ŷ������

Beverly also was the only one to be trusted in the group with the responsibility of killing IT with her steady aiming skills. She also stands up to her abuser and is smart and tough so...you're seemingly wanting this book to be sexist. If you don't understand the sexual scene then so be it but that wasn't her only contribution to the group or the book.

Shauna wrote: "Beverly also was the only one to be trusted in the group with the responsibility of killing IT with her steady aiming skills. She also stands up to her abuser and is smart and tough so...you're see..."

I understand the sexual scene just fine, thank you. It was intended as a moment where the kids grow into adulthood and cement their bond with each other. I get that. I think the scene as written is gross and unnecessary. Why should children have sex with each other to become adults? Isn't fighting an unspeakable force of evil, especially when they're the only ones out of all the adults and other kids in town who have the power to do so, enough to make them lose their innocence? Why isn't the bond of friendship cemented when they cut their hands with the coke bottle and take a blood oath? Why is cum more potent than blood in creating bonds? I'm saying that sexualizing an ELEVEN YEAR OLD girl is wrong and shouldn't be done, considering our culture's weird obsession with infantilizing women and pressuring them to be sexual beings before they even get their period. Society places the highest priority on a woman being sexually and romantically attractive to men. It also places way too much importance on sexual and romantic relationships in general, so that even a story that is about friendship at its core also needs to have some sex in it, because that's what is supposed to be the most transformative and important part of adolescence.

I would LOVE it if this book weren't sexist. But it is. Think of all of the movies you've seen about a group of boys and then there's a token girl, who is also one of the boys' love interests, because god forbid she exists on her own terms. It gets old. Each of the boys had different primary character traits, but the thing that was most notable about Beverly, the thing that was brought up in every single scene, was not how tough and smart she was, and how admirable it was that she was those things, but how pretty she was, and how she made the boys feel weird things. What the narrative considered most important was how she made the boys feel. By constantly mentioning her in relation to how the boys feel about her, it's making it so that she's not important for who she is, she's important because of her relationships with the men in her life. Can't she just be a kid like the rest of the boys, and not have to be someone they project their fantasies on? It wasn't enough for her to be brave or good with a slingshot (though, not good enough, you'll notice), because what really mattered, what she contributed at the climactic point in the story, was doing the emotional work of cementing the group together. Using her vagina. Naturally. Because that's the most important part of a woman, that's what really sets her apart from the others in the group, and why should her big scene have something to do with anything related to her interests as a person (like Stan and his birds, or Richie and his voices) when it could be tied physically to her body, which is, after all, the most valuable part of a woman's existence? Beverly wasn't just a character, she was a GIRL, and if she didn't have GIRL parts then the story didn't work.

That's what's sexist.

This is so exaggerated and dramatic, but okay if you didn't enjoy the book.

Agus RM wrote: "This is so exaggerated and dramatic, but okay if you didn't enjoy the book."

I didn't ask.

Agus RM wrote: "This is so exaggerated and dramatic, but okay if you didn't enjoy the book."

Well, I was just pointing out. I was just about to explain the truth about Beverly on this book, but someone has already told you. If you really found out a supposed "sexist" plot twist on this novel, okay. I have already seen a worst and more dramatic and more exaggerated conclussion on this book, and I have already answered to it and they just got their profile private. So I won't argue about anything.

Agus RM wrote: "Agus RM wrote: "This is so exaggerated and dramatic, but okay if you didn't enjoy the book."

Well, I was just pointing out. I was just about to explain the truth about Beverly on this book, but so..."

Don't tell me how to interpret a text. Next time you see something you don't agree with, just keep scrolling, buddy. It costs you nothing to ignore it and move on with your life instead of forcing me to see and respond to your unsolicited opinion.

Valerie wrote: "Agus RM wrote: "Agus RM wrote: "This is so exaggerated and dramatic, but okay if you didn't enjoy the book."

Well, I was just pointing out. I was just about to explain the truth about Beverly on t..."

I wasn't going to force you to like this, but I'm not interested on arguing 'bout this book. Goodbye

I really like Beverly in the new movie. Way better!

Eve wrote: "I wouldn't call someone who gets off on writing about paedophilia a cool dude."

I don't think it's fair to say he gets off on writing about pedophilia. He's certainly not saying it's OK for adults to fuck children. The sexualization of Beverly as a child is more of an adolescent male fantasy, like, Gee, wouldn't it have been cool if I'd gotten lucky with the pretty girl back then?, rather than one with the power dynamics of pedophilia. It's still gross and inappropriate for an 11 year old girl to fuck all of her friends in some weird sort of bonding ritual, but the pedophilia dynamic is only there in a voyeuristic sense, if the adult reader brings that sense of titillation to the text.

Eve wrote: "I agree with you, but I think the intention behind writing the scene WAS to create titillation in a voyeuristic sense. Those kids could have bonded in any other way, but he chose to write about chi..."

I think he was ultimately going for shock value, but I can't really defend the scene and his and his editor's judgment in including it. It completely ruined the book for me.

Eve wrote: "Yeah, you might be right. I hope so. And I don't blame you, I think he's so overrated. Sorry for my abrasive comment, I enjoyed your review."

Not at all! Thanks for chatting with me!

Having sex with people is the best way to remember things. “Where are my keys?...Oh yes, I had sex when I set them down in the kitchen.�� It’s very bizarre.

This is all true. Stephen King has said himself several things, including the sexual acts, would not happen in the same story if he wrote the book now. And, while not an excuse, he was a heavy user of cocaine in the years around the time this book's original creation.

Rachel “Koala�� wrote: "This is all true. Stephen King has said himself several things, including the sexual acts, would not happen in the same story if he wrote the book now. And, while not an excuse, he was a heavy user..."

This is good to know! Thank you for the update!

[ This could have been 300 pages and we wouldn't have lost anything. I'm so angry.]
I know the feeling

omg your edit is the best thing I've seen on ŷ������!!!

Lorin wrote: "omg your edit is the best thing I've seen on ŷ������!!!"

Sometimes you've got to take matters into your own hands.

Valerie, please, please send me your edited version!!!!

Ana wrote: "Valerie, please, please send me your edited version!!!!"

DM me an email address and you've got it.

It’s true about the drug use. He doesn’t even remember writing Cujo.

I really don’t see how this book could have been 300 pages 😂😂

Matthew wrote: "I really don’t see how this book could have been 300 pages 😂😂"

It could be 300 pages if the editor had cut 700 pages of boring shit that doesn't do anything for the plot or character development. I hope this helps.

omg can you drop your edited version?

Molly wrote: "omg can you drop your edited version?"

DM me your email address and you've got it

I would love to read your edited version!

Emily-Jane wrote: "I would love to read your edited version!"

DM your email address and I'll send it!

Oh my goodness, thank you for your review and your amazing comments! You've said everything I was thinking. I've just finished the run-a-train on an 11yr old girl scene, and I am so angry I wasted so much time reading this. I know SK often has some sexism towards women in his books plus awkward sexual descriptions, but this was ridiculous and disgusting. How did it make it past the editor?! Maybe the editor themselves just never made it to the end of this long drawn out monster, and that's why the scene stayed.🤷🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️I'm rating this book 1star, & I think that's it on any more SK reading. I've read a few, but, I think, no, after this.

Did you removed all the horrid things in the edited version? If so, could you please send it to me if you still have it!?

so_big_hope wrote: "Did you removed all the horrid things in the edited version? If so, could you please send it to me if you still have it!?"

Oh, sorry, I missed this. Yeah, I deleted most of the horrid things, at least the horrid things that didn't work for the narrative (obviously there's still upsetting stuff in here, it is a horror novel). Bev's husband and Audra are gone after their first scenes, they didn't add anything by being in Derry, so that stupid bike cure is gone. The child orgy is gone. A lot of the references to old media that King liked that are just kinda randomly inserted into the internal monologues are gone. A lot of the extra description of Derry is gone. I've tightened up quite a lot of the paragraphs to remove repetition.

DM your email address and I'll send it along.

Right??? To take a child, make her a victim of sexual assault and then her final peak moment is to have all the boys fuck her in the sewers. . . really???? That is how you empower her Stephen King? I don't think I've ever read such a let down.

If you're still sending this out, I would love to read your edited version! Most of my complaints of the book were exactly what you said

The point of that scene was that sex is the transition into adulthood. These children have just defeated a magic demon clown, and they can’t stay children after this. So they have sex, because they are afraid, and because they are pushed to do so by a force older than time itself�� the turtle

Hello, can you send a copy to me on this email [email protected] please

Hi, Valerie, I just have a few things to say about this review. First, why are you cursing so much. That's extremely violent and inappropriate; there are children on this website. Second, the turtle is symbolism. The turtle symbolizes balance, order, and good. Also, the "bonding scene" isn't sexist. It symbolizes their lose of innocence in their battle with IT.

That was shocking

@jordan I cannot believe you are complaining about the swearing of this review �� because there are kids on this website�� when the whole point of the review was basically saying how this content should never be associated with children in a story, where they literally have an orgy. I’m currently reading the book and love it, haven’t gotten up to that part yet but I’m still sure there are a billion different ways to symbolise their loss of innocence ��

Carleigh wrote: "If you're still sending this out, I would love to read your edited version! Most of my complaints of the book were exactly what you said"

DM your email address and you've got it!

Jordan wrote: "Hi, Valerie, I just have a few things to say about this review. First, why are you cursing so much. That's extremely violent and inappropriate; there are children on this website. Second, the turtl..."

Listen up, Annie Wilkes. I will swear as much as I want, nay, even as much as Stephen King swears, and you're going to have to deal with it.

Dante wrote: "The point of that scene was that sex is the transition into adulthood. These children have just defeated a magic demon clown, and they can’t stay children after this. So they have sex, because they..."

I know what the point of the sex scene is. It's inappropriate, especially in the context of the larger American culture of treating women as sex objects first, people second. I would argue that fighting a demon clown is more of a loss of innocence than having sex. Hell, even finding out that magic is real and that none of the adults in your life have the intention or power to do anything to save the lives of the most vulnerable people in town is a big enough loss of innocence.

Second, the Turtle thing is stupid, and the way they obtain this knowledge through an imitation of a Native religious ritual is racially insensitive at best. There's no other indication in the text of what kind of belief system the Turtle comes from or where they could have learned about him, and the equivalent of psychic visions or God speaking to the children is a cheap and lazy literary device.

Third, as I said before, there are other ways of cementing a bond to grow into adulthood than having prepubescent children fuck nasty in a sewer. The blood sharing ritual oath with the Coke bottle comes to mind. Drinking from a loving cup is an example of an old custom of fellowship and agreement. A bonfire or burning an effigy is another one. Sex is not more important than friendship and is not a marker of maturity; its use in literature is shorthand for maturity and loss of innocence and a number of other things, but IRL it's only as big a deal as the person having it makes it. It can be meaningless or it can be special, but it's not a symbol for anything. Its symbolic use here is sexist and gross. King's portrayal of Bev's sexual relationship with her abusive husband is also sexist and gross. There's a large body of literary and feminist criticism out there that will explain why to you, I'm not gonna sit here and do it, but I recommend reading a bit more widely so you can see where I'm coming from.

Yes!! Could not agree more!!

You hated the book �� and then took time to edit all 1200 pages into something you liked better??!

You described e a exactly my feelings and thoughts about this book.