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.
that’s a reason to have Beverly suggest it. Not a reason to have it actually happen.
Sorry, but that’s just silly. If it were brought up as a suggestion that didn’t happen, that would be even weirder than it actually happening. As a writer, you don’t go around finding reasons to block your character’s ideas, because that’s a horribly anti-climactic thing to do, teasing your readers for no purpose, but worst of all, you don’t get to see how the action pans out if it does happen, which is the primary thing that makes fiction interesting to begin with.
And no, not every action needs foreshadowing either. In the grand scheme of things, this whole scene that people fuss about isn’t a major plot point in the book. I read the book twice (though even the second time was a while ago), and I had pretty much forgotten about it, until I saw people complaining it. But it still seems as if you think King has some moral obligation to guard and guide the actions of his characters. He doesn’t, and thankfully he doesn’t, because his books are more interesting for it.
It is a major plot point in the book. The fact that you skipped over it doesn’t mean that it isn’t.
And to claim that the main thing that makes fiction interesting is every character’s expressed desires being istantly granted is a wild position to take. In this particular instance there are any number of ways you can make a child sexual abuse survivor expressing herself in an unhealthy way into a meaningful, cathartic moment without her go through with what her initial instincts suggest.
Okay, I’ll spend one last reply on this, because I don’t appreciate getting a strawman assigned to me. I didn’t say getting “every character’s expressed desires being instantly granted” is the main thing making fiction interesting. I said it’s seeing actions play out that you normally don’t is what it makes it interesting. That’s quite a different thing.
And no, I still don’t think it’s a major plot point. It’s a plot point, yes, but the movies also left it out without real impact to the plot. That’s not a major plot point to me.
If it were brought up as a suggestion that didn’t happen, that would be even weirder than it actually happening. As a writer, you don’t go around finding reasons to block your character’s ideas, because that’s a horribly anti-climactic thing to do, teasing your readers for no purpose, but worst of all, you don’t get to see how the action pans out if it does happen, which is the primary thing that makes fiction interesting to begin with.
My characterisation of what you said is s lot closer to reality than yours is. Perhaps that’s not what you intended to say, but it is what you did say.
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.
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.
Sorry, but that’s just silly. If it were brought up as a suggestion that didn’t happen, that would be even weirder than it actually happening. As a writer, you don’t go around finding reasons to block your character’s ideas, because that’s a horribly anti-climactic thing to do, teasing your readers for no purpose, but worst of all, you don’t get to see how the action pans out if it does happen, which is the primary thing that makes fiction interesting to begin with.
And no, not every action needs foreshadowing either. In the grand scheme of things, this whole scene that people fuss about isn’t a major plot point in the book. I read the book twice (though even the second time was a while ago), and I had pretty much forgotten about it, until I saw people complaining it. But it still seems as if you think King has some moral obligation to guard and guide the actions of his characters. He doesn’t, and thankfully he doesn’t, because his books are more interesting for it.
It is a major plot point in the book. The fact that you skipped over it doesn’t mean that it isn’t.
And to claim that the main thing that makes fiction interesting is every character’s expressed desires being istantly granted is a wild position to take. In this particular instance there are any number of ways you can make a child sexual abuse survivor expressing herself in an unhealthy way into a meaningful, cathartic moment without her go through with what her initial instincts suggest.
Okay, I’ll spend one last reply on this, because I don’t appreciate getting a strawman assigned to me. I didn’t say getting “every character’s expressed desires being instantly granted” is the main thing making fiction interesting. I said it’s seeing actions play out that you normally don’t is what it makes it interesting. That’s quite a different thing.
And no, I still don’t think it’s a major plot point. It’s a plot point, yes, but the movies also left it out without real impact to the plot. That’s not a major plot point to me.
I’ll just quote what you said:
My characterisation of what you said is s lot closer to reality than yours is. Perhaps that’s not what you intended to say, but it is what you did say.
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.