Sign in with FacebookJoe's Reviews > It
It
by Stephen King
by Stephen King
** spoiler alert **
Before I start...I know everyone will be upset to see me rate it so low. And some will be even more furious with the reasons that I give. Still, I'd appriciate it if you'd wait, and try to see that I'm not giving it one star for its content. (I give The Stand four stars, and its content could be argued to be just as bad.)
It is certainly a horror novel. However, I found only a couple parts of it that were at all scary. The rest of it was more like the drama in "The Body". For me, these two aspects did not fit together as well as they could have. The Stand did a much better job with this. The superflu put all the characters in an often terrifying situation even as they went through the drama of the story.
The second problem was much worse. As the children try to leave the sewers near the end they get lost, and then go through some actions to calm themselves that, to put it lightly, were inappropriate. What truly took away the books value was the way that this destroyed the theme. The entire novel is centered around the theme of friendship, but this causes the idea of friendship in the novel to be distorted and perverse.
The novel then ends with the characters forgetting much of what happened, as they did when they were younger. This took away even more from the theme, but it also made the characters in the ending feel like new characters we did not get to know yet. In the end this took away any strong care I felt for the characters, and it made the last few scenes feel as though they were a different story.
The one thing about It that I could say makes it rewarding are the many connections it has to the Dark Tower series.
In the end, if you care about the thematic elements in a novel truly having merritt, It is probably not for you (unless you have a perverted view of friendship). If you could care less about the content, and only want a story that draws you in at points and scares you every now and then, It could be worth taking a look at.
It is certainly a horror novel. However, I found only a couple parts of it that were at all scary. The rest of it was more like the drama in "The Body". For me, these two aspects did not fit together as well as they could have. The Stand did a much better job with this. The superflu put all the characters in an often terrifying situation even as they went through the drama of the story.
The second problem was much worse. As the children try to leave the sewers near the end they get lost, and then go through some actions to calm themselves that, to put it lightly, were inappropriate. What truly took away the books value was the way that this destroyed the theme. The entire novel is centered around the theme of friendship, but this causes the idea of friendship in the novel to be distorted and perverse.
The novel then ends with the characters forgetting much of what happened, as they did when they were younger. This took away even more from the theme, but it also made the characters in the ending feel like new characters we did not get to know yet. In the end this took away any strong care I felt for the characters, and it made the last few scenes feel as though they were a different story.
The one thing about It that I could say makes it rewarding are the many connections it has to the Dark Tower series.
In the end, if you care about the thematic elements in a novel truly having merritt, It is probably not for you (unless you have a perverted view of friendship). If you could care less about the content, and only want a story that draws you in at points and scares you every now and then, It could be worth taking a look at.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read It.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-19 of 19) (19 new)
date
newest »
newest »
Are you fucking crazy.This book is awsome.It has everything you need to call a book horror.I've always hated clowns this proves why.So far i've read it 5 times.Don't be hateing on this book.5 stars.
I also did not find IT scary, frankly because there was way too much really obvious foreshadowing of everything and this kept ruining any tension the story was beginning to build. The problem with the sex scene is the rational Bev is given. We are expressly told that she is afraid that now that they think they may have destroyed It (we also are told that she's not confident that they really have) their bond will be broken and their friendship will be over. Now maybe if they'd all gotten down in a queer preteen orgy together (instead of a het preteen gangbang) I would have been able to buy the whole "this will bind us together" logic that was going through Bev's mind (although earlier we are shown how dirty and nasty preteen boys touching each other is supposed to be when Bev sees the two vilest boys in the town doing it).
So anyhow, what we really have is a damaged preteen girl offering her body up to her male friends because her really bad home life has made her think that this is the best way a girl can show her friendship to a boy. I think most people would agree that this is absolutely NOT the way a girl and boy show true friendship to one another, sexual love and passion yes, deep friendship, no. And while I can see how a damaged girl and a bunch of horny boys might engage in such an act, it strikes me as a tragic event at best, certainly not a positive one as the book tries to play it. Frankly I was hoping that at least one of the boys would just say no, say something about how it couldn't possibly make him love her more than he already did, at least not in front of five other boys in a nasty tunnel. I really wanted Ben to be the one boy who absolutely refused to take her up on it, precisely BECAUSE he was the one who had the strongest romantic and sexual feelings toward her.
What pissed me off most about the whole scene though was how it was portrayed as Bev's heroic moment. I mean, think about it. Bill, Richie, Eddie, and Ben all get their self-titled heroic scenes near the end. Eddie dies saving his friends, Richie and Bill kill It, and Ben kills It's descendents. What is Bev's climactic (no pun intended), heroic, and self-titled moment? Fondly remembering a preteen gangbang while waiting for the men to finish things (something completely out of character for her I might add!). Yuck.
And the bond that it helped solidify? I guess we're supposed to infer that all the boys having sex with Bev inspired Stan to cut his hand and Bill to make them take a vow? Uh...right.
The pre-pubescent sex scene has always bothered me about IT. I understand the significance to the story, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. It's such a jarring and odd inclusion. As if an editor didn't say something.
There was alot I liked about this book, but you and Dorothy are heads on about the thing with Bev. It ruined something about it for me.
I hated that scene. I felt like it ruined the book for me, after that I just finished reading because I'd already put so much time into it. If I had known that the book was heading towards Bev gang banging five pre-pubescent boys I would have skipped the book completely. The rest of the book was really interesting though and seriously freaked me out.
In this age of sex and obscenity, I cannot understand people complaining about one forgettable sex scene in a 1000-odd book full of great images and amazing character thing. This is not a story but a living thing and you are just stuck for one scene? geeez
Deniz wrote: "In this age of sex and obscenity, I cannot understand people complaining about one forgettable sex scene in a 1000-odd book full of great images and amazing character thing. This is not a story but..."
If you think that the sex scene at the climax of the novel is "forgettable" then you have clearly misinterpreted the significance of the scene to the rest of the novel. IT is not a collection of great images and amazing characters, but a story. A story with a bizarre sex scene that doesn't quite match up in tone with the rest of the novel.
If you think that the sex scene at the climax of the novel is "forgettable" then you have clearly misinterpreted the significance of the scene to the rest of the novel. IT is not a collection of great images and amazing characters, but a story. A story with a bizarre sex scene that doesn't quite match up in tone with the rest of the novel.
I agree wholeheartedly, that scene ruined the entire book for me and I felt as if I wasted hours of my life reading a book that lead up to that moment. I'm glad to see that so many reviewers agree with my take on that scene.
IF y'all think fer one minute that Mr.King was writing horror,scifi/weirdo alien/softcore child porn then you concerned grannies are well read imbeciles who are incapable of proper,critical analysis and interpretation and have therefore contrived baseless contumelious ideas.It seems to me that the whole pubescent sex scene has attracted a flock of sheep and lingering naysayers, who were rummaging away fastidiously at this man's good work in order to insight mediocre, not mention unwarranted slander of one of literary's greats. Come on people really? you people are going to sit there and argue that the entire book was centred on that one scene regardless of how it was used, and call this writer a pervert really!Then let me ask you people this, since you're all so morally inclined "AT what age is it proper to engage in sexual intercourse better yet "What age group of characters should authors use when writing about such scenes?" Cause obviously Stephen King is completely and utterly misinformed;Kids don't have or even thing about having sex until they're 16,everyone has their first alcoholic beverage at 18 and God forbid there is no such thing as casual sex.:/ It's so sad that you guys need a hobby and haven't gotten one so here's what I suggest: all you wannabe critics go and put your criticism to good use and go heckle the likes of Stephenie Meyer,Becca Fitzpatrick, PC & Kristin Cast and Lauren Kate who are guilty of far more heinous feats.
Rykel wrote: "IF y'all think fer one minute that Mr.King was writing horror,scifi/weirdo alien/softcore child porn then you concerned grannies are well read imbeciles who are incapable of proper,critical analysi..."
Nobody is accusing King of being a pervert. Try reading the replies before posting something so ignorant, and I use that in the non-pejorative sense of the word.
The scene is pivotal in the climax of the novel, and as Dorothy so eloquently put it, it's the rationale that the girl is given to undergo such an experience, not simply the experience itself. It's hard not to ascribe importance to the scene when it is the climax of the novel.
Nobody is accusing King of being a pervert. Try reading the replies before posting something so ignorant, and I use that in the non-pejorative sense of the word.
The scene is pivotal in the climax of the novel, and as Dorothy so eloquently put it, it's the rationale that the girl is given to undergo such an experience, not simply the experience itself. It's hard not to ascribe importance to the scene when it is the climax of the novel.
macgregor wrote: "Rykel wrote: "IF y'all think fer one minute that Mr.King was writing horror,scifi/weirdo alien/softcore child porn then you concerned grannies are well read imbeciles who are incapable of proper,cr..."Don't take this the wrong way but rationally you're sounding like an argumentative and hard to please individual that has the inherent amount of brain stems required to come up with such an inadequate defence- which very much like your cognizance is puerile, yet very convenient considering the characters your scrutinizing so well are of a similar class.
You just don't seem to be making any sense, you pose a moot yet will not go in-depth to properly illustrate what you're saying so that I my have some idea as to how one conjures up such thought.sigh
"A story with a bizarre sex scene that doesn't quite match up in tone with the rest of the novel."
So after reading an entire novel that's your most pivotal memory? A bunch of kids having sex I see... therefore your take of it would no doubt stem from that limited comprehension (and I mean that in the most non abase way)of yours and hence you've failed to concisely assess the novel because you have disregarded other parts of "IT" vital in understanding the character of "Bev" on a whole, and her mindset and why she thought doing what she did would successfully result in the strengthening of the bond of friendship she shared with the other losers.
"it's the rationale that the girl is given to undergo such an experience, not simply the experience itself" Isn't that what you wrote?
How can you make such a statement and not show anything from the novel that exemplifies what you're suggesting. You clearly don't know what the words "read" and "understand" mean yet you seem to have no problem gallivanting around the comments shooting down anyone opposed to your view.
So based on your short sighted "reasoning" am I to assume then, that the reason you rated "it" 5 stars was because you thought that "bizarre sex scene" as you say-involving minors and that "preteen gangbang" as Dorothy did so eloquently put it,was indeed amazing? Cause correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't 5 stars by Goodreads standards means just that? So one could speculate that you too have a questionable "rationale," But don't worry though no one's calling you a closet child molester but your statements are without a doubt ill judged,ill conceived,baseless and above all imprudent.Next time exercise a little intelligence before engaging other people's opinions half brained and half cocked.
I love IT. It is my favourite Stephen King novel. However, that doesn't mean that it is a perfect novel. I want to engage with the text on a level beyond dismissing it based on one scene or praising it despite its flaws. I haven't even mentioned the overly drawn out 1980s prologue that accomplishes little for its length.
Do not make the mistake of assuming things about the person with which you speak. Do not assume my most "pivotal" memory of the novel is the climax of the novel. Frankly, it's not. It's the opening scene in which the younger brother's arm gets ripped off.
My defense, which you dismiss as "inadequate" is to point to Dorothy's eloquent critique of the climax. I did not want to take away from her well-reasoned and persuasive argument by reiterating it and taking credit.
There's an inherent problem with your reply in that you think I cannot possibly hold two problematic statements in my head and reconcile said opposing thoughts. I think the novel is amazing. I do not think the climax is particularly convincing. These two statements are not mutually exclusive.
My initial reply to you was to stem any road in which accusations of accusations were thrown about. You said:
" and call this writer a pervert really"
which is patently false: we don't like the prepubescent sex scene because it's icky and not persuasive as a climax. That does not mean that we are "slandering" the author nor are we attempting to debate the merits of underage gangbangs and the morality inherent within. In colloquial terms, that's called "moving the goalposts" when you use rhetoric such as that.
The climax does not work because sex is not the only way the characters could have bonded. If the sex is meant to initiate the characters into adulthood, there are other rituals (in a novel filled with rituals) in which the character could have come of age. There is a whole sub-field of anthropology that examines coming of age rituals from which King could have chosen. In fact, since it is a novel of rituals and ancient rites, it would only fit better if King had chosen a proper ritual or made one up that drew from a long history.
That is my defense. Please do not lower the level of discussion by throwing around accusations of slander as it is entirely "baseless" as you put it.
Do not make the mistake of assuming things about the person with which you speak. Do not assume my most "pivotal" memory of the novel is the climax of the novel. Frankly, it's not. It's the opening scene in which the younger brother's arm gets ripped off.
My defense, which you dismiss as "inadequate" is to point to Dorothy's eloquent critique of the climax. I did not want to take away from her well-reasoned and persuasive argument by reiterating it and taking credit.
There's an inherent problem with your reply in that you think I cannot possibly hold two problematic statements in my head and reconcile said opposing thoughts. I think the novel is amazing. I do not think the climax is particularly convincing. These two statements are not mutually exclusive.
My initial reply to you was to stem any road in which accusations of accusations were thrown about. You said:
" and call this writer a pervert really"
which is patently false: we don't like the prepubescent sex scene because it's icky and not persuasive as a climax. That does not mean that we are "slandering" the author nor are we attempting to debate the merits of underage gangbangs and the morality inherent within. In colloquial terms, that's called "moving the goalposts" when you use rhetoric such as that.
The climax does not work because sex is not the only way the characters could have bonded. If the sex is meant to initiate the characters into adulthood, there are other rituals (in a novel filled with rituals) in which the character could have come of age. There is a whole sub-field of anthropology that examines coming of age rituals from which King could have chosen. In fact, since it is a novel of rituals and ancient rites, it would only fit better if King had chosen a proper ritual or made one up that drew from a long history.
That is my defense. Please do not lower the level of discussion by throwing around accusations of slander as it is entirely "baseless" as you put it.
Here here, macgregor. Couldn't have said it better myself. To each their own, let's not attack each other and "lower the level of discussion." I happen to side with those who think the "climax" didn't "work" but I am not attacking those who think otherwise.
macgregor wrote: "I love IT. It is my favourite Stephen King novel. However, that doesn't mean that it is a perfect novel. I want to engage with the text on a level beyond dismissing it based on one scene or praisin..."Looks like my last comment woke you up.GOOD.Maybe now that you've sobered up we can get a good debate going though, I doubt that since you still haven't mentioned anything of worth and have only managed to accomplish the act of contradicting yourself when your ideas are rebuffed and you've been pushed into a corner.
As far as I can see we're heading for a discussion which goes back and forth between me trying to get you to defend an unwanted statement which would be a mistake on my part and you mentioning something having no relation to do with the topic whatsoever.
"The scene is pivotal in the climax of the novel"
Your first reply is saying that particular scene is vitally important to the climax.OK,I will acknowledge that it holds SOME importants but to that particular instants of the climax as you have stated. Yet you make it seem as if that's all the book was about:
"A story with a bizarre sex scene that doesn't quite match up in tone with the rest of the novel."
What you don't seem to get is that I'm not irate at the fact your comments seem to diminish the novel, NO! my qualms lay with the fact that you're giving off the wrong impression of said novel to potential readers by pointing out a misunderstood event which doesn't quite match up in that picture in your head.
AND your follow up?
"DUh..the uhhh...the climax does not work because sex is not the only way the characters could have bonded. If the sex is meant to initiate the characters into adulthood, there are other rituals (in a novel filled with rituals) in which the character could have come of age. There is a whole sub-field of anthropology that examines coming of age rituals from which King could have chosen. In fact, since it is a novel of rituals and ancient rites, it would only fit better if King had chosen a proper ritual or made one up that drew from a long history...*picks nose to hard*whoops there goes my brain cells."
Sorry I have to call BS on this,Yeah you are right there were a multitude of ways these characters could have bonded but here's where you failed at your attempt at being a brown noser and have just ended up painting yourself just as I saw you an angry sheep with a disputatious complex who resorts to spewing seemingly relevant but in actuality are empty points as to why you think that you're right and he's wrong and why you're fit to criticise.
"There is a whole sub-field of anthropology that examines coming of age rituals from which King could have chosen."
OK you want to go into sociology then here's a quick lesson.The individual whether Bil,Ben,Bev or Richie is a social animal. Know what that means? NO!? then please,allow me to enlighten you; Members of society are functionally related to each other and no one can exist without society. And just where does an individual's socialisation begin? In the family, yet you want to throw around suggestions for what reference king should have used for his novel without even trying to understand what was put down before you as you... no you didn't read you 'read' the book but hadn't the attention span to actually "Get" what was in it.
How about looking at "the rationale that the girl is given to undergo such an experience" AS YOU SAID in regards to her life at home before you start chucking allegations of "slander."
"In fact, since it is a novel of rituals and ancient rites, it would only fit better if King had chosen a proper ritual or made one up that drew from a long history." There God, YOU CAN NOT BE THIS ARROGANT.CAN YOU?
And for all that empty,excessive,senseless prattle you still couldn't say why King was wrong only that there were other alternatives befitting you and not necessarily that of the general populous. SO as I have accurately predicted, you are indeed an argumentativeness and hard to please individual so I was spot on thanks for proving me right about your character. In-addition to that, you do know what this proves don't you? THAT YOU SIR ARE A VERY IRKSOME TROLL who is just throwing a hissy fit just cause "Mr.King didn't write what I wanted him to write, OH WOE is me", I well wouldn't either you're irrational and too fickle and you have yet to provide an example of your "alternatives"
"There's a saying you can't please everybody" especially when they're like you.I think your better off reading books which follow a linier Plot which don't require to much use of the cerebellum like:
"See Spot run, Spot runs fast.Run, Spot, run!"
PS.This is all I will say on the matter good day.
Irksome troll? Really?
Okay well if this was your last reply, allow me to have the final word (even though you said that it was preferable that we had entered into good debate).
The most salient point I can glean from your long reply is that you think I have evaded the point. Let me reiterate my position, shared by others.
If Bev did indeed enter into a sexual relationship with the boys in order to achieve adulthood because of her family situation, I find that even less persuasive than simply a forced coming of age. If I remember correctly, Bev's relationship with her father is turbulent and often results in violence, but I do not remember any particular instance of sexual abuse. Though I could be wrong about that.
If Bev chooses to have sex with the boys because that's the only way she can show her appreciation and love for them, then I am less convinced of the efficacy of the sex scene. Bev isn't the novel's strongest character; her relationship to the boys is one of adoration, not equality. Her engaging in group sex essentially subjugates her to the boys. Instead of a girl coming of age into a woman, her ultimate function in the novel is a tool, liquidating her of any individuality. She loses her subjectivity through the act. I am not the only person to find this problematic obviously. The issue of subjectivity has already been raised but not with this specific phrasing. I am reiterating Dorothy's criticism.
Nobody ever claimed I was not argumentative so I am not sure why you feel so victorious about this. In terms of our respective styles, mine is totally without emotion and yours employs a disturbing amount of ad hominem.
Now, before anybody thinks that I am using ad hominem, let me remind you that this particular logical fallacy means that you are attempting to discredit me as a person (irksome troll etc) as a way of dealing with my argument (I find the climax unconvincing because of two reasons: subjectivity, rituals). Your attempt to claim that I have evaded the argument is disingenuous.
Specific to your point re: alternatives - I do not need to write alternatives. It is sufficient to say that in a novel in which rituals are extremely important to the plot, group sex seems a rather unfitting ritual.
Other points to make.... First, the cerebellum is related to motor control and coordination and is irrelevant to the discussion. Second, the non-linear nature of the plot was never brought up. This irrelevancy is another instance of you moving the goalposts. Third, this is a comment thread on a review. Therefore we can all assume we are discussing our opinions on the novel. Whether or not I am hard to please is irrelevant to the discussion. What matters is our differing opinions that we are attempting to unpack in a logical manner.
You are over-complicating what is essentially a simple problem.
Okay well if this was your last reply, allow me to have the final word (even though you said that it was preferable that we had entered into good debate).
The most salient point I can glean from your long reply is that you think I have evaded the point. Let me reiterate my position, shared by others.
If Bev did indeed enter into a sexual relationship with the boys in order to achieve adulthood because of her family situation, I find that even less persuasive than simply a forced coming of age. If I remember correctly, Bev's relationship with her father is turbulent and often results in violence, but I do not remember any particular instance of sexual abuse. Though I could be wrong about that.
If Bev chooses to have sex with the boys because that's the only way she can show her appreciation and love for them, then I am less convinced of the efficacy of the sex scene. Bev isn't the novel's strongest character; her relationship to the boys is one of adoration, not equality. Her engaging in group sex essentially subjugates her to the boys. Instead of a girl coming of age into a woman, her ultimate function in the novel is a tool, liquidating her of any individuality. She loses her subjectivity through the act. I am not the only person to find this problematic obviously. The issue of subjectivity has already been raised but not with this specific phrasing. I am reiterating Dorothy's criticism.
Nobody ever claimed I was not argumentative so I am not sure why you feel so victorious about this. In terms of our respective styles, mine is totally without emotion and yours employs a disturbing amount of ad hominem.
Now, before anybody thinks that I am using ad hominem, let me remind you that this particular logical fallacy means that you are attempting to discredit me as a person (irksome troll etc) as a way of dealing with my argument (I find the climax unconvincing because of two reasons: subjectivity, rituals). Your attempt to claim that I have evaded the argument is disingenuous.
Specific to your point re: alternatives - I do not need to write alternatives. It is sufficient to say that in a novel in which rituals are extremely important to the plot, group sex seems a rather unfitting ritual.
Other points to make.... First, the cerebellum is related to motor control and coordination and is irrelevant to the discussion. Second, the non-linear nature of the plot was never brought up. This irrelevancy is another instance of you moving the goalposts. Third, this is a comment thread on a review. Therefore we can all assume we are discussing our opinions on the novel. Whether or not I am hard to please is irrelevant to the discussion. What matters is our differing opinions that we are attempting to unpack in a logical manner.
You are over-complicating what is essentially a simple problem.
um when was the last time you wrote a novel?obviously you are a.homophobe as well. thanks for the spoilers dick head
Jessica wrote: "um when was the last time you wrote a novel?obviously you are a.homophobe as well. thanks for the spoilers dick head"
It says spoiler alert in the very first sentence of the review.
It says spoiler alert in the very first sentence of the review.
Shame on you.