11/22/63 in Around the World in 80 Books

Dec 06, 2011 Sera rated it it was amazing

Shelves: favorites, own, science-fiction

I hadn't read a King book in over 20 years, but 11/22/63 made it worth the long wait. For likely King, too, since he first started writing this book in 1972 but stopped because Kennedy's assasination had devastated the author. Plus, he wanted to do much research before writing this book. I'm glad that he waited to finish the story until last year, because the amount of information around the assasination that has developed since then made this book a richer experience for me as a reader.

The book ...more

6 likes · Like · see review

Dec 02, 2011 Kat (A Journey In Reading) rated it it was amazing

Shelves: owned-books, read-in-2011

I haven't read a King book in many years. After reading this one, I will definitely have to go back and catch up.

What if you could go back and change the past? Would you do it? What if by doing so, you changed everything...the good and the bad?

The premise of the story involved Jake Epping/George Amberson traveling back in time to prevent the assassination of JFK from happening. During his travel, he prevents some other horrible things as well...but by doing so, he changed everyone's life, includ ...more

5 likes · Like · see review

Mar 06, 2018 Ann rated it really liked it

Shelves: 2018-aty-52

This was a pleasure to listen to as an audiobook. My love for King's books has been rekindled with this.

I was really invested in the characters, so the ending was especially moving. I didn't know a Stephen King book would make me cry. ...more

3 likes · Like · see review

Jun 01, 2014 Andy Plonka rated it really liked it

Shelves: src

I was impressed by King's attention to getting the details from the 50's and 60's correct. Since I was alive and old enough to pay attention to what was going on at the time, I agreed with King's comments on fashions, popular slang of the period, music and politics. I must however take issue with his comments on the World Series. The World Series was played in September up until the time they started adding expansion teams which was later than the late 50's or early 60's. He also makes a comment ...more

1 like · Like · see review

Jan 04, 2014 Jason rated it it was ok

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. Is the past really obdurate, Mr. King? Is it? Or are you? You're certainly stubborn enough with your tired, predictable characterization and plot developments.

I said some time ago that my Stephen King days were over. Every time I have read one of his books in the past, I found myself groaning at some of his wretched descriptions, phony and tacky pop cultural references and ties to other works (usually his own), his goofy attempts at wordplay, folksy and surface-level characterizations, and of co Is the past really obdurate, Mr. King? Is it? Or are you? You're certainly stubborn enough with your tired, predictable characterization and plot developments.

I said some time ago that my Stephen King days were over. Every time I have read one of his books in the past, I found myself groaning at some of his wretched descriptions, phony and tacky pop cultural references and ties to other works (usually his own), his goofy attempts at wordplay, folksy and surface-level characterizations, and of course his without-fail lame-o endings (usually involving a fire or explosion). I found myself interested in the subject matter for this book, though, and decided to give it a chance. If anyone has ever picked up one of my first two novels, they already know that 11/22/63 and conspiracies in general interest me to no end.

King's taking the lone gunman route with Oswald put me off a bit almost immediately, but I gave this novel a shot anyway, hoping King would pull off some amazing characterizations of Oswald and other major players in the Kennedy assassination. Not only did he fail to do that, but his protagonist, a schoolteacher named Jake Epping, disappointed me even more. He was not a very compelling lead.

King used all the stereotypical, cliché character traits one would expect of a teacher in a crap novel. This guy gave a speech to some underage kids drinking, got tough but firm with his students, and got the big "dumb" football player to act his thespian heart out and change life directions. The teacher's relationships with other teachers and the principal were all unrealistic (I'm in some authority to say this, because I've been a teacher for a decade in three different countries). Not only that, but we never really get to know Jake Epping that well beyond the fact that he has a drunk ex-wife and enjoys the Land of Ago more than his present age. Where is our hero's background, sir? I knew Jack Torrance much better than Jake Epping.

The characterization of Lee Harvey Oswald was even worse. The entire novel, I kept hoping for some conversation between the protagonist and Lee, some deeper underlying glimpse as to who King thought Oswald was. But of course, King takes the simplest, most cliché route possible for the villain. Lee is just a fuck-up who wants to be famous and has major superiority complex issues. He's just another wifebeater. He has no higher goal in killing Kennedy really, other than wanting to be famous. The dialogue with Lee talking to George de Mohrnschmidt is of poor quality, and never rings true as far as the pro-Marxist, pro-Cuba stuff is concerned. I just never bought it. King's descriptions of Marina, Lee's wife, and his daughter June, were a bit more effective, to be fair.

Furthermore, the book does not even really concern Lee much, as I quickly found out (and to much dismay). This novel is really an exercise in nostalgia and a love story, and not a very good one at that. It is a shallow look at 1958-1963 in America, and never delves any deeper than the surface features of that period in history. Hundreds and hundreds of pages are dedicated to Jake's life as a schoolteacher in the small Texas town of Jodie, his effect on the school there, and his romance with a very annoying heroine named Sadie. I was never much invested in their love story, and felt we as an audience deserved a book that stayed focused on its central plot device, and not such an overdone, unbelievable love story (poundcake? come on, Mr. King). When Sadie was in danger, I found myself hoping she would die and that we could get more gloom and more focus on Lee.

Why two stars and not one? Because King did excel in one thing that he always does when I read him: he gets one invested in the story. I kept reading, and read a 842 page novel in less than three weeks. I suppose that is some testament to his skill as a storyteller. The guy can spin a yarn, and keep an audience. I'll give him that.

But when the yarn is spun, all your fears of a tacky, predictable ending have come true. SPOILERS! Kennedy is saved, but history is even more fractured and doomed because of the time change. Blah, blah, blah. Oh, and the course of history that King throws at us after Kennedy survives is just outright ludicrous. George Wallace as president? Come on, sir. We deserve better than this. And, of course, our hero has to leave his lover from the past behind, so that he doesn't disrupt the space-time continuum. I saw this (and many other intended "shockers") coming from two hundred pages away.

It disturbs me that so many better novels out there are given lower ratings and a fraction of the readership that King is given. It puzzles me why better books about both Kennedy's death and time travel are ignored by the reading world at large. ...more

Like · see review