11/22/63, The Rest of the Story

No, I'm really not going to spoil the ending of Stephen King's latest bestseller, 11/22/63. But I will complete some thoughts about the book that didn't make it into Monday's review.

First, thought... If you dislike the word "obdurate" then do not read this book. Being a one thousand page book, you will have read this word between fifty and two hundred times by the time it's over. (Can someone get me a count on this?) Your brain will be bruised if you try to resist it. This word is out to get you.

As you already know, the novel is about a teacher and writer who goes back in time to change the past. But, as Stephen King reminds us over and over, "The past is obdurate and protects itself against change." In other words, King has personified "the past" so that it actually feels like it has a mind, volition and power to interfere with you if you mess with it. If you accept the premise of a character who goes back in time, you will have to give King credit for making the obdurate past one of the characters in his story.

Preventing the JFK assassination is our hero's quest. Jake Epping, who assumes the identity of George Amberson of 1958, actually has a two-step mission. Before interfering with Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination (his second objective), he must determine whether Oswald acted alone, or was actually indeed "the patsy" in a bigger plot.

We all know that King made his name by creating frightening nightmare tales and scenarios. Therefore, it would be out of character for King to make a straight story about a guy who tries to stop Lee Harvey Oswald. By necessity a King story almost requires a sinister element like the living past who is determined to thwart the hero's objectives.

JFK plays a relatively minor role in 11/22/63. That is, Kennedy's actions which get covered in the news serve as mile markers along the way toward his date with destiny. Instead, Lee Harvey Oswald's life and times are fleshed out to a degree that most people have forgotten. That he was a former marine, that he defected to the Soviet Union for a couple years, that he was initially arrested for shooting a police officer, J.D. Tippet, about 40 minutes after JFK was shot, that he had a stormy relationship with his wife Marina who was fluent in Russian, that he spent time in New Orleans handing out "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets during the months preceding the assassination... these details and much more are fleshed out as Jake/George eavesdrops on his target's life.

Most of us forget, too, that Oswald was investigated for making an attempt earlier that year on General Edwin Walker's life with the same rifle he used to shoot the president. General Walker was a segregationist, anti-communist and right-wing extremist member of the John Birch Society. (Remember them?) Before the Kennedy assassination the Dallas police didn't have any suspects in the attempt on Walker's life. King brings all these characters back into focus to help recreate the past which is not only obdurate but often obliterating, that is, leaving many of its details obscured with fog.

There is a technique that writers use to help strengthen the bond between readers and characters. That technique is pain. That is, when a character, especially your hero, goes through pain the reader develops an increased empathy. Assuming we care at all about the characters, we cringe and we want to comfort them when they get hurt. So it is that King uses this tool to keep us in the game later in the book, for both Jake/George and his heart throb Sadie experience suffering in this story. (We writers can be so mean!) And though the suffering may just be a natural outcome of the characters' choices earlier in time, we readers know it is the inhuman past trying again to thwart our heroes from accomplishing their aims.

Whereas this book deals with a significant moment in history, I'm not sure it can be called an "important book" with regard to the event it revolves around. It's fiction, it's fun and it's written "for profit." Nevertheless, for those who care, King has set the stage for those who desire to see a more vivid re-creation of the times we or our parents once lived in. It's more than suitable as an informative form of escapist entertainment.

Right up to the end you'll be guessing what happens next. That's just how it is...

Photo captions: Images from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1963. Bottom right, the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby. Click images to enlarge.

Postmodernism

I had a boss once who told me “Stop and smell the roses.” Evidently I was working too hard. I had always thought working hard was a virtue. Guess in our postmodern world it’s better to be hardly working.

Has anyone noticed this new word that crept into our vocabulary in recent years? Post-modernism.

Based on my research and reading, here are the basic tenets of Postmodernism as a philosophy: Certainty is bad. Confidence is wrong. Progress is a myth. History is NOT going anywhere. (Kind of like my comedy career.)

According to academics, it is dishonest to be certain. Reason does not add up. How do we know 2 + 2 isn’t five? How can you be so sure?

How do I know my fly is down? I don’t know. Is it really down? What is down? Maybe down is up? What if the top of the world is really the bottom?

Doubt is the central pillar of our contemporary belief system. Did we really land on the moon or was that a massive media manipulation?

Did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone or was there a massive conspiracy involving 194 million Americans, excluding Jackie, Caroline and John-John?

Did the Twin Towers in New York collapse or was this a brilliant plan designed to draw attention to President Bush’s involvement in the Florida public education system?

I have friends in New York who tell me the Towers are still there. The whole thing was done with mirrors to create the illusion of a disaster.

Yes there are still some things we can be sure of…. but I can’t think of any off the top of my head. Am I really standing here at the Fillmore? It just doesn’t seem real.

Five People, Five Questions (Round Two)

CONTINUED FROM YESTERDAY

The question again: If it were possible to have discussions with five people from history (past or present) … who would you want to talk to and what question would you like to ask them?

R.M. from Oregon
Selecting only 5 people is more difficult that it first appears, but here goes (an obvious disclaimer--Jesus is first on my list even though He is not listed below; my general sense is that when I am actually physically in His presence I will be soaking up everything without saying too much):

Adam, the first man: Why didn't you immediately seek God and ask his forgiveness after sinning instead of hiding and lying? How much different are you and I really?

Winfield Scott McGregor (my grandfather who was dead before my parents married): No specific questions, I just want to know him.

Saint Patrick: How/Why did you decide to return to Ireland to evangelize the people who once held you as a slave?

Isaac Newton: Why did you waste so much time on science and mathematics when you could have spent more of your time studying scripture and writing biblical commentaries?

St. Paul: Can you make me understand Romans? Is Romans 7 autobiographical after you were saved? Did you write Hebrews?

One thing smacks me in the face as I selected the people and the questions--we all have life, the human situation, in common with everyone who ever lived regardless of when we live. The questions we must ask ourselves are: What would we do in their shoes in their times? Would we avoid their failures? Would we have the courage and perseverance to do the right thing when they acted righteously? Do we hold them to a higher standard of accountability than we do for ourselves?

B.L from Duluth area

That is a very interesting thought - five people. Right away I think of Martha (from Mary and Martha) She was a servant - and I want to be one too. I read a quote awhile ago that stuck "Lord, give me the balance between Mary's heart and Martha's hands"

M.P. from Duluth

I'm not sure if I'll be able to come up with 5 questions of 5 people but I do have two now:

1. I would like to ask Dwight Eisenhower why they didn't put machine guns, grenade launchers and flamethrowers on the amphibious landing craft used at Normandy on D-Day and use them on the Germans before they dropped the ramps and exposed our soldiers to enemy machine gun fire.

2. On a more trivial note, I would like to ask Lee Harvey Oswald if he acted alone and if not, who else does he believe is responsible for the assassination of JFK.

J.P., a writer from Minneapolis

Gandhi
To what do you attribute your courage to stand up as one man to an oppressive régime?

Lincoln
As someone who suffered from depression, what kept you determined in your depressed moments (and doubts?) to do right for the most good?

Aristotle
How would you instruct or encourage a person with good (not great) intelligence to understand and gain your genius for insight and analysis?

JK Rowling
As the best-selling author in history, how would you describe the creative process (and luck? good fortune? God-given gift?) of inventing Harry Potter and the fantasy world of other characters he inhabited?

Hitler / Stalin
Looking back on your legacy, was it all worth it? Would you do the same all over again? With the same zeal, could you and would you have made the world better rather than worse?

Pauline Reage / Anne Rice
Was your novel Story of O based on personal experience (autobiographical) or dreamed up (imaginative erotic fantasy)? Both?

The same or similar for Anne Rice who wrote Exit to Eden and the Sleeping Beauty trilogy. While these works are clearly imaginative erotic fantasies, where within yourself did you find such devilish ideas and take them so far? And did you ever worry about what judgments readers would have of you as a person vs. as a novelist?

And maybe we'll leave the rest for another day. Till then...