More thoughts about IT

[Reactor]

Greetings to everyone!

I've just discovered this wonderful message board, and I decided to settle in among the other friendly fans of Stephen King. IT is my favourite book from Stephen King, not only because of the wonderful story, amazing characteristics, and mind-bogglingly excellent creation of the images, smells, and various horrors. Derry has a little (well actually, quite big) resemblence to the place I live here in Hungary. It's a small village called Szirmabesenyő, with various friendly places to visit:
- An abandoned rickety old castle right in the heart of the village, where a kid was brutally murdered in 1986, when the Council had no money to totally enclose the castle & encircle it with wires. No cause or suspect was ever found.
- We don't have a Kenduskeag alrighty, yet, we also have a river called Sajó, which reminds me of Kenduskeag in many aspects, especially the wilderness surrounding the area. The Losers' club would LOVE it as much as we do!
- The elementary school in Szirmabesenyő also had a big resemblance to the one in Derry, except this one had more than 50 Henry Bowers, Victor Criss, and Belchy Huggins.
- We also have a Great Bridge. Luckily, no one was torn to shreds underneath it.
- We had 2 junkyards, one of them was actually behind the school. Which is even more freaky, there was a sewertunnel opening right at the dam of the river Sajó. The other junkyard was farther, and it was also bigger. They have disappeared a couple of years ago, though.
- This village also has a Memorial Park.
- The elementary school is right next to the nursery school, just like in the novel.
- Next to the village, there is a great big grassy plain - without ruins. It's used as an airfield.
- There is a processing plant next to the village which - unfortunately - have not exploded yet.

The diferrences are that there are many hills, a small forest, no water tower, and the entire village is a lot smaller than Derry.

As you can see, these great similarities (especially me, an eternal outsider, like the Losers) lead me back and back to the novel, and I read it once. I read it twice. I read it a hundred times. The books fell to pieces, I had to buy new ones. And the book still never ceases to amaze me again and again. After I send this message, I'll read the "Under the city" chapter once again. The whole novel is hilariously well-designed, and nail-chewingly exciting!

There are, however, a few "loose ends" in the novel, which I had to ask about. Being a young writer myself, I don't like loose ends, and questions left open after I finish a book, therefore I ask whether or not you could answer these for me. Please...

1) If IT had full control above the city, why didn't she just raised up from the toilet in a dark night, and assassinated'em one by one, when she sensed that the Losers mean a considerable threat to her existence?

2) IT could transform herself to ANY form, why wasn't she a little bit more "effective"? She could just transform herself into some kind of gigantic robotic brute with plasma cannons, and final the Losers easily, without the necessity of fooling around with such faulty shapes, and risking herself to be killed.

3) If Henry was IT's mascot at the end of 1958, how come IT attacked Henry and his friends instead of the Losers? Why did IT killed her own allies?

4) I remember a part, where Mark Lamonica was influenced by IT to annihilate Mike Hanlon. How come IT didn't mezmerized a couple of cops, or soldiers to destroy the Losers? It would be MUCH easier than sneaking into Juniper Hill, and free just ONE wicked henchman.

5) Why Beverly needed to be all the boys' concubine to find the way out of the sewers? This makes absolutely no sense.

6) I remember a part where it was written that "when IT transforms herself into a shape, she needs to surrender to the laws of that shape". If this is true, why didn't the Losers used something satisfactory? I understand that the Walther was useless, so here comes a clever thought: Use something stronger! Shotgun, machinegun, chaingun, RPG-7 rocket launcher, grenade launcher, flamethrower, explosives, and so on. It'd also take care of IT's cave and the (possible) survivors of Ben's crusade on the alien eggs. Nothing could survive a direct hit of an armor-piercing missile, especially not IT, who didn't had instant regeneration ability.
Seriously,that fist-fight against IT was really horrible... :sad:

7) Why didn't the Losers burned down Neibolt street 29? And when the whole city collapsed, how come Neibolt st. 29 remained in one piece, unlike the water tower and the other "strategic spots" of IT?

8) If IT was REALLY able to read everyone's thoughts, she could easily outmaneuver them, and surprise them. It seemed to me that IT really eased the Losers' task.

I think that's all the questions I have now. I read at some parts of the message board that it'd be cool if there would be a second part, or a sequel for IT. As for me, I was thinking about an idea that IT would somehow return (judging from the book, it's too unbelievable to kill such a super-dimensional being with bare fists and a couple of random thoughts), and a small group of mercenaries calling themselves as AniTa (Annihilation TaskForce) would arrive to annihilate her - but these were just my random thoughs about a sequel :)

[michal]

Greetings to everyone!
1) If IT had full control above the city, why didn't she just raised up from the toilet in a dark night, and assassinated'em one by one, when she sensed that the Losers mean a considerable threat to her existence?

2) IT could transform herself to ANY form, why wasn't she a little bit more "effective"? She could just transform herself into some kind of gigantic robotic brute with plasma cannons, and final the Losers easily, without the necessity of fooling around with such faulty shapes, and risking herself to be killed.

3) If Henry was IT's mascot at the end of 1958, how come IT attacked Henry and his friends instead of the Losers? Why did IT killed her own allies?

4) I remember a part, where Mark Lamonica was influenced by IT to annihilate Mike Hanlon. How come IT didn't mezmerized a couple of cops, or soldiers to destroy the Losers? It would be MUCH easier than sneaking into Juniper Hill, and free just ONE wicked henchman.

5) Why Beverly needed to be all the boys' concubine to find the way out of the sewers? This makes absolutely no sense.

6) I remember a part where it was written that "when IT transforms herself into a shape, she needs to surrender to the laws of that shape". If this is true, why didn't the Losers used something satisfactory? I understand that the Walther was useless, so here comes a clever thought: Use something stronger! Shotgun, machinegun, chaingun, RPG-7 rocket launcher, grenade launcher, flamethrower, explosives, and so on. It'd also take care of IT's cave and the (possible) survivors of Ben's crusade on the alien eggs. Nothing could survive a direct hit of an armor-piercing missile, especially not IT, who didn't had instant regeneration ability.
Seriously,that fist-fight against IT was really horrible... :sad:

7) Why didn't the Losers burned down Neibolt street 29? And when the whole city collapsed, how come Neibolt st. 29 remained in one piece, unlike the water tower and the other "strategic spots" of IT?

8) If IT was REALLY able to read everyone's thoughts, she could easily outmaneuver them, and surprise them. It seemed to me that IT really eased the Losers' task.


1) In no place does in state that It had full control over the city. It was just its playground and it used people's natural evil tendencies, secrets and fears to make wonderful-awful games.
2) It couldn't transform itself to anything. It used what you were afraid of and turned into that - that's why it is said it liked kids better. Their fears were easier to manipulate - a werewolf, a spider, an evil clown.
3) IT's mascot? Where'd you get that one from? He was just a tool, a mean to an end.
4) It doesn't have full control over people and reality - just so much as human fears and weaknesses allow it.
5) This was discussed in previous threads and with different views. I, personally, don't think it was necessary but hey - I'm just a reader, the writer obviously did.
6) Getting artillery may be somewhat of a challenge, especially when you can't count on knowing how to use it. This is not The Terminator and geeky writers/architects aren't trained in getting and using heavy weapons.
7) Burn down the street? Do you really think you can get read of evil just by burning down the house it resides it?
8) I don't think she was. May be just when you went off guard and allowed her to enter.

God I'm tired now. I'm going to bed.:laugh:

[aptpupil]

Hi Reactor

I'm sure that wiser posters will attempt to make sense of the incongruities that you point out, but my own first impression, reading your post, is that you're just analyzing too deeply something that is only a novel and meant for entertainment. Picking holes in a work of fiction, even one written by someone as skilled as SK, is a relatively easy task if you're determined enough.

You do seem to love the man's writing however, since you've returned to the book many times, so I would point out that there are a lot more SK novels out there, and one or two of them may be even better than "IT", so give them a try!

And, welcome to the Board! :wink2:

[Robert Gray]

1) If IT had full control above the city, why didn't she just raised up from the toilet in a dark night, and assassinated'em one by one, when she sensed that the Losers mean a considerable threat to her existence?

You have to remeber that It is an entity of cosmic power. The human beings within Derry (the personal hunting ground It manufactured) are diversions, foods, and considered no real threat or challenge. To go to Derry, It takes on certain limitations. It doesn't really have full control of the city but rather pervades it. It did not consider the Losers to be a considerable threat at first and when they did manage to hurt It (Beverly shoots it with one of the silver slugs), it did go after them directly. It took over Beverly's father and manipulated Bowers in an all out push to get them to It's lair. Even then, I don't think the pain really made It consider them a real threat. It was just angry.


2) IT could transform herself to ANY form, why wasn't she a little bit more "effective"? She could just transform herself into some kind of gigantic robotic brute with plasma cannons, and final the Losers easily, without the necessity of fooling around with such faulty shapes, and risking herself to be killed.

Clearly It cannot take any shape it wants. The horrors come easily to it as it pulls them from the minds of victims. The more pleasing shapes and glamours must be more difficult. The clown, for example, is simply one it has on tap so it defaults to that one when it wishes to get closer. It is alien and understands our world through the minds of its native inhabitants. You must consider that a God (and It must be considered in these terms) does not perceive the world as you or I. It therefore needs the lesser beings to fine tune the act.


3) If Henry was IT's mascot at the end of 1958, how come IT attacked Henry and his friends instead of the Losers? Why did IT killed her own allies?

Henry was never It's mascot. Henry was pawn, a tool if you will. Once Henry and his pals had served their purpose, they were expendable. It doesn't have "allies," only tools.


4) I remember a part, where Mark Lamonica was influenced by IT to annihilate Mike Hanlon. How come IT didn't mezmerized a couple of cops, or soldiers to destroy the Losers? It would be MUCH easier than sneaking into Juniper Hill, and free just ONE wicked henchman.

It fills the hollows in people to make them its "dogsbody" so the person influenced directly rather than nudged has to be pretty defective to start with. It clearly takes a lot of effort on the part of It to directly force actions rather than manipulate. We can base this on the evidence in the book. That is not the way it prefers to work.


5) Why Beverly needed to be all the boys' concubine to find the way out of the sewers? This makes absolutely no sense.

This part of the story throws a lot of people. My personal view is that with the retreat of It the "Other" is also pulling back. The Losers are losing that supernatural force that was making them more than just children. This is why they were reverting to the behavior of children and losing that odd edge that made them adults at the same time. For better or for worse, sex and the kind of love that is expressed sexually is the fulcrum between childhood and adulthood. By the act, Beverly was able to hold on to that power and keep it from running away until they made it out.


6) I remember a part where it was written that "when IT transforms herself into a shape, she needs to surrender to the laws of that shape". If this is true, why didn't the Losers used something satisfactory? I understand that the Walther was useless, so here comes a clever thought: Use something stronger! Shotgun, machinegun, chaingun, RPG-7 rocket launcher, grenade launcher, flamethrower, explosives, and so on. It'd also take care of IT's cave and the (possible) survivors of Ben's crusade on the alien eggs. Nothing could survive a direct hit of an armor-piercing missile, especially not IT, who didn't had instant regeneration ability. Seriously,that fist-fight against IT was really horrible... :sad:

The Losers, however adult they may have become, were still children and the kind of logic you describe would have been beyond them. More to the point, that kind of thinking would have made it impossible for them to even perceive It. Think about Stan and how his mind almost broke as a child (refused to accept) and did break as an adult. The kind of logic and scientific thinking you are describing is pure "adult" and would render them incapable of waging the battle in the first place. The Losers had to be both child and adult. They had to make their stand on It's terms, as all fairy tale Knights must do when they go to the lair of the dragon.


7) Why didn't the Losers burned down Neibolt street 29? And when the whole city collapsed, how come Neibolt st. 29 remained in one piece, unlike the water tower and the other "strategic spots" of IT?

The Losers are kids, not trained soldiers. As to why that building survived, who knows? It could be that since that is the location where the Loser's made their stand and defeated it, they left their own mark there. The resonance spared it. It could be that is where one of It's vile spawn fled (if any survived Ben) and the entity's presence spared it. It is an interesting question but I don't think it amounts to a hole in the story.

[Robert Gray]

8) If IT was REALLY able to read everyone's thoughts, she could easily outmaneuver them, and surprise them. It seemed to me that IT really eased the Losers' task.

I'm not certain that it can read their thoughts at any time. I don't believe it has full access to all parts of them. It isn't all-knowing. It can enter the minds of others but it isn't there at all times and at all places. It has limits on Earth and it clearly needs to be manifested near people to get a really good look. Even then it sees some things clearer than others. Whether or not it "eased" their task is a matter of debate. I would suggest that It did everything in its power to stack the deck against them. It underestimated them and the Other working carefully against It.


I think that's all the questions I have now. I read at some parts of the message board that it'd be cool if there would be a second part, or a sequel for IT. As for me, I was thinking about an idea that IT would somehow return (judging from the book, it's too unbelievable to kill such a super-dimensional being with bare fists and a couple of random thoughts), and a small group of mercenaries calling themselves as AniTa (Annihilation TaskForce) would arrive to annihilate her - but these were just my random thoughs about a sequel :)

I think you might be missing one of the points of the book. They didn't kill it with their fists. They killed it with their will. The magic is real. Their faith, their stand, their will and belief made it possible to kill the monster. The real battle was already over. It took place on the spiritual level.

[sam peebles]

6) I remember a part where it was written that "when IT transforms herself into a shape, she needs to surrender to the laws of that shape". If this is true, why didn't the Losers used something satisfactory? I understand that the Walther was useless, so here comes a clever thought: Use something stronger! Shotgun, machinegun, chaingun, RPG-7 rocket launcher, grenade launcher, flamethrower, explosives, and so on. It'd also take care of IT's cave and the (possible) survivors of Ben's crusade on the alien eggs. Nothing could survive a direct hit of an armor-piercing missile, especially not IT, who didn't had instant regeneration ability.
Seriously,that fist-fight against IT was really horrible... :sad:



It is difficult for children in suburban America to get a hold of the type of weapons you are talking about, except maybe a shotgun.

[thymeoperator]

i agree with everyone, and also would like to add that the book is mostly metaphoric, and i don't reckon it's a good idea to pull a metaphor to pieces with literalism like that!

[Reactor]

Thank you for your kind answers, folks :wink2: I really appreciate it, even if some of my questions appeared to be...well...dumb.

I used the wrong word on Henry. I meant "pawn", not really mascot. The strange thing was that IT seemed to dispose Henry and his two friends too early. IT should attack the Losers in the first place, not Henry, who had given orders to stop the Losers, or at least guide them into the arms of IT. Just imagine: IT arrives and minces Henry's two friends, so Henry stands all alone.
There is an error in the book by the way. First it states that Henry still follows the Losers after IT killed Victor and Belchy, Henry even makes his way to the marked door. Later it states that Henry fled after his two friends were massacred down, wandered in the dark for hours, then found an open sewerpipe which eventually led him to the surface. What the...? There were two Henry Bowerses?
Now then...the Losers could just all turn back, face Henry (a human is still easier to kill than a super-natural metamorpher being, moreover, Mike had a knife too), and go back to the surface. I really think that the Losers were all but well-prepared, when they first faced IT.

I also agree that IT needed to be close to the person who she tried to mind-read. This does NOT mean that IT had to be visible while doing this. Remember when the Losers went to Neibolt st. 29 with the silver balls? IT communicated with Ben through "some kind of weird brain-radio", whilst she was not even present in the house, at least not in his body form. If IT was really able to fill the empty holes in Derry, she had the ability to be at the right place in the right time.

The final fight with IT took place out of this world alright, but eventually, they had to kill IT with brute force - as well as the Crawling Eye, the Bird, or the Flying Leeches (Beverly smashed one with the palm of her hand, and blew a second one up with a common steel ball). If something exits in body, it CAN be devastated with brute force. Remember Freddy Krueger from Elm Street? He was invulnerable to all weapons, and had instant regeneration ability. IT was extremely vulnerable to all forms of brute force, that's why I said that some heavy artillery would do the "fandango" pretty well on her.
sam peebles pointed out that getting hold of such weaponry would not be so easy. Well, I have to disagree with this. In the United States, the laws of bearing firearms DO exists, unlike Hungary, where you get arrested in no time, if you dare to carry a peeling knife in your pocket (carrying firearms here is absolutely prohibited).
At least one of the Losers should get hold of some heavy weapon, even if it would be against the law. Or a better idea: build one! If they were able to create silver balls, I'm sure they could construct some kind of crossbow or projectile launcher, or even flamethrower. It WAS possible even in 1958.

Neibolt st. 29-problem. The Losers did NOT "liberated" the house, since IT returned there and killed John Feury in 1985. All that fuss was for nothing (and yes, it would be perfect that when the city became wasteland, Neibolt st. 29 should have been destroyed also).

I also understand that I analyze the story too much. This is why because this book is so deep, I really feel that I'm actually part of the story. Therefore I often found these "holes" in the plot, which would deviate the plot from reality (in a bigger degree that it SHOULD deviate from reality originally). Besides, I'm also a young writer, and before I finish a work of mine, I HAVE to look up the entire story, and tie up all loose ends, not to leave any unnecessary questions. I know, it's my nature that I'm so deeply-analyzer :biggrin2:

[sam peebles]

[QUOTE=Reactor;315469]
sam peebles pointed out that getting hold of such weaponry would not be so easy. Well, I have to disagree with this. In the United States, the laws of bearing firearms DO exists, unlike Hungary, where you get arrested in no time, if you dare to carry a peeling knife in your pocket (carrying firearms here is absolutely prohibited).
At least one of the Losers should get hold of some heavy weapon, even if it would be against the law. Or a better idea: build one! If they were able to create silver balls, I'm sure they could construct some kind of crossbow or projectile launcher, or even flamethrower. It WAS possible even in 1958.
QUOTE]


You can certainly disagree with me, and yes, we do have laws protecting the right to bear arms, but this does not mean that you can just go down to the corner store and grab a chain gun...or a rocket launcher. For the losers to obtain some of the artillery you're talking about would be near-impossible. So you can disagree, but let me agree with Robert Gray that the Losers couldn't destroy It by brute force.

[Robert Gray]

I don't think any of the things you mention equate to holes in the plot. I state this as a writer myself, not as a fan of Mr. King. Many of the things you are asking questions about are grounded in character motivation. Why the losers didn't use a flame thrower or burn down the house is a question answered by "character." If you read the book, you shouldn't even have to ask those questions. They aren't dumb questions. They are moot questions. For them to have acted any different would require them to be different people entirely. My suggestion to you, writer to writer, is that all stories are about people. The story isn't about "It." The story is about the Losers, who they are, what made them who they are, and how they interact with one another. You seem to have a fixation on problem solving which isn't helpful for a writer (in my opinion). Good stories aren't about people who make all the right choices and take all the right actions. They are about real people with whom both the writer and the reader can relate.

I don't want to come off sounding too harsh (which I often do) but I would suggest taht you have not really become part of the story because all the questions you are asking are external, effaced things which are irrelevant. There is no nice way to put it I'm afraid. If the characters and situation had truly become real to you, everything would make perfect sense. It couldn't happen any other way. One might as well ask (as Eddie does himself) why didn't Eddie manage to overcome and give up his addiction to the placebo in his inhaler? Why ask why Stan, who had managed to hold on as a child (and who apparently along among the Losers who left Derry retained a good deal of his memories) killed himself. Surely the story could have gone another route? I hope you are getting my point. It would have been out of character for the Losers to burn down the house. It would have been out of character (and beyond the plausible impossible) for them to acquire military weapons. They were children. They understood that silver bullets could kill a monster. What more would they need? Character is all that matters.

[Lencho_of_the_Apes]

If Romeo had gotten a bunch of his friends together and armed them all with crossbows and broadswords, he could have invaded the Capulets' home, killed her family and they could have lived hapily ever after.

We all float down here.

[Reactor]

sam peebles :biggrin2: You were right about that the Losers just couldn't go to the Costello ABC and say "Hi, there'z some freaky monster running amok in our city, and we want to exterminate it. We would like a chaingun and a rocket launcher, and a ton of bullets and rockets, please". This would be totally unbelievable, even for an imaginary novel.

My question about the grab-some-heavy-artillery-and-blow-IT-to-atoms is actually quite revealant, and I think it DOES makes sense. It's even stated in the novel several times that their armaments against such a creature is less than insufficient. And they were insufficient alright. They've tried the silver balls, and they failed. The battle in Neibolt st. 29 was like IT was only toying around with them, and her retreat to the sewer was only for some kind of crazy show. For example, IT had the ability to read their minds, and therefore she knew about the Losers had no more silver balls to fire at her. Then IT simply jumped inside the sewer instead of teleporting away, like she did later in the novel. If IT would be in great danger, she wouldn't do such foolish things I think (that's why I said that IT "eased" the Losers' task several times, just like if IT was just "testing" them).

When reading the novel, I always felt I would be part of the action. I did not stated that everyone should do the right things in the right time, being wrong is a humanic thing. I totally get your point :wink2: What I meant to say that the Losers were all too self-confident, too reckless, it's a wonder that IT didn't killed them. Without any means of problem solving, I state that if something or someone - even a bloodthirsty metamorphing creature - is after me, self-defense is at the highest priority. It's clear for every human - even for the Losers - that bare fists and feet are insufficient against a metamorphing creature with jaws, claws, tusks, and supernatural attacks (like Patrick and the Amana-incident). They were just....too sure that a few silver balls, stones, and broken pieces of junk (Mike used it against the Bird) can stop IT. If the question of self-defense comes into focus, every human thinks about devices figured out specially for self-defense. Knives, daggers, batons, gas-attack spray, home-made crossbows and so on. Light weapons, which you can buy everywhere without any kind of law-breaking. The idea of heavy artillery would come into focus when they're grown-ups, and they could acquire a rocket launcher easily (it's not impossible for a lot of criminals).

So the question of self-defense and waving weapons against a hideous metamorphing beast seems to be the best idea, especially when the Losers are determined to face the beast and extreminate them once and for all, as Bill stated right before the trip to Neibolt st. 29. I tell you the honest: If I would be part of the Losers, the first thing I would do after I've heard their stories about these strange encounters would be to go home, spend all my money on light hand weapons (daggers, batons etc.), or try to figure out how to build a special crossbow, and a handful of arrows. THEN perhaps I would enter IT's hideout, knowing that I did what I could for my own (and my friends') safety. If we would have only two crummy silver balls...I would say it's a suicidal idea.
After IT's recall, the first thing I'd do is trying to get hold of some heavy weapons - like a rocket launcher, and then going back to Derry. I totally agree with you that defeating this super-dimensional being requires a lot more than just heavy weapons, but the enbodiment of this super-dimensional being should be extremely vulnerable for brute force. You'll discover when reading the book, that IT exposed herself quite a few times during combats.
The "burn down the base" was only a random idea of mine alright :grinning: But holding some hand weapons is quite a solid idea, solid as a rock. A well-targeted shot from the crossbow would also take care of Henry.

I speak from true experience. Here at home, I did manage to fix a special crossbow, including 12 arrows. It's called the "Backstab 108.5", and every arrow has a written catchphrase on them, like "Death will not be your end", or "Your soul will burn in HELL forever!". Such a tool would be a nice addition to the novel, don't you think?

Last, but not least, I came up with two new questions. I know I should shut the door on my analyzing-self, but these two are just too imporant not to ask.

1) How could IT appear for Audra? When talking with Henry in Juniper Hill, IT stated that the victims "have to believe" to see her. Audra didn't know a thing about IT, never heard of IT. This just begs for the question.

2) Henry didn't had matches, map in the head, or anything else. How come he didn't lose the Losers' tracks in the sewers when chasing'em down? The novel describes the great number of intersections and mis-leading paths. If we take the "human factor" into account, Henry could just easily slip into another pipe with his friends. Certainly IT could not mark the way for the Losers, since IT wasn't present at that time. And when IT did eventually appeared, she finalized Henry's two friends, so saying that IT guided Henry's team would make absolutely no sense.

[Robert Gray]

My best advice to you is to read and reread the book or give up. The questions you are asking us seem (at least to me) self-evident so there is no way I can answer your question without sounding self serving. I'd rather avoid that pitfall. It happens far too often already. I won't address most of your last post again since I would just go over the same ground. I will answer your last question:

It never said it couldn't take adults. In fact, when we get a direct view into the mind of the creature it states that it has on occasion. It finds them less tasty, their fears too complex. It would merely need to find the right adult, one with a strong imagination (like the gay writer who dies at the start of the cycle in the 80s). It can make adults see it whenever it wants to do so, but clearly such an act takes more effort. Is this stated in the story? No. It is strongly implied. I would remind you that it uses its glamour to allow Tom and Audra to see things so that Tom will obey commands and bring Bill's wife down to the "lair" where it doesn't have to dress for dinner. The implication is that It cannot affect those who don't believe (or have poor imaginations) outside the boundry of the lair (which clearly exists between our world and this other). I submit it is a "thinny" of sorts. Children believe. Children are easier prey. Some adults believe and can be affected.

[sam peebles]

I don't think any physical weapon, whether it be a crossbow or a silver dagger, would've destroyed It. And the Losers weren't on the defensive, but the offensive. Led by Bill, they actively sought out It at the battle on Niebolt Street, and when forced into the sewers by Bower's gang like cows in a chute, they did not try to escape, but had Eddie lead them deeper and deeper under Derry where they knew they would find It.

I agree, if it had been me, I probably would've crapped my pants, found a dark corner to cry in, and wait for Pennywise to show up and take a chomp out of my armpit. But the Losers were more than a group of individual kids. There was the Other working through them, and confidence was necessary in order to defeat It. Think of all the things It threw up as a barrier - the giant bird, the giant eyeball. If Richie or Stan hadn't gathered their courage, it would've meant their deaths.

I don't think they were reckless in their encounters with It. I mean, it's pretty hard not to be reckless when trying to kill an evil deity, but they were as prepared as any person could've possibly hoped to have been in the given situation. I don't think an RPG, or an assualt rifle would have been enough to clean out It and Its lair. Only the Ritual of Chud, or something similar, could've achieved that.

[thymeoperator]

i say it again - it's a metaphor!!! don't read it all literally, you're ruining the beauty of a fantasy story!!!!

[Reactor]

Well, if I were one of the Losers, I would follow two tactics, it depends on which one would Bill decide on.

1) Frontal assault. Silver balls might be a good idea, yet, I would strongly recommend the presence of some hand weapons. Even if they cannot destroy IT, they can still damage her, and distract her attention. There is only one IT, except those rare cases, when IT controlled many different hostile entities at one time (Amana-incident, Eddie's walk to the baseball-course), and there were seven Losers. Seven against one. If IT does not "clone" itself like she did later, she can only pay attention on one of them, giving a brilliant chance to the other six to lay direct hits on her. Sooner or later, IT would succumb, especially if more of the losers would use such "magic" weapons against her.

2) Lingering tactic. This one is safer, but it'd take more innocent victims. Just wait till IT falls asleep, go down, and surprise her. IT can't stay awake forever...

Which would YOU decide on? :biggrin2:

[Lencho_of_the_Apes]

If Beowulf had had access to a nuclear warhead, he could have dropped a bomb on the swamp where Grendel lived and totally annihilated it.

If King Arthur had had laser technology, removing the sword from the stone would have been a cinch.

Abraham should have reminded God that sacrificing children on altars was contrary to the Geneva Convention.

You have a unique way of reading, Reactor; I don't think I've ever seen anybody who looked at books from the same perspective that you use. If it works for you and you're happy, that's good.

But -- ME PERSONALLY -- I think you're missing the point. This isn't a video game, it's not a Dungeons And Dragons adventure... it's a novel, an imaginative work of fiction. It's not "about" finding the perfect-warrior solution, it's "about" realistic individual people and how they would react in a situation.

Unless you can come back from Rambo Meets Terminator And They Dance The Tango In A Puddle Of Predator's Guts country and find a different way of understanding books, I suspect there won't be many people here in the list that will share your ideas.

I'll shut up now.

We all float down here.

[Reactor]

Don't tell me :) It's a bad habit of mine to ask questions about the novel I just read. I fully understand your concerns about finding logics in a novel like IT just isn't right.

It might be the affect of the PC games. Reading the novel, I just love to visualize it as a first-person shooter, where Beverly blast everything in sight with a plasma rifle. It might be just my tactical way of thinking (after joining the military, this is fully understandable). It might be my habit when I'm writing a novel: I like to make the antagonists think twice and thrice what they should do, when should they do it, and generally, clever antagonists always have a plan how to perform an action. And if that fails, here comes plan B.

I was just surprised. You just mentioned that realism has a high priority in IT. Now, a clever boy such as Bill (or Ben for that matter) should create a satisfactory plan, at least at Neibolt st. 29 assault. The first trip to the sewers was fully understandable, they just got into a sticky situation all of a sudden, all attempts to create a plan would be futile. But then later, when they return as grown-ups, they should carry something bigger with them than Eddie's spray. Richie also expressed this wish when they stepped through the marked door. There is no such thing as a "perfect solution", but if they tend to annihilate IT once and for all, they should have done it better (even if we count firearms out), especially when they've learned how overpowered this monster is.


A single life is irrelevant.

[thymeoperator]

If Beowulf had had access to a nuclear warhead, he could have dropped a bomb on the swamp where Grendel lived and totally annihilated it.


that would be hilarious!!! this thread is cracking me up. it's also making me wonder if reactor isn't just messing around and sitting back watching us all contradict him while he just laughs it up :)

[Robert Gray]

that would be hilarious!!! this thread is cracking me up. it's also making me wonder if reactor isn't just messing around and sitting back watching us all contradict him while he just laughs it up :)

I considered that as well, but I'm going to be optimistic and assume it is likely a very young person who really doesn't grasp what we are talking about.

[Reactor]

I have to disappoint you, folks :) I'm not some young folk (although I would LOVE to be once again), and I'm not just asking you these things for my own amusement. I was really not fooling with all the heavy artillery-talking and the many possible outcomes of the story. I had some good reasons to ask these questions.

1) Where I live, no one read this book. Most of my friends hate reading, so did my former classmates, so I had no one to discuss these questions with. I kept them in storage, and when I felt, it's time to ask'em, I immediately dusted them off.

2) I always like to hear my friends' opinion about a thing what we have in common. Like, we all read this book, and found it unimaginibly good (at least I did!)

3) Some parts of the book are really gave me the headache. Like I said, IT always seemed to give a "chance" to the Losers to get out of a sticky situation. First the Neibolt st. 29 assault, then when Richie met the giga-Pennywise at the park, who said: "I could get you if I would want to, but I would miss all the fun".
It was the same with question number five, when I said I couldn't understand why Beverly needed to be all the boys' concubine just to find the way out. And then Eddie just came up with the perfect direction for the exit.

[thymeoperator]

It was the same with question number five, when I said I couldn't understand why Beverly needed to be all the boys' concubine just to find the way out. And then Eddie just came up with the perfect direction for the exit.

i still think you're reading the other things too literally - and also the thing with beverley i think needs to be read metaphorically too, and there is lots of stuff on this site explaining what people think that means in terms of symbolism. to read 'it' literally would be like reading poetry literally, it'd be missing the whole point. i'm not a huge poetry buff but after teaching it to so many teenagers now, i see some people either think metaphorically and some just see the surface and haven't a clue what to write about in their essays because they just think too literally. some things just aren't meant to be read that way.

[Bluey Lunger]

i guess the questions have been answered? when i've had trouble understanding something, i go back over the problem, all the more reason to re-read stuff and stuff worth re-reading is good stuff. i like the use of the word "bewildered" in It. the times characters are bewildered, how they became not-so. nothing is right or wrong but thinking makes it so. i guess faith has a lot to do w/it. i'm reminded of something sk said to an audience at a college, in vermont maybe, recorded in that book, secret windows, something along the lines of 'god likes those situations where it's the bottom of the ninth and all hope is lost'.

that's not it, exactly, maybe not even close, but somewhere in the ballpark. same essay, (recorded speech) he says, 'there ought to be some expression of belief'. maybe most of the questions could be asked again, and answered, with belief in mind.

the losers only had themselves. they relied on each other. when all hope seemed lost, bev redirected their belief where it helped before, in themselves, in each other. they all had various talents. bev got the ball rolling and with each other, they made it out.

that and maybe the 'coming of the white'. maybe that's part of the answer. the reason this whacked out world doesn't implode from all the snarkiness is the white, a power that doesn't allow that to happen. couple that w/that other power that gets a kind of thrill from seeing things reach the boiling point (bottom of the ninth) and you have the workings of a great story.

great questions! great answers! :y:

[jaxter]

i have to say with the whole grabbing heavy artillery and blowing IT to smitherines..... where in the world would these kids find that or even be able to get a hold of weapons like that?!?!

[NathanStrickland]

A few chestnuts to throw onto the fire (though I doubt it will kill the thread):

1. As several people have already pointed out, the only people with regular access to military grade weapons are, well, the military (and even then they don't always get the right equipment for the job). Showing up to a National Guard Armory and saying "I need to borrow your tank, a billion year old clown hiding in the sewer is eating my friends!" will probably land you in the loony bin.

2. Although It is certainly powerful, we can infer from It's actions and thoughts that It is not particularly smart. Clever in a predatory sense perhaps, but It obviously has no experience with long-range planning for dealing with an existential threat (the only creature It thinks might even be It's near-equal is the Turtle, who just hides in his shell on the edge of the universe). It's only ambitions are to eat and sleep, which is about as sophisticated an agenda for an immortal being as the bear in your local zoo. It is lazy and complacent, and doesn't even acknowledge the possibility of death until It is already dying.

3. The shape-shifting doesn't appear to be something that It has a whole lot of control over, or at least doesn't put an awful lot of effort into (see point 2). The extent to which It "reads" the minds of It's victims seems to be a reflexive pulling out of latent fears, similar to the way a chameleon takes on the color of it's surroundings.

[Ebdim9th]

Another thing to keep in mind is that, even when they were back in Derry, the adults couldn't remember all sorts of things, including the confrontation at Niebolt, which didnt rise back to the forefront of concious memory until the end. So they didnt remember what kind of effective weapons theyd used, when, or how.

The Japanese army, air force and navy threw everything they had at Rodan, which was the monster that inspired the giant bird which didnt really look like Rodan but something else, I forget what, something more at home in Stan Uris's bird book, and they failed utterly. Tanks were crushed, rocket-launcher wielding soldiers eaten, and jet fighters chased down and swatted or pecked from the sky by the marauding monster. If the Losers had dreamed big enough, IT would have been impervious to any normal means of destruction.

It took something else to beat IT, something Walthers, flame throwers, chain guns, and F-15s had no power over.

There were strands left untidied, such as the mention of Victor Criss coming to the Losers and admitting he was afraid of Henry and wanted out, and what ever became of Eddie's wife and limousine company, but these loose ends never interfered with the essential storytelling itself, or the success thereof.

[Abbie]

Hi. Y'all should read SK's "On Writing"... One thing I recall about "IT" was his prolouge about ....words to the effect of .... never hanging your foot or arm over the edge of yoru bed at night again. And ya know what? HE's RIGHT! ha! The man is a genious.

--Abbie

[Abbie]

i still think you're reading the other things too literally - and also the thing with beverley i think needs to be read metaphorically too, and there is lots of stuff on this site explaining what people think that means in terms of symbolism. to read 'it' literally would be like reading poetry literally, it'd be missing the whole point. i'm not a huge poetry buff but after teaching it to so many teenagers now, i see some people either think metaphorically and some just see the surface and haven't a clue what to write about in their essays because they just think too literally. some things just aren't meant to be read that way.


Tht's what SK says in his "On Writing"... sometimes a writer will say have a person wearing a green dress, because that is how he/she visualizes the character. Simple. Not everything has a ulterior meaning but heck it's fun to discuss the possibilities. You wonder (if he can ever find the time)... reads these forums? He'd get a kick out of most of the ideas his fans have, I'm sure. --Abbie

[Ebdim9th]

And of course, as I mentioned elsewhere, you can even take the imagining IT into whatever terrifies you thing too far. Let's say the adult Bill Denbrough is terrified by the Doomsday Device in the original Star Trek series. I know I was. IT picks up on this, bursts up and out of the Barrens, accelerating up into the sky, where it appears over the Earth as the giant Doomsday Device, shaped sort of like a bullhorn with a closed narrow end, which then swallows the entire earth and everything on it, with a ship and weapons capacity like the Starship Enterprise still many hundreds of years into the future. You wanna talk about even nukes being only as as gnats to a physical manisfestation as that... Even Rodan would be a housefly to this thing....

[Bob Ross]

And of course, as I mentioned elsewhere, you can even take the imagining IT into whatever terrifies you thing too far. Let's say the adult Bill Denbrough is terrified by the Doomsday Device in the original Star Trek series. I know I was. IT picks up on this, bursts up and out of the Barrens, accelerating up into the sky, where it appears over the Earth as the giant Doomsday Device, shaped sort of like a bullhorn with a closed narrow end, which then swallows the entire earth and everything on it, with a ship and weapons capacity like the Starship Enterprise still many hundreds of years into the future. You wanna talk about even nukes being only as as gnats to a physical manisfestation as that... Even Rodan would be a housefly to this thing....
Well, that's an interesting idea but I don't think It, as described in the book would would have the capacity or the motivation to do such a thing. As someone has already stated, It's mindset was something akin to that of a bear or other non-human animal. The forms it took were in many ways, simply a reaction to what it was taking from the mind of the victim(s) at the moment of attack. It fed on the psychic release it's victims "secreted" when they felt fear, and this alone was the reason for changing it's form into whatever the victim feared most. It's motivation was not to destroy the world, just as much as a bears motivation is not to destroy the forest where it feeds. Why would it want to do that that?

[Ebdim9th]

I completely agree with you. I was showing the absurdity of taking a 'real world' Rambo/Terminator approach to the story. Their imaginations and fears were not about any of those things, as I outlined in my post further up, to which the one you quoted was a second part....

[Ranger_Strider]

This thread rocks! I love it when people take the time to fully explore their thoughts. I know I teach myself alot when I follow the thread all the way.

[LauraJo]

I thought the whole thing was about the power of belief...and everyone knows conventional weapons don't kill monsters!
As to why IT didn't reach up and pick off the losers one by one...I must admit, I did wonder this myself the first time I read the book...maybe because there was easier prey and IT underestimated them...don't forget they have The Other as well. IT probably viewed them as inconsequential, if the period of hibernation was like the gap between breaths to her. IT also comes across as quite vain...she refuses to acknowledge the possibility of being hurt or killed, and to take The Losers would be to give voice to that fear, to acknowledge the possibility of her own mortality.
Also, you should bear in mind that we don't have the full picture of IT's or The Other's abilities or limitations, the book doesn't go in to that great detail (and a good job too, i think!)...
As to why there wasn't more planning when the adults went down?? Don't forget they weren't fully in the picture until mere hours before, and that will have come as a bit of shock, so I think they can be excused!

Besides, what's wrong with a good story?! Most books would be very short and very dull if everyone could solve their problems with superior fire-power!

[Bob Ross]

I think another thing to consider is that It was more interested in revenge than it was in getting rid of a perceived threat. If It was really afraid of the Losers she would have killed Mike Hanlon (or tried to kill him a lot sooner than she did - I think once they all showed up she started getting scared). She also wouldn't have left that message on the wall -- COME HOME, COME HOME, COME HOME...

[Matthew.Degnan]

I think that It is very overrated by people who haven't read Stephen King.

For example, I know this person, and i was talking to him about books and this other person asked me what my fave SK book was cos obvs its common knowledge i love SK.

And the other person immediately goes "probably It", which is very offensive cos I don't actually consider It to be that great. My fave is probably The Green Mile or The Shining.

[djbeilstein]

Mr. Bob Gray is right here.

As a story teller I ran into this awhile ago when punching any hole I could in a my own stories – looking back I speculate this was more of an excuse NOT to follow Mr. Stephen King's own "six hour" advice on writing to writers, then any sound investigation into "story flaw". The character's decide the action - just like you do in your own life. One thing may be the most insane thing to do in one given situation to YOU – but to someone else, it is almost pre-ordained – because that's their character! For some – it is a dumb ass idea to wake up tomorrow and buy a pack of smokes before heading into the office - but many people think that is just "reasonable". Bob Gray points out according to IT's nature & the Losers, their choices fit together in order to make up the novel ... AND it works! Speculate on your own work, rework it, fix it – whatever! But enjoy other people's stories for what they are and not what they aren't. Ouch!

[djbeilstein]

wow – It & PC games? Who is this person?