# 11/22/63 - Stephen King Novel \[SPOILERS\]
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700
**Category:** Cafe Society
**Created:** [December 1, 2011, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700 "2011-12-01T14:29:34Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 4
### Author:  [@Dung\_Beetle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dung_Beetle)
#### Post date: [January 5, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/61 "2012-01-05T18:07:00Z")
> [@mundylion](#):
>
> References were made upthread about reading “it” and I missed the reference. Which King book was that?
[It](http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-King/dp/0451169514/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_9/175-8667110-8086953)
If you’re new to King and you like the nostalgia, try The Body, a novella from [Different Seasons](http://www.amazon.com/Different-Seasons-Signet-Stephen-King/dp/0451167538/ref=pd_sim_b_21). Super good.
---
### Author:  [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)
#### Post date: [January 5, 2012, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/62 "2012-01-05T18:17:05Z")
> [@mundylion](#):
>
> This is only the second King book I have read (other being Dome) because I was afraid of the creepy thing. I liked the Dome and really enjoyed this one, hard to put down.
> I grew up in the Midwest 50’s so the nostalgia factor was important. I wondered about the greeting referred to in church after the benediction thinking it was too early for that but rereading the section makes it clear that he was not necessarily talking about a Catholic church so maybe other churches did this in the early 60’s?
>
> I wondered why he didn’t drive to Vegas to place his bets but maybe that wasn’t legal then? I’m not sure.
>
> The poundcake times were wonderful and I thought the ending was very good too.
>
> References were made upthread about reading “it” and I missed the reference. Which King book was that?
The book’s name is _It_. (And Who is on second.) It’s scary, though. For me, one of his scariest.
---
### Author:  [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)
#### Post date: [January 5, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/63 "2012-01-05T18:20:18Z")
> [@TheZenPaperboy](#):
>
> It was just that after seeing that name I thought it would be a plot point. Someone would mention it. Maybe Stephen King does not know of the book. I just thought it weird that the hero would have that name without something being made of it.
From reading his non-fiction works (_On Writing_ and _Danse Macabre_) Stephen King strikes me as being very well-read and I would be astounded to find that he doesn’t know Booth Tarkington or _The Magnificent Ambersons_.
You’re quite right, though - going back to 1958, far more people would be aware of the book than today, so you’d think somebody would say “George Amberson… like in the book, right?”
---
### Author:  [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2012, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/64 "2012-01-15T16:30:13Z")
Just finished reading it, thoroughly enjoyed it. I definitely agree with several of the comments made here:
(1) 1958 did seem viewed through rose-colored glasses. The milkshakes are better? Really?
(2) He couldn’t drive to Vegas to place his bets?
(3) I also felt like he could have at least considered the “place a bunch of bets, win a bunch of money, then just claim to be a rich eccentric guy and hire some private detectives with guns to help you in your random wander-around-and-stop-people-from-killing-people attempts”.
So I gather from comments here that Derry was the setting of **It** , which I haven’t read? So when people are saying it’s nice to see what came of Bevie and Richie, they’re saying that in 11/23/63 it’s nice to see what came of them after they were introduced in **It**? I definitely did feel like there was some significance to that whole scene that I never really picked up on…
---
### Author:  [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2012, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/65 "2012-01-15T16:56:40Z")
> [@JohnT](#):
>
> You’re quite right, though - going back to 1958, far more people would be aware of the book than today, so you’d think somebody would say “George Amberson… like in the book, right?”
I don’t know, the name is common enough that it might pass without comment, out of politeness.
I regularly deal with a James Bond, a James Hendricks, a Bruce Waine, and a Bruce Campbell. I’ve never heard anyone comment on their namesakes in their hearing - they’ve been walking around with those names for long enough that you know it would be tedious for them.
Hell, forget _common_ - I sometimes have to talk to someone with the legal given name of _“Snoopy”_ - and as far as I’ve discussed that with her is asking her to confirm the spelling the first time. 😃
> [@MaxTheVool](#):
>
> (1) 1958 did seem viewed through rose-colored glasses. The milkshakes are better? Really?
Milkshakes were better in _19_7_8_ - that seems an uncontroversial point.
---
### Author:  [@HotDogWater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HotDogWater)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2012, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/66 "2012-01-15T17:01:30Z")
Yes Derry for _It_and Richie and Beverly were two of the main characters. When George meets them in this book it is after their adventures.
Get _It_. read as soon as possible.
---
### Author:  [@Quimby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quimby)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2012, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/67 "2012-01-15T17:20:44Z")
> [@HotDogWater](#):
>
> Yes Derry for _It_and Richie and Beverly were two of the main characters. When George meets them in this book it is after their adventures.
>
> Get _It_. read as soon as possible.
The person in question mentioned they were avoiding the scary so they should be aware It (the proper noun) opens with a child murder and goes downhill from there In scariness not quality; it (the pronoun) really is a good book.
---
### Author:  [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/68 "2012-01-15T19:15:13Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#):
>
> Milkshakes were better in _19_7_8_ - that seems an uncontroversial point.
How do you figure? Or are you comparing a current McDonald’s milkshake with a 1978 non-fastfood milkshake? that doesn’t seem very fair…
---
### Author:  [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2012, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/69 "2012-01-15T19:53:50Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#):
>
> How do you figure? Or are you comparing a current McDonald’s milkshake with a 1978 non-fastfood milkshake? that doesn’t seem very fair…
Proliferation of and widespread acceptance of more economical, lower-quality ingredients. As I recall, even crappy diners in the 70s could still be counted on to make their milk-shakes using real ice cream, so you’d have that nice, rich, creamy texture and flavour. Of course you _can_ still get that if you are content to pay $10 for a milk shake, but the run-of-the-mill is going to be made with a more economical, artificially-thickened ice milk product - which is exponentially more likely to be artificially flavoured as well.
---
### Author:  [@LynnM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LynnM)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2012, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/70 "2012-01-17T12:35:31Z")
> [@Quimby](#):
>
> […]
> It bugged me that he had Ritchie imitate Johnny Carson years before he became the Tonight Show Show host. I was sure the mistake would end up being a plot point (Jake would realize he wasn’t in _his_ history) but nope it was just a mistake I guess.
Actually, in 1958 Johnny Carson and Ed McMahon were already working together on the show “Who Do You Trust.” Lots of jokes, gags, etc.
Clips on YouTube.
---
### Author:  [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2012, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/71 "2012-01-17T16:12:29Z")
I’m not quite finished but very mildly annoyed that two different characters misattribute “the butterfly effect” to Ray Bradbury. Easy to let one slide but two underlines it as authorial confusion.
---
### Author:  [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2012, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/72 "2012-01-17T16:29:37Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#):
>
> I’m not quite finished but very mildly annoyed that two different characters misattribute “the butterfly effect” to Ray Bradbury. Easy to let one slide but two underlines it as authorial confusion.
What’s the context? Are they saying that Bradbury first came up with the term?
---
### Author:  [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/73 "2012-01-17T17:08:02Z")
Yes, it’s suggested that the term refers to _The Sound of Thunder._
---
### Author:  [@Quimby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quimby)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/74 "2012-01-17T18:45:30Z")
> [@LynnM](#):
>
> Actually, in 1958 Johnny Carson and Ed McMahon were already working together on the show “Who Do You Trust.” Lots of jokes, gags, etc.
>
> Clips on YouTube.
Interesting. I was not aware of that. That actually makes me feel better about it.
---
### Author:  [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2012, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/75 "2012-01-17T19:34:19Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#):
>
> Proliferation of and widespread acceptance of more economical, lower-quality ingredients. As I recall, even crappy diners in the 70s could still be counted on to make their milk-shakes using real ice cream, so you’d have that nice, rich, creamy texture and flavour. Of course you _can_ still get that if you are content to pay $10 for a milk shake, but the run-of-the-mill is going to be made with a more economical, artificially-thickened ice milk product - which is exponentially more likely to be artificially flavoured as well.
The statement “the average milkshake you’d get at a random lowish-class restaurant in 1970 is better than at an equivalent restaurant in 2012” seems at least plausible.
---
### Author:  [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)
#### Post date: [January 21, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/76 "2012-01-21T18:42:02Z")
Just started it and want to make sure I understand the “reset”.
Anything Jake changes in the past is reset if he returns to the present and then goes to the past again. But if he (1)stays in the past, or (2) if he returns to the present and doesn’t go to the past again, there’s no reset?
---
### Author:  [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)
#### Post date: [January 21, 2012, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/77 "2012-01-21T18:46:57Z")
> [@AuntiePam](#):
>
> Just started it and want to make sure I understand the “reset”.
>
> Anything Jake changes in the past is reset if he returns to the present and then goes to the past again. But if he (1)stays in the past, or (2) if he returns to the present and doesn’t go to the past again, there’s no reset?
That was my understanding of it.
---
### Author:  [@SaharaTea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SaharaTea)
#### Post date: [January 21, 2012, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/78 "2012-01-21T22:26:39Z")
I’m surprised at the number of people who thought King viewed 1958-1963 through rose-colored glasses. I’m a historian and I thought he did a pretty decent job of showing the good and the bad - the racism, sexism, domestic violence, etc. He really did his research when it came to Oswald’s sad sack life and the dark underbelly of Dallas. And I am so grateful King decided not to indulge conspiracy theorists when it came to the actual assassination.
The ending was over-the-top, but was probably necessary in order to demonstrate the terrible consequences of messing with the time-space continuum.
All in all, I thought it was a great book.
---
### Author:  [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)
#### Post date: [January 21, 2012, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/79 "2012-01-21T23:05:59Z")
**SaharaTea** , I’m not getting rose-colored glasses either. He’s not making the 50’s all that attractive, actually. I think he’s figured out that the good old days were never all that good.
I’ve forgotten most of _It_ and seeing Bev and Richie again makes me want to re-read it.
---
### Author:  [@TheGooch262](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheGooch262)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2012, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700/80 "2012-01-22T12:46:47Z")
I just go done reading this book and my head is kinda spinning. I have some questions if any one would care to indulge me.
1. I partially understand why Jake cant go back one last time to start the whole process over without killing Oswalt - he wants to go back and start the whole process over with Sadie. The Green Card man says he cant. What would happen if he did? Would the world end? All that stuff about the end of reality. I’d like a bit more clarity on this.
2. So Jake doesnt go back and he does the research and sees that Deke saves Sadie without Jake’s influence. The article mentions the 38 special. How did that get there if Jake wasnt part of that particular situation? I would think that Deke wouldnt have the forsight to bring a gun on his own. For that matter, what was Deke doing there in the first place? Seems like the threat of Clayton was largely ignored by everyone until Jake brought it to everyone’s attention
I apologize if these questions seem rudimentary, but I just finished and my head is swimming.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700.md?page=3)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-22-63-stephen-king-novel-spoilers/604700.md?page=5)