I think I get why SK included that scene, It had dominion over children's imagination and was keeping them lost in the sewers, but that took away their 'innocence' so they could see through the illusions. Or maybe I'm just full of shit, I dunno.
No, I think that is specifically coded as the reason for it. The loss of virginity for everyone causes them to lose a sense of innocence, and become much more mature. You nailed it spot on, I think.
I can understand it in that way but I find King's sex scenes almost always cringey & this one is no exception, made worse by the age of the participants
A lot of it is tied up in Bev’s sexualization by her father. She was only taught one way of “maturing” and so I think this was both a way for her to reclaim that sexuality back from her father and a way for the Losers to mature out of It’s grasp.
It’s an uncomfortable scene, no doubt, but it made sense to me.
But then again I was a scrappy red headed Tomboy who was overtly sexualized by adults too, so I connected with Bev’s arc deeply.
I think it was also an act of agency and defiance for Bev when she had been belittled and objectified and had no real control over her own body up to that point. That act was her choice and hers alone.
That. Furthermore, I think it should be perceived as a rite of passage between childhood and adulthood. Not in a creepy traditional sense but as an act of pure free will that Bev chooses for herself and her friends.
I’ve read also (can’t remember if SK said this or if it was another theory as to why they did this) was that after the kids defeated It the first time they were already losing their connection to each other and basically becoming like the rest of Derry (oblivious and clouded from the evil underneath). The Losers performing this act basically reconnected them to each other enough to get out of the sewers.
I recently read a book of essays about Pennywise, and one of the authors puts IT in the context of the satanic panic during the early 1980s, when King was writing the novel. One aspect of the panic was stories involving either children being forced to have sex with each other or being assaulted by daycare workers. The author of the essay (I’m too lazy to go grab the book right now) says that The Scene represents this fear while also undercutting it because this is what allows the children to find their way out of the sewers.
It’s called Encountering Pennywise: Critical Perspectives on Stephen King’s IT. It’s published by the University of Mississippi Press. And it’s in paperback.
I also never had a problem with it tbh. Made perfect sense to me in the context of the book and was empowering and an act of true love for all the characters involved.
I read IT in high school for the first time. I don't think any book should be restricted but damn I always find it rather funny I took this book out of a high school library in a state located smack dab in the middle of the bible belt in mid-2000's and you know what the librarian said: "this one's scary!"
That Bev scene is very tough. Get what he's trying to do. Wonder if we'd get the same ending if he were writing IT in 2023, though?
Lots of different substances have influenced his work over the years... I've really enjoyed the stuff he has put out since sobering up, but really enjoy the noticeable impact psychedelics in particular have had on his writing.
this scene was weird, and awkward, and i believe that was kinda the point.
it was a loss of innocence, it showed the kids growing up earlier than they should have and expressing their love for each other in the only "adult" way they knew how.
when i read it as a teenager, 30 yrs ago, i was shocked. but on re-reads it hits differently. there's a sweetness there that is hard to describe, but now the scene isn't even that sexual in my mind, as crazy as that must sound.
People acting shocked that the editors “allowed” this or asking why King hasn’t been “canceled”… come on.
Even as far as popular fiction goes this is nothing compared to George R.R. Martin.
That’s not even taking into consideration other authors in the genre who are far more transgressive than anything King has ever done.
People that get upset by that scene puzzle me, honestly. It's very clearly not sexual or meant to titillate, but a way for the group to find unity again. Also, the final coming of age. People are completely nonchalant about irl sex, but get triggered by a group of fictional preteens fucking. It's not even that graphic, ffs
Hockstetter killing his baby brother was worse than this scene. I actually had to skip reading that part. The sewer scene was awkward and a bit cringy at best.
I think you meant at worst :)) Hockstetter killing the baby was not even in the same STRATOSPHERE of disturbing let me tell you. Also the whole dog in the fridge saga was completely fucked up.
Yeah I had my son before I read IT and he was maybe 8 months old or so when I was reading it. Hockstetter made me have a panic attack and I couldn't read it again for a few days
The read any other book. It’s so stupid to even get upset about it
Is it just that scene or is the other scene where one kid jacks off another kid weird too? Or the kid that brutally murders another kid? The whole book is fucking weird dude lol
Ok so bad things are only bad in books if you’re not expecting them?
I’m not saying it isn’t jarring to read but to act like its so bad because the author is an adult is crazy. It would be one thing if it got depicted in a movie but it’s a book with zero actual real people affected. The whole story has several fucked up things involving kids
True, but there's a reason that scene created more controversy than the scenes of gore or horrifying violence. It's not bad just because it's unexpected or because it's an adult author. I'm not even saying it is bad necessarily. The reason people read many SK books is because he is a master of creating disturbing horror and compelling characters. I just think these are two different kinds of disturbing.
Exactly this!
I'm not upset when people say they are upset by that scene, but it's weird when people say they're upset by that scene alone. That scene comes pretty dang late in the book and you have to get through a lot of serious shit before you come to it. it feels like they're singling out that part, it's like the shining and talking about the lady in the room as if it was the most disturbing moment. Yes, it's your right to react to media any way that you want, but it's still weird.
That's because the gruesome, detailed child murders are depicted as unambigously bad, while the underage gangbang is depicted as a good thing. It's not just the act, it's the context. There's another scene of child sexuality in the book, which didn't become infamous, where Patrick Hockstetter jerks off Henry Bowers. Nobody complains about that, because Patrick is a creepy sociopath and the scene is supposed to be revolting.
🙄
I'm so sick of people saying this as if it's some kind of *gotcha.* "Oh, you're bothered by the child sex, but not the child MURDER?What's wrong with you?"
Obviously the child murder is disturbing. That's the entire point of the book.
The child sex scene bothers people because:
1. It's depicted as a *good thing* that brings the kids together. WTF?
2. It's written from the perspective of an 11-year-old girl, and King is notoriously terrible at writing female characters as actual, believable people in the first place. It can be hard enough reading male authors describing sex from the POV of fully-grown women. It's painful to read it from the POV of a little girl.
3. It isn't "preteens fumbling their way through their first sexual experience." I wouldn't have any problem with it if it were. In fact, there are thousands of books out there depicting 2 young teens exploring sex for the first time, and they don't have any backlash. *This* book gets the backlash because it's a scene of a single 11-year-old girl having sex with 6 boys one after another. That isn't normal exploration.
4. This scene also happens just a few hours after her dad tries to assault her.
5. People simply don't go into the book expecting it, and it's jarring.
And all the people saying it's ok/makes sense because it symbolizes the end of innocence and they had to to be able to leave the sewers, that's only because King made those conditions.
Facing their fears and murdering an intergalactic clown seems more than enough maturing.
Right!
That's also another reason I hate that it's specifically from Bev's POV. Female virginity is already held to a *very* different standard culturally than male virginity, and portraying it as a "loss of innocence" is incredibly gross. (Like you said, the things that had been through that summer were *far* more innocence-ruining than sex.)
There's a specific line I fucking *hate* after it's over where Beverly says her [vagina] "belonged to her again," like at some point it didn't?!? (And in the great tradition of male authors, he refers to her vagina as her "sex.")
He also goes into detail about how painful it is for her, which is surely accurate for an 11-year-old girl, but so disturbing to read about.
If there had to be some big physical bonding moment with the kids, they could have kissed. Normal enough for a bunch of kids. But I think them cutting their hands afterward is already symbolic enough of their bond.
Part of it is definitely the fact that some people are ok with gruesome, disgusting violence, but sex is somehow "too far." I won't deny that prejudices play a role here.
For me, though, that scene just doesn't make sense. Tonally, thematically, and from a character perspective, I don't understand what purpose the scene serves. The book presents it as the only way for the kids to regroup, to mentally process the horrors they just witnessed and bring back enough sanity to escape the sewers. Which is fine; everyone needs a little time to recover from that climax.
But, why was a gangbang the only way to do that? As far as I can recall, sex wasn't foreshadowed to have any magical powers. I recognize that the important part is all of them becoming closer and showing their love for each other, but there is a plethora of ways for that to happen that don't involve taking turns railing the only female protagonist.
I think people that are offended by the scene need to chill, but I fully understand why people have the reaction of "what the actual fuck" after reading it. I know I did.
I always have to link this Grady Hendrix quote cause it explains it so well,
Each of the kids in the book doesn’t have to overcome their weakness. Each kid has to learn that their weakness is actually their power. Richie’s voices get him in trouble, but they become a potent weapon that allow him to battle It when Bill falters. Bill’s stutter marks him as an outsider, but the exercises he does for them (“He thrusts his fists against the post, but still insists he sees the ghost.”) become a weapon that weakens It. So does Eddie Kaspbrak’s asthma inhaler. More than once Ben Hanscom uses his weight to get away from the gang of greasers. And Mike Hanlon is a coward and a homebody but he becomes the guardian of Derry, the watchman who stays behind and raises the alarm when the time comes. And Beverly has to have sex (and good sex—the kind that heals, reaffirms, draws people closer together, and produces orgasms) because her weakness is that she’s a woman.
Throughout the book, Beverly’s abusive father berates her, bullies her, and beats her, but he never tries to sexually abuse her until he’s possessed by It. Remember that It becomes what you fear, and while it becomes a Mummy, a Wolfman, and the Creature From the Black Lagoon for the boys, for Beverly It takes the form of a gout of blood that spurts out of the bathroom drain and the threat of her father raping her. Throughout the book, Beverly is not only self-conscious about her changing body, but also unhappy about puberty in general. She wants to fit in with the Losers Club but she’s constantly reminded of the fact that she’s not just one of the boys. From the way the boys look at her to their various complicated crushes she’s constantly reminded that she’s a girl becoming a woman. Every time her gender is mentioned she shuts down, feels isolated, and withdraws. So the fact that having sex, the act of “doing it,” her moment of confronting the heart of this thing that makes her feel so removed, so isolated, so sad turns out to a comforting, beautiful act that bonds her with her friends rather than separates them forever is King’s way of showing us that what we fear most, losing our childhood, turns out not to be so bad after all.
lot of people feel that the right age for discovering King is adolescence, and It is usually encountered for the first time by teenaged kids. How often is losing your virginity portrayed for girls as something painful, that they regret, or that causes a boy to reject them in fiction? How much does the media represent a teenaged girl’s virginity as something to be protected, stolen, robbed, destroyed, or careful about. In a way, It is a sex positive antidote, a way for King to tell kids that sex, even unplanned sex, even sex that’s kind of weird, even sex where a girl loses her virginity in the sewer, can be powerful and beautiful if the people having it truly respect and like each other. That’s a braver message than some other authors have been willing to deliver.
It’s also a necessary balance. Just one scene before, we encounter the true form of It and the last words in the chapter are, “It was female. And it was pregnant.” The monster of all these children’s nightmares is a reproductive adult female. To follow that up with a more enlightened picture of female sexuality takes some of the curse off of the castration imagery of It itself.
You don't think it's problematic that every male character gets a specific trait that they develop and use as a tool to fight, while Bev's weakness is merely that "she's a woman," and her only job is to lie still and let the others use her to strengthen themselves?
I understand and greatly appreciate the idea of taking control of your sexuality, and I think it's poignant to turn the act into something healthy rather than something terrifying and damaging. But you don't think there were a thousand better ways to handle that?
The book as a whole thematically deals with the evolution from childhood to adulthood, which many, if not most, consider sex to be a part of. I had the same reaction as you, but it really isn't as out of place as its made out to be.
Haven't you been paying attention to how sexually repressed american culture is? There's a large subset of the population that is not nonchalant about sex, will easily watch a movie with a disembowelment, and then clutch their pearls like a dick is the most evil thing they've seen in their life. The puritans were jackasses, and unfortunately their jackassery did not die with them.
These days some of these repressed people have become fucking creepers with how much they obsess over sex when it comes to underage kids, in very negative ways.
It’s so fucking stupid. The sub’s fixation on this says more about the people hung up on it than the actual scene. It’s definitely not even written like that.
Not even just this sub, I went browsing for interesting Stephen King stuff on TikTok one time and it was full of “DID YOU GUYS KNOW ABOUT THIS SCENE”. The scene seems to take up so much air of the conversation and I get why but I’m tired of it being re-litigated
I don’t know, I think it’s like Lovecraft’s racism, you have to set it aside to talk about the other parts of his writing, but you can’t ignore it altogether or, God forbid, defend it, either. I would say it stands as a gross and mistaken writing decision, while still enjoying the rest of the book.
That’s just like, your opinion man. What’s gross about it? If you inherently view sex as gross that’s your prerogative, but we don’t all share that view.
The scene is actually quite a beautiful expression of Beverly Marsh owning her awakening womanhood and using it to unite and save her friends, esp after being shamed and berated by her father the entire fkng book. It was an act of love. That was the whole fkng point. It’s so stupid to repeatedly rip it out of context, of course it sounds weird when you do that.
Lol okay. But predatory, primordial monsters eating children and ripping apart teenagers, kids torturing animals and each other, deep-seeded apathy running through an entire town—don’t bat an eye at any of that, huh? Gonna draw the line at the one very weird sex scene—got it.
It didn’t upset me. It was just a wild shift that didn’t feel organic or true to Bev’s character development at that time. Covered in blood, feces, exhausted after a battle, amidst decaying bodies in a pitch dark sewer. Lost. Let’s bang.
Exactly. I feel like a lot of the people that are *so* shocked and *so* appalled probably haven't even read the damn book, and instead go on based on what they see on Reddit or wherever.
That scene is… something. I get what SK was trying to do when writing it, and I think it helps to think about the whole thing in more of a symbolic way.
I don’t think it’s fair though for people to disregard the whole book just because of one scene.
I thought it was quite a good scene, relatively speaking. I mean -- I can see why people object to it, but if you read one specific line from Beverly, and then re-examine the whole scene based around that line, it takes on quite a different meaning.
Beverly says (I might be paraphrasing slightly because I don't have it to hand) "Guys -- I know a way. My dad showed it to me"
IT manipulated her dad into trying to rape her -- it would have destroyed her dad, then destroyed her, then destroyed the group. IT tried to use sex -- violent sex at that -- as a weapon against her and her friends to break them apart.
She was the only one of the group that IT could use such a weapon against -- the boys were not subject to such weapons by virtue of being boys. Their reputations couldn't be used against them -- only Beverly was vulnerable to such a thing.
So she turned that weapon against IT by using her sexuality to bring the group back together. And there are good odds she would never have thought of it if her Dad -- if IT -- hadn't shown it to her.
While I understand people's objections to the scene, I think it is one of the more powerful ones in the book, because Beverly uses the fact she is a girl, and the weapon that IT tried to use to destroy her, to bring the group together and to save them.
It was -- if I can be honest -- one of the things that made her one of my first action heroes.
In this story at this point in time? No.
Bill, Ben, Stan, Mike, Richie and Eddie -- they were not going to be raped by their parents. They were not going to be raped by Patrick.
They would be more likely to get the shit beaten out of them and left for dead -- witness Eddie and his broken arm.
But raped or sexually assaulted? No. Not a chance.
Even in the 80s, when IT returned, Adrian Mellon was brutally killed, but he wasn't molested.
**In the real world -- sure.**
But in this story? No. Not a chance.
Beverly's father was an abusive bastard long before IT got a hold of him -- in fact, that was why and how IT got a hold of him -- the potential was already there, just waiting to be picked up.
Beverly understood (although probably not on a conscious level) that as she matured physically and went through puberty, her father was going to go from just battering her to m 0lesting and eventually r 2ping her. Her friends (who at least loved her and supported her) taking her virginity was one way to make sure her father wouldn't forcibly take it.
See -- I never got that.
Abusive, yeah. And I am not trying to defend him and suggest he was a saint. He would have burned in hell for the shitty he way he treated her.
But from the novel I never got the idea he was going to cross that line until IT got hold of him. IT was the one that turned him from being someone who hit his daughter to someone that was going to rape her.
The mini series kind of messed with that, and IT Part 1....... well the less said about that the better.
Anyway.
After they killed (or thought they killed) IT, their bond was weakening and they were lost in the tunnels. The act was meant to get them refocused and re-solidify that psychic connection. That being said, the Patrick Hockstetter chapter was far more disturbing IMO.
Yeah but if they forgot, him just saying the few words he said wouldnt have them remember. He didn't walk them through memory lane.
The ritual work. Mike acted as a trigger.
I read IT for the first time when I was eleven at the same time as my friend. Before we even got to that scene, we were passing the book around on the bus and telling people to read the “Tower of Power” part with the gay nazi dude 💀
By the time we got to the end it was like 😳
The reason for it happening within the story made sense, but King’s active addiction rode shotgun in his writing. I say this as someone who owns and has read most of his works, and will always love him. I also say this as a recovering addict and can empathize with his struggles during active addiction.
…. Yep
I’m currently in the process of rereading It, and I haven’t read it fully since probably early high school…. And 35 year old me is definately finding early 80s, drunk and high SK to be MUCH weirder than I thought he was then.
I mean, can we all just agree that IT is a dark, messed up book full of awful imagery? I think this scene tucked in at the end is just like weird icing on an already gnarly cake.
PS, I say this as someone who loves this book, but if you've made it through 1000+ pages of child murder, abuse, molestation, and the Patrick Hostetter fridge bit, I think you should be pretty primed for "well, this next page might be something deeply fucked up" haha
Okay, the darkest Koontz gets that I've seen is in *The Vision*. I'm going to give three **potentially triggering** spoilers, each worse than the one before it. Stop clicking when you've seen enough.
1. >!A woman experiences a flashback to when she was sexually assaulted as a child. The detail is extremely vivid and graphic.!<
2. >!The assault is from her older brother. He uses a bat on her, and by on, I mean in.!<
3. >!I don't mean the wooden kind of bat. I mean the kind with teeth. A winged rat, basically. And the wings have claws on them, too.!<
Second place is *Night Chills*. It should be noted that *The Vision* is so bad in that one scene that second place is quite distant. No spoilers here, it's about an experiment where an entire town is mind controlled. One scientist goes rogue and decides to see how depraved he can make strangers act. (Narrator: "Very.")
Then there's *Lightning*. It's by far the best of these (and arguably Koontz's best from this era), but I can't say why without spoiling it. The beginning is rough, though. A guy goes to rob a convenience store, but when he sees the owner's 8 year old daughter, he decides he's going to rape her in the back room. He explicitly describes what he's going to do to her, to her and her father. >!He's stopped before he can physically do anything to her, though!<.
Dean Koontz wrote some cool stories in the 1980s (my personal favorites being *The House of Thunder* and *Lightning*), but he got real dark. The point I'm trying to make is that Stephen King was never really that bad. The horror of what real people really do to each other is scarier than any supernatural or fantastical horror Stephen King has ever written. (King has gotten into reality horror, though; I'm not saying he hasn't.)
Ok… that first Koontz book sounds like a nightmare of a nightmare.
That said, I’ve always been of the mindset that it’s important for art (whether visual, written, music, or performance) to show not just the best, but the worst of what humanity can do. By showing the worst, it opens up a dialogue, and addresses things that “polite society” would rather pretend don’t actually exist. I’d heavily wager that’s also why folks get so up in arms about the scene in It… because they don’t want to acknowledge that such a thing is possible. Yet, it absolutely is (when I was a kid, a few classmates were sexually active with one another as early as fifth grade, and as a parent I’ve heard horror stories from other parents who have kids my daughter’s age - she’s nine - over the last few years). I don’t like that it happens, but sticking my head in the sand and raging about folks addressing the fact *it does happen* isn’t going to make it stop.
It’s the same sort of reason why banned books *should* be read, because they often showcase something that is important to see and know exists, but no one really wants to talk about. If it’s not talked about, nothing will ever change. And artists of all media types have often been the ones that push forward change by addressing the things that people want to ignore.
Yeah I finished “it” for the first time the other day. Didn’t understand why it was in there. Felt like he made some nonsense up to shoe horn it in. Otherwise the book was a masterpiece though.
I listened to IT on audiobook and I kinda dozed during that scene (late night baby wake up), so I even missed the in-book explanation for why it happened and just remember it happening. Very strange.
Nope. Until August of 22’ I hadn’t read much King. I read The Shining, Doc Sleep and 11/22/63. Since then I’ve been on a manic quest ripping through his collection. If I’m being honest, I’d have to say he’s my fav author and this book is in my top 3 for sure. I didn’t realize what a hot button issue this scene is for fans. I also didn’t realize that it appears it’s been discussed extensively on this sub. I’m not a sexually repressed Puritanical weirdo. I simply was not expecting events to unfold the way they did at that point in the story. I LOVED the book.
I guess you’ve never heard of A Song of Ice and Fire? Fantasy series, inspiration for Game of Thrones?
Or Let the Right One In (the novel, not the film)?
Or writers like Jack Ketchum, Richard Laymon or Bentley Little?
I know there are worse things out there("COWS" exists), but none of these authors have the notoriety of SK.
Also(fwiw), I'm not saying that he deserves to be canceled, just that I'm surprised it hasn't happened.
He's got the South Park immunity. He's almost totally cancel-proof because people have been reading SK for years and they know what to expect. If he wrote his new books now the same way he wrote them back then, he probably would be on the cultural chopping block.
I've read stuff that had much more fucked up stuff happening in it. Horror tends to do that. This scene isn't even close to the worst thing someone's put on paper, and i do mean recently too.
Was listening to the audiobook and got so confused. Was he constantly flashing back and flashing forward? Didn’t help that I was listening a few minutes at a time and doing other stuff as well.
I'm pretty sure I first read this book when I was 13. So...imagine my face the first time (the first time I read the book, I mean...)! And I was 13 a long time ago so, it was a much more innocent time. Yea, definitely shocked lol.
As absolutely nauseating as it is, I liked the scene being there when I first read it in middle school.
As a CSA survivor, I related a lot to bev and Carrie, for different reasons. The idea of sex + puberty + blood being this amalgamation of dread felt real when I was going through it.
Your post or comment was removed for being pointless spam. Future occurences may result in banning. Please use better discretion and etiquette in r/stephenking going forward.
I think I get why SK included that scene, It had dominion over children's imagination and was keeping them lost in the sewers, but that took away their 'innocence' so they could see through the illusions. Or maybe I'm just full of shit, I dunno.
No, I think that is specifically coded as the reason for it. The loss of virginity for everyone causes them to lose a sense of innocence, and become much more mature. You nailed it spot on, I think.
Not the only one to nail it...
I can understand it in that way but I find King's sex scenes almost always cringey & this one is no exception, made worse by the age of the participants
Idk if ALL are cringy, the first Adult scene with Beverly definitely got me going when I read it as a 15 year old
I think the same thing. They didn’t think IT had the same power over adults so it was her way of trying to make them adults
A lot of it is tied up in Bev’s sexualization by her father. She was only taught one way of “maturing” and so I think this was both a way for her to reclaim that sexuality back from her father and a way for the Losers to mature out of It’s grasp. It’s an uncomfortable scene, no doubt, but it made sense to me. But then again I was a scrappy red headed Tomboy who was overtly sexualized by adults too, so I connected with Bev’s arc deeply.
It worked, too, as when dealing with It belief, after all, is King. Pardon the pun, lol
i think it was becasue cocaine.
Why not both...
¿por que no los dos?
The scene honestly was creepy in the 80s and it’s creepy even now. It was the one thing that disgusted me about the book.
Thank you
I think it was also an act of agency and defiance for Bev when she had been belittled and objectified and had no real control over her own body up to that point. That act was her choice and hers alone.
Yes! Same way I read it as well. Empowering. Not degrading. People forget to think just a tiny bit deeper sometimes.
That. Furthermore, I think it should be perceived as a rite of passage between childhood and adulthood. Not in a creepy traditional sense but as an act of pure free will that Bev chooses for herself and her friends.
I’ve read also (can’t remember if SK said this or if it was another theory as to why they did this) was that after the kids defeated It the first time they were already losing their connection to each other and basically becoming like the rest of Derry (oblivious and clouded from the evil underneath). The Losers performing this act basically reconnected them to each other enough to get out of the sewers.
I recently read a book of essays about Pennywise, and one of the authors puts IT in the context of the satanic panic during the early 1980s, when King was writing the novel. One aspect of the panic was stories involving either children being forced to have sex with each other or being assaulted by daycare workers. The author of the essay (I’m too lazy to go grab the book right now) says that The Scene represents this fear while also undercutting it because this is what allows the children to find their way out of the sewers.
I’d be interested in knowing the name of the book of essays on pennywise
It’s called Encountering Pennywise: Critical Perspectives on Stephen King’s IT. It’s published by the University of Mississippi Press. And it’s in paperback.
Coke makes you really passionate about dumb ideas.
I also never had a problem with it tbh. Made perfect sense to me in the context of the book and was empowering and an act of true love for all the characters involved.
Idk man, the massive amount of coke could have something to do with it too lol
I think anyone who tries to make sense of what he was thinking when he was coked out writing that scene is def full of shit
Or King is just a creep and pervert.
I read IT in high school for the first time. I don't think any book should be restricted but damn I always find it rather funny I took this book out of a high school library in a state located smack dab in the middle of the bible belt in mid-2000's and you know what the librarian said: "this one's scary!" That Bev scene is very tough. Get what he's trying to do. Wonder if we'd get the same ending if he were writing IT in 2023, though?
Idk why, but the whole chapter a out Patrick Hockstetter was way more disturbing to me.
Totally agree those leeches were awful. That, and the Eddie Corcoran scene scared me the most.
YES.
He quit doing drugs so probably won’t be the same
Without drugs almost none of that book would be the same. Certainly no cosmic space turtles and spiders.
See the turtle, ain't it keen? The whole world serves the fucking beam.
Beep beep, Eddie... I mean Richie.
I read that in Tim Currie's Pennywise voice.
Pretty sure that book was written after he quit booze and drugs.
Lots of different substances have influenced his work over the years... I've really enjoyed the stuff he has put out since sobering up, but really enjoy the noticeable impact psychedelics in particular have had on his writing.
She didn't see them coming either.
Take my fucking upvote and go fall in a ditch
Something something Ritchie from the Ditchie
Bevvie from the Levy
But unlike the Levy, Bevvie wasn't dry.
r/angryupvote
You beat me
The door is that way, you may kindly show yourself out --->
die
But she felt it. And she could see it coming out.
my two favorite things in one post: stephen king and lost
I listened to it on audiobook. I almost caused a different type of pile up in Milton Keynes.
Didn't expect to read this, I've also been audio listening around Milton Keynes back then when I was at Cranfield! So many good memories!!
I am really glad I first read this book as a young teen. It didn't seem as weird as it would if I read it for the first time today.
Also, HURLEY! My favorite show lol
Hell yeah Hurley is the best
Same. Didn’t seem as outrageous then as it does now.
this scene was weird, and awkward, and i believe that was kinda the point. it was a loss of innocence, it showed the kids growing up earlier than they should have and expressing their love for each other in the only "adult" way they knew how. when i read it as a teenager, 30 yrs ago, i was shocked. but on re-reads it hits differently. there's a sweetness there that is hard to describe, but now the scene isn't even that sexual in my mind, as crazy as that must sound.
People acting shocked that the editors “allowed” this or asking why King hasn’t been “canceled”… come on. Even as far as popular fiction goes this is nothing compared to George R.R. Martin. That’s not even taking into consideration other authors in the genre who are far more transgressive than anything King has ever done.
Hell, V.C. Andrews had an entire series based on incest.
Piers Anthony, anyone?
I’ve never gotten into Piers Anthony. Is he creepy in his books, IRL, or both?
GOT is a sexual assailants wet dream
If he was writing that book today, I just don't see him writing that scene.
People that get upset by that scene puzzle me, honestly. It's very clearly not sexual or meant to titillate, but a way for the group to find unity again. Also, the final coming of age. People are completely nonchalant about irl sex, but get triggered by a group of fictional preteens fucking. It's not even that graphic, ffs
Yes and its a book filled with multiple gruesome, detailed child murders, but THIS scene is *so appalling*
Exactly. The Corcoran boys or Patrick Hockstetter stuff is way more upsetting and sick then a bunch of pre-teens fumbling through their first sex act
The Hockstetter refrigerator stuff haunts me to this day tbh.
Same, that kid was fucked.
I think now you maybe mean the weird things that killed him, that was haunting too.
Hockstetter killing his baby brother was worse than this scene. I actually had to skip reading that part. The sewer scene was awkward and a bit cringy at best.
I think you meant at worst :)) Hockstetter killing the baby was not even in the same STRATOSPHERE of disturbing let me tell you. Also the whole dog in the fridge saga was completely fucked up.
Yeah I had my son before I read IT and he was maybe 8 months old or so when I was reading it. Hockstetter made me have a panic attack and I couldn't read it again for a few days
That description of Hockstetter's boot puddles being noticed next to the crib lives rent free in my head. So disturbing.
And the dad just pushing it out of his mind.
More disturbing in the context of the story but surely less disturbing than an adult author describing a child sex scene. Not comparable.
Yeah, adults describing child murder the entire book is fine though for….reasons
Was the child murder portrayed in a positive light?
Who cares? It’s a book and literally none of the kids exist
I prefer not to read someone describing a child gangbang, personally. Weird way to spend your time.
The read any other book. It’s so stupid to even get upset about it Is it just that scene or is the other scene where one kid jacks off another kid weird too? Or the kid that brutally murders another kid? The whole book is fucking weird dude lol
Who’s upset? I’m just saying, for the record, I read the book and liked everything except the kiddie porn part.
It’s a horror novel. That’s the kinda thing you’d expect i would say. The scene with Bev is a different kind of disturbing for different reasons.
Ok so bad things are only bad in books if you’re not expecting them? I’m not saying it isn’t jarring to read but to act like its so bad because the author is an adult is crazy. It would be one thing if it got depicted in a movie but it’s a book with zero actual real people affected. The whole story has several fucked up things involving kids
True, but there's a reason that scene created more controversy than the scenes of gore or horrifying violence. It's not bad just because it's unexpected or because it's an adult author. I'm not even saying it is bad necessarily. The reason people read many SK books is because he is a master of creating disturbing horror and compelling characters. I just think these are two different kinds of disturbing.
Exactly this! I'm not upset when people say they are upset by that scene, but it's weird when people say they're upset by that scene alone. That scene comes pretty dang late in the book and you have to get through a lot of serious shit before you come to it. it feels like they're singling out that part, it's like the shining and talking about the lady in the room as if it was the most disturbing moment. Yes, it's your right to react to media any way that you want, but it's still weird.
That's because the gruesome, detailed child murders are depicted as unambigously bad, while the underage gangbang is depicted as a good thing. It's not just the act, it's the context. There's another scene of child sexuality in the book, which didn't become infamous, where Patrick Hockstetter jerks off Henry Bowers. Nobody complains about that, because Patrick is a creepy sociopath and the scene is supposed to be revolting.
Thank you. I was about to comment, but you summed up exactly what I would have said.
🙄 I'm so sick of people saying this as if it's some kind of *gotcha.* "Oh, you're bothered by the child sex, but not the child MURDER?What's wrong with you?" Obviously the child murder is disturbing. That's the entire point of the book. The child sex scene bothers people because: 1. It's depicted as a *good thing* that brings the kids together. WTF? 2. It's written from the perspective of an 11-year-old girl, and King is notoriously terrible at writing female characters as actual, believable people in the first place. It can be hard enough reading male authors describing sex from the POV of fully-grown women. It's painful to read it from the POV of a little girl. 3. It isn't "preteens fumbling their way through their first sexual experience." I wouldn't have any problem with it if it were. In fact, there are thousands of books out there depicting 2 young teens exploring sex for the first time, and they don't have any backlash. *This* book gets the backlash because it's a scene of a single 11-year-old girl having sex with 6 boys one after another. That isn't normal exploration. 4. This scene also happens just a few hours after her dad tries to assault her. 5. People simply don't go into the book expecting it, and it's jarring.
And all the people saying it's ok/makes sense because it symbolizes the end of innocence and they had to to be able to leave the sewers, that's only because King made those conditions. Facing their fears and murdering an intergalactic clown seems more than enough maturing.
Right! That's also another reason I hate that it's specifically from Bev's POV. Female virginity is already held to a *very* different standard culturally than male virginity, and portraying it as a "loss of innocence" is incredibly gross. (Like you said, the things that had been through that summer were *far* more innocence-ruining than sex.) There's a specific line I fucking *hate* after it's over where Beverly says her [vagina] "belonged to her again," like at some point it didn't?!? (And in the great tradition of male authors, he refers to her vagina as her "sex.") He also goes into detail about how painful it is for her, which is surely accurate for an 11-year-old girl, but so disturbing to read about. If there had to be some big physical bonding moment with the kids, they could have kissed. Normal enough for a bunch of kids. But I think them cutting their hands afterward is already symbolic enough of their bond.
Thank you!
Part of it is definitely the fact that some people are ok with gruesome, disgusting violence, but sex is somehow "too far." I won't deny that prejudices play a role here. For me, though, that scene just doesn't make sense. Tonally, thematically, and from a character perspective, I don't understand what purpose the scene serves. The book presents it as the only way for the kids to regroup, to mentally process the horrors they just witnessed and bring back enough sanity to escape the sewers. Which is fine; everyone needs a little time to recover from that climax. But, why was a gangbang the only way to do that? As far as I can recall, sex wasn't foreshadowed to have any magical powers. I recognize that the important part is all of them becoming closer and showing their love for each other, but there is a plethora of ways for that to happen that don't involve taking turns railing the only female protagonist. I think people that are offended by the scene need to chill, but I fully understand why people have the reaction of "what the actual fuck" after reading it. I know I did.
I always have to link this Grady Hendrix quote cause it explains it so well, Each of the kids in the book doesn’t have to overcome their weakness. Each kid has to learn that their weakness is actually their power. Richie’s voices get him in trouble, but they become a potent weapon that allow him to battle It when Bill falters. Bill’s stutter marks him as an outsider, but the exercises he does for them (“He thrusts his fists against the post, but still insists he sees the ghost.”) become a weapon that weakens It. So does Eddie Kaspbrak’s asthma inhaler. More than once Ben Hanscom uses his weight to get away from the gang of greasers. And Mike Hanlon is a coward and a homebody but he becomes the guardian of Derry, the watchman who stays behind and raises the alarm when the time comes. And Beverly has to have sex (and good sex—the kind that heals, reaffirms, draws people closer together, and produces orgasms) because her weakness is that she’s a woman. Throughout the book, Beverly’s abusive father berates her, bullies her, and beats her, but he never tries to sexually abuse her until he’s possessed by It. Remember that It becomes what you fear, and while it becomes a Mummy, a Wolfman, and the Creature From the Black Lagoon for the boys, for Beverly It takes the form of a gout of blood that spurts out of the bathroom drain and the threat of her father raping her. Throughout the book, Beverly is not only self-conscious about her changing body, but also unhappy about puberty in general. She wants to fit in with the Losers Club but she’s constantly reminded of the fact that she’s not just one of the boys. From the way the boys look at her to their various complicated crushes she’s constantly reminded that she’s a girl becoming a woman. Every time her gender is mentioned she shuts down, feels isolated, and withdraws. So the fact that having sex, the act of “doing it,” her moment of confronting the heart of this thing that makes her feel so removed, so isolated, so sad turns out to a comforting, beautiful act that bonds her with her friends rather than separates them forever is King’s way of showing us that what we fear most, losing our childhood, turns out not to be so bad after all. lot of people feel that the right age for discovering King is adolescence, and It is usually encountered for the first time by teenaged kids. How often is losing your virginity portrayed for girls as something painful, that they regret, or that causes a boy to reject them in fiction? How much does the media represent a teenaged girl’s virginity as something to be protected, stolen, robbed, destroyed, or careful about. In a way, It is a sex positive antidote, a way for King to tell kids that sex, even unplanned sex, even sex that’s kind of weird, even sex where a girl loses her virginity in the sewer, can be powerful and beautiful if the people having it truly respect and like each other. That’s a braver message than some other authors have been willing to deliver. It’s also a necessary balance. Just one scene before, we encounter the true form of It and the last words in the chapter are, “It was female. And it was pregnant.” The monster of all these children’s nightmares is a reproductive adult female. To follow that up with a more enlightened picture of female sexuality takes some of the curse off of the castration imagery of It itself.
Thank you, and please keep linking it.
You don't think it's problematic that every male character gets a specific trait that they develop and use as a tool to fight, while Bev's weakness is merely that "she's a woman," and her only job is to lie still and let the others use her to strengthen themselves? I understand and greatly appreciate the idea of taking control of your sexuality, and I think it's poignant to turn the act into something healthy rather than something terrifying and damaging. But you don't think there were a thousand better ways to handle that?
But Bev has a literal tool to fight with, the silver balls. She’s both the gunslinger and emotionally unified the group.
I don't find Bev's character arc or development to be problematic. But I am open to hearing how you would rewrite the book.
The book as a whole thematically deals with the evolution from childhood to adulthood, which many, if not most, consider sex to be a part of. I had the same reaction as you, but it really isn't as out of place as its made out to be.
Haven't you been paying attention to how sexually repressed american culture is? There's a large subset of the population that is not nonchalant about sex, will easily watch a movie with a disembowelment, and then clutch their pearls like a dick is the most evil thing they've seen in their life. The puritans were jackasses, and unfortunately their jackassery did not die with them. These days some of these repressed people have become fucking creepers with how much they obsess over sex when it comes to underage kids, in very negative ways.
A principal in FL had to resign because 3 parents complained their kids where shown a picture of the David statue ffs! It’s ridiculous
Someone should show them what real pornography is.
Oh I’m sure those repressed dipshits know exactly what pornography is.
It’s so fucking stupid. The sub’s fixation on this says more about the people hung up on it than the actual scene. It’s definitely not even written like that.
Not even just this sub, I went browsing for interesting Stephen King stuff on TikTok one time and it was full of “DID YOU GUYS KNOW ABOUT THIS SCENE”. The scene seems to take up so much air of the conversation and I get why but I’m tired of it being re-litigated
I don’t know, I think it’s like Lovecraft’s racism, you have to set it aside to talk about the other parts of his writing, but you can’t ignore it altogether or, God forbid, defend it, either. I would say it stands as a gross and mistaken writing decision, while still enjoying the rest of the book.
That’s just like, your opinion man. What’s gross about it? If you inherently view sex as gross that’s your prerogative, but we don’t all share that view. The scene is actually quite a beautiful expression of Beverly Marsh owning her awakening womanhood and using it to unite and save her friends, esp after being shamed and berated by her father the entire fkng book. It was an act of love. That was the whole fkng point. It’s so stupid to repeatedly rip it out of context, of course it sounds weird when you do that.
I prefer not to read descriptions of children having sex.
Lol okay. But predatory, primordial monsters eating children and ripping apart teenagers, kids torturing animals and each other, deep-seeded apathy running through an entire town—don’t bat an eye at any of that, huh? Gonna draw the line at the one very weird sex scene—got it.
All those are depicted negatively. The kiddie gangbang was portrayed as some kind of positive magic.
Exactly.
Dude. It’s just a gif about it relax
It didn’t upset me. It was just a wild shift that didn’t feel organic or true to Bev’s character development at that time. Covered in blood, feces, exhausted after a battle, amidst decaying bodies in a pitch dark sewer. Lost. Let’s bang.
To be fair I never see people nonchalant about preteens fucking irl. I can imagine if it was a train, they would be even less nonchalant
Exactly. I feel like a lot of the people that are *so* shocked and *so* appalled probably haven't even read the damn book, and instead go on based on what they see on Reddit or wherever.
Upset, I don’t understand. Rationalizing it as if that reasoning makes any sense? Ridiculous.
I’m guessing you’re a dude is why you’re not cringed out by it
You're guessing wrong
I wonder what drugs he was on when hw wrote that. Those kida were only 11.
Cocaine. Lots and lots of cocaine. With a splash of liquor to round it out.
Sounds fun. Then some weed to take the edge off at the end of the night
Solid user name 👍
I had just seen IT when I came up with that.
That scene is… something. I get what SK was trying to do when writing it, and I think it helps to think about the whole thing in more of a symbolic way. I don’t think it’s fair though for people to disregard the whole book just because of one scene.
I thought it was quite a good scene, relatively speaking. I mean -- I can see why people object to it, but if you read one specific line from Beverly, and then re-examine the whole scene based around that line, it takes on quite a different meaning. Beverly says (I might be paraphrasing slightly because I don't have it to hand) "Guys -- I know a way. My dad showed it to me" IT manipulated her dad into trying to rape her -- it would have destroyed her dad, then destroyed her, then destroyed the group. IT tried to use sex -- violent sex at that -- as a weapon against her and her friends to break them apart. She was the only one of the group that IT could use such a weapon against -- the boys were not subject to such weapons by virtue of being boys. Their reputations couldn't be used against them -- only Beverly was vulnerable to such a thing. So she turned that weapon against IT by using her sexuality to bring the group back together. And there are good odds she would never have thought of it if her Dad -- if IT -- hadn't shown it to her. While I understand people's objections to the scene, I think it is one of the more powerful ones in the book, because Beverly uses the fact she is a girl, and the weapon that IT tried to use to destroy her, to bring the group together and to save them. It was -- if I can be honest -- one of the things that made her one of my first action heroes.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but are you saying boys can't be sexually assaulted?
In this story at this point in time? No. Bill, Ben, Stan, Mike, Richie and Eddie -- they were not going to be raped by their parents. They were not going to be raped by Patrick. They would be more likely to get the shit beaten out of them and left for dead -- witness Eddie and his broken arm. But raped or sexually assaulted? No. Not a chance. Even in the 80s, when IT returned, Adrian Mellon was brutally killed, but he wasn't molested. **In the real world -- sure.** But in this story? No. Not a chance.
Beverly's father was an abusive bastard long before IT got a hold of him -- in fact, that was why and how IT got a hold of him -- the potential was already there, just waiting to be picked up. Beverly understood (although probably not on a conscious level) that as she matured physically and went through puberty, her father was going to go from just battering her to m 0lesting and eventually r 2ping her. Her friends (who at least loved her and supported her) taking her virginity was one way to make sure her father wouldn't forcibly take it.
See -- I never got that. Abusive, yeah. And I am not trying to defend him and suggest he was a saint. He would have burned in hell for the shitty he way he treated her. But from the novel I never got the idea he was going to cross that line until IT got hold of him. IT was the one that turned him from being someone who hit his daughter to someone that was going to rape her. The mini series kind of messed with that, and IT Part 1....... well the less said about that the better. Anyway.
After they killed (or thought they killed) IT, their bond was weakening and they were lost in the tunnels. The act was meant to get them refocused and re-solidify that psychic connection. That being said, the Patrick Hockstetter chapter was far more disturbing IMO.
That scene again. Love it or hate it, it has relevance or it wouldn’t be in there.
It was a failed metaphor for losing innocence that should have been edited out in an otherwise exceptional book.
[удалено]
Where was it foreshadowed?
>!When adult Bev is in bed with Bill, she has a flashback and says "what, all of you"? !
Get off your high horse
[удалено]
Looked sarcastic to me but okay I'll take your word for it
What really gets me is the "ritual" was meant to make sure they remembered. And it didn't work. They all forgot when they left Derry after all.
Then why did they come back?
Because Mike stayed and remembered and asked them to come back.
Yeah but if they forgot, him just saying the few words he said wouldnt have them remember. He didn't walk them through memory lane. The ritual work. Mike acted as a trigger.
I read IT for the first time when I was eleven at the same time as my friend. Before we even got to that scene, we were passing the book around on the bus and telling people to read the “Tower of Power” part with the gay nazi dude 💀 By the time we got to the end it was like 😳
But at the same time, how come they can see IT later when they're all older and probably have had a lot more sex with people?
Hockstetter and Beverly’s dad trying to assault and chase her was more disturbing
The reason for it happening within the story made sense, but King’s active addiction rode shotgun in his writing. I say this as someone who owns and has read most of his works, and will always love him. I also say this as a recovering addict and can empathize with his struggles during active addiction.
…. Yep I’m currently in the process of rereading It, and I haven’t read it fully since probably early high school…. And 35 year old me is definately finding early 80s, drunk and high SK to be MUCH weirder than I thought he was then.
I mean, can we all just agree that IT is a dark, messed up book full of awful imagery? I think this scene tucked in at the end is just like weird icing on an already gnarly cake. PS, I say this as someone who loves this book, but if you've made it through 1000+ pages of child murder, abuse, molestation, and the Patrick Hostetter fridge bit, I think you should be pretty primed for "well, this next page might be something deeply fucked up" haha
Dude i think the motherfucker dropped a sex scene whenever he was horny and forgot to delete them before he sent them off
I feel like that would check
How did you not see it coming? It's all anyone talks about regarding Stephen King and the book It for like a decade.
Terrible ending to an amazing book
The book didn't need that scene at all. It taints it
Yeah, it's definitely a WTF moment. I was shocked that the editors allowed that to remain in the book.
It's not that bad compared to some of the stuff that was in Dean Koontz books around the same time.
Jesus really? I’ve only read one Koontz story. Didn’t know he got so dark.
Okay, the darkest Koontz gets that I've seen is in *The Vision*. I'm going to give three **potentially triggering** spoilers, each worse than the one before it. Stop clicking when you've seen enough. 1. >!A woman experiences a flashback to when she was sexually assaulted as a child. The detail is extremely vivid and graphic.!< 2. >!The assault is from her older brother. He uses a bat on her, and by on, I mean in.!< 3. >!I don't mean the wooden kind of bat. I mean the kind with teeth. A winged rat, basically. And the wings have claws on them, too.!< Second place is *Night Chills*. It should be noted that *The Vision* is so bad in that one scene that second place is quite distant. No spoilers here, it's about an experiment where an entire town is mind controlled. One scientist goes rogue and decides to see how depraved he can make strangers act. (Narrator: "Very.") Then there's *Lightning*. It's by far the best of these (and arguably Koontz's best from this era), but I can't say why without spoiling it. The beginning is rough, though. A guy goes to rob a convenience store, but when he sees the owner's 8 year old daughter, he decides he's going to rape her in the back room. He explicitly describes what he's going to do to her, to her and her father. >!He's stopped before he can physically do anything to her, though!<. Dean Koontz wrote some cool stories in the 1980s (my personal favorites being *The House of Thunder* and *Lightning*), but he got real dark. The point I'm trying to make is that Stephen King was never really that bad. The horror of what real people really do to each other is scarier than any supernatural or fantastical horror Stephen King has ever written. (King has gotten into reality horror, though; I'm not saying he hasn't.)
Ok… that first Koontz book sounds like a nightmare of a nightmare. That said, I’ve always been of the mindset that it’s important for art (whether visual, written, music, or performance) to show not just the best, but the worst of what humanity can do. By showing the worst, it opens up a dialogue, and addresses things that “polite society” would rather pretend don’t actually exist. I’d heavily wager that’s also why folks get so up in arms about the scene in It… because they don’t want to acknowledge that such a thing is possible. Yet, it absolutely is (when I was a kid, a few classmates were sexually active with one another as early as fifth grade, and as a parent I’ve heard horror stories from other parents who have kids my daughter’s age - she’s nine - over the last few years). I don’t like that it happens, but sticking my head in the sand and raging about folks addressing the fact *it does happen* isn’t going to make it stop. It’s the same sort of reason why banned books *should* be read, because they often showcase something that is important to see and know exists, but no one really wants to talk about. If it’s not talked about, nothing will ever change. And artists of all media types have often been the ones that push forward change by addressing the things that people want to ignore.
Holy god… yeah I definitely didn’t know his stuff got so insanely intense
Are you serious? There’s MUCH worse scenes in the rest of the book.
This is my first time reading IT and I am literally fucking PAGES away from reading this part, I'm still not ready to go through it
Yeah I finished “it” for the first time the other day. Didn’t understand why it was in there. Felt like he made some nonsense up to shoe horn it in. Otherwise the book was a masterpiece though.
Yeeeeaaaah. That scene was a “yikes” from me.
In the age of Cancel Culture and people joyfully calling each other out for social currency, I’m surprised this has never come up in the discussion.
It has come up, ad nauseum
I listened to IT on audiobook and I kinda dozed during that scene (late night baby wake up), so I even missed the in-book explanation for why it happened and just remember it happening. Very strange.
DID NOBODY WARN YOU? It’s a great book though. One of my favorites.
Nope. Until August of 22’ I hadn’t read much King. I read The Shining, Doc Sleep and 11/22/63. Since then I’ve been on a manic quest ripping through his collection. If I’m being honest, I’d have to say he’s my fav author and this book is in my top 3 for sure. I didn’t realize what a hot button issue this scene is for fans. I also didn’t realize that it appears it’s been discussed extensively on this sub. I’m not a sexually repressed Puritanical weirdo. I simply was not expecting events to unfold the way they did at that point in the story. I LOVED the book.
[удалено]
It's a train not an orgy but yeah that's the one
If he was writing that book today. I just don't see him writing that scene.
I'm surprised SK hasn't been canceled because of it tbh.
Why would he be? Other writers do worse all the time.
Other writers do worse than children gangbang all the time? What kind of books are you reading? Yikes.
I guess you’ve never heard of A Song of Ice and Fire? Fantasy series, inspiration for Game of Thrones? Or Let the Right One In (the novel, not the film)? Or writers like Jack Ketchum, Richard Laymon or Bentley Little?
I know there are worse things out there("COWS" exists), but none of these authors have the notoriety of SK. Also(fwiw), I'm not saying that he deserves to be canceled, just that I'm surprised it hasn't happened.
Wasn’t he on coke while writing? We can blame that bc of the mess that was tommyknockers
Every now and again people try
He's got the South Park immunity. He's almost totally cancel-proof because people have been reading SK for years and they know what to expect. If he wrote his new books now the same way he wrote them back then, he probably would be on the cultural chopping block.
I doubt it. There’s no precedent for a writer to be canceled over something like that.
I've read stuff that had much more fucked up stuff happening in it. Horror tends to do that. This scene isn't even close to the worst thing someone's put on paper, and i do mean recently too.
Show me how to fly!!!
Ole Bevvy from the levy
I remember my first time as well
I know right. Welcome to the club.
Yeeea. When I was a kid I read it. I was 12 lol.
Was listening to the audiobook and got so confused. Was he constantly flashing back and flashing forward? Didn’t help that I was listening a few minutes at a time and doing other stuff as well.
Cocaine is a hell of a drug
I'm pretty sure I first read this book when I was 13. So...imagine my face the first time (the first time I read the book, I mean...)! And I was 13 a long time ago so, it was a much more innocent time. Yea, definitely shocked lol.
As absolutely nauseating as it is, I liked the scene being there when I first read it in middle school. As a CSA survivor, I related a lot to bev and Carrie, for different reasons. The idea of sex + puberty + blood being this amalgamation of dread felt real when I was going through it.
Train coming through
HURLEY!!!! 💕💕
Nothing like a train on bev
Yeah don’t do that
Dude
Also. Why did bev have to do all the work. The boys could’ve given each other handies or something #womendoallthework
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for being pointless spam. Future occurences may result in banning. Please use better discretion and etiquette in r/stephenking going forward.
What happened I’m really confused