Issues with IT

[fonzberry]

I just finished IT yesterday. I had a few issues with it, and wanted to get feedback on them.

When I was about half way through in my mind I was thinking this is better than the Stand, better than UTD, could be SK's best ever. But when I finished it, I just could not get past these two things, that impacted it for me (albeit I did still fully enjoy the book and the journey) :

1) The sex between the kids at the end : Flat out it was weird, out of place, was confusing, and disturbing. I just didn't get it.

2) There didn't seem to be closure with the young Henry. He chased them down into the Barrens, and then all of sudden it was like a sudden change that the totally forgot about him, and focused entirely on IT (until one brief mention at the very end). I felt cheated. I felt cheated with the entire group - Henry, Vic, Patrick, Belch. It just felt to me like SK phoned in the ending.


Look forward to hearing peoples' thoughts.

Thanks!

-f

[Moderator]

Just in case you missed it, here's a link to Steve's explanation for that scene.

[Shoe]

There's nothing you can do that can't be done...........All you need is love, love. Love is all you need.

[GNTLGNT]

I just finished IT yesterday. I had a few issues with it, and wanted to get feedback on them.

When I was about half way through in my mind I was thinking this is better than the Stand, better than UTD, could be SK's best ever. But when I finished it, I just could not get past these two things, that impacted it for me (albeit I did still fully enjoy the book and the journey) :

1) The sex between the kids at the end : Flat out it was weird, out of place, was confusing, and disturbing. I just didn't get it.

2) There didn't seem to be closure with the young Henry. He chased them down into the Barrens, and then all of sudden it was like a sudden change that the totally forgot about him, and focused entirely on IT (until one brief mention at the very end). I felt cheated. I felt cheated with the entire group - Henry, Vic, Patrick, Belch. It just felt to me like SK phoned in the ending.


Look forward to hearing peoples' thoughts.

Thanks!

-f

1. Ms. Mod's link will clear that up for you
2. At that point, nasty as he was-Henry had become a secondary concern to the battle royale to come....

[Robert Gray]

I just finished IT yesterday. I had a few issues with it, and wanted to get feedback on them.

I would suggest that while you might have issues, they are not those of the book. They are your own. I'll attempt to give you some feedback.

When I was about half way through in my mind I was thinking this is better than the Stand, better than UTD, could be SK's best ever. But when I finished it, I just could not get past these two things, that impacted it for me (albeit I did still fully enjoy the book and the journey) :

It is my favorite and thus, for me, his greatest work. I want you to consider what you wrote above. You just finished a huge book filled with so many things that the only way to list them would be to read the book out loud. If you enjoyed all of that and only two things from the multitude ruined it for you, I'd suggest the problem isn't the things in the book. Do you follow?

1) The sex between the kids at the end : Flat out it was weird, out of place, was confusing, and disturbing. I just didn't get it.

This comes up often enough. There is nothing wrong with not "getting" the scene. There is no shame in it at all. There are parts of many books that get past me alone when other people understand them perfectly and without even having to think about it. I do find the other part of your statement odd. In a book full of horrible, disturbing things that run a wide, horrible range from the abuse and murder of children (to name a few) the most upsetting thing to you was a bunch of kids (of roughly the same age) engaging in sex? The circumstances were weird (a sewer, running for one's life, magic, monsters, etc.), but I suspect the sexual intimations are not. Let's dissect this carefully, you found what happened between the Losers more disturbing and weird say than the scene between Bev and her father? You don't mention the scene between Henry and Patrick. You were "okie dokie" as Henry might say with the murder of Mr. Chips? I'm not trying to be snide or flip here. I seriously want to know how all the truly horrible things were find for you and this was not. Do you see why I think this is more your issue?

2) There didn't seem to be closure with the young Henry. He chased them down into the Barrens, and then all of sudden it was like a sudden change that the totally forgot about him, and focused entirely on IT (until one brief mention at the very end). I felt cheated. I felt cheated with the entire group - Henry, Vic, Patrick, Belch. It just felt to me like SK phoned in the ending.

Henry wasn't forgotten by the reveal of what happened to him has to be obscured and revealed later for the same reason the Losers themselves didn't have very good memories (or any at all) of their end battle with It as children. Sai King came to a climax with both stories at the same time, switching back and forth through time in a cadence step that was very clever. I'm not sure how you could feel cheated because old Henry and young Henry are resolving their trips through the sewer at more or less teh same time as you read the book, switching back and forth. Did you jump around or read straight through? I will have to disagree with you utterly on the whole "phoned in" thing. It makes me wonder if we read the same book. I always ask the same thing of any critic who makes such a broad statement. If you felt it was so weak that it was just "phoned in" then you clearly know how it should have been done. Dazzle us. Tell us the real ending.


Look forward to hearing peoples' thoughts.

Thanks!

-f[/QUOTE]

[mjs9153]

Agreed with Robert Gray..as far as Henry,he was as well developed as any secondary bad guy could be,and in becoming a pawn of the dybbuk,is as much a victim as any of the others..thinking you are being a tad overly critical here.As William Hurt says,"You're so analytical..sometimes,you just have to let art..flow.."

[GeorgiesArm]

I do get some of the issue with Henry, though. I think the problem is that at one point he arrived at the door of Its lair, and then he just dissappears from the story. There is a (earlier?) mention of him wandering the sewers for hours before he comes out, but nowhere is it told what Henry did once he arrived at the door. Did seeing the moon scare him away? Did It 'lock' the door, because It didn't want Henry involved in the fight? All possible interpretations, but nowhere is it stated or even implied what really happened. It was probably either a forgotten idea/plotpoint (hey, it's a huge book after all), something was edited but they forgot to take this sentence out (like how King probably changed Mike getting attacked by the werewolf into Ben, but earlier on Mike is still the one with the scar), or deemed unimportant (but then why mention him arriving at the door at all though?)

I don't really think it's important to know what exactly happened that prevented Henry from entering the lair. He was a story device to get to the climax, not the climax itself. Maybe it even emphasizes him just being this pawn to It. On the other hand, maybe him being a pawn would've been clearer & there would've been more closure if it was more clearly stated he wasn't allowed into Its lair. I can see why people would be left wondering.

[Robert Gray]

I do get some of the issue with Henry, though. I think the problem is that at one point he arrived at the door of Its lair, and then he just dissappears from the story. There is a (earlier?) mention of him wandering the sewers for hours before he comes out, but nowhere is it told what Henry did once he arrived at the door. Did seeing the moon scare him away? Did It 'lock' the door, because It didn't want Henry involved in the fight? All possible interpretations, but nowhere is it stated or even implied what really happened. It was probably either a forgotten idea/plotpoint (hey, it's a huge book after all), something was edited but they forgot to take this sentence out (like how King probably changed Mike getting attacked by the werewolf into Ben, but earlier on Mike is still the one with the scar), or deemed unimportant (but then why mention him arriving at the door at all though?)

Henry shrank away from the door. His fear was stronger than his desire to keep after the Losers. It was too busy at that point to go after him (engaged in a battle with the Losers). I also think it likely that Henry was allowed to survive. It was clearly planning on making a scapegoat of Henry from the very start. The planted evidence is strong proof of this since it was obviously placed prior to the battle with the Losers since It was in no condition to do so afterwards.

I don't really think it's important to know what exactly happened that prevented Henry from entering the lair. He was a story device to get to the climax, not the climax itself. Maybe it even emphasizes him just being this pawn to It. On the other hand, maybe him being a pawn would've been clearer & there would've been more closure if it was more clearly stated he wasn't allowed into Its lair. I can see why people would be left wondering.

I happen to think Henry was a very compelling character in his own right. He was a little monster (and also a sad story in that he was created like all such children by forces beyond his understanding) manipulated by a big one. If you like you can assume Henry didn't enter the door because It didn't allow it, but I suspect he simply lacked the gumption on his own.