

[Heather19]

OPTION 2. Jake returns to find exactly what he found; a world raked in despair, disease, and destruction, making it an easy decision to reset the past and then return to 2011.

Since we got OPTION 2, I feel that King (whether intentional or not) said that Oswald did the world a favor by killing a US President. So, Oswald is the real hero in this book? I know you can say there are many other factors that caused the world to self-destruct, but this was the genesis of it all.

I will say that the only thing that bugged me with the book was how bad the world ended up being. I thought it was greatly over exaggerated. That said, my impression was that it didn't have to do with Oswald killing Kennedy per say, but just that something significant had changed, therefore upsetting the balance of the world. And causing the world to go into a downward spiral. There were earthquakes and other natural disasters that happened as a consequence. It wasn't just the fact that Kennedy was alive. I think he was just trying to make his point that everything happens for a reason, good or bad. And that you can't change the past, no matter how much you want to.

[mae]

Strange, as a slow reader, I didn't feel the novel drag in any place. I read it extremely fast, doing hundreds of pages a day.

[Jean]

Since we got OPTION 2, I feel that King (whether intentional or not) said that Oswald did the world a favor by killing a US President. So, Oswald is the real hero in this book?
No more than Judas is the hero of the New Testament.

(I said this within the context of the book; personally, I believe that the role of Kennedy in history is greatly exaggerated by King, and the pages at the end where he explains the changes in the world are just plain ridiculous)

[Heather19]

What do you think about my thoughts Jean? I really don't think the world falling apart was do just because of Kennedy being alive. I think had some other significant event changed the same thing would have happened, and other catastrophic effects would have followed.

[DoctorDodge]

I'll be interested in reading your review too Jean, just to see if it's worth me reading it at all. The thing is, there's a really interesting core idea there, of the effect a single person's life can really change things for the better or the worse in a big way if that person's path is altered in a crucial way, hell, that's a massive reason why It's a Wonderful Life is one of my favourite films, but from the description of how badly the world declines as a result of Kennedy surviving...it sounds a little too much like overkill to me. Also, the "what if?" scenario of Kennedy surviving is one of the most overdone time travel plots I've heard of, so that's one more reason that's offputting. That's why I'm not bothered by spoilers for this one somuch: who knows, if I hear something that grabs me, I might actually go out and read it. From what I've read so far though, there's not that much appeal to me yet. If it outdoes Tikka to Ride as the best take on the saving Kennedy story, then I might go out and buy it, I think.

[divemaster]

If the fact that about 97 percent of the posters on this board, King fans, the general public, and literary critics have highly highly praised this book isn't enough for you to give it a shot, then I don't think anything will.

[Heather19]

Yeah, I know you don't trust my opinion :lol: But you really need to read it! And to me the story isn't about time travel and saving Kennedy. That's just the backdrop for the real story.

[mae]

And to me the story isn't about time travel and saving Kennedy. That's just the backdrop for the real story.

Exactly.

[DoctorDodge]

If the fact that about 97 percent of the posters on this board, King fans, the general public, and literary critics have highly highly praised this book isn't enough for you to give it a shot, then I don't think anything will.

See, that's almost offputting in itself: I haven't seen anything this hyped up since, well, Avatar. As a result, I'll be expecting one of the best King books ever written and probably won't be able to judge it on its own terms.


Yeah, I know you don't trust my opinion :lol: But you really need to read it! And to me the story isn't about time travel and saving Kennedy. That's just the backdrop for the real story.

Maybe once the hype's died down, certainly. Which should be pretty easy: I'm in the middle - well, first quarter - of Game of Thrones atm, so it'll be a while before I get the chance to read any other book.

[mae]

It's not hype. Hype, to me, is unsubstantiated. This novel has received very well argued positive reviews.

[Jean]

What do you think about my thoughts Jean? I really don't think the world falling apart was do just because of Kennedy being alive. I think had some other significant event changed the same thing would have happened, and other catastrophic effects would have followed.Why, of course; but I think King didn't handle it right, the picture just isn't plausible. Whenever I read King mentioning any world event, I can't expel from my thoughts the picture of a globe of America standing on his desk.

DD: the world declining is only one minor thing, not in any way the focus of the book. I think you should read it (maybe not right now, since there's a lot of wonderful books you got to read first; but you should read it anyway. The story itself is wonderful, it is one of the best stories ever.


Yeah, I know you don't trust my opinion :lol: But you really need to read it! And to me the story isn't about time travel and saving Kennedy. That's just the backdrop for the real story. This, yes. :rose:

[DoctorDodge]

Why, of course; but I think King didn't handle it right, the picture just isn't plausible. Whenever I read King mentioning any world event, I can't expel from my thoughts the picture of a globe of America standing on his desk.

I really laughed out loud at that statement, because it really is too fucking true. Still, it's an American writer, so I can't be too surprised. Just like a lot of "world events" in British scifi shows usually only seem to take place in London unless an American broadcaster funds it. :lol:


DD: the world declining is only one minor thing, not in any way the focus of the book. I think you should read it (maybe not right now, since there's a lot of wonderful books you got to read first; but you should read it anyway. The story itself is wonderful, it is one of the best stories ever.


Yeah, I know you don't trust my opinion :lol: But you really need to read it! And to me the story isn't about time travel and saving Kennedy. That's just the backdrop for the real story. This, yes. :rose:

Ok, well I'll eventually get round to reading it. However, Heather recommended it, so I'll put it near the back of the list. (Yes, I still haven't forgiven you for Carnivale yet, or for thinking that Zagreus wasn't near total self indulgent shite! :lol:)

[Heather19]

:lol: Well in that case I take back my recommendation! Now you can hurry up and read it :P

[DoctorDodge]

No, you told me how much I'd enjoy Carnivale, and I told you how much you'd enjoy Withnail & I, and we both found the other's recommendation ultimately boring. Once you've made a recommendation, you can't take it back, dem's da rulez! :P

[Heather19]

Hey, I never said you'd like it, just that you had to read it! :lol:

[Tik]

Maybe this was just me but when I read about the green/yellow/black card men in the book, I couldn't help but think that maybe we were seeing agents of the Great Old Ones Imperium (from the DT novels) for the very first time in person.

[TCCBodhi]

It's possibly been mentioned elsewhere, but I think I may have found this more interesting in the "JFK Lives" modern time is the disasterous results had come as a result of whatever future decisions would have been made by him, rather than it being the more supernatural "butterfly effect" time earthquakes and yellow card men. In other words, the only supernatural event could have been simply the doorway to the past and the story as a whole would have been more

I personally admire JFK a lot but I would have been fascinated by the butterfly effect of his future decisions that were never made. Unintended consequences of those decisions could have led to the destroyed world of the last bit of the book without resorting to the supernatural ripping of the world. Just imagine if the Cuban Missile Crisis incident had played out differently, or if he hadn't been alive during THAT crisis. The world as we know it would be quite different just from that event, let alone several potential terms and a lifetime of decisions from him.

I still enjoyed the book more than any other non-DT book in the last decade or more but I was just a little bit unsatisfied with the ending section.

[Jean]

I think I may have found this more interesting in the "JFK Lives" modern time is the disasterous results had come as a result of whatever future decisions would have been made by him, rather than it being the more supernatural "butterfly effect" time earthquakes and yellow card men. Yes.

[Squidward]

Literally just finished 11-22-63 and I have to say that I throughly enjoyed it. I felt quite emotional by the end, always a good sign when a book or film's ending stays with you.

[Merlin1958]

Literally just finished 11-22-63 and I have to say that I throughly enjoyed it. I felt quite emotional by the end, always a good sign when a book or film's ending stays with you.

I'm with the squid!!!!


:thumbsup:

[John_Kenton]

Let me start by saying I enjoyed this novel immensely, although I was surprised of how much the love story dominated parts of the book. As with most of the more recent novels (eg Lisey's Story), I found myself enjoying the book for King's use of the written word as well as for pace, character, or plot.

It definitely made me decide to browse the alternate history genre in the next couple of months. As for Kennedy, there are lots of interesting speculations around, eg http://www.impeachjfk.com/. And then there is that book by Jeff Greenfield that I might just read next month: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9855388-then-everything-changed.

[Garrell]

Basically King snuck in another "love story". Only this time I fell in love with the characters in the story, one of his best:) Take out the love story aspect and it was still great!!!!!!!!

[Steve]

11/22/63 was King's finest book since It, easily. And no wonder -- it seems King put himself back in that mindset when he revisited Derry in 1958. The Jodie story was some beautiful stuff, and the Jake-Sadie relationship was the best developed love story King has written in ages, if not ever. Loved the nod to James Ellroy's superior Underworld U.S.A. trilogy, and the last scene had me in tears. I do, however, wonder what might have been, as King himself wrote:


I'd like to tell a time-travel story where this guy finds a diner that connects to 1958... you always go back to the same day. So one day he goes back and just stays. Leaves his 2007 life behind. His goal? To get up to November 22, 1963, and stop Lee Harvey Oswald. He does, and he's convinced he's just FIXED THE WORLD. But when he goes back to '07, the world's a nuclear slag-heap. Not good to fool with Father Time. So then he has to go back again and stop himself... only he's taken on a fatal dose of radiation, so it's a race against time.

[mtdman]

Doing a re-listen to the book right now. I so dig this book.

[noal]

Just finished last night!

I enjoyed the book and found the story interesting but some of the Dallas parts did drag slightly.
The Oswald family parts I didn't really care for but I wouldn't say I disliked them.
A bit fantastical? Probably, but I like the book and really wanted them to get together at the end; sod the end of the world! :P

[Ben Mears]

Doing a re-listen to the book right now. I so dig this book.

Same here. I believe it is one of his best.

[shaneo]

Reading this one right now.

[Zone88]

n00b here..
a longtime SK reader since '84
with pet semetary and the gunslinger
and have read all his books

and I consider this one
one of the finest EVAR!!1!

[kirin]

reading it right now been good so far he just got a beating and is having memory problems so farish through.....

[Jean]

kirin!!! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

I hope you won't disappear again, post something else!

[kirin]

Something else !