<p>^ re;Jimla, someone pointed out on another discussion board, that it isn’t so much about the meaning, but “how” King uses it throughout the book, and that’s what I was referring to. A meaningless word, connoted “mystery and fear”. And, as you say, Ignatius, well done Mr King.</p>
<p>re: Oswald slept with his mother until he was 11, subjected to “weirdo body checks”, and always tormented by the mother, even after moving away and hiding from her.</p>
<p>Mary13 - no I have not read “The Dead Zone” - nor have I seen the movie. Thanks for the tip, I will read it. I am still in a Stephen King mood :)</p>
<p>SJCM In one sense I more than agree: just focus on how King creates unease with the word “Jimla” and forget any meaning. On the other hand, I think the set-up makes readers want to understand its significance. As NJTM points out the nonsense word REDRUM actually turned out to mean something in The Shining. On Steven King’s message board, one poster tries to tie Jimla to Jim Crow Laws, another to a Jimla Gospel Choir. Really? The post that makes the most sense to me: “The green-card man could sense different strings of time, but he was confused and probably brain damaged trying to sort through all of the realities. He picked up on the name Jimla in one of those strings, and in his confusion, applied it to Jake.” Yet even that explanation raises more questions than it answers. So, back to I agree to focus only on how King uses “Jimla” to add a sense of impending doom. </p>
<p>Re Marguerite Oswald: Lee obviously didn’t come away from childhood without scars. A kind description of life with mom would be “weird”. Still, I felt that King presented her as only a part of Lee’s disintegrating life at that time, with problems cropping up at home and work. A sunshine-and-roses life eluded Oswald in part because he wouldn’t have it any other way. If Kennedy hadn’t visited Dallas when he did, Oswald wouldn’t have his name fame, but without doubt someone - or two - would have died at his hands.</p>
<p>Ignatius, you wrote, “If Kennedy hadn’t visited Dallas when he did, Oswald wouldn’t have his name fame, but without doubt someone - or two - would have died at his hands.” </p>
<p>Maybe, but after reading the Oprah interview that SJCM kindly provided the link to in post #21 above, I’d be inclined to say that if Kennedy had not visited Dallas, he might very well have still been assassinated somewhere else, with a different individual set up as the “patsy.”</p>
<p>I suppose King must have known about the subject matter of that interview, which referenced a book based on an official release of information following the Oliver Stone film. Perhaps he made a decision to ignore it – or perhaps he regarded it as no more well-substantiated than other conspiracy scenarios…</p>
<p>^^^ My computer won’t let me view the Oprah interview: “Malicious Web Site Blocked” - or so it says. I’m not sure I trust my computer’s judgment.</p>
<p>Re Oswald: Yeah, I think Oswald did it, acting alone, but I have to say I haven’t delved into the conspiracy theories suggesting otherwise.</p>
<p>Oh…maybe other CC people couldn’t read the interview either. I was wondering why nobody had commented on it.</p>
<p>In the interview, Marina said she had changed her mind about Lee’s guilt. She originally thought he was guilty, but she later changed her mind based on new information that had come to light.</p>
<p>Another guest on the show was Mary LaFontaine, the author of a book called “Oswald Talked” (he allegedly talked to a cellmate before his death, and this information supposedly had been suppressed). It’s a book that actually didn’t get very good reviews, if you look it up.</p>
<p>I’ve never followed the conspiracy theories either, but I’ll admit that the Oprah interview surprised and interested me.</p>
<p>I love all the interesting links everyone is posting. Very interesting Oprah link and interview with Oswald’s mother. I do strongly suspect a conspiracy-too many unanswered questions-the most pressing one being why did Jack Ruby feel like he needed to silence Oswald in that manner? He had so many mafia connections–as well as one of Oswald’s relatives also being in the New Orleans mob. It makes you wonder…</p>
<p>I read the Oprah interview with Marina Oswald Porter and I did not think Marina was at all convincing regarding Lee’s innocence. She said she believed him guilty for 20 years, and then she didn’t anymore, but her reasons for the change-of-heart are vague, to say the least. (Of course, that could be partly due to the “soft” nature of the interview–Oprah isn’t exactly Edward R. Murrow.)</p>
<p>Regarding Lee’s Mother Marguerite:</p>
<p>Once I started ■■■■■■■■ the internet for Kennedy conspiracy theories, I found that things can quickly get a little crazy. Some conspiracy buffs believe that there were two Marguerite Oswald’s: that the real Marguerite–tall, slender and refined–was spirited away by government agents and replaced with a squat, plump and unpleasant CIA operative who played the Marguerite known to the public. Don’t believe it? Here’s photographic evidence :): [Oswald’s</a> Mother: Marguerite Oswald as Doppelganger?](<a href=“http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2010/01/marguerite-oswald-as-doppelganger.html]Oswald’s”>Oswald's Mother: Marguerite Oswald as Doppelganger?)</p>
<p>Back to the novel: We’ve talked about the butterfly effect and how Jake’s actions, big and small, impact the future. </p>
<p>I found it interesting that Jake’s presence had no effect on Sadie’s slashing—and this was the person with whom he was most involved. Sadie’s disfigurement by her husband and his subsequent suicide played out almost exactly the same way when Jake was in her life and when he wasn’t. The second time around (without Jake), it is Deke and Ellie who arrive at the critical moment. Interestingly, the news article of the event states, “The staff at Denholm Consolidated had been alerted that Miss Dunhill’s ex-husband might be dangerous.” By who? Not by Jake because he wasn’t there. Certainly not by Sadie who was averse to opening up to anyone about that part of her life.</p>
<p>To me, this suggests a message of “Trust the Past” rather than “Battle the Past.” When Jake wasn’t there to be Sadie’s “good angel,” God or the Fates or whomever found another way to save Sadie’s life, although at a cost. Again, the lesser of two evils. I very much like the way SlitheyTove put it in post #57: What seems unbearably painful is, of all options, the most merciful.</p>
<p>I think there could be another reason why Sadie was still injured in the reset, although I do like your interpretation, Mary13. (The fact that things can be seen in a “trust the past” light contributes a lot to the appeal of the story.)</p>
<p>In my opinion, Stephen King really likes the “romantic” aspect of Sadie never remarrying. The elderly Sadie in the reset did of course not remember Jake/George, but their lovely dance might not have been the same…might not even have happened…if she had had a different life as a wife and mother.</p>
<p>One can assume that the attack and disfigurement were what prevented her from remarrying…so in a way it could siimply be viewed as a handy plot device.</p>
<p>There is another reason to think that King was enamored of the idea of the lovely, lonely, stalwart, single older lady who had been saved. He did it with Carolyn Poulan too! The older version of Carolyn Poulan who was described by Al (p.72) had snow white hair that she wore long, down her back…precisely like the description of Sadie’s hair in the scene where Jake dances with her!</p>
<p>There was no plausible reason for the uninjured version of Carolyn not to have married except for King’s desire to keep her…um, pure? :)</p>
<p>This veered a little too close to the objectification of women for my taste. In addition, it bothered me a bit that Sadie was so idealized – really, she was a bit too good to be true, and - to my mind - lacked dimension.</p>
<p>All that said, I’ll admit I loved the final dance scene with Sadie, was so glad it happened, and lapped it up with delight!</p>
<p>I also loved that last scene with Sadie. The Jodie characters were the ones I really cared about in the book-even though I thought that’s also where the book started to bog down a little.
There are a lots of crazy conspiracy theories out there. Marina’s interview with Oprah didnt convince me. I tend to believe that Oswald was part of a plot because of Jack Ruby killing him in public-Ruby’s motivation for killing Oswald and Ruby’s supposed underworld connections. That’s always bothered me-as well as so many witnesses report about the direction they heard gunshots from.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps King channeled J.K. Rowling (he’s a fan) and Harry too survived the initial attack with a scar.</p>
<p>Dumbledore to Harry at the end of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone:
</p>
<p>Romanticism at its best in regard to Jake and Sadie :)</p>
<p>Moving on.</p>
<p>Do King’s injuries after his near fatal brush with an automobile remind you of a certain narrator’s troubles?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and then there’s this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Interview</a> With A King](<a href=“http://www.angelfire.com/tx/SKPage/Interview1.html]Interview”>Interview With A King)</p>
<p>Yes, Jake said something about the technique of using a crutch that reminded me about King’s accident and the fact that he must be very familiar with such things.</p>
<p>I don’t see Stephen King as a deeply symbolic writer—I doubt we’ll be mining 11/22/63 for allegories or mythological references, as we have in some of the previous books we’ve discussed. In fact, early on in the novel, I think King actually steers the reader away from looking for deeper layers. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That said, I wonder if the Dick Tiger-Tom Case bout might have had some deeper meaning. Was that extended scene in the book solely to build suspense? Or does the fight foreshadow what’s in store for Jake, i.e., to be beaten within an inch of his life, but ultimately prevail? </p>
<p>Dick Tiger really existed, but Tom Case did not. There was no such boxing match in Texas: [Dick</a> Tiger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Tiger]Dick”>Dick Tiger - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Mary13, I am reading SK’s book,** On Writing**, and just finished the section about how to write a book. How to construct stories, plot, characters.
I think you are wise not to look for too much symbolism in his writing. He admits this much. </p>
<p>He says he starts usually with “characters in a difficult situation”, very seldom does he have plot outlined, he doesn’t know where the story goes. It just happens.
He writes at least 2000 words a day. Clearly, he wasn’t committed to the ending of this book, because he rewrote it with his son’s influence, so he let this story go down many paths.
After reading his “advice” about writing I can understand how 11-22-63, “meandered” down so many various sub- stories. This is his style.
Perhaps this is why his books are so long?
I highly recommend ** Oh Writing** for those of you who are bit curious about Stephen King. “Get it straight from the horse’s mouth” …as he would say.</p>
<p>The “fight” chapter you discuss is the only section I purposely didn’t read. As I have stated elsewhere, I don’t care for violence, and decided that would be one bloody, descriptive beating I didn’t need to read every gruesome detail.</p>
<p>I’m wondering if Stephen King’s plots tended to be tighter and less meandering in his early years? </p>
<p>I don’t remember the first few books I read by him being overly long, or containing sub-stories.</p>
<p>Maybe once he became so hugely popular, he felt that he could afford to meander!</p>
<p>For example, the Bevvie/Ritchie scene mentioned upthread was just King playing around with references to another book of his. It really added very little to this one.</p>
<p>SouthJerseyChessMom, thanks for the input. I am glad you are reading “On Writing”—it’s a great companion piece to our discussion!</p>
<p>The fight chapter was violent, but I found it more difficult to read the description of Jake’s beating by Akiva Roth and his thugs. Maybe because, as ignatius mentioned above, King injected his own painful experience into that scene. (Of course, the Dunning children’s murders are the most “unreadable” passages of all, but they really fall into a different category—terrifying horror rather than men simply beating each other up.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do think King’s plots were tighter in his earlier works. Now, I agree he enjoys the freedom to meander, and he also enjoys pleasing his fan base (which makes good marketing sense, I guess). There are a few King fan sites with posters who can’t wait to buy his latest work and then love to find and discuss all the cross-references he has slipped in.</p>
<p>As to length of his earlier works, The Stand is a whopping 1000 pages, but I liked it a lot and felt King knew exactly where he was going with the story. Not to get too off-topic, but if anyone is tempted to pick up The Stand, I advise you to find the original 1978 edition. In 1990, King re-issued the novel with several hundred extra pages. His additions were fine story-wise, but he included 1990s verbiage and social references that (to me) were so obviously out of place that each time they appeared, I was jarred out of what was otherwise a dark and absorbing other-worldly adventure. From the Publishers Weekly review:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are plenty who would disagree with me (in fact, in the interest of full disclosure, the rest of the Publishers Weekly review goes on to say. “That said, the extra 400 or so pages of subplots, character development, conversation, interior dialogue, spiritual soul-searching, blood, bone and gristle make King’s best novel better still.”) But I “stand” 
by my assessment.</p>
<p>NJCM: At least one reviewer agrees with you re the time spent with Ritchie/Bevvie in 11/22/63. I reread the reviews Mary posted to start this discussion. I didn’t realize that the L.A. Times review had a second page until now (and missed out on an early indication of why these characters appear and then just disappear from the book). The reviewer had this to say:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By the way, I don’t really think that King alluded to Harry Potter, as I kidded in an earlier post. However, I do think King leaves the reader to wonder who warns Deke and Ellie to watch out for Sadie. Jake wants so badly to protect her. I’d like to think the “obdurate past” gives just enough to allow Jake’s love to transcend the time-space continuum and protect Sadie. I don’t think Jake could have lived with her murder. (And what an awful ending to the book that would be, right!?!) I think Jake’s warning to watch out for Sadie somehow reaches Deke. (Yes, I know Jake watched the note go up in smoke.)</p>
<p>One of the reviews I ran across (and now can’t find) felt 11/22/63 runs amuck across literary genres: science fiction, historical fiction, romance, horror, mystery, even touches of political/social commentary. The reviewer felt that King could have concentrated on two, even three, and had a tighter, better novel. I agree, though I did like the book. In my case, the touches of horror (Derry, the undertones in the interlude with Ritchie/Bevvie, even Jimla) pulled me out of the narrative rather than into it. I thought of the author rather than the book I read.</p>
<p>^ ignatius, I missed that second page, too! I guess because the final sentence on the first page seemed so…final. I liked the reviewer’s ending comments about the universe being implacable, a grand “conspiracy” between order, logic and intention that we will never fully understand.</p>