![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hani_backupStarted Saturday morning, December 15th.
I don't recollect the first time Stephen King became part of my vocabulary and consciousness. I vaguely recall knowing It, Christine and The Langoliers were connected with Stephen King but not when or how...
I have seen the entirety or parts of Christine, The Sleepwalkers (cracks me up to realize it's Brian Krause/Leo from Charmed in this movie), Carrie, The Shining, The Deadzone, The Running Man (I thought Arnold Schwarzenegger was good in that movie. *giggles* But that's my opinion from when I was at least six to nine years old), The Langoliers (my sister and I were terrified watching this!), The Rage: Carrie 2 (I remember being so amazed at how sexual it was - then again I was much younger and more pure), Misery, The Green Mile, TV's Kingdom Hospital and Secret Window.
I've read Rose Madder, I think back in Vietnam. I'm unsure if I was in Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City, but I remember my sister was still with us and she was the one who brought home the book from the library. Unfortunately my memory of the book is very wispy, but I remember being intrigued by the mythological aspect of it. I loved Greek mythology back in 5th grade in ISKL, and because of this and books such as Rose Madder I was really interested when my Spring FYI professor introduced us to Greek mythology. It made it easier to remember the stories and characters during his analogy-like quizzes. (That said, I do not know stories such as The Iliad.)
Over the past few weeks I've been reading someone's copy of It. I started it back in Romania but I never completed it. I vaguely remember some scenes, such as a character entering a tall pipe-like thing (I believe this was Stan and the Standpipe), and a boy dying after chasing a paper boat down a drain and a character becoming a writer. But I think I jumped around in the book because then (as of now, but to a lesser extent), I did not like reading books that were not linear in chronology and by Heaven's, It was episodic in terms of timing and narration! I think I tried to read the 1958 sections first before the Adult Years. Of course, it's a good thing I didn't complete the book using that strategy because otherwise it would have been a disaster! I would barely have found the right passages, too, as I got to "The Ritual of Chud".
Several things about Stephen King's It struck me or stuck to me.
A) For one thing, some of my dreams during the weeks of reading It were set in the book. I vaguely recall having nightmares and waking up jerking, and being reassured by someone else in the room. This, I believe, occurred several times during that one night. Another example is this Friday morning, after I finished reading It before my Calculus II final, I woke up from a phone call from Malaysia and it was suggested by someone in the room that I might want to get up and study, and I said just after I go back to sleep and finish this dream. "This dream" being the climax of the book, where there's a battle between the group of Derry-natives (children/adults) and It. I was part of the group, I had to finish It (the creature)/it (the dream) in order to ensure it would be safe to wake up and stay awake.
B) Another, I was starting to get tired of how often Bill Denbrough's leadership quality just seemed to shine from him and others looked to him for answers and it was automatic and everybody made way for him and if anybody was going to have visions, it was going to be him of course because he was the unspoken leader and yada yada.
We get it already. As children, they looked to him for leadership. As adults, he was the one they still looked to even twenty-seven years later though I reckon the roles of the other people in the Losers Gang became more balanced in terms of what they do to bring about the end of the book. Mind you, this book was published in the 1986 (my birth year, yep) and I'm sure King's writing has improved, but still...
C) Beverly and her father Alvin Marsh... Beverly's relationship for her father seemed rather complex. Her love for him opened up my eyes wider to how love for someone who can be/is abusive can exist. And it's not the twisted obligation/fear I thought it was, but still something...uniquely different. At the same time, she did hate him, as well (it took her twenty-seven years to admit it out loud, and she married someone much like her father) but there was still love. I don't know anybody's experience with abusive parent(s) from themselves. I've read some magazine articles about it, read an email, but nothing really what they felt for their parent(s) during that time and how it was a myriad of love, loathing, fear, desperation... But there were some scenes when as a child she was thinking about her father and how she loved being with him when he drew for her and helped guide her hand, teaching her to draw. For some reason, this struck me harder than anything else I've read... Maybe because I realize she also married someone who abused her like her father, and controlled her and gave her strict guidelines to follow about what was "proper/right" and what was not... Settling into familiarity is a hard path to break.
D) Ben Hanscom's love for Beverly Marsh
Con - He pleads with her not to take it away, to just leave him with it. Even though he doesn't say it he still thinks someone else has power over how he feels for someone. No...not really... That person could act as shitty to him as possible, but it's possible to him to "decide" how they feel because it's inside them. (Take Beverly's love for her father, but as well as hate.) I think if they're strong enough to withstand multiple attempts by It to kill them when they're twelve, they're strong enough to control their emotions.
Con - It is kind of pathetic how he thinks he needs her permission to feel how he feels even in his thoughts.
Pro - He doesn't tell her that's all he has, that he'll be content with feeling love for her, loving her. In not doing so, he's not laying himself down to her completely. Basically, he doesn't verbalize asking for permission, though he thinks it.
Take this situation out of the context of the book. (In the book they all do love each other and feel a very tight bond with one another. This is evidenced by Beverly's act of love after their second direct confrontation with It as a group.)
Imagine if person A is approached by person B. B pleads A to allow B to feel love for A, that B will be content with it, just so long as A allows it. Imagine the possible reactions and obligations it'll put on the person in A's position. If A was a mean, manipulative shitty person, A would/could use it to crush B, or use B for demeaning things while B would just gobble it up because it's some form of interaction with A. (Yes, I'm oversimplifying.) Or A would not care about showing how badly A doesn't care for B if A indeed doesn't and crush B's feelings..
But if A is a good, kind person, they may be more diplomatic and let the person take it gently that A doesn't feel the way towards B as B does towards A. Or unfortunately A may feel like they can't tell B they don't care for B in that way because they're too kind and may think B is too fragile to take the rejection, and give B false hope of friendship/love because they don't know what else to do.
Your action loses power if you tell someone "I'm going to give you the silent treatment!" - it's much better to give it to them and see how much it disconcerts them to realize your company and companionship is missing. I believe the same is true with "I'm going to make your bed, cook your breakfast, do our laundry, and give you the occasional massage because I love you" - I think this will cheapen the relationship/love you feel for the person because you shouldn't tell them what you're willing to do/want to do to express your love for them, but just do them! Even if they're really demeaning. (Also, while it's nice to hold back on some things so your partner/friend isn't overwhelmed by a really shitty day, sometimes you have to tell them when something bothers you. But it's all in balance!)
I think telling someone what you're willing to do for them (in a serious manner) not to better yourself, but for the sake of keeping your love for them alive or in order to receive love is asking for attention, posing as a martyr and putting yourself in a demeaning, submissive and slightly pathetic role. You need that person's attention, approval and knowledge of the "sacrifices" you're willing to take/do for them. "Look, this is how much I love you! I will do this, I can do that, I would do this! I'm changing myself to have your love, your friendship, your smile bestowed upon me. Does the person you would rather be with do the same? Look at me and pay attention to me since I'm doing all this for you!!!" Also, this could be used a guilt-inducing maneuver, because you're telling someone "Hey, I'm willing to do all this for you!" possibly with a hanging expectation they should acknowledge and respond in likeness. They may feel they have to do something for you, too, even if they don't care about you that much, perhaps to save face or rescue your self-esteem from crashing down to the pits of Hell because they don't want to be responsible for someone getting depressed. I do feel this is a submissive, pathetic role to curl yourself into because you're putting so much of your feelings and yourself into someone else's acknowledgment and interactions with you, even if it is one-sided, or heavily lopsided! Why would you put your worthiness into the type of connection you have with one person? Why would you willingly give someone else that much power over you and put yourself on a lower tier than them, where you can be seen as a groveling little puppy in their shadow? Or better yet a cow, because they're really domesticated and can't milk themselves. A dog can feed himself and take care of his biological needs.
If my best friend/ex-boyfriend came up to me and told me he would stop being so aggressive, wouldn't talk so much or make jokes, if only I would continue to love him in any shape or manner and keep him in my life after we broke up... I would feel sad, disgusted and aghast. Nobody should have to go down so low and beg such a thing from someone else.
By keeping mum about his feelings and his plea to her let him keep his love for her, that it's the only thing he has, and what he wants her to allow him to have, Ben Hanscom refused to put ties of obligation on Beverly Marsh and allowed her to behave freely around and to him.
So bravo, Ben, bravo. I suppose I could forgive you for even thinking you needed her permission to feel love for her because you were eleven-twelve years old. At least you knew better than to say it out loud.
E) Beverly...six boys? Why? Why?? How??? How???
I would have sore and unable to do anything past two boys...
F) I'm quite unsure if I liked the resolution in the end. I know it's suppose to be cyclic due to every twenty-seven years passing for It's death-cycle, but it seemed too pat that the characters would start to forget each other once they defeat It. I'm happy Ben and Beverly ended up together - it's fantastic - and Bill stayed with his wife Audra. This part seems realistic, that they would diverge into their own adult lives after the time of reuniting as adults in their roles as they were as children, but it seemed too neat a split between childhood experiences/adult actions based on childhood experiences (the defeat) and pure adult lives/actions away from Derry. I know Derry collapsed on itself because It was dead and It was basically Derry and had been there since before dinosaurs so with It's death, Derry died as well. (Or mostly.)
And it felt all too rushed, I think, about the Turtle and The Other. Too bad the Turtle's dead... I would have liked to have known more about it.
I am quite pleased the roles of each of the remaining six after Stan's suicide balanced out a bit more than when they were kids. Especially when doing the ritual of Chud as adults. Beverly's biggest contribution, I think, was the one she performed after the first ritual of Chud when children.
Works Cited:
King, Stephen. It. New York, NY: Signet-Penguin, 1980.
I'm unsure why the publishing date is 1980 in the copy I'm using when this book's writing started in 1981 and ended in 1985. On his professional website it says It was published in 1986.
Several things about Stephen King's It struck me or stuck to me.
A) For one thing, some of my dreams during the weeks of reading It were set in the book. I vaguely recall having nightmares and waking up jerking, and being reassured by someone else in the room. This, I believe, occurred several times during that one night. Another example is this Friday morning, after I finished reading It before my Calculus II final, I woke up from a phone call from Malaysia and it was suggested by someone in the room that I might want to get up and study, and I said just after I go back to sleep and finish this dream. "This dream" being the climax of the book, where there's a battle between the group of Derry-natives (children/adults) and It. I was part of the group, I had to finish It (the creature)/it (the dream) in order to ensure it would be safe to wake up and stay awake.
B) Another, I was starting to get tired of how often Bill Denbrough's leadership quality just seemed to shine from him and others looked to him for answers and it was automatic and everybody made way for him and if anybody was going to have visions, it was going to be him of course because he was the unspoken leader and yada yada.
We get it already. As children, they looked to him for leadership. As adults, he was the one they still looked to even twenty-seven years later though I reckon the roles of the other people in the Losers Gang became more balanced in terms of what they do to bring about the end of the book. Mind you, this book was published in the 1986 (my birth year, yep) and I'm sure King's writing has improved, but still...
C) Beverly and her father Alvin Marsh... Beverly's relationship for her father seemed rather complex. Her love for him opened up my eyes wider to how love for someone who can be/is abusive can exist. And it's not the twisted obligation/fear I thought it was, but still something...uniquely different. At the same time, she did hate him, as well (it took her twenty-seven years to admit it out loud, and she married someone much like her father) but there was still love. I don't know anybody's experience with abusive parent(s) from themselves. I've read some magazine articles about it, read an email, but nothing really what they felt for their parent(s) during that time and how it was a myriad of love, loathing, fear, desperation... But there were some scenes when as a child she was thinking about her father and how she loved being with him when he drew for her and helped guide her hand, teaching her to draw. For some reason, this struck me harder than anything else I've read... Maybe because I realize she also married someone who abused her like her father, and controlled her and gave her strict guidelines to follow about what was "proper/right" and what was not... Settling into familiarity is a hard path to break.
D) Ben Hanscom's love for Beverly Marsh
This is when they're eleven or twelve, so he's a fat pre-teen who hasn't had any experiences at all with girls but... well, there are pros and cons to this. And it took my thinking to a pretty fevered pitch.[Ben Hanscom] found he could barely stand to meet [Beverly Marsh's] gaze. I love you Beverly . . . just let me have that. You can have Bill, or the world, or whatever you need. Just let me have that, let me go on loving you, and I guess that'll be enough.
[. . .]
It always comes back to power. I love Beverly Marsh and she has power over me. She loves Bill Denbrough and so he has power over her. [. . .] [838] Everyone has some . . . except maybe for little kids and babies.
Then he thought that even little kids and babies had power; they could cry until you had to do something to shut them up.(837-838)
Con - He pleads with her not to take it away, to just leave him with it. Even though he doesn't say it he still thinks someone else has power over how he feels for someone. No...not really... That person could act as shitty to him as possible, but it's possible to him to "decide" how they feel because it's inside them. (Take Beverly's love for her father, but as well as hate.) I think if they're strong enough to withstand multiple attempts by It to kill them when they're twelve, they're strong enough to control their emotions.
Con - It is kind of pathetic how he thinks he needs her permission to feel how he feels even in his thoughts.
Pro - He doesn't tell her that's all he has, that he'll be content with feeling love for her, loving her. In not doing so, he's not laying himself down to her completely. Basically, he doesn't verbalize asking for permission, though he thinks it.
Take this situation out of the context of the book. (In the book they all do love each other and feel a very tight bond with one another. This is evidenced by Beverly's act of love after their second direct confrontation with It as a group.)
Imagine if person A is approached by person B. B pleads A to allow B to feel love for A, that B will be content with it, just so long as A allows it. Imagine the possible reactions and obligations it'll put on the person in A's position. If A was a mean, manipulative shitty person, A would/could use it to crush B, or use B for demeaning things while B would just gobble it up because it's some form of interaction with A. (Yes, I'm oversimplifying.) Or A would not care about showing how badly A doesn't care for B if A indeed doesn't and crush B's feelings..
But if A is a good, kind person, they may be more diplomatic and let the person take it gently that A doesn't feel the way towards B as B does towards A. Or unfortunately A may feel like they can't tell B they don't care for B in that way because they're too kind and may think B is too fragile to take the rejection, and give B false hope of friendship/love because they don't know what else to do.
Your action loses power if you tell someone "I'm going to give you the silent treatment!" - it's much better to give it to them and see how much it disconcerts them to realize your company and companionship is missing. I believe the same is true with "I'm going to make your bed, cook your breakfast, do our laundry, and give you the occasional massage because I love you" - I think this will cheapen the relationship/love you feel for the person because you shouldn't tell them what you're willing to do/want to do to express your love for them, but just do them! Even if they're really demeaning. (Also, while it's nice to hold back on some things so your partner/friend isn't overwhelmed by a really shitty day, sometimes you have to tell them when something bothers you. But it's all in balance!)
I think telling someone what you're willing to do for them (in a serious manner) not to better yourself, but for the sake of keeping your love for them alive or in order to receive love is asking for attention, posing as a martyr and putting yourself in a demeaning, submissive and slightly pathetic role. You need that person's attention, approval and knowledge of the "sacrifices" you're willing to take/do for them. "Look, this is how much I love you! I will do this, I can do that, I would do this! I'm changing myself to have your love, your friendship, your smile bestowed upon me. Does the person you would rather be with do the same? Look at me and pay attention to me since I'm doing all this for you!!!" Also, this could be used a guilt-inducing maneuver, because you're telling someone "Hey, I'm willing to do all this for you!" possibly with a hanging expectation they should acknowledge and respond in likeness. They may feel they have to do something for you, too, even if they don't care about you that much, perhaps to save face or rescue your self-esteem from crashing down to the pits of Hell because they don't want to be responsible for someone getting depressed. I do feel this is a submissive, pathetic role to curl yourself into because you're putting so much of your feelings and yourself into someone else's acknowledgment and interactions with you, even if it is one-sided, or heavily lopsided! Why would you put your worthiness into the type of connection you have with one person? Why would you willingly give someone else that much power over you and put yourself on a lower tier than them, where you can be seen as a groveling little puppy in their shadow? Or better yet a cow, because they're really domesticated and can't milk themselves. A dog can feed himself and take care of his biological needs.
If my best friend/ex-boyfriend came up to me and told me he would stop being so aggressive, wouldn't talk so much or make jokes, if only I would continue to love him in any shape or manner and keep him in my life after we broke up... I would feel sad, disgusted and aghast. Nobody should have to go down so low and beg such a thing from someone else.
By keeping mum about his feelings and his plea to her let him keep his love for her, that it's the only thing he has, and what he wants her to allow him to have, Ben Hanscom refused to put ties of obligation on Beverly Marsh and allowed her to behave freely around and to him.
So bravo, Ben, bravo. I suppose I could forgive you for even thinking you needed her permission to feel love for her because you were eleven-twelve years old. At least you knew better than to say it out loud.
E) Beverly...six boys? Why? Why?? How??? How???
I would have sore and unable to do anything past two boys...
F) I'm quite unsure if I liked the resolution in the end. I know it's suppose to be cyclic due to every twenty-seven years passing for It's death-cycle, but it seemed too pat that the characters would start to forget each other once they defeat It. I'm happy Ben and Beverly ended up together - it's fantastic - and Bill stayed with his wife Audra. This part seems realistic, that they would diverge into their own adult lives after the time of reuniting as adults in their roles as they were as children, but it seemed too neat a split between childhood experiences/adult actions based on childhood experiences (the defeat) and pure adult lives/actions away from Derry. I know Derry collapsed on itself because It was dead and It was basically Derry and had been there since before dinosaurs so with It's death, Derry died as well. (Or mostly.)
And it felt all too rushed, I think, about the Turtle and The Other. Too bad the Turtle's dead... I would have liked to have known more about it.
I am quite pleased the roles of each of the remaining six after Stan's suicide balanced out a bit more than when they were kids. Especially when doing the ritual of Chud as adults. Beverly's biggest contribution, I think, was the one she performed after the first ritual of Chud when children.
Works Cited:
King, Stephen. It. New York, NY: Signet-Penguin, 1980.
I'm unsure why the publishing date is 1980 in the copy I'm using when this book's writing started in 1981 and ended in 1985. On his professional website it says It was published in 1986.
I'm in the middle of writing excerpts and citing for an English exam due tomorrow at midnight so that's why I did Works Cited here. :D I'm in the mode. Two finals, and a paper left!
(Calculus II was wretchedly hard.)
