In some cases, Lolita for example, there might not be any book left once the editing process took place.
In some cases, Lolita for example, there might not be any book left once the editing process took place.
Sloth Love Chunk
Precisely.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wouldn't want the story to be rewritten, far from it. My own comment was just that it didn't seem to fit with the characters as we'd gotten to know them. I don't really think you can use Lolita as a comparison though - Lolita was an entire book about an adult man having a sexual relationship with a prepubescent girl, the story was everything you'd expect given that premise. It, however, wasn't about the sexual relationships of a group of children and to me it seemed a slightly random scene.
It's never detracted from my enjoyment of It, but I could see - from a slightly different perspective - why that scene seemed odd to other readers. As I've said many times it's one of my three favourite King books.
Lisa - I understood that BROWNING'S example of Lolita was supposed to show the extremities; once we start editing, we might also edit out deaths, main message, metaphysics, whatever. I'd rather try to understand why the author put in something I don't like (well, at least when we're talking about the authors I consider good) than dismiss it as not fitting. I've had that long conversation with Cyber at .net, about howwas or wasn't satisfactory; but the whole conversation was pointless, what happened, happened, and we have to live with it; there's no "author should have" or "author shouldn't have"; he created his world as he saw it.DT7
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, without a doubt it's been written and what happened, happened as you rightly say - but I don't think any discussion is pointless. True, discussion wouldn't be productive in the way that you can bring about a change in the story (although, like you I wouldn't want to do that anyway), but for the pure enjoyment of it I love discussing the what if's and maybes, that's part of fandom, surely?Originally Posted by Jean
Oh, bears love debating (you sure know your bears?...), unless it is on what the author should(n't) have done. I am always for offering various interpretations of what happened in a book, because it [sometimes] leads to a deeper understanding; I also love arguing about tastes (liked this part - hated that part), because it reveals a person's soul like nothing else; but attempts at enhancing a book by either cropping it or altering some parts are, to my mind, more on the lines of fanfiction than discussion.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In essence I'm in agreement with you. I think the original comments from mtdman pertain more to your subsequent comments, as he seems displeased with the scene from the book, whereas I just don't understand it
It is and always has been my favorite novel.Like alot of you it was one of my first King novels and at the time of my first read of It I wasn't much older than the members of the losers club.I was instantly connected to the story from the first page because of reasons stated throughout this thread.The development of characters and settings(which we all agree King is the master of) are some of the best in Kings entire collection of work.
There has already been alot discussed about the story on this thread and the topic that keeps coming back is the sex scene in the tunnels under Derry.I am going to "try"and give my take on it.
I feel like the loseres club in the process of becoming a ka-tet the entire first part of the book.They were guided bye the Beam and perhaps the Tower itself.Throughout the first half of the book they perform ceremonial rituals to strengthen the ka-tet that they can't explain why they just know to be true.Here's some examples-1.Building the dam 2.When they stood up to the Bowers gang to protect Mike 3.They each took a hit off of Eddies athsma inhaler 4.Before they all went into the sewers for the first time they joined hands 5.When under Derry they join hands again in a similar Ritual.There are many other examples that I can look up if needed.
In my opinion after they had "defeated" It there ka-tet was already starting to break and Beverly was sent a message from somewhere(the turtle,the tower,Gan)that she could strengthen their Ka-tet bye bringing them together through the ultimate symbol of love.It was not some sort of "gangbang" as stated in some previous posts.None of the guys even wanted to go through with it but she insisted and thay all knew it was the only way to strengthen the Ka-tet and get them out of those tunnels.She told them all that she loved them and they said it back and I believd them.I agree that under normal circumstances 11 year olds are to young for sex and should be expeiencing their first kiss but we all know these were not normal circumstances and these were not normal 11 year olds.It not only made sense to me but I believed it was necessary for them to get out.It was an act of love in my eyes the power of love got them out of those sewers.....
That's not a book I would read, then.
I think there's a difference between fan fiction and skipping a couple pages of a book. IMO, it wasn't necessary to the story and I feel it has only distracted from the story. I mean, look after 13 pages of this thread we're still talking about the sex scene and not the merits of the book or the character development, etc. I can take kids getting their arms ripped off and grisley deaths and scarey situations, but I expect that in a Stephen King story. I did not expect to read that, happening out of the blue and imo for no reason. I don't want to read about 11 year olds having sex in a sewer and I simply skipped that.
I am glad that, in true SK foreshadowing fashion, he tipped me off to the upcoming scene and I was ready to avoid it. Although again, imo, that distracted from the story.
I knew King was a different kind of person, but that scene takes things to a different level, imo. And it has affected my opinion of him. My admiration for his story telling and the work he has done is now colored by that part of the book. Which is too bad. I'm sure he doesn't care, and he's already got my $ for the book, but it's too bad.
I think we're coming to a crucial point here. If an author suddenly does something unexpected, like an apparently incongruous, bizarre scene that offends a reader, one may either close their eyes on it, pretend that it was never written, or try to understand why he did it, fit the scene into the bigger picture and, likely, change their opinion about the writer.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think we are still talking about the sex scene because so many of us were shocked by it, and a bit bewildered as to why SK chose to include it in a story we love and (aside from this scene) relate to.
I often have wondered why SK felt that scene should be a part of the story, and have read many opinions from readers as to what SK's reasons were. I've never heard what SK has to say on the subject, so it is all speculation. But, I enjoy speculation and discussion, so I will continue to read others' opinions and offer my own.
In the end, it was his book to write, and ours to read. I dont feel comfortable with editing his work to suit my ideas of what the story should have been (even at my most vehement opposition to most of DT7), but I feel quite comfortable discussing the story as a whole and dissecting it's parts.
That's what these threads are for.
Nicely putI understood the reasoning behind it, but it was something about the way the scene was written. Not during the part where they had sex, because that in itself was very sweetly written, but after it was a bit sort of "and then they found the right tunnel and went home" which was why I always felt puzzled about why King made that massive gesture and then made it seem like they could have found the right path all along...I dunno, I'm not explaining it very well, I'll have to reread the passage so I can quote it
In the end, it was his book to write, and ours to read. I dont feel comfortable with editing his work to suit my ideas of what the story should have been (even at my most vehement opposition to most of DT7), but I feel quite comfortable discussing the story as a whole and dissecting it's parts.
That's what these threads are for.Exactly my thoughts.
I just finished my umpteenth read and, as always, I'm puzzled about Stan. Stan just wasn't cut out to be a monster killer. He was too neat and orderly and rational for it. I think we can all agree on that. However, he was chosen to be part of the Loser's Club specifically to go against the grain of his very being. Losing him made the group a little less powerful since the circle was broken and their numbers reduced from seven. So, why was he chosen? Why choose someone that was not up to the rigors of the job? Was there no other kid available that wouldn't break under the strain and stress?
People love frozen yogurt. I don't know what to tell you.
Good question I'm sure we've all asked ourselves.Here's my take on it:
The losers club was formed like a Katet.Each member brought a certain talent or skill and each personality balanced the group nicely.Stan,along with the rest of the losers club,realized they were bound together bye some force he didn't quite understand(Ka).Every other member of the group eventually accepted this and stood up to their fears.Stan did the same thing in the Standpipe and it looked like he was starting to get it at that point,he was facing his fears,accepting the strange reality and working his way towards his role in the Ka-tet.We all know he never fully achieved this because he fought it tooth and nail the whole way through until his vevy sad mental collapse when Mike called him with the news It had come back to Derry.
I think we all have a place in our hearts for Stan.He was an 11 year old kid that was haveing the reality he knew ripped apart.Standing up for what's right is not easy.People numb themselves to all kinds of real life problems all the time because solving them is scary and challenging.Not everyone is a hero in this world and alot of people cave under the pressure of standing up for what's right.It doesn't necessarily make them bad people but it doesn't change the fact that the type of person does exist and we've all probably known a Stan in our life.He's the cowardly lion that never made it to OZ to get his courage,he snapped under the pressure and I can't help but have compasion for Stan.We as humans want to see our fellow man face the odds and overcome them but unfortunately it doesn't always play out that way,like with Stan.
Last edited by Walkingman79; 10-18-2013 at 12:28 AM.
I think Stan was chosen because he was an outcast like the rest of the losers. As a child, Stan did stand up to the stress and strain of fighting IT; with the support and love of his friends.
But, adulthood is different. The quality of friendships is different, the qualities of possibility and imagination are dampened by the hard knocks of life, and in making his way in life, Stan let the neat, orderly and logical side of his nature take over. Neat, orderly, and logical pretty much defines a successful accountant and upstanding member of the community, but isnt very helpful when dealing with forces that are, in many ways, beyond understanding. Stan lost more of his childhood self than the others did, somehow; and I think that's why he believed he couldnt deal with facing IT as an adult, and opted out.
Stan the kid was a great monster fighter, but Stan the adult lost the imagination and belief of a child that anything is possible; especially fighting monsters with your friends.
But what did Stan really give to the Club? Bill was the undisputed leader. Bev was the heart. Eddie was the compass. Ben was the brains of the outfit. Richie can't be summed up in one word but his energy and humor hurt IT more than anything. Mike came in late and but his presence and inclusion in the Club really forced Bowers to go after them and throw himself over to Pennywise. What did Stan offer? Don't get me wrong, I like Stan. I just don't understand how he fits.
People love frozen yogurt. I don't know what to tell you.
He fits because he was one of the Losers, is all. They all got together on the principle that was exact opposite to that of the gunslingers; that's why I love the Losers so much. It wasn't to fight the evil, it was to survive in the world; sent West by the likes of Henry Bowers.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let's be generous and call him the mouth.
Richie hurt It, but Bill finished It. Interesting to note that these two work in the most creative fields.
Then Ben and Bev, architect and fashion designer; not quite so vital in Derry, but they proved more powerful than did the other three.
It was Mike whose life was most fully defined by the fight with It.
Then Eddie and Stan, who really sacrificed... even though they both seem in a way to be virtually opposite Bill and Richie.
Was it inefficient and unwise for Stan to be chosen? Well, why not ask Stan?
It seems to me that if we are confident to dismiss tough moral questions, then we must reject not just details which we find inconsistent, but the entire novel. A major theme of It is trusting instinct, yet the whole idea of moral law would seem to contradict this. If there is no consistency, can there be lasting good in life? It is highly romantic, but SK does not flinch from the difficult side of romantic thought, such as its moral ambiguity. He probably wanted no more from the big sex scene than to make us think. If there’s no truth in the Losers' perception of that one particular action as something which was good for them, then by what standard could there be truth to the literal silver bullet in earlier chapters? Couldn’t it be argued that Bill’s entire career writing horror does more harm than good? Should Richie give up rock & roll and get a real job? Can any absolute system of law justify all of the things that are loved by human beings? Not to take lightly any form of promiscuity; that'd obviously be quite ignorant in this day and age. (And was no less so in the 1980's.) I think King's intention was not to advocate a practice but to simply suggest that we have to recognize personal viewpoints before we can hope to make any real external progress. Insist that rationality prevail, and the question remains whether repression can solve those all-to-human problems. When we are judgmental, it just perpetuates the attitude of objectification. The meaning of this world has never been so clear. Are we meant to govern the flesh, or was it God's plan all along for the flesh to govern us? My advice to anyone who expects easy answers would be to read It over again.
He's the redshirt of the gang. Somebody had to die of the 7 to show how serious the situation is in the opening part of the book.
Stan cleaned up Beverley's bathroom.
I cetainly don't think that SK cared any less about this character than the others.
I'm not sure whether I made my point in my last post. Probably could have put it better.
Well, look: you must admit that there's irony in arguing, "11 year olds shouldn't be having sex; they ought to stay focused on confronting serial killers."
Well, look: you must admit that there's irony in arguing, "11 year olds shouldn't be having sex; they ought to stay focused on confronting serial killers."[/QUOTE]
I completely agree.That's what I was trying to get at too.
I'm no saying Stan was lesser or that SK didn't care about him as much. Heck, I like Stan. But if I'm the creator of the universe and have the entire human race to draw from (look how Mike's dad was manipulated to get Mike in Derry) why am I going to choose someone that can't handle the stress of the job? That's like sending Superman in to clean up a kryptonite spill.
People love frozen yogurt. I don't know what to tell you.
I understand. I'm not saying that it's a bad question. Here's a better one, though: does that ever happen in real life?
About as often as deranged clown killers show up in sewers
People love frozen yogurt. I don't know what to tell you.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
