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

[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.

[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.

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.