Why is IT so much more popular than many other King books?

  • This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.

Mel217

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2017
904
5,756
U could say several things like coming of age, readers remembering youth and how fun it was with ur friends growing up, the clown ECT. But what it comes down to is the writing. King was masterful with it. Just nailed it

The entire time I read this book the entire scenes play out in my head, in vivid detail, like a home movie. Talented and masterful writers can do that seemingly without effort (or, lots of effort but do a darned good job at making it look easy and keeping those transitional moments smooth.) When reading my first go 'round, my mind "created" the barrens to be in a place nearby the house of a friend I had growing up; the area is wooded, secluded, and had creepy drain pipes we stayed far the hell away from...because they were creepy. Even having saw the movie (1990 mini series version), the barrens in the movie never translated to the barrens in the book, but the characters faces did. Weird!
 

Mel217

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2017
904
5,756
Because it's awesome!

Ok, not much of an answer, but the pure horror of it and insanely good writing is why I love it!
It's like you want to read it, then you do, then wonder why you read it and why did you even finish it, then why did it end, why can't you feel your legs or hands, wonder if you will be able to sleep and if you will ever read a better book than "It" — feelings all at the same time.

There are a handful of books or series I've always liked for that reason alone, because (they're) awesome! Hey, it's good enough for me :)
 

Neesy

#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
May 24, 2012
61,289
239,271
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
The Birds is quite graphic by Hitchcock's standards. There are a number of attacks by the birds that are quite vicious, mostly the one on Tippi Hedren in the attic near the end - that scene reminds me of Lucio Fulci's style (he often had these scenes of people attacked by animals with lots of close-ups).


The reason why the shark was not shown until the end was actually by mistake. The plan was to show it more often, but the mechanical shark malfuntioned constantly, so Spielberg had to be creative and suggest it rather than show it. An example of a mistake making a film better.

But even Jaws has its gory moments. The highlight everyone talks about is when the corpse falls out of the sunken boat. And there are a couple of others like a bitten off leg floating to the bottom of the sea:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1e/06/b8/1e06b8802c99c9ddfe4998a0cb3a45b3.jpg

Even though Jaws does rely a lot on suggestion in a movie about a killer shark you GOT to show some violence at a certain point.
Good clip - I liked the end "Kathy - get some brandy"
 

Kingunlucky

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2016
368
1,681
IT might be the most recognizable within the pop culture. The clown has a very big standing among horror icons and the miniseries has stuck with people a lot more than other miniseries adapted from his work. It also was released during his popular period - 80s.

The Stand, however, is probably slightly more beloved among constant readers - maybe. The Stand also seems more liked by critics. I have no proof, but I've seen IT torn picked apart a lot easier. A lot of people who HATE Stephen King's writing even like The Stand.

Those two will probably just be rivals for most popular book.

Oh, The Shining is also a contender in there. I actually think it's better than The Stand and IT.

The Shining isn't really a tome King novel, though. THE GIANT books I mean.
 
Last edited:

Mel217

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2017
904
5,756
The thing I've found about so many SK works is their re-reading value is off the charts. I could re-read all three of those novels in the next few weeks and I guarantee that I would find stuff I'd missed!

I think the Shining was popularized a lot by the Kubrick film adaptation. Whether a person likes the movie or not, there are people out there who seems very dedicated to de-coding parts of the film (Rob Ager for example. And while I appreciate Kubrick's movie and think it's a very good film, I see the other side of the coin that a lot of the plot in the book was skipped.)

"It" seems more out and out horror for the general horror fans, but The Stand seems much more subtle in it's messages. (Only my opinions).

Nice post, Kingunlucky :)
 

Kingunlucky

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2016
368
1,681
Thank yoooooou! The Stand is also, at least to me, a more tightly constructed novel than IT. Now, IT is a more uniquely constructed book and has a much more unique concept, but The Stand is better mapped out.

Only my opinion
 

Mel217

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2017
904
5,756
Thank yoooooou! The Stand is also, at least to me, a more tightly constructed novel than IT. Now, IT is a more uniquely constructed book and has a much more unique concept, but The Stand is better mapped out.

Only my opinion

The flashback flip flop modes in books usually annoy me to the point it gets confusing enough that I either struggle through (and complain for 6 months after the fact) or give up all together. "It" flashbacks were so well done!
Seeing as how "It's" real form was portrayed by individual fears, I've wondered what my view of "It" would be. My guess is the giant spider (I loathe them), or a sticky note or text message from someone asking me to cover their work shift on my day off LOL
Someone in this thread or another mentioned they liked "It" as a character. SK seems to have a way with creating terrifying villains but finding a way to make the reader at least slightly empathetic.
"It" was killing people, but to "It", it was only eating, surviving. All it wanted to do was sleep and dream, and wake up to feed again. Annie Wilkes was insane and did horrible things and was basically a terrible person, but she was mentally ill enough that the reader had to give at least 1/2 second pause on her plight. Jack Torrance IMO is one of the most likable and lovable "villains" ever because his actual situation (with his family) in the first half of so of the book is extremely relatable and extremely real and happens a lot, and SK lived it and knew it. And so on and so forth down the line. Even crazy ass Mr. Toomey from the Langoliers has a reason for his insanity; a life lived with so much hell and pressure that he snaps at the worst possible time.
 

kingricefan

All-being, keeper of Space, Time & Dimension.
Jul 11, 2006
30,011
127,446
Spokane, WA
The flashback flip flop modes in books usually annoy me to the point it gets confusing enough that I either struggle through (and complain for 6 months after the fact) or give up all together. "It" flashbacks were so well done!
Seeing as how "It's" real form was portrayed by individual fears, I've wondered what my view of "It" would be. My guess is the giant spider (I loathe them), or a sticky note or text message from someone asking me to cover their work shift on my day off LOL
Someone in this thread or another mentioned they liked "It" as a character. SK seems to have a way with creating terrifying villains but finding a way to make the reader at least slightly empathetic.
"It" was killing people, but to "It", it was only eating, surviving. All it wanted to do was sleep and dream, and wake up to feed again. Annie Wilkes was insane and did horrible things and was basically a terrible person, but she was mentally ill enough that the reader had to give at least 1/2 second pause on her plight. Jack Torrance IMO is one of the most likable and lovable "villains" ever because his actual situation (with his family) in the first half of so of the book is extremely relatable and extremely real and happens a lot, and SK lived it and knew it. And so on and so forth down the line. Even crazy ass Mr. Toomey from the Langoliers has a reason for his insanity; a life lived with so much hell and pressure that he snaps at the worst possible time.
On the flip side he created Rhea Of The Coos (that b*tch!) and she ain't likable or relatable at all. ;-D
 

Kingunlucky

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2016
368
1,681
The flashback flip flop modes in books usually annoy me to the point it gets confusing enough that I either struggle through (and complain for 6 months after the fact) or give up all together. "It" flashbacks were so well done!
Seeing as how "It's" real form was portrayed by individual fears, I've wondered what my view of "It" would be. My guess is the giant spider (I loathe them), or a sticky note or text message from someone asking me to cover their work shift on my day off LOL
Someone in this thread or another mentioned they liked "It" as a character. SK seems to have a way with creating terrifying villains but finding a way to make the reader at least slightly empathetic.
"It" was killing people, but to "It", it was only eating, surviving. All it wanted to do was sleep and dream, and wake up to feed again. Annie Wilkes was insane and did horrible things and was basically a terrible person, but she was mentally ill enough that the reader had to give at least 1/2 second pause on her plight. Jack Torrance IMO is one of the most likable and lovable "villains" ever because his actual situation (with his family) in the first half of so of the book is extremely relatable and extremely real and happens a lot, and SK lived it and knew it. And so on and so forth down the line. Even crazy ass Mr. Toomey from the Langoliers has a reason for his insanity; a life lived with so much hell and pressure that he snaps at the worst possible time.

I'll completely agree about Jack. I actually don't even think Jack Torrance is a bad guy. If they had not gone to the hotel I think he'd of been fine. Okay, maybe divorce, bad times and all. I think he'd always love Danny, though and do what he could to help. He was just weak of mind and will. The Overlook took him.

I don't find It 'empathic' in that nature. The creature is no doubt interesting. The patterns, shape changing, and all that. Yes, It needs to feed to live, but It is a total sadist about it. The creature clearly knows what It's doing and enjoys it. I mean It is called The Eater of Worlds for a reason.

All the intelligent spider/Todash creatures with the exception of maybe Rose Madder? All seem fairly malicious in their goals/hungers.
 

Blake

Deleted User
Feb 18, 2013
4,191
17,479
1) Pennywise 2) You see the characters as kids then see them as adults and people can relate to them and see that they haven't really much change since they were kids. 3)It is a good book
But I would say because of Pennywise.
 

tzinc

Member
Sep 27, 2017
10
40
47
from the online stuff I have seen I would say The Shining and The Stand are more popular still however the new movie might push it ahead of those 2 but of course if a new The Stand movie comes out and depending on how good it is it could push It back out
 

César Hernández-Meraz

Wants to be Nick, ends up as Larry
May 19, 2015
605
4,416
44
Aguascalientes, Mexico
from the online stuff I have seen I would say The Shining and The Stand are more popular still however the new movie might push it ahead of those 2 but of course if a new The Stand movie comes out and depending on how good it is it could push It back out

I'm taking care of a Stephen King fan art group in a site called DeviantArt. I can tell you most of the submissions right now are of Pennywise. The Shining also has a lot of art (mostly of the movie). Most of the art for The Stand is done by me, so, at least among fan artists, The Stand is not *that* popular. Perhaps it is that many of these guys are young.
 

Gerald

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2011
2,201
7,168
The Netherlands
from the online stuff I have seen I would say The Shining and The Stand are more popular still however the new movie might push it ahead of those 2 but of course if a new The Stand movie comes out and depending on how good it is it could push It back out

I think The Stand is most popular to people who grew up in the seventies and read it when it came out. But it was never fixed in the minds of the general public as much as It and The Shining, because the mini-series wasn't as popular and well-known as the other two adaptations.
The Stand here hasn't seen nearly so many reprints as It and The Shining, which get reprinted all the time. I think The Stand here is amongst the LEAST reprinted of his works. It's also a much more complex story, you can't tell in one sentence what it's about, unlike the other two and it doesn't have a strong central, identifiable image like a clown or a hotel in the snow.
 

Gerald

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2011
2,201
7,168
The Netherlands
I don't find It 'empathic' in that nature. The creature is no doubt interesting. The patterns, shape changing, and all that. Yes, It needs to feed to live, but It is a total sadist about it. The creature clearly knows what It's doing and enjoys it. I mean It is called The Eater of Worlds for a reason.

Does the novel or movie ever make explicit WHAT It feeds off exactly? It's not just the fear, because he kills too. The way I see it: it exists because people fear him and then it kills, because it physically needs flesh once it exists.

Skarsgard says he approached the creature as animalistic and child-like. In a way it almost seems It is seeking confirmation whether it exists for real or not - it does that through fear - if It feels it is feared, it knows it exists.
And in an animalistic sense: animals, like cats, like to play with their prey too - it's something instinctual, there doesn't seem a real reason for it. Maybe it gives them a sense of power or control (like It wants), or maybe it's just because a cat is playful by nature, but I wonder if it's sadism - I doubt an animal enjoys causing another animal pain. Similar I don't know if It really knows what it's doing, it's just chosen fear as a way to exist.
But I read the book a long time ago, and it was abridged here, so I may be wrong.
 

Steve in WI

Active Member
Sep 17, 2017
38
172
39
I have a couple thoughts on Its popularity, and then I'll explain why the story resonates with me.

From a popularity standpoint, it seems like a lot of people are afraid of clowns and consider It to be King's scariest creation. And since the pop culture view of Stephen King is that his work is all about the scares, it's logical that people who look to him for that and not much else would prefer the book they consider the scariest.

Here's why the book is important to me. I have never, and still don't, find it to be his scariest story. In some ways it's his most disturbing, though, and I'll get to why I feel that way in a spoiler section later on in this post. I've read the book several times, first as a teenager, and it didn't have much of an impact on me then, beyond that I generally liked the book (as I liked almost all of the King books I read). I most recently reread it this summer because I wanted to be sure to experience It again before seeing the movie and having the movie inevitably affect the way I picture the town and the characters, and now it's become my favorite Stephen King book.

I think it's his best written book, for one thing. For a book that long (longer than anything he's done except the unabridged The Stand, I believe), there's close to no filler. It could have been even longer. The characters in the book are as well-drawn as any characters he's written, and they're so true to life that I find myself very invested in them and in their lives as the book goes on. One thing that occurred to me on my recent rereading is that he captures the endless summers of childhood in It better than any other book I've ever read.

Finally, here's why I find it to be so disturbing/emotionally affecting:
They may have come together in 1985 to truly destroy It this time, but they don't really get a happy ending. Stan and Eddie die and the remaining Losers are destined to forget each other once again. The passage of Mike realizing that his writing in his diary is fading and that he's already beginning to forget details about his friends brings tears to my eyes just thinking about it. And this is so relatable because the idea is grounded firmly in reality. Take away the supernatural elements of the story, and we all forget important things about our childhood and our friends that meant so much to us at the time. Rereading the book made me think back to when I was 11, and the friends that meant so much to me who I saw every day much like the Losers that summer. I'm no longer in touch with any of them and honestly have trouble remembering what exactly we did back then or why they were so important to me...I just remember that they were.

On a similar note, take any group of 7 kids and look at them almost 30 years later and it's highly unlikely that all of them will be leading happy lives. It's not implausible that not all of them will still be alive (though, granted, in real life one probably isn't going to get his arm ripped off in a sewer), and it's highly likely that some of them are going to be depressed, or divorced, or unsuccessful in their careers, or any number of other sad realities. Real life happy endings are hard to come by even if you don't have to fight a supernatural force of evil. Like most of the King horrors that truly scare or disturb me, what's really at the core is something that's rooted in the real lives we all live, not something that can be easily dismissed as "it's just fiction."