Yeah, that was...creepy.

/"Dear Penthouse Forum, you'll never believe what happened to me! I attend a small northeast grade school..."

I was unclear with a remark that beverly made at that time. Did her father sexually abuse her? she said it was something her "father showed her" but at one point in the book he demanded to be allowed to examine her to see if she was "intact."

I know he was going for a "kids all joined together spiritually" scene, but yeah, the pre-teen sewer gangbang was a bit...much.

/great book otherwise

gopher321: Yeah, that was...creepy.

/"Dear Penthouse Forum, you'll never believe what happened to me! I attend a small northeast grade school..."

Wow, you ain't kidding. I've never read the book but I checked out the wiki page to see what you folks were talking about... an adolescent girl chain-banging 6 boys to ensure they stay friends? Squick indeed.

Best. Fark Headline. Ever

I laughed way too hard at that.

I wish someone had recorded the look on my face when I got to that scene in "It".

But it was King's way of assuring the reader that the little girl was only worthwhile and useful for her vagina. You don't understand.

Rubber Biscuit: But it was King's way of assuring the reader that the little girl was only worthwhile and useful for her vagina. You don't understand.

Exactly. And I think lots of folks in this thread are under-estimating the therapeutic effect gang-banging a bunch of boys in a dark sewer can have for an adolescent female victim of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of her father. Both my parents are trained psychologists and I know that's what they've always told me; "Son, if you ever meet an adolescent girl who's been beaten and possibly raped by her father for years, the best thing you can do for her is suggest she round up 6 social awkward male peers, take them to a sewer, and let them start taking turns." I mean, this is standard practice, people.

There is a rather depressing silver-lining to King's squickiness regarding sex, violence, and children in past settings, however; namely, he's far more honest about it than most of society. If you ever find yourself being ranted at about the "good old days", books like King's and The Chocolate War serve as a useful example that the "good old days" were actually filled with terror, abuse, and the random, uninvestigated killing of homeless people.

Heron: Rubber Biscuit: But it was King's way of assuring the reader that the little girl was only worthwhile and useful for her vagina. You don't understand.

Exactly. And I think lots of folks in this thread are under-estimating the therapeutic effect gang-banging a bunch of boys in a dark sewer can have for an adolescent female victim of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of her father. Both my parents are trained psychologists and I know that's what they've always told me; "Son, if you ever meet an adolescent girl who's been beaten and possibly raped by her father for years, the best thing you can do for her is suggest she round up 6 social awkward male peers, take them to a sewer, and let them start taking turns." I mean, this is standard practice, people.

Well, except she was never raped by her father. Although it did seem like that's where it was heading before she fled from the house when her father wanted to see if she was "intact". But I seem to remember with the first boy in the chain, King describing in nigh-pornographic detail the pain she felt as her hymen was rent asunder. Or at least that's how I seem to remember it. I've only read through that chapter once the first time I read It. Now for some reason the pages are stuck together.

Beverly's father did not sexually abuse her. He beat the living crap out of her instead, probably because he was tempted to sexually abuse her and hated her for it. The sex scene was intended to reunify the group in the wake of their defeat of IT as their mutual purpose was beginning to dissolve. The only ones for whom the act was more than that was Beverly, Ben, and Bill.

Like Tatsuma, I read the book with I was around 12. The whole orgy in the sewers seemed perfectly normal to me. Now it's seriously disturbing. It's strange to realize I was more messed up in the head as a kid than I am now. I wonder if all children are as deranged as we were.

Rubber Biscuit: But it was King's way of assuring the reader that the little girl was only worthwhile and useful for her vagina. You don't understand.

To be fair, it is not just little girls but women in general. They are like the cows of people.

Stile4aly: Beverly's father did not sexually abuse her. He beat the living crap out of her instead, probably because he was tempted to sexually abuse her and hated her for it. The sex scene was intended to reunify the group in the wake of their defeat of IT as their mutual purpose was beginning to dissolve. The only ones for whom the act was more than that was Beverly, Ben, and Bill.

Well, yes. That's obviously what he intended. However, it's annoying and creepy as fark.

I first read IT when I was 13, and while I (a tween girl) understood what was happening, it didn't really phase me. The whole Native American smoke lodge/tongue biting trance/omg it was a space spider the whole time?! irritated me far more. When I reread it ten years later, Beverly taking her pants off in the sewer really bothered me. Because what purpose does Beverly serve ultimately? First she's an abused little girl who the boys feel protective of. How sweet. However, the only times she's truly important is when she's awakening the tween boys sexual urges -- yes, she's handy with a slingshot, but her crowning achievement is when her shirt buttons pop off after she hits the werewolf(?) with the silver bullet. Her offering herself as gangbang bait is only important when she's sexing up Bill in the hotel and suddenly he has an epiphany ala Gregory House, and he remembers that she kept them all alive in the sewer. Sweet, sweet Beverly. Abused kid, abused wife. Suddenly the impromptu smoke lodge seemed tame by comparison on my annoy-o-meter. King can't write women for shiat, or maybe he just writes about shiaty women.

gunga galunga: Heron: Rubber Biscuit: But it was King's way of assuring the reader that the little girl was only worthwhile and useful for her vagina. You don't understand.

Exactly. And I think lots of folks in this thread are under-estimating the therapeutic effect gang-banging a bunch of boys in a dark sewer can have for an adolescent female victim of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of her father. Both my parents are trained psychologists and I know that's what they've always told me; "Son, if you ever meet an adolescent girl who's been beaten and possibly raped by her father for years, the best thing you can do for her is suggest she round up 6 social awkward male peers, take them to a sewer, and let them start taking turns." I mean, this is standard practice, people.

Well, except she was never raped by her father. Although it did seem like that's where it was heading before she fled from the house when her father wanted to see if she was "intact". But I seem to remember with the first boy in the chain, King describing in nigh-pornographic detail the pain she felt as her hymen was rent asunder. Or at least that's how I seem to remember it. I've only read through that chapter once the first time I read It. Now for some reason the pages are stuck together.

Ok then. I've never actually read the books -I was just going off what was on the wikipage and what's been said in this thread- but regardless it still seems like a rather callous thing to write a young abused female doing to me.

that scene never creeped me out so much as it just seemed out of place.

maybe i should be disturbed by the fact that the thought of a preteen gangbang doesn't actually disturb me. at least there were no adults involved.

fortean chicken: Like Tatsuma, I read the book with I was around 12. The whole orgy in the sewers seemed perfectly normal to me. Now it's seriously disturbing. It's strange to realize I was more messed up in the head as a kid than I am now. I wonder if all children are as deranged as we were.

All kids are born deranged. This whole notion that children are bundles of innocence is pure bullshiat. Actually, children are cruel farkers that have to be taught societal norms. When I was 12, I thought the rape scenes in A Clockwork Orange were funny. Now I find them apalling.

Also factor in that when you're 12, and you're reading about a bunch of 12-year-olds having a gang bang, you think "I'd like to get in on that!" They're your own age, so what's the problem?

However when you are well into your adult years, and you're reading about a bunch of 12-year-olds having a gang bang in such graphic detail, you feel dirty.

fortean chicken: Like Tatsuma, I read the book with I was around 12. The whole orgy in the sewers seemed perfectly normal to me. Now it's seriously disturbing. It's strange to realize I was more messed up in the head as a kid than I am now. I wonder if all children are as deranged as we were.

I wouldn't imagine 12 years olds having sex would seem weird to a 12 year old. I know the concept didn't seem that weird to me when I encountered it in other books at that age. To me now, hearing about the scene as an adult, the callous handling of gender, the out-of-hand assignment to her of the role of fantasy fulfillment, and the disregard shown for her own internal state is obvious, but I'm not so self-righteous as to completely dismiss the possibility that I wouldn't have picked up on that stuff if I'd read it as a kid. So, don't be too hard on your past self over this.

yllosubmarine: Stile4aly: Beverly's father did not sexually abuse her. He beat the living crap out of her instead, probably because he was tempted to sexually abuse her and hated her for it. The sex scene was intended to reunify the group in the wake of their defeat of IT as their mutual purpose was beginning to dissolve. The only ones for whom the act was more than that was Beverly, Ben, and Bill.

Well, yes. That's obviously what he intended. However, it's annoying and creepy as fark.

I first read IT when I was 13, and while I (a tween girl) understood what was happening, it didn't really phase me. The whole Native American smoke lodge/tongue biting trance/omg it was a space spider the whole time?! irritated me far more. When I reread it ten years later, Beverly taking her pants off in the sewer really bothered me. Because what purpose does Beverly serve ultimately? First she's an abused little girl who the boys feel protective of. How sweet. However, the only times she's truly important is when she's awakening the tween boys sexual urges -- yes, she's handy with a slingshot, but her crowning achievement is when her shirt buttons pop off after she hits the werewolf(?) with the silver bullet. Her offering herself as gangbang bait is only important when she's sexing up Bill in the hotel and suddenly he has an epiphany ala Gregory House, and he remembers that she kept them all alive in the sewer. Sweet, sweet Beverly. Abused kid, abused wife. Suddenly the impromptu smoke lodge seemed tame by comparison on my annoy-o-meter. King can't write women for shiat, or maybe he just writes about shiaty women.

Nice critique.

I thought you won awards and shiat for writing about a junkie farking a legless black woman. That's serious literature there.

lordaction: Rubber Biscuit: But it was King's way of assuring the reader that the little girl was only worthwhile and useful for her vagina. You don't understand.

To be fair, it is not just little girls but women in general. They are like the cows of people.

Ha! Wish I could be witty enough to sarcastically sum-up misogyny is 20 words or less. Cudos to you, sir-or-madam!

Winner of the Joubert Lifetime Achievement Award

yllosubmarine:
I first read IT when I was 13, and while I (a tween girl) understood what was happening, it didn't really phase me. The whole Native American smoke lodge/tongue biting trance/omg it was a space spider the whole time?! irritated me far more. When I reread it ten years later, Beverly taking her pants off in the sewer really bothered me. Because what purpose does Beverly serve ultimately? First she's an abused little girl who the boys feel protective of. How sweet. However, the only times she's truly important is when she's awakening the tween boys sexual urges -- yes, she's handy with a slingshot, but her crowning achievement is when her shirt buttons pop off after she hits the werewolf(?) with the silver bullet. Her offering herself as gangbang bait is only important when she's sexing up Bill in the hotel and suddenly he has an epiphany ala Gregory House, and he remembers that she kept them all alive in the sewer. Sweet, sweet Beverly. Abused kid, abused wife. Suddenly the impromptu smoke lodge seemed tame by comparison on my annoy-o-meter. King can't write women for shiat, or maybe he just writes about shiaty women.

I wonder, what are your thoughts on Gerald's Game?
Not as horror, but having a female main character? Strong to persevere, or tied to a bed (helpless at her husband's bidding) for most of the book? Or something else entirely?

KingKauff: I was around 12 when I first read IT. They sewer gang bang didn't phase me at all. The part of the book that I found creepy was when Henry Bowers and that other kid were in The Barrens lighting their farts and then they get "happy".

Ah, yes. Psycho kid offered to suck Bowers' little tiny wiener. I was more disturbed when the psycho kid killed the puppy. Gives me a sad to this day. (Granted, he also killed his baby sister, which is utterly farked up, but puppies produce more sad from yours truly.)

yllosubmarine: King can't write women for shiat, or maybe he just writes about shiaty women.

See Susannah in The Dark Tower series, Annie from Misery, Carrie or Wendy Torrance. King can write women.

I thought the sewer gang bang was just stupid and pointless when I read it.

The child rape in The Library Policeman however . . . ::shudder::


/ wtf, steve?

bigmattress: yllosubmarine:
I first read IT when I was 13, and while I (a tween girl) understood what was happening, it didn't really phase me. The whole Native American smoke lodge/tongue biting trance/omg it was a space spider the whole time?! irritated me far more. When I reread it ten years later, Beverly taking her pants off in the sewer really bothered me. Because what purpose does Beverly serve ultimately? First she's an abused little girl who the boys feel protective of. How sweet. However, the only times she's truly important is when she's awakening the tween boys sexual urges -- yes, she's handy with a slingshot, but her crowning achievement is when her shirt buttons pop off after she hits the werewolf(?) with the silver bullet. Her offering herself as gangbang bait is only important when she's sexing up Bill in the hotel and suddenly he has an epiphany ala Gregory House, and he remembers that she kept them all alive in the sewer. Sweet, sweet Beverly. Abused kid, abused wife. Suddenly the impromptu smoke lodge seemed tame by comparison on my annoy-o-meter. King can't write women for shiat, or maybe he just writes about shiaty women.

I wonder, what are your thoughts on Gerald's Game?
Not as horror, but having a female main character? Strong to persevere, or tied to a bed (helpless at her husband's bidding) for most of the book? Or something else entirely?

I actually couldn't get through that book -- I got to the point where the dogs began eating her dead husband, and I just gave up; the premise irked me, but it just seemed like something that should have been a short story, not a full fledged novel. Good question, though; what do you think?

The IT novel was like meeting some hot babe at a club, she starts whispering in your ear, telling you all sorts of groovy, debased things, scaring you a bit, enticing you more, and interesting you deeply. You sit at a table, ordering drinks for hours and yelling in each other's ears over the din of techno in the background, and eventually she offers to blow you behind the club. She leads you down a dark hallway, into this corridor leading out into the street. Halfway through, you enter a patch of shadow and her hand pulls away from yours. You reach out, blindingly, feeling her grab it and then taking you into the dark alley.

You feel her unzip your jeans, pull your business out and get to it. It's amazing, surreal and utterly fantastic, as you near your climax, a flash of headlights appears before you, and as you look down you realize it's not this girl but her grandma, holding her dentures in one hand and your tumescent member in the other. In your horror you spontaneously orgasm, then see a flash as the girl snaps a pic from her phone, pointing and laughing and taunting you that it was way too small for her to ever take seriously.

You run off, pulling your pants up with one hand, crading your shattered dignity in the other. Getting in your apartment door, you run to the shower, crying and curled in a fetal position like the end of The Crying Game.

You fall into bed, wanting to forget the conflict of emotions and physical reactions you've endured, and the next morning when you fish your wallet from your pants, there's a business card in there from the grandma, with "I also do bachelor parties" written in a crooked, palsied script. You swallow the fragment of your dignity that remains, and decide something is better than nothing, and who knows? The next one might be even better.

lexslamman: yllosubmarine: King can't write women for shiat, or maybe he just writes about shiaty women.

See Susannah in The Dark Tower series, Annie from Misery, Carrie or Wendy Torrance. King can write women.


Now, let's make a list of those women's redeeming qualities....

Having read them at/in a younger age and frame of mind, I like the girls from Firestarter and The Girl who loved Tom Gordon. Not really sure what led King to write about the latter, but it was a nifty glimpse into what he thought it would be like to be a child literally lost in the woods.

/In retrospect, the girl from Firestarter probably wasn't very well rounded...
//Also, can I say "those women's"? It sounds off, but I think I'm applying the rules correctly...

LONGER THAN YOU THINK DAD

lexslamman: yllosubmarine: King can't write women for shiat, or maybe he just writes about shiaty women.

See Susannah in The Dark Tower series, Annie from Misery, Carrie or Wendy Torrance. King can write women.

I haven't read Dark Tower, so I can't comment on that. However, the other characters you mention are largely representative of King!womanly stereotypes. Annie Wilkes isn't a woman: she's a monster in womanly form -- a psychotic, obsessed villain, not a fully developed female character. Carrie is similar to Beverly in that she is an abused girl and an outsider. She has no identity of her own and knows nothing about being a woman, because her mother has sheltered her from the world; doesn't she freak out when she first gets her period (late, I might add)? She then gains empowerment by killing the fark out of everyone who has wronged her, and although it's awesome, this makes her a monster, as well. Wendy Torrance is perhaps closest to an actual character, but she too is a victim. She exists mainly to be confused by her son and terrorized by her alcoholic/possessed husband. She fights, though, so I'll give her that.

Look, I'm a fan of King, but it's a widely held belief that his women characters are largely lacking. People have written academic articles about it. There's even a book that compiles some of these essays. (new window)

FTA: "The purpose of the prize is to draw attention to the crude, tasteless, often perfunctory use of redundant passages of sexual description in the modern novel and to discourage it." Judges had frowned on Campbell's open enthusiasm for winning the award - which is intended to discourage lurid writing but in recent years is said to have boosted sales.

yllosubmarine:
I wonder, what are your thoughts on Gerald's Game?
Not as horror, but having a female main character? Strong to persevere, or tied to a bed (helpless at her husband's bidding) for most of the book? Or something else entirely?

I actually couldn't get through that book -- I got to the point where the dogs began eating her dead husband, and I just gave up; the premise irked me, but it just seemed like something that should have been a short story, not a full fledged novel. Good question, though; what do you think?

I'm not a good one to ask, not only have I never thought about that aspect, but I can't really tell if a book is "good" or not. I just know if I like it. My knowledge pertains to movies more than books.
*SPOILER*
Having said that, I think she was strong. She was put in a tough situation, by a man, and left to deal with her emotional scars from her father, and then chased down by, basically, the boogieman. And she got away, she escaped.

But I can see how being handcuffed topless to a bed by a man ,after being molested by another, man and hunted by yet another would not be a good female character. I dunno. it's been a long time since I read it.

I think there was a King story in Four Past Midnight about a tweener getting raped by an older man as the janitor worked obliviously a few feet away.

/just read Full Dark, No Stars
//yes, he should have retired
///when did "gore" get confused with "horror"?

I remember fapping like a madman to the IT gangbang when I was 13 or so. I didn't mind that they were so young. Just the fact that this girl that I had developed a literary crush on over the previous 800 or so pages was having intercourse and finished off with an orgasm was more than enough to push me way over the top.

Times sure have changed. I wonder what the reaction would be if the same scene was written and published in 2011.

Gangbang Beverly?



I am intereste



...

nevermind.

When Stephen King said that Harry Potter had deep meaning, and Twilight was just about Bella getting a boyfriend, I was a bit conflicted. Then I remembered IT, and I don't think King is allowed to criticize women's roles in literature.

ilikeracecars: When Stephen King said that Harry Potter had deep meaning, and Twilight was just about Bella getting a boyfriend, I was a bit conflicted. Then I remembered IT, and I don't think King is allowed to criticize women's roles in literature.

Except Stephen King didn't actually say that.

ilikeracecars: When Stephen King said that Harry Potter had deep meaning, and Twilight was just about Bella getting a boyfriend, I was a bit conflicted. Then I remembered IT, and I don't think King is allowed to criticize women's roles in literature.

Problem, Twihard?

yllosubmarine: lexslamman: yllosubmarine: King can't write women for shiat, or maybe he just writes about shiaty women.

See Susannah in The Dark Tower series, Annie from Misery, Carrie or Wendy Torrance. King can write women.

I haven't read Dark Tower, so I can't comment on that. However, the other characters you mention are largely representative of King!womanly stereotypes. Annie Wilkes isn't a woman: she's a monster in womanly form -- a psychotic, obsessed villain, not a fully developed female character. Carrie is similar to Beverly in that she is an abused girl and an outsider. She has no identity of her own and knows nothing about being a woman, because her mother has sheltered her from the world; doesn't she freak out when she first gets her period (late, I might add)? She then gains empowerment by killing the fark out of everyone who has wronged her, and although it's awesome, this makes her a monster, as well. Wendy Torrance is perhaps closest to an actual character, but she too is a victim. She exists mainly to be confused by her son and terrorized by her alcoholic/possessed husband. She fights, though, so I'll give her that.

Look, I'm a fan of King, but it's a widely held belief that his women characters are largely lacking. People have written academic articles about it. There's even a book that compiles some of these essays. (new window)

Those essays are bunk and here's why: First off, they throw in Holloween and Friday the 13th for some odd ass reason. Second, the female characters in King's books are treated just as poorly as male characters, animals or children. Many of his characters are messed up mentally, emotionally, or physically. Many of them have short comings that they struggle with and normally become their undoing. I don't think there is really any time that King is glorifying any of these events, but his niche has always been psychological horror/thriller novels that are supposed to make his characters wrestle with the darkest parts of themselves. The battles they wage are as much against the outside evil antagonist as much as they are against the inner demons that almost everyone carried with them. The strong characters, male and female, survive if they manage to overcome themselves. The weak characters, male and female, die if they cannot rally the strength to overcome their inner and outer obstacles.

The book you linked seems to want to say that King treats every female character he's ever written about as some helpless victim to the male authority, or that females are evil, especially if they are a parental figure. Apparently they did not really read books like Delores Clayborne who is a strong women that chooses not to allow her husband to live after finding out that he sexually assulted their daughter. They didn't read Gerald's Game that revolves around Jessie overcoming the physical predicament she finds herself in, as well as the latent demons from her past abuses, and surviving the whole ordeal.

And of course, they don't add books published around or after their book. They didn't read The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, which has a female child using everything she's been taught to survive in the woods after getting separated from her family. The didn't read Bag of Bones, in which the female characters end up getting revenge on the male authority even after death.

Finished 11/22/63 last week. Kings best novel since the 80's. I had grown to hate Kings works the last 20 years, but thought I'd give the book a shot. Glad I did. Very, very old style King.

bigmattress: yllosubmarine:
I wonder, what are your thoughts on Gerald's Game?
Not as horror, but having a female main character? Strong to persevere, or tied to a bed (helpless at her husband's bidding) for most of the book? Or something else entirely?

I actually couldn't get through that book -- I got to the point where the dogs began eating her dead husband, and I just gave up; the premise irked me, but it just seemed like something that should have been a short story, not a full fledged novel. Good question, though; what do you think?

I'm not a good one to ask, not only have I never thought about that aspect, but I can't really tell if a book is "good" or not. I just know if I like it. My knowledge pertains to movies more than books.
*SPOILER*
Having said that, I think she was strong. She was put in a tough situation, by a man, and left to deal with her emotional scars from her father, and then chased down by, basically, the boogieman. And she got away, she escaped.

But I can see how being handcuffed topless to a bed by a man ,after being molested by another, man and hunted by yet another would not be a good female character. I dunno. it's been a long time since I read it.

Huh, it sounds more interesting than I remember; but then again, I may have stopped before the good stuff began. I originally picked up Gerald's Game because I heard it was tied in with Dolores Claiborne, which I liked -- again, more victimized women, but the troubled mother-daughter relationship really made it less cookie-cutter for me. That, and Dolores' employer was great: brassy, opinionated, strong. Me gusta.

indarwinsshadow: Finished 11/22/63 last week. Kings best novel since the 80's. I had grown to hate Kings works the last 20 years, but thought I'd give the book a shot. Glad I did. Very, very old style King.

indarwinssh, I've been curious about that one, but don't really read horror anymore. I"ve heard that 11/22/63 isn't horror, but more of a "time travel" story? Is that accurate?

Just wanted to say that Sophia is a walker in the barn.
Rick caps her ass.
There's you Walking Dead spoiler of the day.