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...

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...

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.

[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!

[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...

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...

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 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

[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.