59 replies to this topic

[drawkcabi]

I still firmly believe if a person was hypothetically able to go back in time, no matter where he ended up, as long as he was still in the modern era (turn of the 20th century up to now) and he could or had to stay there for the forseeable future, making money would not be a problem.

[Zelticgar]

listening to this on audiobook (sorry chronic commuter). Just got done with his trip to Derry and return to the future. So far it is excellent. I've stepped away from King and have not read anything from him in over 15 years but this book has prompted me to go out and get a copy of It for a reread. I forgot how good King is at weaving a story.

[lock67ca]

Have to agree that this is his best book in several years and, yes, he absolutely nailed the ending this time.

[mashiara]

I finished this a couple of days ago. I've been a King fan for almost 20 years now, I think I've read and own all of his books with the exception of a couple of the Bachman stories. Over the years I read his books with a more critical eye and didn't really enjoy any of his recent work but for Full Dark, No Stars. 11/22/63 was different. Most of it did not feel like your typical King book and I appreciated that. I loved reading it, especially the Derry part. Stalking Oswald dragged for too long and felt kind of tiresome at the end, but the whole book was really enjoyable. The ending was perfect and it made up for everything though. I would love to learn what King's original ending was, just out of curiosity.

[Zaydan]

Just finished the book last night, and definitely one of the best that I’ve read in a while now.

I agree with somebody before me who said that this is actually a love story wrapped in time-travel / conspiracy theory / thriller plot. The ending is almost perfect .. Oh well, it’s one of the most touching endings I’ve ever read, and I actually had a tear in my eye.

One question though to all you readers :

Spoiler

Towards the end, when Jake was talking to the Green Card Man about ‘strings’ and about ‘you’ve gotta see for yourself for you’ve done’, the Green Card Man said something like this : “Did your friend (Al) ever think how he could buy the same meat over and over? Or why things he brought from here never disappeared when he made the next trip?”

Jake said something like this, “He didn’t know. I asked him, but he couldn’t answer, so he just dismissed it.”

The Green Card Man just smiled, or winced, or smirked, whatever, but he didn’t explain. I kept re-reading those few paragraphs and couldn’t get an answer.

So any of you fellas can explain? Thanks!

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Zaydan, I am not sure what you're asking, but let me take a crack at what I think you want:

Spoiler

The Green Card Man is telling Jake that each trip to 1958 creates what is essentially a new reality. That's why the stuff never disappears and why he can carry things with him - each trip he is in a *slightly* different physical reality.

The problems are caused by what I think the GCM calls "resonations" or something - basically the small changes aren't a big deal, the universe is tough enough to handle these deviations. However, Jake seriously changed the course of history, and in so doing he threatened the existence of the universe. He had to go back one more time just to reset the world.

One thing I have wondered about this, assuming my own interpretation is correct, is that it presupposes the existence of one "true" world whose course has not been altered at all. Which would mean, probably, that Al was perhaps the first to ever time travel, since he only made small changes, but if that were the case then why have a cadre of "card men" to guard the loopholes at all?

I suppose another possibility is that the resonance of any given change is only measured relative to the most recent or perhaps the most stable universe, which may or may not be virgin in terms of time traveler edits.

(null)

[Mikael]

One thing I have wondered about this, assuming my own interpretation is correct, is that it presupposes the existence of one "true" world whose course has not been altered at all. Which would mean, probably, that Al was perhaps the first to ever time travel, since he only made small changes, but if that were the case then why have a cadre of "card men" to guard the loopholes at all?

There were some kind of bubbles in a glass analogy that I don't really remember, but the card carrier was surprised that this specific bubble had lasted so long etc implying that these things were not unheard of.

[Zaydan]

@ WrathOfCyvasse

Spoiler

Thanks for the explanation! Yeah, I guess that’s what I wanted. I shoulda understood it from reading the book, with what the GCM called a “string” for every time Al or Jake went through the time portal. That’s why the meat that Al bought could be brought to present time, and it seemed to replenished whenever he went back : because every trip was not only a reset, but a different “string” of reality altogether.

I was gonna write a long-ass response analyzing the existence of one “true” “string” (like Mikael above said), the purpose of the card men, and how and why they turned from respectable-looking young men to homeless winos, etc. but then I realized this was not ASOIAF where you could just endlessly discuss and analyze about anything and everything. So I’m just gonna leave it alone as one of the most touching love stories I’ve read in a while.

Cheers.

Edited by Zaydan, 26 January 2012 - 09:58 PM.

[Memory Lane]

Drawkcabi said:

I still firmly believe if a person was hypothetically able to go back in time, no matter where he ended up, as long as he was still in the modern era (turn of the 20th century up to now) and he could or had to stay there for the forseeable future, making money would not be a problem.

It certainly wouldn't be a problem if you took some money with you. Hell, if you just went back 15 years, you could short a crap-ton of dot.com companies, making a fortune (or wait another five years and short some of the subprime lenders).

[litechick]

I just finished this.  I don't regret buying/reading it but I am a little disappointed since the reviews were so good.  Count me among those who haven't read a Stephen King novel in 15 years or so.

It's a lot like Iron Maiden.  I love Iron Maiden but I have about 7 albums and I just don't need any more.  They have their thing and it's awesome but there's only so many times you can play that formula.

When reading Stephen King I never forget that it's him writing.  It's his voice that I hear in my head.  No matter what character and plot structure he couches his voice within, it's still him.  Kind of like big actors, where no matter how well they act, you still see George Clooney on the screen moreso than Michael Clayton.

For the first half of the romance, I accepted it because I was giving my suspension of disbelief or benefit of the doubt or whatever you want to call it.  I didn't really feel what the character said he was feeling.

In IT, we saw Beverly's swinging red ponytail and the sunlight glinting off of her ankle bracelet and I believed in the love her circle of friends had for her.  We saw her in her cut off shorts with the slingshot in the back pocket and roller skates slung over her shoulder.  I never got that with Sadie.  He loved her because he said he loved her and I just took it on faith.

It wasn't until deeper in that it started to get real.  By the time he [paraphrase] said, "I'm a man in love and you don't want to fuck with me" it started to ring true.

I also didn't quite believe that someone who wasn't alive at the time would be so enamored with the past.  That love of the era was King talking rather than his character.  If you weren't there, tailfins look ridiculous.

Also, I am disappointed that the moral of the story seems to be "possibly you can change the past but you shouldn't."  No shit Sherlock.

Eh, maybe it's too soon (I just finished about 2 hours ago) and my evaluation suffers from that perspective but on the whole I am filled with a desire to re-read IT rather than praise this book.

[lock67ca]

litechick, on 06 February 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

I also didn't quite believe that someone who wasn't alive at the time would be so enamored with the past.  That love of the era was King talking rather than his character.  If you weren't there, tailfins look ridiculous.

I think it is possible for someone who wasn't born back then to love that era. I was born in '67 and there are plenty of things I love about the late 50s and early 60s. Is it really a little odd that I feel nostalgic about an era I never personally experienced?

And, personally, I think tailfins, and cars from that era in general, are pretty damn cool.

[litechick]

No, I suppose it's not that you can't love an era from before you were born.  Lots of people revere the 60's and the whole flower child culture.  Also, Mad Men has returned that style of car to the public consciousness so there are probably increasing numbers of people who think it's cool.

Mostly it's just more of that sense that it's King talking rather than his character.  King is taking the things he loves and putting the words in Jake's mouth.

I don't even mean to say there's anything wrong with that.  It just hampers my ability to see Jake as an independant, rounded character.  King can write all the love letters to the past that he wants

[Blaine]

litechick, on 08 February 2012 - 03:01 AM, said:

Mostly it's just more of that sense that it's King talking rather than his character.  King is taking the things he loves and putting the words in Jake's mouth.

I don't even mean to say there's anything wrong with that.  It just hampers my ability to see Jake as an independant, rounded character.  King can write all the love letters to the past that he wants

It's kind of like acting. I think Jack Nicholson can be a helluva actor, but it's not like he loses himself in roles like Daniel Day Lewis or some other chameleons out there. He's always Jack Nicholson. But when the part is perfect (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, As Good As It Gets) there's no better actor for the part, even if you never forget who he is for an instant.

That said, if you detest Jack Nicholson's drawl, you're going to hate it even if it is great. King is one of those guys that I always enjoy, but few of his recent books, to me, have been as good as this one. Sure, it's a love letter to the past. But it's not an unabashed one. He makes a pretty good point of pointing out things that were terrible (racism being the most obvious, but smoking and air quality come a close second). And IMO, he does a very good job of making Jake a more rounded character, even if he is in quite a few ways, an obvious analog of King (being an English teacher is always an obvious sign).

I think, if I had any problem with Jake's character it was that his complete lack of ties to the modern world seemed more of a plot convenience than something that informed his personality. He didn't seem like a loner at all. Yet, he could basically disappear off of Earth without raising an eyebrow.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

But that's just it, he didn't disappear from the modern world. He was only gone for 2 minutes.

(null)

[alguien]

lock67ca, on 06 January 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

Have to agree that this is his best book in several years and, yes, he absolutely nailed the ending this time.

Pretty much agree with this 100%.  Seems like GRRM does as well!

[lock67ca]

Blaine, on 15 February 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

He didn't seem like a loner at all. Yet, he could basically disappear off of Earth without raising an eyebrow.

Since he can leave for 5+ years and return only 2 minutes later, the only thing people might question is why he seems somewhat older than he did the other day, or maybe only an hour ago.

[Mr. E]

Finished reading it a while ago. While it has its flaws, I agree with most that it's overall a good book.

That being said, King's had a problem over the last, well, decade, or so--his Protection from Editors level has reached critical mass; honestly, I probably could have cut fifty pages from the MS and the book wouldn't have changed a bit. Not that that makes it bad, but like someone else said, the Oswald stalking gets tired a little, and the Derry section goes on too long too, in my opinion.

I also wish that he doesn't feel the need to shove everything into one single continuity, another thing he's been adamant about since completing the Dark Tower. Pennywise and the "It" kids really had nothing to do with the story...I just don't see the need for them to be there.

But again, I enjoyed it--though I've never read a King book I didn't.   I especially liked the Green-card/black card man and the explanation of him; the Lovecraftian-yet-grounded figure of the men is classic King.

[Mikael]

WrathOfCyvasse, on 15 February 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

But that's just it, he didn't disappear from the modern world. He was only gone for 2 minutes.

(null)

I guess that he meant that it seemed like his lack of ties, that would have kept him in the present or  been incentive to return, was a plot device rather than an effect of his character.  That he returns after 2 min would have been a small consolation if his tampering with the past would have erased his children etc.

[Blaine]

Mikael, on 16 February 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

I guess that he meant that it seemed like his lack of ties, that would have kept him in the present or  been incentive to return, was a plot device rather than an effect of his character.  That he returns after 2 min would have been a small consolation if his tampering with the past would have erased his children etc.

That's partially it. Plus, he'd return several years older, with assorted wounds and a million other time-sync eccentricities that normal people would notice. My overall point was that "plot-wise" he was a complete loner. "Character-wise" it didn't seem to influence his personality very much.

[Lupigis]

Just finished it and absolutely loved it. I've only read a few of King's books before and don't consider myself to be a major fan, but this one really pulled me in. I can't recall the last time I was so genuinely curious about how a book would end, and I'm very happy about the way King choose to end this one. A great read!