My internalized Guilt for liking Pennywise as a character

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

Mr. Jabot

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2009
84
60
Maryland
I've been kind of afraid to admit this on this forum for awhile, but I thought it was kind of important to mention. I've seen some mention of this around this place, and it seems to be kind of a "taboo" thing in the fan base.

I'm going to come right out and say it now: I like Pennywise. I genuinely like this monster as completely valid character.

It's not because I'm young and like gratuitous violence (some is fine, but I rarely feel passion for such things). It's not because IT is evil, or cool because it is evil, or any combination of the two (and while IT is clearly very cool, the "evil" part is just a facet of the character, and not fully important to my liking of it).

I feel especial guilt because I know the intention of the novel was either to dislike IT or Fear IT, and I'm pretty well aware that King isn't exactly crazy about his fans being keen on the character, but as much as I tell myself that Richie Tozier is my favorite, I just can't stop coming back to Pennywise.

Guys, it's always Pennywise.

I've put my reasoning behind it under the cut - I thought that some of those who didn't understand why some people like Pennywise might like to see the perspective of someone who likes him/her/it for reasons other than the fact that they're a cool horror villain.

First of all, let’s go into a little detail about the character’s motives and methods. Pennywise’s main motive for its actions as a villain is fairly simple - food. Pennywise kills children for this reason and this reason alone. It does not do so out of hatred, or because it enjoys killing, or out of spite for those who have wronged it (for no one has really wronged it). It kills because it needs to eat. This initially paints the picture of the creature as a mindless killing machine; a predator; the chapter that refers to Derry as a “haunt” or “hunting ground” of sorts, initiates the notion that IT (Pennywise) is animalistic and simple in its desires; perhaps even instinctual. I think, to an extent, this part is true. And, just like any animal, it goes for what is most pleasurable - in this case, IT preys on children because their fears are much more tangible and easier to replicate in physical form than the fears of adults.

Hence, children are the main targets. And what is the reason that it chooses to terrify its victims before consuming them? Again, the answer is very simple. IT states at one point that hormone associated with fear is somewhat of a delicacy; a kind of “seasoning” that creates a much more attractive flavor. Just as a child will choose candy and donuts before vegetables, IT chooses fear (as the connoisseur it surely is) in favor of other emotions, or the lack of emotion at all. While it would surely still kill you should it prefer the taste of other emotions, it would not be so much the terror it is in the novel; just take a look at Dandelo. Dandelo is a strange case because, although stated to be the same species as IT, this individual notably feeds off POSITIVE emotions, instead of negative ones. He is genuinely humorous, charming, and sociable - a cunning predator as well, and something to be feared for sure, but clearly capable of functioning as a normal individual in society despite his monstrous nature. Why do either of these shapeshifters choose to eat humans rather than animals? The simple presence of more potent emotions.

So why are they different than animals? Their human level of sentience and keen understanding of an intelligent mind set these villains apart from purely instinctual predators.

Are they evil? Clearly, they are intended to be, and at this point, I’m going to go out on a limb here and start delving into the somewhat debatable theories involved in Stephen King’s lore.

Monsters are evil. And I might go so far as to say that monsters are evil for the soul and utter reason that they ARE monsters. This is rather symbolic of Stephen King’s works; monsters are used as tools to describe the fears, anxieties, flaws, and negativities of human nature. Humans ultimately fight for good (against their demons; aka the monsters of the SK universe), while monsters seek to destroy humans and keep them from their ultimate goals.

As a both a horror lover and a monster lover, I am somewhat personally conflicted by this portrayal. While I understand that humans have an innate fear such things, I’m going to come right out and say that I’m a huge sucker for relatable monster characters. The monster as a character, rather than just an obstacle, is something that always has intrigued me - having human sentience without physical humanity is one of my favorite tropes. Intelligence in nonhuman characters is something that draws me to them; and there is so much of this in Stephen King’s works that the only real thing I have yet to see (and forgive me if I missed any of them) is an actual monster as a protagonist.

My interest in villains is not really due to them being a villain, per se, as much as it is due to villains being…well, interesting.

The heroes of IT are very likable, but I distance myself from them because of their heroism, their nobility, their simple childlike innocence. Even as adults, the characters are very pure. They’re brave, they’re heroes, and you know they’re heroes. They put their lives on the line to do what they think is right, they make sacrifices, they face their fears despite everything that weighs against them. Even Stan, who was supposedly a coward, killed himself rather than have to face the facts that he might not be able to fulfill his childhood promise. These are very likable characteristics, and I absolutely love each and every one of the Losers, but something about Pennywise’s hubris really draw me to it as a character.

Pennywise is notably a very powerful, very ancient, intelligent, and cunning deity - yet it is childish, it makes mistakes, it has fears. It isn’t used to not getting its way, so when it plays games with “vermin” as low and inconsequential as humans, it expects to win. When it loses its games, it is a BIG DEAL. Not only does it make Pennywise ragingly angry (another fatal flaw), but it also provokes in the creature a desire for revenge (I’ll prove to you that I’m not the chump you think I am). This is a very childish flaw, and although Pennywise obviously thinks it’s wiser than wise, its wisdom does not cover an ability to maturely handle stressful situations (and can it truly be expected to, when it has never had to deal with such things before?)

Although the monster is clearly an adult, physically-mature creature, its mindset is that a very intelligent child. In its whole life, it has never learned to face the consequences of its actions and has indulged itself as much as possible to the entire extent of its capabilities. When Gan finally gets sick and tired of its interference in the human world, it is finally “punished” by a group of children who have grown into the mature, responsible adults that Pennywise can never hope to be.

While its action near the beginning of the novel are fairly ominous, foreboding, and mysterious; the more interaction it has with the novel’s protagonists, the more its immaturity is revealed. It makes jokes, writes nasty messages, threatens, and harasses the main characters. It is a bully, just as Henry Bowers is a bully. It acts more and more erratic the more fearful it becomes, until it finally resorts to “letting them” live under the condition that they will simply leave it alone. Pennywise fears death; its own mortality is foreign to it. This is something we didn’t get to see in the movie; but yes, IT is reduced to a begging, groveling, frightened, pathetic mess by the end of the novel.

And I’m not going to lie; I felt badly for it. I literally sympathized with this creature. Although I would never excuse its behavior or actions, can an omnipotent, childlike God who has never had real interaction with anyone other than the Turtle REALLY be expected to show mercy or empathy for a group of people with such short lives and trivial concerns?
Could it ever have the potential to relate to humans on a more personal level? It certainly experiences a humanlike sense of humor, human flaws, and human emotions - it is a natural maliciousness that causes it to be evil, or is it stubborness; a simple denial that anything other than itself and the Turtle are important or necessary in the big scheme of things?

Not to say I ever thing IT would change its ways; I am fairly certain that its mindset over its many long years of life has been fairly ingrained in it; but the thought that a monster like this might come to understand humans is intriguing.

And since it has been long portrayed to be the “dark” to the Turtle’s “light,” it has been mentioned that neither can exist without the other. Despite Gan having to “reign in” his children once in awhile, there is part of me that wants to believe that he does genuinely care about them in a very angry, very impatient, fatherly type of way. That part of me also believes that the intention was never to have Pennywise die (for good), but rather to prevent it from its interference with the human race - which was accomplished by having its physical, earthly form completely annihilated by the Losers.

So yes. I like Pennywise. I think it’s an interesting character with a lot of hidden potential that one might not be able to see from the rose-tinted glasses of the Losers’ Club.

I'd like to mention that should we see Pennywise/It again, I think everyone will have something to fear - Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. No way it'll make the same mistake again.

I have a lot more to say on the subject, but I think I should stop here as I’ve gone on for a long time and I’m sure you’re all getting sick of reading it.

I'd love to hear thoughts on the matter.

Cheers, everyone!
 

Mr. Jabot

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2009
84
60
Maryland
I know how you feel. Harold Lauder is my favorite Sk character.

I'm so glad I'm not alone in enjoying the more "distasteful" characters of SK's stories. I just keep liking the villains and the characters that are supposed to be hated, and I'm confused by this. Speaking of Harold Lauder, I must remember to read The Stand again!
 

Mr. Jabot

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2009
84
60
Maryland
My favorite character is Collie Entragian (Desperation, not Regulators), of all people.
Oh man, I've been wanting to read Desperation for awhile now, and you just reminded me that I need to. From the little I've read about the book, though, Entragian isn't exactly at fault for his questionable behavior. I like seeing shades of gray in a character; definitely something I need to read!
 

Mr. Jabot

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2009
84
60
Maryland
Great post, about my favourite book.

I like to think that a day will come when IT is left in hotel rooms as opposed to The Gideon Bible.

My favourite character of all of SK's works has to be Richie Tozier.

Favourite bad guy has to be Randall Flagg. If you get a minute type Randall Flagg/ Nyarlathotep in to Google.

Thanks!
IT is definitely my favorite of Stephen King's works, it's great to me how much of a classic it's become.

Richie Tozier is one of my favorites to be sure; something about that sense of humor!

I must admit to liking Randall Flagg myself as well. If King's villains didn't have so much darn personality, maybe I wouldn't like them so much! And now that he has a bit of back story to him, it's impossible not to appreciate his characterization.
 

Mr. Jabot

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2009
84
60
Maryland
...nothing wrong with liking a "villain"...they are sometimes his most richly drawn characters...now, when you start dressing up like him and hanging around storm drains with balloons-then that might mean yer a nutter...
Hahaha, I might be crazy, but I'm not quite that crazy. I'm quite glad to know that it seems to be pretty okay with everyone when someone likes a villain, for some reason I was under the impression that people would get angry about it??? Maybe I am crazy after all.

King's villains have a lot of personality, and they always seem to have so much fun with their nefariousness. I can't help but appreciate it.
 

GNTLGNT

The idiot is IN
Jun 15, 2007
87,651
358,754
62
Cambridge, Ohio
Hahaha, I might be crazy, but I'm not quite that crazy. I'm quite glad to know that it seems to be pretty okay with everyone when someone likes a villain, for some reason I was under the impression that people would get angry about it??? Maybe I am crazy after all.

King's villains have a lot of personality, and they always seem to have so much fun with their nefariousness. I can't help but appreciate it.
...exactly!!!...bad is so much more fun to word-sculpt than good....
 

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
There is nothing wrong with liking a great character, evil or otherwise. The heroes are measured, after all, by the quality of their opposition. There is no night without the day, the path to Heaven is made interesting only by monsters along the way. The important thing, as you yourself clearly state, is that we can like them "as characters" because it is as characters that we are safe from them (more or less). Hell, I love to hate Big Jim from Under the Dome, but I sure as hell wouldn't like such a person if I met them in real life.
 

Mr. Jabot

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2009
84
60
Maryland
There is nothing wrong with liking a great character, evil or otherwise. The heroes are measured, after all, by the quality of their opposition. There is no night without the day, the path to Heaven is made interesting only by monsters along the way. The important thing, as you yourself clearly state, is that we can like them "as characters" because it is as characters that we are safe from them (more or less). Hell, I love to hate Big Jim from Under the Dome, but I sure as hell wouldn't like such a person if I met them in real life.

This is such a refreshing statement! Thank you so much, Mr. Gray - I would never want to see hide nor hair of any of the villains in Mr. King's stories in real life, but behind the safety of the novel, they're great entertainment, I'd say.
 

GNTLGNT

The idiot is IN
Jun 15, 2007
87,651
358,754
62
Cambridge, Ohio
P


Oh man, not going to lie - I like Trashcan Man too. I guess we can both be criticized for it!
...should be no criticism...Donald Elbert was a victim, long before he became a villain-and I think that's why we can identify with him...he got back at all those who had tormented him...on a grand scale...and who amongst us, hasn't wished to do the same?...