Hell, I live in the US and didn't have that date memorized.
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
Seriously though, this scuffle was as much about how people were talking to you as it was you responding to them... so, no need to feel completely responsible for providing the Snickers.... we could all pitch in with those.
What? Everyone here knows that I am the prettiest!
Hey, Flakers!
No Snickers for me, thanks. I will take a dozen Mars bars. And Butterfingers. And Rollos..
(I totally pigged out on a strawberry pop tart with chocolate almond ice cream and peanuts earlier. It was Patricia's fault. Ha!)
That was my only problem with the book. I loved it, but I don't care for Kings opinion on the deal and it was hard for me to read all the Oswald related stuff in the book. I fought through it and am glad I did but it was hard. I just tried to look at it as pure fiction, which I personally believe the idea that Oswald shot JFK is pure fiction as well. But that's just me. I'm not here to debate and get into that. I love the story and the idea but personally I wish he had steered clear from touching the JFK assassination. I wish that could have been a purely fictional story relating to no real past events but I suppose he wanted it to really resonate with people. Didn't resonate with me any but I enjoyed it and loved the ending. I won't fight through it again though.
I'm always a day late or a dollar short so it doesn't surprise me that only now have I become aware of the film. I know it's fiction. I know Steven King is a terrific writer with an exceptional sense of make believe, but I look on this book as something else, a perpetuation of deliberate falsehoods pertaining to the assassination of John Kennedy. At the end of the book King felt the need to confirm his belief that Lee Oswald was guilty as sin. Seeing as how his book was written prior to Judyth Baker's "Lee and Me" I'd assumed (hoped) Mr. King had read her book by now and come to a different conclusion. It seems I assumed wrongly. Films are a powerful medium in explaining historical events, oft times incorrectly yet the moviegoers immediately take the film at face value with no critical thinking whatsoever. I'm certain this will be the case with this film, sad to say. The fact is Lee Oswald never shot our President. He was a patsy just as he declared prior to his murder. Truth. Honest truth.
We don't know the facts. I don't think, now, that we will ever know the facts. I don't think anyone has "missed the point" in regards to this book. I think you are, quite literally, reading too much into it. The reason the assassination is a perfect setup for the story is because we don't know the facts and we can't ever know the facts unless we were to get into a time machine. It creates the entire context of the protagonist's conflict. He is a moral man who doesn't want to assume Oswald is guilty without proof. If the facts were never in question, even a moral man might simply act without having go through so much work. For example, we do know who went on the Tower in Austin and started shooting people. Someone able to go back and time and delete someone is free of moral distress if he/she wanted to go save some lives. Do you follow me? While it is clear you have strong opinion about what happened historically, that has no bearing on this book which, as you know, is a work of fiction. Mr. King has never been particularly shy about stating his opinions outside of his books. What makes you think he felt the need to do anything in creating it or writing the outcome?
What facts don't we know about the JFK assassination? It is the most investigated crime in history.
Although King's book is a work of fiction, the entire plot is predicated on Oswald being the assassin.King himself provided a nice summary of the overwhelming evidence against Oswald and why he believes him to be the assassin during his appearance in Dallas. I agree that no one has to accept the conclusion that Oswald was the assassin to enjoy this work of fiction, but that doesn't mean there is any real doubt about Oswald's guilt.For example, Jake heads directly for the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository where Oswald fired the shots when trying to thwart the assassination. He does not even consider searching Dealey Plaza for other possible assassins.
Yes? And what is your point? Jack the Ripper's crimes fall into that grouping too. There are lots of people adamant that they know the facts. That doesn't stop the books of fiction about the event.
Actually, it isn't. The entire story is predicated on an ethical man's conflict because he doesn't know if Oswald is the assassin. What part of that do you not get? The vast majority of the book is about Jake not knowing and thus being unable to act. The reveal at the end, where Oswald turns out to be the shooter, is unimportant. The story isn't about that. Oswald is a convenient mystery for the story. Mr. King didn't have to provide a summary of evidence because Mr. King wasn't trying to prove anything. He doesn't have to prove anything in a work of fiction because he can simply write it. In that level of the Tower Oswald shot Kennedy. There is no reason to prove anything if you can show someone doing it. Your desire to forward your pet project in history really has no bearing because we are talking about fiction where someone uses magical stairs to go back in time. In this magical, alternate reality Oswald shot Kennedy.
Let me ask you something, do you think Mr. King is making a summary argument that time travel is possible? There is certainly a whole lot more about time travel in the book than there is Oswald. There are numerous other historical events shown up close (although not watershed moments as Al would call them). What statements about history do you think Mr. King is trying to make with those? I'm not trying to be snide. I'm being tongue in cheek only a hint. I'm rather sick to death of people trying to turn everything in pop culture from books to songs into some kind of commentary so they can play "talking heads." It is a book. It is a book of fantasy which falls squarely in the domain of science fiction. Nobody is missing the point, except perhaps for a single person.
King has not made an argument or suggested that time travel is possible. That is purely an element of his fiction.
He has, however, set forth the basis of his belief from the evidence - both in the book and in appearances discussing the book - that Oswald committed this crime. Although the book is purely a work of fiction it is premised on this historical fact.
And simply because it is a work of fiction does not mean somehow that the book can be read only to suggest that Oswald shot JFK only in some "magical, alternative reality."
The work of fiction is predicated on an historical truth. Take it up with King if you don't like that.
I do agree that King's book is not meant to be a primer on the JFK assassination. There is, however, no doubt whatsoever that King believes Oswald to be shooter and his book albeit a work of fiction is premised upon his conclusion drawn from the actual facts and evidence in the case. Simply because it is a work of science fiction does not mean that Oswald's guilt must similarly be read to be a product of such fiction as well. That is very silly. If King had written a book about going back in time to thwart the Pearl Harbor bombing, I doubt you would be on here arguing that the book's premise that the Japanese were behind this event is only relevant in some "alternative reality." It is an historical fact. Just like Oswald's guilt in this case.
Actually some people believe there was a Pearl Harbor conspiracy, moon landing conspiracy, 9/11 conspiracy etc. Any of those events could have provided a basis for the book if you think it somehow was about a lack of consensus on an event. It is unfortunately rare to have consensus with so many paranoid types. There is no indication whatsoever that King decided to base this book on the JFK assassination due to collective doubt about Oswald's guilt. In fact, the main character makes no effort whatsoever to pursue any of the conspiracy angles. Where does he head at the moment of the assassination? To the grass knoll? No he goes directly to the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository where Oswald is known to have fired the shots. It sounds more like you have doubts about Oswald's guilt and are trying to graft them onto this book to reconcile the book with your own personal beliefs. No one is alleging King wrote this book to convince anyone of Oswald's guilt but he clearly believes Oswald is guilty and the plot reflects that belief. A thousand word lecture doesn't change that. Complain to King if you don't like his conclusion.
I not only did not put words in King's mouth I posted a direct link to him discussing the case and why he believes Oswald is guilty. Something he also discusses in the book. If anyone doubts what I've said about King's opinion they can watch that for themselves. This is very simple. If the book entertained serious doubts about Oswald's guilt, then the main character would have to check out the various locations where conspiracy theorists allege the real shooter was located to thwart the assassination. For example, the grassy knoll. Nothing like that happens. The main character makes no effort to determine if there are other shooters. Instead he goes directly to the location where Oswald is known to have fired the shots. The book is less about any doubt regarding Oswald's guilt which is a minor point that arises if at all only to extend the narrative to the climatic scene and more about how altering past events could impact future events. I have no idea why you take this so personally or suggest someone is a fool because they suggest it appears that you have doubts regarding Oswald's guilt. Particularly when that is one of the few things you apparently are unwilling to lecture us on.
Oh I'm gonna get in trouble for this but I can't help myself. I mean no disrespect but again I can't help myself. I have this weird kind of dyslexic thing that often makes me see written things wrong. There's a tea shop by where I live that says "Tea Time", at first glance I always see it as "Eat Me". Long story short. When I see this thread in the new posts, I see "Is Everyone Passing the Joint?" I shall see myself out now, no need to call the bouncer.
(Edited, as I had to go buy a question mark.)
It's legal in our shared state.Oh I'm gonna get in trouble for this but I can't help myself. I mean no disrespect but again I can't help myself. I have this weird kind of dyslexic thing that often makes me see written things wrong. There's a tea shop by where I live that says "Tea Time", at first glance I always see it as "Eat Me". Long story short. When I see this thread in the new posts, I see "Is Everyone Passing the Joint?" I shall see myself out now, no need to call the bouncer.
(Edited, as I had to go buy a question mark.)