11/22/63 11/22/63 question


472 views
Why didn't George kill Oswald immediately?
Atest Page Atest Sep 03, 2012 07:59PM
George observed five years of the past so that he could be certain that Kennedy’s death was not the product of a conspiracy and that Oswald had acted alone. Presumably, George anticipated the possibility that absent Oswald’s involvement, a co-conspirator may have nevertheless killed Kennedy. Rather than wait five years for clarity, why not kill Oswald immediately and return to 2011? A quick internet search would then resolve whether Kennedy was (or was not) assassinated.



I know I'm late but I just finished the story lol. Mostly because he wanted to be 100% sure that it was Oswald. He didn't want to kill the wrong guy. Then along time his focus became Sadie. He even said somewhere in the novel that he was unsure if wanting to be sure that it was Oswald was actually true or an excuse to spend time with Sadie (he didn't say it how I said it but that was the just). I think it became more about him being in love with Sadie and the town and he really liked being George Amberson versus Jake Dunning. He got caught up in the life.


Atest wrote: "George observed five years of the past so that he could be certain that Kennedy’s death was not the product of a conspiracy and that Oswald had acted alone. Presumably, George anticipated the possi..."

This is an awesome point, actually. There is no reason he couldn't have gone to wherever Oswald was, kill him, come back to the present and check out what the result had been. He could always undo it by going back again. Even though there was "residue" - he was NOT aware of that at the time. Of course, if he did do it that way, then there would be no book...

6238414
Keith Every time-travel story is going to have holes. Obviously, everyone would have done something different in hindsight. But when a time-traveling mentor ...more
Aug 06, 2013 12:04AM

wondered that myself - figured it was that George was not a killer - despite the reset option making the murder not a lasting thing - so he needed to be sure before he went through with it

time travel stories fall apart very quickly when you pick at them - the only exceptions being the movies Primer and Deja Vu which both seem to work - well to my cheap red wine brain anyway

***
spruiking myself - read The Meaning of Life at http://atheistdad74.blogspot.com.au/


deleted member Mar 30, 2013 03:51AM   0 votes
Short answer: It would have been less dramatic & not very entertaining.


I agree with Heather. Killing Oswald at the end gave King more threads to weave. A skilled author at work.


It is my understanding that he waited to be sure that the assassination was entirely Oswald's idea. Remember he interrogated Oswald's French friend, to find out whether he was behind the whole thing?


I think by the time Oswald got to the United States, George was just meeting/getting involved with Sadie and was conflicted as to whether or not he was going back at all. Sadie seemed to become his main focus.

As for Al, I believe he was scared of the "butterfly effect" and did it want to do anything prematurely, especially too early, where a lot of other elements would have come into play. Killing Oswald closer to the assassination left little room for more changes before JFK's death.


If I remember right there were issues with being in the present time for too long in order to do research, etc. With the Al, the owner of the diner dead access to the time portal was going to become limited if not impossible. Even when he did come back and left again, I don't think he spent much if any time in the "present".


Also you have to remember that Oswald was in Russia for a few years so it would have been almost impossible to get to him during that time.


It would have been interesting to see how life would have been if JFK lived, I wonder if Stephen King had considered an alternate ending?


Even if he was a cold-blooded killer, what he wasn't, he also risked being caught and tried for murder.


The answer is simple: the book would have been too short.


He was worried that if he killed Oswald right away, and it was a conspiracy, Oswald would be replaced by another sniper, and the assassination would go forward.

10773892
kisha To answer Diane, Al said because even though it was 90% sure, it wasn't 100% (or something like that). but nonetheless he wanted to know without a dou ...more
Jul 29, 2013 09:45AM

The answer is given in the book itselve. Maybe nobody noticed but they wanted to be 98% sure that Oswald worked alone. It wouldn't help killing Oswald and than finding out that or he was the patsy he proclaimed to be, or that he didn't work alone.
All info he would have searched before he left woul have been "tainted by time" so to speak.

Also, he didn't want to risk having to go trough all the other stuff again, I mean, it's 5 or 6 years that he "loses" every time he goes back --> complete reset remember.


back to top