I Feel Like This Book Is Intentionally Deeper Than What Appears *spoilers*

[Neesy]

...I like gum....

In the afterlife there are gum cookies.

Fascinating!

 

[mal]

First off, let me say that thoroughly really enjoyed Revival. Not only was it scary to me, it was fun to read Jamie's life even if Jamie's real life was mundane and kind of plain. I related a lot to the rhythm guitarist/heroin addict. I've been there and one of my only problems with the book is that King didn't really give the reader much of a reason to hate heroin. Sure, Jamie was weak and felt like ****, anyone who's messed with dope can relate to that, but he never explored how it makes you a worse person. The addiction felt rushed and forced, in my opinion. He could of written that part better and he should of added a scene where Jamie did something really bad to fix up.

Aside from that, I believe the book is deeper than what appears. It is all through Jamie's eyes, so there are a lot of things that are left to the reader to decide. If you've read other King books, you'll realize at the end that Mother is a demon that probably took Jacobs wife and children. I believe Jacobs healed his wife first with the secret electricity and made a pact with Mother that began to drive him insane and lose his faith and then took his first and most hurtful sacrifice: Patsy and Morrie.

This is apparent because Jamie sees that the leg-claw with the faces has the face of Morrie and Patsy: early victims of Mother.

Jacobs was obsessed with what happened after death to his patients: those he healed with the secret electricity. He wanted to know what happened to those who had faith in him and his power: and he didn't realize how he had been tricked and screwed by Mother until the very end.

Sure, he had his doubts, but he still believed that there was something peaceful on the other side where his wife and child were.

For this theory to be true, would mean that Patsy did kill herself and her child in a way: she crashed into the truck and killed them both. Perhaps she wasn't drunk at all and I believe that was simply a bad reaction to his terrible Sermon, a way for people to excuse his blasphemy. I actually think that whiskey wasn't hers, it was probably Jacobs. Jacobs is shown to drink and use drugs.

This would explain why Patsy wasn't surprised that Con's voice returned and how she explains to Jamie that it wasn't for Con but for Jamie.

In my theory, Mother uses Jacob to gain more souls into her afterlife, forcing them to be her slaves for eternity. Everyone who is "saved" by Jacobs temporarily to live a little longer and test fate is tricked by the demon Mother and is fated to her forever.

This is why Mother gets pissed at Jamie: he's the only one who really knows the truth. Yet even he is ultimately screwed and knows so which is why he clings to his life, sanity and knowledge of the truth.

But even he knows he cannot escape his fate, which is proved when he revisits his brother Terry and his niece begins to cry: she knows Jamie is a dead-man walking.

I want this book to have a sequel and I want someone to fight Mother. I don't know why, but her similarities to Pennywise really interests me and she was a creepy factor in the end. I wanted more, though, just like everyone else. The final scenes felt rushed and I could understand why some people can't visualize Mother: King only used one paragraph to describe her and left the rest to our imaginations.

Overall, though, I think the book was great and it's one of those books I actually want to read again and find more things. I don't think Jacobs was a villain at all: he was obsessed and addicted.

Jacobs was a frog boiling in water and the water was powered by Mother's electricity.

Hi Eyeshadow, Interesting read. You've given me grist for the mulling mill. Welcome! mal

 

[Aloysius Nell]

First off, let me say that thoroughly really enjoyed Revival. Not only was it scary to me, it was fun to read Jamie's life even if Jamie's real life was mundane and kind of plain. I related a lot to the rhythm guitarist/heroin addict. I've been there and one of my only problems with the book is that King didn't really give the reader much of a reason to hate heroin. Sure, Jamie was weak and felt like ****, anyone who's messed with dope can relate to that, but he never explored how it makes you a worse person. The addiction felt rushed and forced, in my opinion. He could of written that part better and he should of added a scene where Jamie did something really bad to fix up.

.

My feeling is that SK addressed that topic pretty well with Dan Torrance. Maybe he didn't want to re-hash the same themes he had written about just a few years before. Maybe he was looking at another person in a similar situation, and chose to describe it from a different point of view.

Or, maybe he felt that too much description of the addiction would drag the story down. Lord knows, he's been accused of such in the past.

 

[sam peebles]

I don't think it was the afterlife. My theory being that Mother is "It" and is projecting the illusion that it was the afterlife.

As I mention in another thread. I don't think we've seen the last of Jamie Morton. There is unfinished business here.

While I can definitely see similarities between It and Mother, I don't believe they're one in the same. Their modus operandi are quite different, and It is dead. Maybe...maybe...they could be related.

 

[Mocos]

Also, subconsciously, this is why he would lie that his wife and son drowned: he always had a fear and was traumatized by his little boy having no face.

That whole scene was absolutely horrifying and I'm sad a lot of people don't agree or point it out.

Seeing his little boy with no face must of been some horrible experience. He lies to his congregations after because he wishes that they are safe and full (a drowned corpse doesn't look as bad as one in a car accident).

You all make me wonder if I'm too simple, lol. I definitely saw the similarities between Mother and It, but those similarities just led me to an instant conclusion that Mother had the same ability (at least, to an extent) of seeing inside a person's mind and finding their worst fears, or maybe in "her" case it's their most traumatic memory. For Jacobs, that was obviously seeing his dead son without a face. So, Mother traumatizes him some more by making him see his wife and son's faces on her leg. Kind of a double-whammy. She's saying, "They're not significant enough to be in a more important spot than my foot, but hey, I found those faces you've been wondering about!" Maybe I do this just so I can sleep at night, but It and Mother just seem like particularly nasty animals to me... much like spiders (funny, that). Not really evil, because they don't choose to be evil. They're just using their natural (or supernatural, if you like) abilities to hunt and catch their prey. Unfortunately, that's us. But sometimes, we find a gun in the top drawer. Or believe enough in the power of a silver bullet.

 

[Arcadevere]

First off, let me say that thoroughly really enjoyed Revival. Not only was it scary to me, it was fun to read Jamie's life even if Jamie's real life was mundane and kind of plain. I related a lot to the rhythm guitarist/heroin addict. I've been there and one of my only problems with the book is that King didn't really give the reader much of a reason to hate heroin. Sure, Jamie was weak and felt like ****, anyone who's messed with dope can relate to that, but he never explored how it makes you a worse person. The addiction felt rushed and forced, in my opinion. He could of written that part better and he should of added a scene where Jamie did something really bad to fix up.

Aside from that, I believe the book is deeper than what appears. It is all through Jamie's eyes, so there are a lot of things that are left to the reader to decide. If you've read other King books, you'll realize at the end that Mother is a demon that probably took Jacobs wife and children. I believe Jacobs healed his wife first with the secret electricity and made a pact with Mother that began to drive him insane and lose his faith and then took his first and most hurtful sacrifice: Patsy and Morrie.

This is apparent because Jamie sees that the leg-claw with the faces has the face of Morrie and Patsy: early victims of Mother.

Jacobs was obsessed with what happened after death to his patients: those he healed with the secret electricity. He wanted to know what happened to those who had faith in him and his power: and he didn't realize how he had been tricked and screwed by Mother until the very end.

Sure, he had his doubts, but he still believed that there was something peaceful on the other side where his wife and child were.

For this theory to be true, would mean that Patsy did kill herself and her child in a way: she crashed into the truck and killed them both. Perhaps she wasn't drunk at all and I believe that was simply a bad reaction to his terrible Sermon, a way for people to excuse his blasphemy. I actually think that whiskey wasn't hers, it was probably Jacobs. Jacobs is shown to drink and use drugs.

This would explain why Patsy wasn't surprised that Con's voice returned and how she explains to Jamie that it wasn't for Con but for Jamie.

In my theory, Mother uses Jacob to gain more souls into her afterlife, forcing them to be her slaves for eternity. Everyone who is "saved" by Jacobs temporarily to live a little longer and test fate is tricked by the demon Mother and is fated to her forever.

This is why Mother gets pissed at Jamie: he's the only one who really knows the truth. Yet even he is ultimately screwed and knows so which is why he clings to his life, sanity and knowledge of the truth.

But even he knows he cannot escape his fate, which is proved when he revisits his brother Terry and his niece begins to cry: she knows Jamie is a dead-man walking.

I want this book to have a sequel and I want someone to fight Mother. I don't know why, but her similarities to Pennywise really interests me and she was a creepy factor in the end. I wanted more, though, just like everyone else. The final scenes felt rushed and I could understand why some people can't visualize Mother: King only used one paragraph to describe her and left the rest to our imaginations.

Overall, though, I think the book was great and it's one of those books I actually want to read again and find more things. I don't think Jacobs was a villain at all: he was obsessed and addicted.

Jacobs was a frog boiling in water and the water was powered by Mother's electricity.

THIS THOUGHTS MADE ME WANT TO HAVE A REMAKE IN REVIVAL IN REV. CHARLIE'S PERSPECTIVE. I believe this book has deeper meaning so i want to reread it to change my like meter of this to love meter. Because I LOVE REV. CHARLIE AS HOW I LOVE BRADY HARTSFIELD lol

I am once in a band (but not as a guitarist, as a drummer) so i was hooked at this novel.

Finished for the secod time last weekend,
Running through my head,
"Something"
"Happened"
"Something"
"Happened"
"Something""Happened"

I once said "something happened" like this to my friend

Something something something happened happened happened something happened thing happened somethign happened something happened something happened happened

And my friend said "what an awesome remix sam"
Me : -__-

 

[greg kai]

Actually I see more common points between the Mother and the Crimson King from Dark tower/Hearts in Atlantis than It/Pennywise. Especially CK as described in Hearts, the "Null" makes me think a lot about the place where Ted Brautigan comes from...Low men being "ant things". Probably because in both cases there seems to be a whole society there where men are the slaves, and a hierarchy of beings above them. It seems more a loner to me. Also Astrid makes me think of Carol, Bev not so much.
Enjoyed Revival a lot, especially the growing up/getting old part of it, lot like Hearts for a bittersweet taste. King at his best! "It" is probably my favorite, and I love the way kids are described, but the getting older part rings slightly less true, not sure why. Now one can argue that it/pennywise is also the crimson king ;-)

 

[rudiroo]

Hi Eyeshadow - great idea for a thread.

In this novel is that we grow old with Jamie.
SK always wants to share, so as middle-age hammers at his door, we hear it too -if you're a youngster, it's a distant tippety-tap.
At 55? I can hear it dragging the door off the hinges.

B.Springsteen said,
Like a river that don't know where it's flowing
I took a wrong turn and I just kept going.

Lots of people don't know where they're flowing, but they end up in a safe(ish) place
Jamie doesn't.
Sometimes it's his fault - he's the engine driving the event (or shutting it down).
Sometimes, it just. . happens.
SK always wants to share, reminding us that the random is everywhere.
But the random holds hands with destiny/fate/beshert (Yiddish:when two people meet and the chemistry is right, it's beshert- meant to be).

Where does that leave us?
With paradox.
Isn't that how most of us live?
Fumbling with incompatible stuff in our heads, tripping over it, shoving it into life's laundry basket.
Dealing with tragedy when we're least prepared, chance encounters that reverberate (like guitar feedback, maybe? Cue old-school music reference )
Plus all the snippets that end up in the miscellaneous drawer, because there isn't anywhere else to put them.

Why do we do this?
For revival http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/164908?redirectedFrom=revival#eid (thanks OED, revival means more than we thought, eh?)
Every day we're alive is an act of revival.
And when we're dead, we're something else.

And SK always wants to tell us about that. .