I’m a big fan of Stephen Kings work. He’s deserving of respect as a writer and story teller. Your explanation is reasonable and true in the context of the story.
There is just no way to talk about, write about, discuss, etc, stuff like that, without the air in the room not going still as fuck. All of what you say is true, it’s still… off.
And that book was just a bit too long, but again, great book, great writer, questionable AS FUCK portion.
There is just no way to talk about, write about, discuss, etc, stuff like that, without the air in the room not going still as fuck.
I don’t think that’s true at all. I think there are a lot of people out there who could discuss it, but that requires a significant degree of emotional maturity and there are too many people who can’t step back and be open to discussing topics which make them uncomfortable.
Mate, where are you going with this? Aldous Huxely erotic play for children? I think you’re missing the point. It’s not a discussion because the fallacy purported by the writer was to give 12 year olds emotions, desires, and mental processes that they simply have not yet developed. Beverly, the twelve year old girl, wouldn’t think to have sex with her friends to comfort them. Full stop. That’s the writer putting these emotions where they simply wouldn’t exist.
And.
Creepy.
It’s not maturity. Maturity is knowing that twelve year olds don’t reason that way.
Ummm was your childhood stunted or something? 12yos absolutely can be capable of complex emotional intelligence and reasoning. Hell, for most of humanity “childhood” wasn’t even a concept and an adult was anyone over 13.
And don’t get me wrong, that we can gift our young the idea of “childhood” is simply one of the greatest achievements of the modern world, so I’m not out here trying to say kids should be considered adults again, but I think you are vastly underestimating the capability of children. Especially children who are trauma survivors and haven’t had the benefit of the slow progress of childhood gifted to them.
Well, she would, because she’s a child sexual abuse survivor and it’s a hypersexualization thing and a result of how she’s been told things work by the adults taking advantage of her.
Still fucked up to type that out and not have some editor say “Are you doing okay, Stevie?”
And don’t pretend this is only fucked up sexual thing he’s written about children.
This is a very well-made point which does make a very good case for her actions fitting with her backstory.
However, a) it really only works as a post-hoc rationalisation for the scene, rather than an explantation for why the book is better with it, and b) speaking about consistency and foreplanning is somewhat undermined by the climax of the book being “…actually, it’s a…giant alien spider!”
As a writer, I disagree. Writers often write thinking from the perspective of their characters. If something makes sense from the character’s perspective, they’ll write it. It’s not an endorsement by the writer, it just makes for a natural and believable progression and that’s why the book is better for it.
I can bet you King never decided that he should include such a scene because it would make the book better. He did it because he was writing from her perspective, and it popped into his mind as something that made sense for her to do.
It’s not a fantasy, not an endorsement, and not a post-rationalisation either. And knowing his writing style, upon reflection he probably felt it belonged for shock value alone. Writers do have a knack for pushing boundaries, and he’s certainly got a taste of it.
Oh, trust me, I’ve had the “right, I need you to do x for the plot”, “well, I wouldn’t do that so I’m not going to” conversation with characters I’m writing.
But, let’s give King the benefit of the doubt and say that that’s how and why he came up with the idea…that’s a reason to have Beverly suggest it. Not a reason to have it actually happen.
Also, if “relating to people sexually” was a consistent character trait of hers, I don’t remember it actually coming up in the novel before that point. It’s been a long time since I read it and maybe she does proposition people often and inappropriately, but I remember thinking that the orgy came somewhat out of the blue, and I’d have thought that if it was the natural conclusion of a theme woven carefully through the narrative more people would bring that up as a defence whenever this topic comes up.
You know the story isn’t real, and any “explanation” that makes it seem logical is purely designed by the author, right? She didn’t survive anything. King made up a story about a sexual assault survivor and wrote this into it. He could have chosen literally anything else.
There are plenty of people who are abused at a young age that come to associate sex with giving comfort or thinking its the only way they can help others.
There’s also choosing to put that into a book. Choosing to put that in a story. Thinking about the psychology of a sexually abused child and thinking “this would go well into my book.”
Sure. People can have a mature discussion about real life events. But when you make fantasy stories about children having sex that’s a fantasy.
You’re making a fantasy. You’re writing characters In a fantasy world and having them do this very inappropriate thing. And what makes it weirder is that the writer isn’t a child, he’s an old man. It’s creepy.
And isn’t that supposed to be the not creepy part of the book?
I’m a big fan of Stephen Kings work. He’s deserving of respect as a writer and story teller. Your explanation is reasonable and true in the context of the story.
There is just no way to talk about, write about, discuss, etc, stuff like that, without the air in the room not going still as fuck. All of what you say is true, it’s still… off.
And that book was just a bit too long, but again, great book, great writer, questionable AS FUCK portion.
I don’t think that’s true at all. I think there are a lot of people out there who could discuss it, but that requires a significant degree of emotional maturity and there are too many people who can’t step back and be open to discussing topics which make them uncomfortable.
Mate, where are you going with this? Aldous Huxely erotic play for children? I think you’re missing the point. It’s not a discussion because the fallacy purported by the writer was to give 12 year olds emotions, desires, and mental processes that they simply have not yet developed. Beverly, the twelve year old girl, wouldn’t think to have sex with her friends to comfort them. Full stop. That’s the writer putting these emotions where they simply wouldn’t exist. And. Creepy.
It’s not maturity. Maturity is knowing that twelve year olds don’t reason that way.
Ummm was your childhood stunted or something? 12yos absolutely can be capable of complex emotional intelligence and reasoning. Hell, for most of humanity “childhood” wasn’t even a concept and an adult was anyone over 13.
And don’t get me wrong, that we can gift our young the idea of “childhood” is simply one of the greatest achievements of the modern world, so I’m not out here trying to say kids should be considered adults again, but I think you are vastly underestimating the capability of children. Especially children who are trauma survivors and haven’t had the benefit of the slow progress of childhood gifted to them.
Well, she would, because she’s a child sexual abuse survivor and it’s a hypersexualization thing and a result of how she’s been told things work by the adults taking advantage of her.
Still fucked up to type that out and not have some editor say “Are you doing okay, Stevie?”
And don’t pretend this is only fucked up sexual thing he’s written about children.
This is a very well-made point which does make a very good case for her actions fitting with her backstory.
However, a) it really only works as a post-hoc rationalisation for the scene, rather than an explantation for why the book is better with it, and b) speaking about consistency and foreplanning is somewhat undermined by the climax of the book being “…actually, it’s a…giant alien spider!”
As a writer, I disagree. Writers often write thinking from the perspective of their characters. If something makes sense from the character’s perspective, they’ll write it. It’s not an endorsement by the writer, it just makes for a natural and believable progression and that’s why the book is better for it.
I can bet you King never decided that he should include such a scene because it would make the book better. He did it because he was writing from her perspective, and it popped into his mind as something that made sense for her to do.
It’s not a fantasy, not an endorsement, and not a post-rationalisation either. And knowing his writing style, upon reflection he probably felt it belonged for shock value alone. Writers do have a knack for pushing boundaries, and he’s certainly got a taste of it.
Oh, trust me, I’ve had the “right, I need you to do x for the plot”, “well, I wouldn’t do that so I’m not going to” conversation with characters I’m writing.
But, let’s give King the benefit of the doubt and say that that’s how and why he came up with the idea…that’s a reason to have Beverly suggest it. Not a reason to have it actually happen.
Also, if “relating to people sexually” was a consistent character trait of hers, I don’t remember it actually coming up in the novel before that point. It’s been a long time since I read it and maybe she does proposition people often and inappropriately, but I remember thinking that the orgy came somewhat out of the blue, and I’d have thought that if it was the natural conclusion of a theme woven carefully through the narrative more people would bring that up as a defence whenever this topic comes up.
You know the story isn’t real, and any “explanation” that makes it seem logical is purely designed by the author, right? She didn’t survive anything. King made up a story about a sexual assault survivor and wrote this into it. He could have chosen literally anything else.
Sure, he was being a weird freak of an author and not for the last time.
Doesn’t mean it’s not outright silly to complain that a child SA survivor has a broken view of sexual norms and what adulthood is.
That’s not what people are complaining about. They’re complaining about the author wanting to write about that.
It is literally what the comment I responded to was complaining about.
There are plenty of people who are abused at a young age that come to associate sex with giving comfort or thinking its the only way they can help others.
Sure.
There’s also choosing to put that into a book. Choosing to put that in a story. Thinking about the psychology of a sexually abused child and thinking “this would go well into my book.”
i definitely knew about sex by 12
Same? Like does no one remember being 12, or did they just block it out?
Sure. People can have a mature discussion about real life events. But when you make fantasy stories about children having sex that’s a fantasy.
You’re making a fantasy. You’re writing characters In a fantasy world and having them do this very inappropriate thing. And what makes it weirder is that the writer isn’t a child, he’s an old man. It’s creepy.
And isn’t that supposed to be the not creepy part of the book?
cocaine
Ya know, people keep saying this, but I’ve tried coke before, and preteen sex didn’t cross my mind once during it.
The people saying it have probably never seen an illegal drug before much less party time Adderall
I agree, coke makes you an annoying motormouth with no filter. If kiddie shit is what comes out then that’s just what was inside to begin with.
We’re you writing a book about pre-teens being lured by a murderous clown when you did cocaine? No, I didn’t think so!