Entering the circle *SPOILERS*

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

Neesy

#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
May 24, 2012
61,289
239,271
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Welcome to the SKMB! It's stout, Neese. :)
stock-vector-vector-stout-beer-label-85772176.jpg
 

PanLoki

Member
Jun 18, 2014
10
46
49
Orléans, France
I think the creature in It is an allegory for age.
The whole book is about the transition from youth to adulthood.
What are adults but children who have shape-shifted into monstrosities of their former perfect selves?

Hello.
And indeed. Your explanation might well be the simple truth. I know I have a tendency of reading too much into IT :)
Age or, maybe, memory loss. But as you'll see with my reply to Robert Grey, there might be more.
 

PanLoki

Member
Jun 18, 2014
10
46
49
Orléans, France
Dear Robert Gray,

Thanks a lot for your excellent reply, and thanks for mentionning X: The Man With the X-Ray Eyes, one of the creepiest movies of all times.

Yet...

Well, first things first. I'm not entirely convinced that the "my monster is bigger than yours" approach is the most relevant one, yet it seems to be the one you chose:

To put this in context, the monstrosities of Lovecraft are dwarfed by the Deadlights. (...) Mighty Cthulhu who towers like Godzilla is still but a mote in the eye of the Deadlights.

Secondly, when Stephen King goes into a concise discussion of the movie X: The Man With the X-Ray Eyes (Danse Macabre, chapter 6, 10), he writes: "the movie becomes lovecraftian in a different, and purer, fashion than in Alien" (sorry for this inexact quote, my edition of the book is in French, and I couldn't find the original sentence over the Net; I underline the adjective). On the other hand, you wrote:

The various monsters of Lovecraft were aliens, most often from outer space. This means they are still from our reality however horrific. (...) Pennywise (or It) for lack of a better name is a physical manifestation of the real monster, and in that physical incarnation it certainly can be compared to the horrific monsters of Lovecraft's imagination, things so horrific that madness seems to follow perception of them. But once you are beyond the physical and get down to brass tacks we are really talking about something else, the mother lode of "outside evil," the source so to speak.

Hum. I am no Lovecraft specialist, but this is what I understood. In Lovecraft, you find some repulsive "monsters" that do belong to our universe (such as the Elder Things, their Shoggoths or the Mi-Go). But you also find entities (Yog-Sothoth or Azathoth) whose nature is unclear, possibly material but also, very possibly, from another dimension or another universe with different space-time laws. And by the way, it seems to me that the Turtle is very much physical (IT, chapter 22, 2) - and It was somehow fabricated by the Turtle, if I got it right. Also, It comes to Earth in something that our minds interpret as a spaceship (chapter 15, 5). But if It was a non-physical entity, why come to Earth "in" anything, spaceship or what have you? Why not simply surge into our reality, or blend with it?

In other words, my point is that maybe the Lovecraftian entities known as the Great Old Ones are not as physical as they seem, notwithstanding their material aspect; and reciprocally, maybe It is not as non-physical as it would seem.

All subtleties aside, thought, I agree with you that It would probably be better called "the deadlights", and all you say about them is very true and interesting :

The "Deadlights" don't seem to be just one creature but rather an amalgam of all that is wrong and "outside" reality. The real entity, better known as the Deadlights, exists far beyond our reality where it is barred from entering in its true, maniac lack of form. It is the unmaking for a lack of a better word. It reaches out and into our world through pinholes in the barrier which keeps it "outside" and these fingers take on physical form and a semblance of sentience beyond the hate and insanity.

And let's try to get a little deeper into metaphysics here.

There's our world in which there are some very materialistic horrors (car accidents, for instance). There could be horrible unknown species in our world. There could be horrible life forms from other worlds in this universe (your standard Mi-Go for instance). There could be other universes with different physical laws that would be still "compatible" with our own (possibly the insects, birds etc. in The Mist). And there could be a strange yet natural aspect of reality that would be entirely non-material (ergo without any "physical laws" of any kind) but which could enter into our physical reality. Now. If It is from such an "aspect" of reality, as you seem to believe, then...

Then it would explain a lot.

First, if It is real and natural, that settles the debate whether It is some kind of natural cycle (it is). It also settles the question Mike asks himself, about what It actually feeds on (some real and natural part of ourselves - meat or emotion, who cares?). It also explains why It is in fact female and breeding (if It is a non-physical entity, this gruesome business described in chapter 22, 9, doesn't make any sense). All of these are not just hallucinations, as they would be if It were purely a non-physical being.

Second, and way more interestingly I think, it explains why It appears to each person under the guise of this person's worst fears: It simply adapts to the physical laws of our world, in which we have eyes, and nerves, and muscles, and brains, although all these organs may be as abstract concepts to It as the deadlights are an abstract concept to us. Thirdly, it would mean that Its shapeshifting "body" as Pennywise or the Spider is not the vessel "inside" which one finds Its "intelligence", but that these bodies are rather like Its door towards our material reality. The so-called "Kill" (chapter 23, 2) would be better called "The Closing of The Door" (but that would be way less heroic, I guess)... and this would imply that even if the Spider is dead, well... the deadlights still glow somewhere beyond our universe, looking for another door (and that would explain why "Pennywise lives", ha-ha).

And third, for the worse part, dear friends and good neighbours (to quote Tom Rogan). Both non-material yet natural and real... This, in metaphysics, is called the non-being. And that means that George Denbrough (among others) has been killed by nothing. Nothing actually happened. It's not just that the characters forget what happened because it was too horrible, just like IT readers tend to forget parts of the novel. It is that after whatever happened happened, it turns out that strictly nothing happened, and this is why the ink in Mike's index notebook does fade and disappear. Pretty much like after you've crossed a stream by using two rocks which you alternatively move around and stand upon: in the end, both rocks are on the other side of the stream next to you, and yet no trace remains of your crossing. None whatsoever.

Let's conclude: if Robert Gray's explanation is correct, then it implies that Derry residents are extremely wise when they display their "special way of looking the other way" - because in fact nothing happens in Derry.
 
Mar 12, 2010
6,538
29,004
Texas
And that means that George Denbrough (among others) has been killed by nothing. Nothing actually happened. It's not just that the characters forget what happened because it was too horrible, just like IT readers tend to forget parts of the novel. It is that after whatever happened happened, it turns out that strictly nothing happened, and this is why the ink in Mike's index notebook does fade and disappear.

That's an interesting idea... eldritch even lol. I mean your entire post was interesting - my simple mind merely homed in on that part :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: GNTLGNT and Neesy

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
Well, first things first. I'm not entirely convinced that the "my monster is bigger than yours" approach is the most relevant one, yet it seems to be the one you chose:

Unfortunately I do not have time for a proper length of response to your entire post. I will do so later this evening when I return home. This comment above does require addressing in the short term, and I believe I have enough time to do so. We have to be absolutely clear that I am not using the "my monster is bigger than yours" approach. I do not attempt to define the Deadlights. I go strictly by how the monster (and Sai King) defines itself. I try, in discussions such as these, to put as little conjecture in that I cannot support directly from the text.

The monster, better known as the Deadlights in its entirety, is bigger than almost everything else, except for the Turtle and the mysterious "Other" who probably created the Turtle who in turn puked up the universe. We know this for a fact in the reality of this book because we are allowed to enter into the mind of the monster directly. There are no secrets at that point. We know of the Turtle by the conversations with it and by what Deadlights says of it. I am in no way seeking to minimize the horrific power of Lovecraft's entities. I seek merely to put them in context.

With that in mind I want to point out that when the smallest manifestation of It arrived in pre-history (as observed by Mike and Richie) it was so massive that it changed the topography of the land. The arrival of It made a rising Lovecraftian monster that towers over ships at sea small by comparison. I'm sure you see the implications. The actual monster, the Deadlights, is locked outside of our reality. Its tiny manifestation which could get in was still massive enough to hit the planet like an asteroid, burn down a jungle, and change the very land.

We must take the monsters in the context of the world or universe in which they exist. We must measure them by their limits. There is no debating the fact that the Deadlights have a Lovecraftian air, but the scale and scope goes far beyond sleeping nasty Elder Gods which vie with one another in space and time or slumber beneath our oceans. For all their horrific power and size, the Old Ones of the Lovecraftian Mythos were still primarily physical somewhere. The Deadlights are beyond even that.
 

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
Secondly, when Stephen King goes into a concise discussion of the movie X: The Man With the X-Ray Eyes (Danse Macabre, chapter 6, 10), he writes: "the movie becomes lovecraftian in a different, and purer, fashion than in Alien" (sorry for this inexact quote, my edition of the book is in French, and I couldn't find the original sentence over the Net; I underline the adjective).

There is no need to fret over the differences in translations. I think we might be debating a difference of opinion that doesn't exist. I defer without hesitation the influence of Lovecraft in Sai King's works. I think that is clear in all my previous posts on the matter. If that is your only assertion, we are in agreement. I think, however, that you are going further, implying that the monster that haunts Derry is among peers with the entities of Lovecraft, that it might just be another of of that stripe. Here I am assuming because that is what it sounds like you are saying by implication. If that is the case, we disagree profoundly. The Deadlights, if anything, would be the progenitor of all such creatures, i.e. lesser evils. "We are Legion," the madman said. The Deadlights is the source of "outside evil," the unmaking itself. I might be willing to concede that some of the Lovecraft Mythos are different manifestations of the same maniac lack f form (but I don't think so), but they are most certainly not peers.

Sai King talks about Lovecraft at length as is fitting the author's impact. He notes that Lovecraft cracks the door to let you get a glimpse at what lies beyond, but only a glimpse. Sai King throws the door wide. By necessity, King must give us more to digest, both of a physical and philosophical nature. His job is harder than Lovecraft because he cannot rely simply on theme, mood, and implication. Since he throws the door open in It, showing us the monster in no uncertain terms both mentally and as close to physically as its impossible nature allows, Sai King defines his monster. The Deadlights isn't just a cosmic horror from beyond reality, it is THE cosmic horror. This isn't hubris on the author's part, merely a necessity created by his willingness to throw the door wider than the rest.

Hum. I am no Lovecraft specialist, but this is what I understood. In Lovecraft, you find some repulsive "monsters" that do belong to our universe (such as the Elder Things, their Shoggoths or the Mi-Go). But you also find entities (Yog-Sothoth or Azathoth) whose nature is unclear, possibly material but also, very possibly, from another dimension or another universe with different space-time laws. And by the way, it seems to me that the Turtle is very much physical (IT, chapter 22, 2) - and It was somehow fabricated by the Turtle, if I got it right. Also, It comes to Earth in something that our minds interpret as a spaceship (chapter 15, 5). But if It was a non-physical entity, why come to Earth "in" anything, spaceship or what have you? Why not simply surge into our reality, or blend with it?

Yes, the Lovecraft Mythos includes, particularly in the modern interpretations, other dimensions. That isn't, however, where the Deadlights reside. Other dimensions are still natural places, part of the organic whole, however removed from us. The Deadlights are outside of everything. The Deadlights, as a whole, cannot enter because something has erected a barrier that keeps it "outside" of everything. One would presume this is the Other. The Turtle is an entity that created the entire universe in which the Losers reside. It views things from a cosmic distance but is still "inside" the multiverse. Other universes (or realities) within the multiverse by the implication across King's stories are likely created by other such God-like entities. Most of us muse, for example, that in the universe wherein Narnia resides, a cosmic entity like a massive lion observes all from the distance. These beings are so massive and powerful, vomiting up galaxies that trying to describe them as physical is pointless. The Deadlights are not as massive or as powerful as the Turtle (or one would presume the Turtle's counterparts) but it is not that far removed either. It is closer to them than it is to any entities created by Lovecraft.

Why did the Deadlight stretch out a finger through one of the holes in the barrier to settle part of itself on Earth? That question is answered, at least as far as I'm concerned. When you read about the arrival of Pennywise (It) for that is a useful name for the avatar of the Deadlights, there is a line that indicates that it went there to wait for the human beings that it new would be coming. In short, it has a favored prey. This entity has a perception of time and/or the design of the multiverse from which it is barred that provides it with the ability to plan and set itself up. Consider also that this entity, which believe itself to be one of only two cosmic entities (we get this from its mind direct) doesn't have any ambitions to conquer the universe or multiverse. It is beyond such petty ambitions. It is already near omnipotent and as such cares only about sating its dark hunger. It seeks only to play. Tolkien's Ungoliant is not unlike the Deadlights in that it is also a monster of such massive size and power, grown thus from feeding that it has no need of ambitions or politics. Even other Satanic figures like Melkor (who came before Sauron) fear her. Please note that Ungoliant, like the monster in Derry, is female. The reason I went on this tangent is to point out another stark difference between the entities of Lovecraft and Sai King. The monsters of Lovecraft compete with each other over planets, Earth, prey, and perhaps dimensions. They have rivals. The Deadlights has no such peers.

In other words, my point is that maybe the Lovecraftian entities known as the Great Old Ones are not as physical as they seem, notwithstanding their material aspect; and reciprocally, maybe It is not as non-physical as it would seem.

Yes, it is possible to extrapolate and give Lovecraft's entities the same kind of cosmic power and undetermined form as the Deadlights, but that is a bridge too far for me. I do not find that supported in the texts. That is creating a wish list and wanting to expand on the Mythos to make it fit a personal preference. I only go by what we find in the stories and Lovecraft's entities are far more physical and limited than the Deadlights. And I am most certainly not willing to speculate on the Deadlights actually being less or different that presented in the book because then the Narrator was lying to us. The author did not establish the narrator as fallible, and thus this is not possible.
 
Last edited:

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
And let's try to get a little deeper into metaphysics here. There's our world in which there are some very materialistic horrors (car accidents, for instance). There could be horrible unknown species in our world. There could be horrible life forms from other worlds in this universe (your standard Mi-Go for instance). There could be other universes with different physical laws that would be still "compatible" with our own (possibly the insects, birds etc. in The Mist). And there could be a strange yet natural aspect of reality that would be entirely non-material (ergo without any "physical laws" of any kind) but which could enter into our physical reality. Now. If It is from such an "aspect" of reality, as you seem to believe, then...

That is the problem. I don't believe the Deadlights are from any other part of the universe. It is from outside of everything. That is what makes it fundamentally wrong and for lack of a better word, bad. Sai King's works tend to allude to an ultimate creator, or God if you like that term better. Granted, this being is so far beyond even entities such as the Turtle as to make any speculation pointless. Whether you want to call it God, the Prim, or whatever else floats your boat, the notion is that there is a single source of all that is made and holds together. Everything within the multiverse comes from it. There is, likewise, a force which remains forever on the outside. Where this force comes from isn't really broached. King does not go into philosophical debates as to whether the ultimate evil was created by the divine source or somehow existed apart. What I am suggesting is that Lovecraft's entities come from other dimensions and planets and sometimes cross our path. The Deadlights don't come from any of those places, it is the ultimate outsider. I know it is difficult to think of there being an outside to everything, but that is what we are talking about.

Then it would explain a lot. First, if It is real and natural, that settles the debate whether It is some kind of natural cycle (it is). It also settles the question Mike asks himself, about what It actually feeds on (some real and natural part of ourselves - meat or emotion, who cares?). It also explains why It is in fact female and breeding (if It is a non-physical entity, this gruesome business described in chapter 22, 9, doesn't make any sense). All of these are not just hallucinations, as they would be if It were purely a non-physical being.

These questions are answered in the book. It feeds because to get part of itself through the barrier and enter the physical world, its fingertip must be physical. As it is from outside of everything and barred from entering as itself, it can only get a finger in by obeying the laws of reality. What it feeds on, or rather what sates its hunger, is in part demanded by the universe in which it sticks its finger. It kills and makes people miserable because, ultimately, it enjoys doing that. It sates itself on hate and emotions and then goes back to sleep (or rather the avatar of the real monster does). Who knows, perhaps while it sleeps in that universe, another finger is active in another universe. The nature of the Deadlights makes it clear that once you are all the way out there it is so alien and "outside" that even communication is impossible. As the Deadlights are outside of everything, each finger in each reality might believe itself to be supreme and be entirely unaware of the other avatars snaking through other pinpoints in the barrier to enter other universes.

Second, and way more interestingly I think, it explains why It appears to each person under the guise of this person's worst fears: It simply adapts to the physical laws of our world, in which we have eyes, and nerves, and muscles, and brains, although all these organs may be as abstract concepts to It as the deadlights are an abstract concept to us. Thirdly, it would mean that Its shapeshifting "body" as Pennywise or the Spider is not the vessel "inside" which one finds Its "intelligence", but that these bodies are rather like Its door towards our material reality. The so-called "Kill" (chapter 23, 2) would be better called "The Closing of The Door" (but that would be way less heroic, I guess)... and this would imply that even if the Spider is dead, well... the deadlights still glow somewhere beyond our universe, looking for another door (and that would explain why "Pennywise lives", ha-ha).

In essence, yes. You are getting closer to my argument here. When the Losers killed It's physical manifestation in their universe, the monster was evicted. The Deadlights lost access to that universe. Other lesser evils are about to be sure, but the Deadlight's itself (my assumption) cannot return to that universe. The Other (for we most surely hear its voice to Bill at the end) clearly strove long and hard to help in the manner of "the Lord helps those who help themselves" to close that door. Yes, the physical manifestation in Derry was simply a door or a fingertip pushing itself into our reality. As the ultimate outsider it could only take forms from the minds of those around it, either as individuals or as a collective whole.
 

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
And third, for the worse part, dear friends and good neighbours (to quote Tom Rogan). Both non-material yet natural and real... This, in metaphysics, is called the non-being. And that means that George Denbrough (among others) has been killed by nothing. Nothing actually happened. It's not just that the characters forget what happened because it was too horrible, just like IT readers tend to forget parts of the novel. It is that after whatever happened happened, it turns out that strictly nothing happened, and this is why the ink in Mike's index notebook does fade and disappear. Pretty much like after you've crossed a stream by using two rocks which you alternatively move around and stand upon: in the end, both rocks are on the other side of the stream next to you, and yet no trace remains of your crossing. None whatsoever.

I don't disagree but I'm not inclined to fully agree yet either. Sai King's books give us a vivid tapestry of the ultimtae battle between good and evil. This battle seems to rage across the multiverse with certain universes/realities being lost to one side or the other. I don't think that the Deadlights are nothing, but rather once it had been purged from reality by the rules of the heroes (rather than God) intervention, that the Lord can then put things back the way they should have been in the first place. The champions chose to "stand and be true" and because of this the Other then takes actions. I suspect there is a free will metaphor in there. We have seen other universes fall in the King Multiverse where the opposite has come to pass. I think from a distance, removed from our mortal perception (our level of the Tower) that these cosmic forces continue to exist. They remain something, existing independently of us and not requiring our perception of them to continue.

Let's conclude: if Robert Gray's explanation is correct, then it implies that Derry residents are extremely wise when they display their "special way of looking the other way" - because in fact nothing happens in Derry.

I am egotistical enough to like someone saying I'm correct, but I think you are going further than I do. Your metaphysical extrapolation isn't something I am willing to pass final judgment on. It is an interesting exercise but is more a commentary on philosophical ideas that I don't think are really intended or designed in King's stories. I think the reason many of Derry's residents look the other way is because it is a statement on the weaker and darker side of human nature. Beverly comes to realize that It fills the hollow places in people and through that influence them. The tendency of Derry residents to look the other way or dwell in willful ignorance is a statement on human failings rather than metaphysics.
 

Neesy

#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
May 24, 2012
61,289
239,271
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Ok, maybe we're both right. Or both wrong. Or both just silly stout beer drinkers.
or maybe we are both "stout" (perish the thought!) I plan on doing a lot of walking while up in Baker Lake this coming week. Do you think I should indulge myself and read "Mr. Mercedes" up there? (or save it for when I get back?) - it is not like there is much to do up there in terms of tourist attractions.
 

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
Boy howdy... reading Robert Gray's and PanLoki's posts are like reading an annotated version of IT. Y'all have really studied this novel! :wha:

I can't speak for PanLoki, but I just have a very good memory (particularly for books I enjoy) and have read this particular tale many times. :D Hopefully, we don't come off as dry and uninteresting.
 

FlakeNoir

Original Kiwi© SKMB®
Moderator
Apr 11, 2006
44,082
175,641
New Zealand
I can't speak for PanLoki, but I just have a very good memory (particularly for books I enjoy) and have read this particular tale many times. :D Hopefully, we don't come off as dry and uninteresting.
No way, I fully enjoyed that latest exchange and think I now have a better understanding of the most confusing part (for me) of this story. Thanks...
 
Mar 12, 2010
6,538
29,004
Texas
I can't speak for PanLoki, but I just have a very good memory (particularly for books I enjoy) and have read this particular tale many times. :D Hopefully, we don't come off as dry and uninteresting.

Y'all are in no way dry and uninteresting! You must have a very creative mind. I'll bet no one has ever accused you of not being able to think outside the box lol. Y'alls insights are amazing :) I hope you and PanLoki continue the discussion :)
 

skimom2

Just moseyin' through...
Oct 9, 2013
15,683
92,168
USA
It's an interesting debate/discussion. Mr. King is obviously well-read and well-versed in various philosophical traditions, but I tend to think you're over thinking It. Above all, he's a storyteller and an acute observer of humans and how we think/behave (thus the staying power and draw of his stories: he writes about real people, acting and reacting realistically even in the most fantastic situations). Though he surely draws upon the foundations of horror tradition (Lovecraft, yes, but others as well), in creating the Deadlights he's speaking to a primal fear of thinking beings: nothing. Emptiness. A void. The snuffing out of our individual lights.

Though he's addressed his own religious views with ambivalence, it's clear to me through decades of reading his writing that Mr. King is an intensely believing man. Not necessarily in the old man with a long white beard view of God, but that there is a purpose to life, and that there is intrinsic good underscoring the world (in this book, the Other). The Deadlights are the antithesis of purpose--not exactly evil (in the Christian sense), but nothing. Maybe the Other is creation itself and the Turtle is what humans can understand of that creator (sort of like the Judeo-Christian idea that man is incapable of beholding the full glory of God--our heads would explode or something)...not sure--I'm still mulling over the Turtle and it's place in worldwide religious tradition (and I can't help but giggle over Pratchett's take on the turtle in his books :D).

After far too many words (lol), I guess what I'm saying is that debating King's mythology vs. Lovecraft's in this instance is interesting but makes Mr. King's story more operatic than what seems to be his intent: to talk about that fear of Nothing and suggest that, while Nothing exists, it is not as powerful as Purpose. Purpose, the Good, The White, God...whatever you choose to call it...is what saved the Losers, because it was both outside of them and a part of them. Pretty nifty.

That theme is an integral part of nearly all of Mr. King's works. His faith that goodness and Purpose are available to everyone who wishes to avail him/herself of them makes him one of the most intensely moral writers I've ever read. His open-eyed acceptance that not everyone will avail themselves of such makes him one of the most humanistic. And all this philosophical mumbo-jumbo is always secondary to the STORY, making him one of the best writers I've ever had the pleasure to read.