Jump to content

11/22/63 by Stephen King

awesome possum

By awesome possum,
in Literature

Recommended Posts

Kese Freerider

Kese

Posted
Posted

I finished this last week and thought it was excellent overall. The last few pages really got to me in a way King never has before...and that's saying something seeing how I read my first King book in 1978...

Same feelings here, i started reading King in 1988, book was IT, even after 23 years early chapters at Derry gave creeps (we all float down here). Up there with best of Kings books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Howdyphillip Council Member

Howdyphillip

Posted
Posted

I am on the last 50 pages of this book right now. I will be finished tonight. The story telling is beyond reproach. It is classic Steven King at his best. I particularly enjoyed visiting 1958 Derry again as It is one of my all time favorite stories. The way he builds tension is uniquely him, and there were several times that I was just absolutely engrossed and couldn't wait to read the next page.

His research however is beyond bad. Being born in Dallas, and spending much of my life here, he obviously didn't know this city at all. He takes the reader on roads that weren't built until 30 years after the JFK assassination Uses slogans that weren't around until the 1980's and describes places completely inaccurately. He also describes very rich areas of this city as slums. He very obviously dislikes this city, and it comes across. I wish that he would have spent some time here researching. It would have made for a richer reading experience

Edit 1

I just finished, and I would also like to add that it is probably the greatest ending of a Steven King book. I actually had a little tear in my eye.

I also read the afterwards in which King talked about his trips to Dallas to do research, and all I have to say is that he should have done a lot more. His unrestrained hatred for this city is still offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grack21 Council Member

Grack21

Posted
Posted

Have you read The Stand, or It? I will not fight you, but I will arm wrestle if you want.

It is his best book in years though

Heh, I guess that does need clarification. I meant It, the novel, not It as in 11/22/63. I;ve read every King except Duma Key, 11/22/63 and that short novel collection from last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
awesome possum Council Member

awesome possum

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well you can't really say whether this one is better than IT can you?

For me, I'd put them very close together but besides the name on the cover, they don't really belong in the same sentence. They're both very different stories (even though 11/22/63 spends time in 1958 Derry) and both are King at his best. IT is King at his horror best while 11/22/63 is King at his drama/mystery best.

I think it will all come down to reread. I've reread IT at least three times since I first picked it up in 1992. Each time I enjoy it as much as the previous time, maybe even moreso because I get to look for the little things instead of blowing through the story to get to the end. I'm hoping 11/22/63 is as re-readable as IT or The Stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Isalie Council Member

Isalie

Posted
Posted

Found the stalking Lee part kind of slow ;) but other than that certainly a solid book, very King-y. However, even though I did not know exactly how it would end (especially with all the talk about the ending, which was endearing) I think that what I missed was a sense of suspense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drawkcabi Council Member

drawkcabi

Posted
Posted

Finished this book today and loved it. When King first described Sadie though I got an image in my head of Kristen Johnston when she played Sally on 3rd Rock From The Sun. Sally, Sadie, Sadie, Sally...it harmonizes ;) (Oprah, Uma...)

So for the rest of the book whenever Sadie was in it I pictured Sally in my head. Didn't really distract from my reading of the story, it was just there, that's how she looked in my mind and I couldn't change it. Was an interesting read all through, during parts of the book I could not put it down, but then I came to parts where I could. But as soon as I picked it up again I was easily reabsorbed into the story.

It was very well written, I was happy with how King told the story, but I also couldn't shake the feeling that King had watched the episode of Quantum Leap when Sam leaped into Oswald and his brain got mishmashed with Oswald and only Al (Harmony! :P ) could get him back.

Also felt the story had a lot of Ken Grimwood's book Replay in it. Not saying they were exactly or even very closely alike, just it...you know..I liked that George and Al could control the Groundhog Day phenonmenon though, they could reset whenever they chose to.

I never read King's IT but I watched the TV movie. I know those who read the book will say the book is 1000 times better, but as someone who only watched the movie, I liked it. When Jake George was in Derry I thought it was familiar, the mention of a clown made me think Pennywise? and then seeing Ritchie and Bev confirmed it for me that he was calling back to the other book.

Was there any other reason for it though besides King likes to have cameos of characters from his other books in his stories?

One last thing, anyone who travels back in time and is not an idiot or hasn't been locked away from the rest of civilzation for the complete future he's come from should have no problem getting money. The past is obdurate, if he wins too much he'll draw too much attention, he had to use the bookies, yeah, yeah, yeah, that was really the only thing I didn't buy, George Jake, creative as he was, could have found a way to make lots of money with Al's sports notes and still keep a relatively low profile.

Wasn't a huge problem for me, I still loved the book, that was just something that was a minor annoyance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Howdyphillip Council Member

Howdyphillip

Posted
Posted

One last thing, anyone who travels back in time and is not an idiot or hasn't been locked away from the rest of civilzation for the complete future he's come from should have no problem getting money. The past is obdurate, if he wins too much he'll draw too much attention, he had to use the bookies, yeah, yeah, yeah, that was really the only thing I didn't buy, George Jake, creative as he was, could have found a way to make lots of money with Al's sports notes and still keep a relatively low profile.

Wasn't a huge problem for me, I still loved the book, that was just something that was a minor annoyance.

I kept wondering through the entire book why he didn't just get on a plane and go to Vegas. He could have placed a one time bet in every major casino there and still walked away fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drawkcabi Council Member

drawkcabi

Posted
Posted

I kept wondering through the entire book why he didn't just get on a plane and go to Vegas. He could have placed a one time bet in every major casino there and still walked away fine.

And that's just one way. Instead of spending time placing bets to make extra cash and buying the same ground beef over and over back when Al was using the rabbit hole, he could have much easier gone and bought a whole bunch of 1958 comic books and baseball cards. Bought a bunch of gold at 1958 prices. Then bring it back to 2011 and exchange it for currency from 1958 or older.

So many ways.

But the bookies were necessary to the plot King had crafted. Problem is, when the only reason something happens is for the plot the rabbit hole becomes a plot hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Slurktan Council Member

Slurktan

Posted
Posted

I kept wondering through the entire book why he didn't just get on a plane and go to Vegas. He could have placed a one time bet in every major casino there and still walked away fine.

Umm no he could not. Vegas in the late 50's/60's was entirely run by the mob. If he placed one time bets on longshots (that's the only way of making money on one time bets) that all hit then he would have been killed almost immediately. If you travel back in time, that is exactly what you don't want to do because you will be dead. It boggles my mind that you would even think that is a good idea. Vegas then is not Vegas now.

The way to do it is to gradually win lots of money over non longshots (always also losing a few so they don't come after you) over and over and over. However the idea that you could just gamble like you do today is so blatantly false it's hilarious. There are no office football pools, there are no legalized methods of gambling, everything went through your local bookie who in turn was run by the local organized gang. That's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Howdyphillip Council Member

Howdyphillip

Posted
Posted

Umm no he could not. Vegas in the late 50's/60's was entirely run by the mob. If he placed one time bets on longshots (that's the only way of making money on one time bets) that all hit then he would have been killed almost immediately. If you travel back in time, that is exactly what you don't want to do because you will be dead. It boggles my mind that you would even think that is a good idea. Vegas then is not Vegas now.

The way to do it is to gradually win lots of money over non longshots (always also losing a few so they don't come after you) over and over and over. However the idea that you could just gamble like you do today is so blatantly false it's hilarious. There are no office football pools, there are no legalized methods of gambling, everything went through your local bookie who in turn was run by the local organized gang. That's it.

Apparently, someone doesn't know their Vegas history... There were several factions that owned casinos in the 50's and 60's. As long as someone didn't hit up one casino over and over, a one time bet at each casino would have been pretty safe. If he needed more than that, then a one time trip to Atlantic City and Reno would have worked as well, and would have been infinitely better than trying to hit up a local bookie over and over again.

It would actually been safer than trying to do the same thing today, as casino's share information with each other now...Of course, you are absolutely correct that the penalty for screwing over a casino back then would have been a bullet to the head, a one time bet probably wouldn't earn you that treatment

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drawkcabi Council Member

drawkcabi

Posted
Posted

Apparently, someone doesn't know their Vegas history... There were several factions that owned casinos in the 50's and 60's. As long as someone didn't hit up one casino over and over, a one time bet at each casino would have been pretty safe. If he needed more than that, then a one time trip to Atlantic City and Reno would have worked as well, and would have been infinitely better than trying to hit up a local bookie over and over again.

It would actually been safer than trying to do the same thing today, as casino's share information with each other now...Of course, you are absolutely correct that the penalty for screwing over a casino back then would have been a bullet to the head, a one time bet probably wouldn't earn you that treatment

Not to be nitpicky, but I guess that's what I'm doing, heh

Atlantic City didn't have legalized gambling until 1979, it would be dealing with the bookies under the table all over again there in the late 50's early 60's.

But there was also betting on horse racing, Al's sports notes should have had many of those outcomes. He could have done that on the sly winning mostly on horses with 1:1 or 1:2 odds slowly but steadily building up a nice income, he could stay relatively out of the public eye by placing a lot of small bets, he could do it without pulling a Biff Tannen and becoming famous for winning big and winning often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Slurktan Council Member

Slurktan

Posted
Posted

Apparently, someone doesn't know their Vegas history... There were several factions that owned casinos in the 50's and 60's. As long as someone didn't hit up one casino over and over, a one time bet at each casino would have been pretty safe. If he needed more than that, then a one time trip to Atlantic City and Reno would have worked as well, and would have been infinitely better than trying to hit up a local bookie over and over again.

Thanks for correcting me. Regardless he would not be safe making a one time bet. Why? Because he would have to risk a wager against long odds with a lot of money in order to make any substantial sum. Casino's and bookies simply did not do that then as they do now. The best odds that you would get would be like 8 -1 and that would only be at low money unless you were an established better.

It would actually been safer than trying to do the same thing today, as casino's share information with each other now...

Absolutely not. It is far safer to bet now due to government regulations, and far easier to win big now because of the odds put out. If I were a time traveller who wanted to make money I'd travel back in time 5 years at most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...