|
I have a feeling Richie wouldn't whip out his Pickininny/black slave voice so easily if "IT" took place today. Was it more acceptable back in 1985?
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
Richie used it most as a kid in 58 right? I guess it would have been more acceptable then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Speaking of the interludes, I just started the fourth (so I am about 80% done this re-read) and Mike writes about offending one of the library board members with a comment about "the black experience". She huffs and walks away and that ends their conversation. Mike's opinion: "No great loss." Also I entirely forgot about the showdown at Neibolt street, probably due to seeing the movie a lot and not having read the book in many years. This is so much better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
bean_shadow posted:I have a feeling Richie wouldn't whip out his Pickininny/black slave voice so easily if "IT" took place today. Was it more acceptable back in 1985? Yes, it was. Do you remember the Warner brothers cartoons with black mammies, Bugs Bunny nipping the nips, and speedy Gonzales? All the 1950s and 1960s artifacts we find horribly racist today? They aired well into the 1990s. People were largely less sensitive then (or to put it better, there was a lesser awareness of what sensitivity existed). It (the book) is, among other things, a comparison of thirty years' cultural difference. Take a look at 11/22/63 after reading It and you'll notice the same trick, except this time it's forty years instead of thirty. It isn't accidental that Epping meets Richie and Bev. I think king wants the reader to know he's trying the same trick again (the heroes are trying to stop monsters, and time isn't on their side) only a little more refined. Edit for sentence structure Asbury fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
3Romeo posted:Yes, it was. Do you remember the warner brothers cartoons with black mammies, bugs bunny nipping the nips, and speedy Gonzales? All the 1950s and 1960s artifacts we find horribly racist today? They aired well into the 1990s. People were largely less sensitive then (or to put it better, there was a lesser awareness of what sensitivity existed). It (the book) is, among other things, a cultural comparison of thirty years' difference. Take a look at 11/22/63 after reading It and you'll notice the same trick, except this time it's forty years instead of thirty. It isn't accidental that Epping meets Richie and bev. I think king wants the reader to know he's trying the same trick again, only a little more refined. The heroes are trying to stop monsters, and time isn't on their side. There was also the fact he was a shock jock and being racist assholes are their bread and butter. Also if it was in the current day he could just work for Fox News.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 06:36
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:There was also the fact he was a shock jock and being racist assholes are their bread and butter. Also if it was in the current day he could just work for Fox News. That's a simpler (and probably better, and less weed-powered) explanation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
I finished 11/22/63 just a few days before 11/22/2013 so I can confirm it's more like fifty years later. e: but I prefer things weed-powered as well so there we go
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
I am terrible at math. Yeah, fifty years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 06:57
|
|
|
Now that I think about it more, Richie did most of his Pickininny talk when he was a child and when he does it again as an adult, I think it's to show how all of them are regressing to their childhood habits. I was born in '82 and remember how you could still rent and buy the VHS copy of "Song of the South".
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
bean_shadow posted:Now that I think about it more, Richie did most of his Pickininny talk when he was a child and when he does it again as an adult, I think it's to show how all of them are regressing to their childhood habits. One of the things that is really creeping me out about It is the chronic memory loss of all the losers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
For everyone doing the It re-read: http://joehillsthrills.tumblr.com/post/70822813184
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 09:14
|
|
|
Regarding the JFK talk, Richie years later is reminded of "Stuttering Bill" when JFK is running for president, although he can't really remember who Bill is by that time. The charisma, "goodness" and leadership is the same. The two books are really companion pieces in that way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Pheeets posted:Regarding the JFK talk, Richie years later is reminded of "Stuttering Bill" when JFK is running for president, although he can't really remember who Bill is by that time. The charisma, "goodness" and leadership is the same. The two books are really companion pieces in that way. In The Dark Tower books JFK is referred to as "The Last Gunslinger" in a newspaper article.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Just a random comment on the IT re-read... I still can't believe how well King captures that immutable essence of boyhood. I dunno about you guys but at that age I had a group of three other guys I chummed with and we were close. In retrospect it's almost amazing how close we were and how trusting we were with one another during a certain period of time. And I'm always reminded of that. And on this re-read I'm reminded of how much I've forgotten - and turning that into an almost mythological plot point, that forgetfulness, was a stroke of brilliance on King's part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
Well, I just finished the book. Great as always. A curious effect, though, from having read the thing so much and then not touching it for half a decade. Several times I would be reading, and then I would remember some image, usually one of It's grotesque forms and taunts. Eerie stuff, considering the book is all about regaining memory. Nevertheless, it was good, and I hope you all enjoy your own re-reads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
edit: Dammit, I must have gotten up and written this same post in my sleep last night, erm this morning.
Pheeets fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
kaworu posted:Just a random comment on the IT re-read... I still can't believe how well King captures that immutable essence of boyhood. I dunno about you guys but at that age I had a group of three other guys I chummed with and we were close. In retrospect it's almost amazing how close we were and how trusting we were with one another during a certain period of time. And I'm always reminded of that. And on this re-read I'm reminded of how much I've forgotten - and turning that into an almost mythological plot point, that forgetfulness, was a stroke of brilliance on King's part. There's a line in The Body that mirrors what you said: "I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was 12 - Jesus, did you?" ("I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?" in Stand By Me). Such mournful melancholy. The dormant memories of the Losers, particularly Mike Hanlon's, really felt like a fist to the gut to me. Especially in the epilogue, when Mike is writing in his diary and the very words start to fade from the page (or did I imagine that?) and at the end, just as his memory begins to fail him forever, he writes I loved you guys, I loved you guys so much. gently caress, 6 years since I read that and still it kills me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:There's a line in The Body that mirrors what you said: I just watched Stand By Me again and I'd forgotten that it was set in Oregon. Wikipedia posted:Some changes were made to the plot of the film, including changing the setting date from 1960 to 1959 and the location of Castle Rock from Maine to Oregon. IMDB posted:I like you, Lloyd. I always liked you. You were always the best of them. Best goddamned bartender from Timbuktu to Portland, Maine. Or Portland, Oregon, for that matter. Growing up in Matt Groening's imaginary Derry of Springfield, Oregon the homophobia and just generally nauseating levels of hate in It hit me pretty hard.  to everyone that lived through a pissant whitebread mountain town and didn't shoot up the highschool.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:There's a line in The Body that mirrors what you said: I just read a few chapters in the beginning and the epilogue again. We need to petition King to write a sequel to It. It's been just over 28 years. About the perfect time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
kaworu posted:Just a random comment on the IT re-read... I still can't believe how well King captures that immutable essence of boyhood. I dunno about you guys but at that age I had a group of three other guys I chummed with and we were close. In retrospect it's almost amazing how close we were and how trusting we were with one another during a certain period of time. And I'm always reminded of that. And on this re-read I'm reminded of how much I've forgotten - and turning that into an almost mythological plot point, that forgetfulness, was a stroke of brilliance on King's part. I absolutely agree with this. It's bumming me out in a good way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
Honestly, his track record with sequels has sort of sucked since about 1991. He's one of my favorite authors, but every sequel of his I can think of after The Waste Lands has been pretty okay at best and downright awful at worst.
Asbury fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Dec 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
3Romeo posted:Honestly, his track record with sequels has sort of sucked since about 1991. He's one of my favorite authors, but every sequel of his I can think of after The Waste Lands has been pretty okay at best and downright awful at worst. I found Doctor Sleep to be really good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
Super Ninja Fish posted:I just read a few chapters in the beginning and the epilogue again. As much as I love this book, I desperately hope King never revisits the Losers any more than he already has.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:I found Doctor Sleep to be really good. I think Doctor Sleep was a bad idea, but I need to ramble on here for a second while I try and work out my thoughts. Sorry. The thing about sequels is that they have to have a reason to exist, right? We've all read books or seen movies that don't really have any exigency except to get the characters back together for some hijinks, and as a whole, those kinds of stories stink. And they stink worse when their predecessors are self-contained. (They stink worst of all when parts of the original story are completely retconned. Take a look at Malcolm in Jurassic Park and The Lost World. I mean, that poo poo? It's loving egregious.) The other thing about sequels, much like little poo poo-headed children (eg a shithead who'll accept five bucks from relatives at Christmas-time to kick you in the balls for no good goddamned reason at all, that little gently caress) is that they're always compared to the original. And that's where King put himself in a bind. If he's known for any one work--and I don't mean known just by readers, but by anyone living under American pop culture--then it's probably The Shining. So before Doctor Sleep was even written, it already had two strikes against it: no reason, and an unfair (if understandable) handicap of comparison. That's why Doctor Sleep is, plot wise, kind of like the anti-Shining. It's a country-crossing suspense novel that ranges across a decade, while The Shining is a claustrophobic horror story that covers somewhere around four months. But that's the only way King could've taken it, right? If the story was built around being stuck in an evil building, everyone would say it had already been done the first time. So even there, King kind of straight-jacketed himself. He had to do something entirely different. And if you get too different, it isn't a sequel at all. But all that's obvious. Freshman lit course stuff. King's smart enough to know this crap--he did teach English, after all--which means he's also smart enough to know that if he was going to write an entirely different sequel, he had to have some sort of connective tissue besides plot. Okay, so where am I going with all this? That King was able to make Doctor Sleep work--barely--by exploring Danny's relationship with his father, Danny's issues with alcohol, and Danny's demons. That's where the sequel shines. Probably the only place. The True Knot are toothless villains (seriously, they get their rear end beat non-stop) and there isn't much horror at all in watching Abra pretend to be Daenerys Targaryen and use her magical power to pween the gently caress out of bad guys. Then there's that whole soap-opera twist about Danny and Abra (Dany) being related. (Probably not an accident with those shared similar names, given that King loves the idea of Twinners, and that he's happily used others creations in his own work, like Dr. Doom and Sneetches and all that.) Anyway, TLDR: When Doctor Sleep is about character, it's great. When it's about anything else, it's an unnecessary mess that's forced in plot and setting to be the opposite of the original, which doesn't make it a sequel at all. And I think that if he tries writing a sequel to It, we'll get a similar result. I was already kinda cheesed when I saw The Stand/Flagg crop up in the Dark Tower--seriously, it's just like fanfiction where Cloud fights Sephiroth with Tidus or some poo poo--and I don't trust King not to gently caress with it. While some of his sequels are fantastic (DT 2 and 3), he's batting well below .500, and the odds of a sequel being good are very bad. Aye, very bad, indeed. Asbury fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Dec 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 07:49
|
|
|
 There are times when I want to Like posts on messageboards. This is one of those times. So much do I have to express my approval of this post, I will force myself to write something on-topic. I wanted to read It along with all of you. I'm knee-deep in Dostoyevski and don't want my attention to waver from him. It, on the other hand, is my favorite King novel, and has been since I was old enough to understand it. The Losers are my favorite characters of King's, and whoever said he captures boyhood well, really nailed it. One of my favorites scenes/characterizations is for Stanley Uris. He has a very logical, rational mind, and seeing something that doesn't fit into his worldview literally breaks it. I liked how he dealt with It in a way that none of the other losers did. Perhaps he lacked the imagination. Anyway, the scene itself takes place in the Standpipe, with Stan as a boy. It was common knowledge around the town that two boys died in the water there. Something compels Stan to go inside to take a look, and he sees a pair of bloated corpses rise up and come after him. They have sickenly cheerful smiles on their pale faces, and their feet make a "plop" sound every time they step. They walk in rhythm while they sing "Camptown Ladies". *shiver* Something else interesting, is that in one of the POV passages for It, he talks about how scaring the bejesus out of kids makes them more flavorful. It could harness this "imagination" energy from kids much better than adults, who, like Stanley, only thought of things in rational, worldly terms. It's an unpopular opinion, but I also re-read Dreamcatcher pretty regularly. I like the characters in that too, and although the premise and climax are a little shaky, I enjoy it every time. It helps to picture the "shitweasels" as reptilian, more like snakes than mammals. Seeing the movie first helped in this regard; those cabin scenes (and the bullying scene with Dudditz) really terrified and resonated with me. Lurk Ethic fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
I've thought of something else. Does anyone find it strange that in the book, Beverly and Bill have to spontaneously interrupt what they were doing and get it on, as adults? Do you think Bill was a self-insert for King and he was thinking, "Gotta have my man mack it with this girl", before he could neatly write in that she ended up with Ben, the one who loved her as a child? Seems kind of weird. It's a small issue, but I never thought about it in that light. It seemed "right" the last times I read it, actually, but it stands out now. edit: vvvv sorry guy, spoilers didn't even occur to me 
Lurk Ethic fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
Lurk Ethic posted:I've thought of something else. Does anyone find it strange that in the book, Beverly and Bill have to spontaneously interrupt what they were doing and get it on, as adults? Do you think Bill was a self-insert for King and he was thinking, "Gotta have my man mack it with this girl", before he could neatly write in that she ended up with Ben, the one who loved her as a child? It was them going back to their childhoods and Beverly had it bad for Bill.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Guys, is there any chance more of us can start using spoiler tags?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
About the bad guys: Why does It kill the bad guys too? Patrick in particular doesn't seem like he would be very tasty, but would have made a great tool for It About the infamous conclusion to 1955: seriously, why is this in the book. Even the narrative reason is weak. King is always at his weakest when trying to write from a female sexual perspective, and making it an 11 year old ramps the grossness to 11 I do love how the memories are told literally as they come back into the brains of the Losers. I never noticed that until now. Particularly in the climax this is clear. rypakal fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Dec 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
So, finally started reading this evening. Made it to the first interlude so far, but wanted to post my thoughts on it so far. After the Flood is a good character sketch between Bill and George, and the kind of camaraderie they shared makes it a little shocking that Bill had mostly forgotten about him. It's also a great introduction to Pennywise and just how weird his existence is. As if standing in a sewer wasn't sketch enough, I think it becomes clear that we're dealing with something really weird when he's able to manipulate reality and bring in the smells of the circus to lure Georgie in The Six Phone Calls chapter kind of dragged at first. I was a little worried about that he was going to launch into introducing characters with infodumps about their lives. There's a point where you know enough about the character to understand them, and I think King tends to write way past that point in some of his novels. Up until the chapter had started, he'd done pretty good. Then we go on with page after page about Stanley's wife. Her mindset for making sense of Stanley's reaction to the phone call is important, but stuff like how she was humiliated at the country club isn't. It's vaguely interesting, but it starts to draw attention away from the main thread of the story. That being said, Patricia's description of Stanley after the phone call is great. "It was only later, replaying the scene in her mind again and again, that she began to believe it was the expression of a man who was methodically unplugging himself from reality, one plug at a time. The face of a man who was heading out of the blue and into the black." All at once it cements Stanley as a rational and insightful person whose reality is absolutely shattered by the phone call. Once the his part gets around to actually focusing on him, it starts building this picture of him up, but those two lines just knock it out of the park. After that, the writing seems a little tighter again. The primary focus remains on the characters, but I slowly started to feel the same sense of dread that the characters did when faced with the prospect of returning to Derry. In a sense, it felt like King was building up the setting as a character here too. I'm not really sure what to expect there, but it's clearly not a good place. I'm getting the feeling that the second chapter seems like it starts out with a sympathetic view of Derry. The Falcon seems like any small town bar. Adrian Meller seemed to genuinely like the town. The police are actually interested in solving his murder. Then, you start seeing the seedy underside. The graffiti, the people ignoring Hagarty's cries for help. And then you start seeing the cruelty. The joy that Adrian's killers took in beating him up. The bullying that Ben suffered. It almost seems like an introduction to Derry by moving there. On the surface it seema like any small town, but the deeper you dig the more hosed it gets. Probably gonna keep plowing in but I don't mind talking about it more since a few people seemed interested in how first-time readers reacted to it a few pages back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
King really does capture the magic of childhood really well. It's funny how nostalgic these books make me feel, for a period of time decades before I was born. Quite a few horror writers have taken a stab at this sort of thing, and it usually works pretty well. Summer of night, boy's life, and even koontz's voice of the night do a fairly good job with it, but still none come close to king's portrait of mid century American youth. This is exactly why a sequel for It could never work. You can't revisit it as It covers it all pretty well. An attempt to battle It again would be pretty dull, as we have already seen it twice! My read is slow going, just got to the second interlude and I've got a stack of books for Christmas so it's time to get my butt in gear! Roydrowsy fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
Venusian Weasel posted:
I found that chapter to be less boring once I was married. (Maybe better to say, I understood it better.) I've been married for fifteen years, and it's amazing how you can just....tune stuff out. You're thinking about the week's schedule, what to make for dinner, when you're going to go to the market; you are primarily focused on your own stuff. It's easy to overlook what's going on with your partner -- particularly if you're comfortable and everything has settled into routine. Who hasn't zoned on a conversation and murmured a few "Uh huhs" and "yeah, rights?" Then, if or when poo poo hits the fan, and in hindsight, all the signs were there and you were too complacent to see it. She was preoccupied with the sewing, she wanted to watch her TV show, she vaguely heard him take a call and heard his half of the convo. Pretty bog-standard night until he broke routine and went to take the bath.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
Edwardian posted:
Very true. And the fact that King had her contemplating Richard Dawson's grotesque embrace either says a lot about his inability to write women, or it was completely spot on in a way I can't wrap my head around. a completely different book that reminds me of It all of a sudden posted:I was eating lunch and reading something dull by Bazin when my father came into the kitchen I would make a terrible journalist because I would ask writers about other writers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
For whom, and but.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
A $25 giftcard for the Nook was nicely chewed up by The Stand, It, and Doctor Sleep. And I have the next few days off. Sounds like a plan. The email from Barnes and Noble with the Subject Line "It is ready for download" struck me as absurdly funny for some reason, and I am chalking it up to holiday stress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
Venusian Weasel posted:The Six Phone Calls chapter kind of dragged at first. I was a little worried about that he was going to launch into introducing characters with infodumps about their lives. There's a point where you know enough about the character to understand them, and I think King tends to write way past that point in some of his novels. I've always loved those "infodumps" in King's writing. I think that is what keeps me coming back. It's all fine and good to read about creepy Also, I always picture young Bev as Tiffany, of "I think we're alone now"-fame. And of course, adult Bev as adult Tiffany:   Google "tiffany playboy" for a good time
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 09:45
|
|
|
brylcreem posted:I've always loved those "infodumps" in King's writing. I think that is what keeps me coming back. It's all fine and good to read about creepy Someone, I can't remember who, once said that "King doesn't write horror stories. He writes stories about people who get stuck in horrifying situations." That always seemed like a really good description of his work to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 13:13
|
|
|
For anyone who hasn't read Doctor Sleep yet, or is on the fence about it, it's available on Kindle today for $1.99.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
I finished my re-read last night. Once again, I kept coming across parts of the book that I had completely forgotten existed. For example, in 1958 in the sewers, when they come across The Eye. I loved Eddie's moment where he says he's doing the mashed potato all over it or whatever the line is. It's exactly the kind of thing a dorky kid would say when he thinks he's being tough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
The Berzerker posted:I finished my re-read last night. Once again, I kept coming across parts of the book that I had completely forgotten existed. For example, in 1958 in the sewers, when they come across The Eye. I loved Eddie's moment where he says he's doing the mashed potato all over it or whatever the line is. It's exactly the kind of thing a dorky kid would say when he thinks he's being tough. There's so many awesome scenes like that one that never made it into the movie. Its understandable, as it is the movie is like 4+ hours long, but reading the book for the first time after having seen the movie over and over as a kid was a really fun experience because surprise scenes like that eye, or the incredibly disturbing chapter featuring the death of Patrick Hockstedder kept popping up and surprising me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 17:02
|
|