the boogeyman ... any ambiguity

[bongorider]

After rereading this story, I noticed the callous nature of the narrative, laced with misogyny and racism. The paranoia of the narrator.. does anyone else think that there is any intended ambiguity as to who killed the children? With king's work there is usually an overtly supernatural explanation, but with this story he seems to make his narrator as unlikeable as possible. Is that just a quirk? Or perhaps was the father a dilusional psychotic who murdered his babies?

[GNTLGNT]

..."callous nature"?...no offense intended here, but how else should he have written it?...it's not a happy ending kinda story...

[bongorider]

You seem to be confusing what I'm saying. I'm not talking about how the story was written, I'm talking about how the father narrates it. The way he narrates the story to the "psychiatrist" is somewhat calloused. The "protagonist" if you can call him that has a somewhat low opinion of his wife and children at times and seems to have many glaring character flaws. My question again, is that just a quirk? King just chose to make the main character so unlikeable? or are we supposed to interpret this story in a non-literal kind of way. Is the boogeyman the father himself?

[GNTLGNT]

...no, I didn't misunderstand..."callous nature of the narrative" sure seems to be the way you felt the story was written...anyway, it's no quirk...King has written many lead characters in an unlikeable way-they simply mirror those we pass on the streets daily...good or bad...and the Boogeyman here is a literal monster, and a cruel one with a sardonic sense of humor...

[GNTLGNT]

...or he could be from the WWE...

[Walter Oobleck]

I came away w/the idea that the father feels guilty...therefore, his confession. So in a sense, yeah, he is calloused...after all, he is responsible for three children.
I glanced at the story...again...after reading the opening post, try to familiarize myself w/the story again...so I could response. What struck me was the flippant manner
in which the psychologist dismissed the father...toward the end.

His character isn't simply a quirk...maybe the question should be...why is he that way? And yea...you are asking that...seems like. What does the story say about belief?
I didn't read through end-to-end...I have read it a few times...but how do we see? How did his children see? And seeing...what did they believe? And believing, how did they
act? And the response was what?

So...the end there...seeing/belief...ummm...like when the psychologist comes out of the closet...there's a new take on the closet, hey? Belief. Has the father's callousness
blinded him to possibility? Why didn't he see the truth of the good doctor? Simply because of a mask?

[bongorider]

...no, I didn't misunderstand..."callous nature of the narrative" sure seems to be the way you felt the story was written...

At the time I believed that I was being clear when talking about the narrative (being callous, sexist, homophobic etc), I was not talking about King but the narrator in the story, I thought it would be obvious that I do not believe King to be callous homophobic or sexist merely because one of his characters is.
I was not specific enough about the ambiguous nature of the word "narrative", which could easily apply to either the author himself or the narrator within the story. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways. I deeply apologise if by saying that you misunderstood I implied any fault on your part and not my own. I would dread to think that I may have caused you any stress by accusing you of being unable to understand something caused by my own clumsy and badly chosen words.

His character isn't simply a quirk...maybe the question should be...why is he that way? And yea...you are asking that...seems like.
....

So...the end there...seeing/belief...ummm...like when the psychologist comes out of the closet...there's a new take on the closet, hey? Belief. Has the father's callousness
blinded him to possibility? Why didn't he see the truth of the good doctor? Simply because of a mask?

Yes the character (Billings) has been affected, but most of his core values also seem, how can I put it? Unpleasant? His views on women, black people, asians, children, homosexuals. He's basically a bigot. He discusses times when he felt like smacking his wife because she deserved it. He mentions in passing about how he got so fed up of his baby and wife crying he felt like throwing them both out a window, I can't remember the exact wording but that seemed more like a turn of phrase rather than a literal desire to kill. But maybe a small clue?

His backstory is one of a man forced into marriage by an unplanned pregnancy, he said he had to sacrifice his studies to do so. Why did King choose this scenario. Why not a happy family man? Is he trying to plant the seed that the father has a resentment towards children? The 2nd and third children were also unplanned, he believed his wife deliberately didn't use birth control in order to tie him down. More resentment towards the wife and future child.

Other points:

He tells of how he would hit his child if he didn't stop crying at bedtime. Clearly he's an abusive man already.

Billings tells of his fears of mollycoddling the child, his fear of the kid growing up bad and knocking some girl up (mirroring his own life). He tells a story about how his mother warned him of the sea and now to this day he is terrified to go in the water. Why include these details in the story? King just making a word count? Or hinting something about the nature of this man?
There seems to be a paranoia about his children not growing up to his satisfaction "can you imagine your son? A sissy?". And a fear of them repeating his own mistake.
Maybe a fear that could be allayed by them not growing up at all?

"When they're that little you don't get too attached to them". Fear of attachment? Or just more callousness.

He has no respect for his wife, feeling that she slept with him to easily. She was not strict enough with the children, he talks with disgust at how pleased she was with the 3rd pregnancy. Perhaps killing the children was the best way to hurt her.

One line: " Christ, kids drive you crazy sometimes. You could kill them."

The third child is a little different, he is happy, he loves the baby who resembles him. But again he suspects Rita of deliberately tampering with her birth control. They moved and then he began asking his wife if she has any fears.. she says no, but fear starts to creep in to his psyche nevertheless. First he says the house "feels different". His wife suggest stress at work. But his paranoia grows. He starts to hear noises and can't wait to get out of the house. This sounds like paranoid schizophrenia. There was a remission of sorts. A spell of time that seemed too good to be true, but then all his old fears began to creep back in. It's not until he sees muddy stains in the house that there is any evidence of the boogeyman again. But is this real? Did he make the mess himself? Did he imagine it?


The line "Accidental, like the others. But Rita knew. Rita. finally. . . knew ."
Knew, perhaps, that he was responsible for the deaths? Certainly she had little cause to believe a monster was responsible. Having never seen it or any evidence of it. The explanation she knew that Lester Billings had killed his own children is actually more logical.


In fact the more I go over it the more clues there seem to be.... But the rest is supposition. Is the boogeyman his alternate personality? The side of him his children instinctively fear?
Sure on the face of it the story seems like a simple monster story. But there's another layer underneath. It seems like King wrote Billings' character in a way to make him both very unlikeable and apt to blurt out somewhat incriminating things which I can't believe is just coincidence.

[Walter Oobleck]

What throws me is the ending...I see better what you're saying now, w/your last post, #7. You've provided a bit more from
the story, too...and that helps. I could not remember some of what you had posted in the opening--about racism, misogyny.
And...I dunno...like I said, there's that ending that suggests the father is...innocent. I don't recall who I thought was responsible
for events...although looking back at it earlier...I believe the good doctor was. How do you read the ending? Reading what you have
presented...yeah, okay, I can see what you're saying.

[GNTLGNT]

...I'm not jumpin' ya kiddo....just stating my viewpoint as opposed to yours...that's one of the basic blocks of this Board...I never once felt you had attacked King, just don't agree with your assessment-anymore than you agree with mine....we're good, and believe me-it'll take a whole lot more than your words to stress me out...

[bongorider]

What throws me is the ending...I see better what you're saying now, w/your last post, #7. You've provided a bit more from
the story, too...and that helps. I could not remember some of what you had posted in the opening--about racism, misogyny.
And...I dunno...like I said, there's that ending that suggests the father is...innocent. I don't recall who I thought was responsible
for events...although looking back at it earlier...I believe the good doctor was. How do you read the ending? Reading what you have
presented...yeah, okay, I can see what you're saying.

The only way the ending can fit into the alternative interpretation is if Billings is completely nuts by this point and either imagined the whole thing, or the doctor was real but he imagined the boogeyman after the session had finished.