11/22/63 - Stephen King Novel [SPOILERS]

[madsircool]

I doubt a woman would have been able to buy a gun in those days.

Any evidence that this was the case? There was virtually zero limitations on firearm purchases at that time.

[Rilchiam]

Well, I didn't mean written-down laws. And in fact, I meant to say easily buy a gun. I could be wrong, but it wouldn't surprise me if a woman trying to buy a gun would be told "Go get your husband.". And if she said "It's my ex-husband I need protection from," I'm not sure what kind of reaction she'd get. So a woman probably could buy a gun, but she'd draw a lot of attention to herself, much more than a man would.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Stratocaster

The rabbit hole explains it all, of course. Al has actually been "away" for years, during which he got cancer, though in reality he was only gone 2 minutes. Makes sense in the context of the story, right?

But Al is taking modern pills, and references the nurse who visits him (weekly or whatever?) and the fact that the "ago" doctor and the one he saw here both came to the same diagnosis--cancer.

I noticed this too. And it was such a huge error that I'm pretty sure an editor saw it and just said, "Who cares, this is a Stephen King book."

[Stratocaster]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

I noticed this too. And it was such a huge error that I'm pretty sure an editor saw it and just said, "Who cares, this is a Stephen King book."

Thanks for confirming. It was such a big disconnect that at first I thought I was getting mixed up in my interpretation of the time-line, and that someone else would explain it away and I'd be .

[Quimby]

I could be wrong but I am pretty sure there is an at least implied gap in time between when Al gave up in the past because of his diagnosis and came back to the present and the moment he called Jake to show him the Rabbit hole and it is during that time period he got his modern diagnosis, nurse etc.

ETA: That said: my problem was that Al's notes became a crutch. They seemed unusually thorough and precise for a guy who was just a diner owner even if he had years to work on them.

[Shmendrik]

Originally Posted by Rilchiam

Well, I didn't mean written-down laws. And in fact, I meant to say easily buy a gun. I could be wrong, but it wouldn't surprise me if a woman trying to buy a gun would be told "Go get your husband.". And if she said "It's my ex-husband I need protection from," I'm not sure what kind of reaction she'd get. So a woman probably could buy a gun, but she'd draw a lot of attention to herself, much more than a man would.

Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that many gun store owners were that misogynist at the expense of their own profits. Anyways, couldn't you just buy a gun by mail order from Sears or something?

[Stratocaster]

Originally Posted by Quimby

I could be wrong but I am pretty sure there is an at least implied gap in time between when Al gave up in the past because of his diagnosis and came back to the present and the moment he called Jake to show him the Rabbit hole and it is during that time period he got his modern diagnosis, nurse etc.

I don't think so. Jake is aghast at the not-possible-to-explain change in Al since he saw him less than 24 hours ago. So, while there may have been a gap between his "ago" diagnosis and when he came back--I think there had to be, he is pretty sick looking--he was only back in the present less than a day. How to explain, then, the fact that he's taking a prescription of modern drugs (I forget which), has had a diagnosis from his "modern" doctor, and he tells Jake he has a nurse come in weekly (or whatever the frequency is)? IOW, in less than 24 hours he has lined up an oncologist, who has confirmed his diagnosis, given him a prescription and, apparently lined up a nurse who has visited him weekly, even though as recently as yesterday (as far as the modern world is concerned), he didn't have cancer.

Feels to me like a time-line foul up that can occur in time travel stories if you're not really careful. It doesn't foul up the story in any major way, and it could be easily fixed without changing any major story element, I think.

[LynnM]

Rilchiam:
" For instance, I doubt a woman would have been able to buy a gun in those days. "

This comment befuddles me. Why would you think that?

[Rilchiam]

Okay, so I could have bought a gun. But it just seems like a woman buying a gun on her own would be unusual, and be remembered the way a man buying one wouldn't. And it would be one of many, many small things that I think would cause Jake's mission to fail if he was anything other than a white male. I'd like to start a thread on this, but give me a minute or three.

[Cat Whisperer]

I don't have a problem with a woman not being able to buy a gun in those days - it's only been a couple of decades since women have been allowed in bars, allowed to vote, allowed to own property, etc.

ETA: Just to be clear, I have a problem with women not being allowed to do all those things - I can see it in the context of the story, though.

[LynnM]

Originally Posted by Cat Whisperer

I don't have a problem with a woman not being able to buy a gun in those days - it's only been a couple of decades since women have been allowed in bars, allowed to vote, allowed to own property, etc.

At the time King's novel is set--late 1950s/early 1960s--women in Texas had been voting for 40-years. Do you have a cite for your other assertions?

https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/governor...-cooper-1.html
In March 1918, a special session of the legislature gave women the right to vote in primary elections in Texas. In the first 17 days after the act passed, 386,000 women registered to vote. When the primary was held in July 1918, the women helped give Hobby a smashing victory and elected Annie Webb Blanton the first female officeholder in Texas as state superintendent of public instruction. Texas women finally won the right to vote in all elections when the Texas legislature ratified the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution in June 1919.

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2008...right-to-vote/
On June 23, 1919 Texas legislature met in a special session to adopt the women’s suffrage amendment. Five days later, the Senate voted to give Texas women the right to vote.

[LynnM]

Originally Posted by Cat Whisperer

I don't have a problem with a woman not being able to buy a gun in those days - it's only been a couple of decades since women have been allowed in bars, allowed to vote, allowed to own property, etc.

Re "allowed to own property":
https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits...ngs/page1.html

In early Texas, men and women were partners in hardship and work, but not in government and politics. Texas granted women no voting rights. Yet in some ways, the rough-and-ready frontier of Texas actually allowed women more rights than the more civilized Northeast.

In Texas a single woman or widow could make contracts, sue or be sued, choose her own home, own property, and retain custody of her children. A married woman was allowed to retain ownership of her own property, was entitled to share equally with her husband any wealth or property earned during the marriage, and could make her own will, leaving her separate property and her share of the community property to whomever she chose.

These differences reflected the reality of life on the frontier, where a pioneer woman might well have to survive on her own. They also reflected the heritage of Spanish law, which allowed more rights for women than the English common law used in many other states.

[Cat Whisperer]

I wasn't talking about Texas; I was talking about women's rights in general. If women had full rights in Texas during the time the book was set, that's fine, then.

[Infovore]

Ah, I can finally come into this thread! I've had the book since it came out, but since I was trying to finish something of my own I decided not to read it until I did. It was worth the wait, though. Best SK I've read in years.

Most of the things I would have commented on have already been brought up--particularly the Amberson thing. Even I, who've never seen the movie or read the book, kept hearing "The Magnificent Ambersons" in my head. I didn't know the protagonist's name was George until I looked it up. But yeah--*somebody* should have noticed that.

One other tiny but glaring anachronism: one character (was it the bookie's legbreaker? I think so) called another one (Jake/George?) "asshat." That kicked me right out of my suspension of disbelief. I'm not even completely sure people were calling each other "asshat" in 2003, let alone 1963.

I'd never heard of a Ford Sunliner, either, so I had to go look that one up. Pretty car.

Loved the Bevvie and Richie scene. It is my all-time favorite SK book (except for that klunker of an ending!) so it was a nice little treat. As soon as he went to Derry I was thinking, "hey, the timeframe is about right--is he gonna...?" And then he did.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

ETA: About the date. I don't think any American should be able to just know what happened on 11/22/63 (that's 18 years before my birth after all). But if someone leads with "It has something to do with the President," Kennedy's assassination should leap out at you.

I'm not American but the date is instantly recognizable to me. November 22, 1963. That's a flashbulb date right there.

[Cinnamon Imp]

Originally Posted by RickJay

I'm not American but the date is instantly recognizable to me. November 22, 1963. That's a flashbulb date right there.

I'm not American, and initially not knowing what the book was about, the title 11.22.63 wasn't even recognisable as a date to me.

22/11/63 or 22/11/1963 would be obviously, but the disconnect with the UK edition using periods rather than slashes to separate the date, and sticking with the US date format, meant I just interpreted it as a random number.

I enjoyed the book though, but yes, I was confused by the error with Al's cancer timing too!

[Savannah]

Originally Posted by HaiJJ

Here is the link to the alternate ending:

http://www.stephenking.com/other/112263/112263.html

Thanks! I was looking for it, and couldn't find it.

[Drum God]

Lots of good points in this thread. I just finished the book around 3:30 this morning.

The thing that really took me out of the story is that King seems not to realize just how big Texas is. Today, Killeen is about a three hour drive to Dallas using I-35. In the early 1960's, with only US81 or US77 to choose from, I can imagine that drive easily stretching to four hours. King has his characters zipping up to Dallas for an evening out. Maybe his fictional Jodie is closer to Dallas, but he keeps referencing Killeen as being close by, so I can't imagine that Jodie would shave that much time off the trip.

[Annie-Xmas]

Do not confuse "being able to own property" with "being able to get a mortgage." Up until the early 1980's, it was customary for lenders to insist that a single woman have a male co-signer before giving her a loan. Apparently the only qualification the man needed was to have a penis. This lead to some single women taking senile fathers to the bank to get a co-signer.

[tagos]

Originally Posted by Cat Whisperer

I'm not sure if the Yellow Card Man really added anything to the story, either. He wasn't really explained, and as you said, HaiJJ, Jake would have figured out on his own that JFK living really messed things up. I keep thinking that the Yellow Card Man (Men, I guess) were related to the Breakers and Beams from other books, but I'm not entirely sure how.

Them and the associated Jimla stuff were the ominous back-beat of the story for me. The constant undertone of tension and mystery. The reminder that things were not as they seemed. The other shoe the reader was constantly waiting to drop.

I really enjoyed the novel and haven't read any King previously.