The GIGANTIC PLOTHOLE in 22-11-63 *SPOILERS*

  • New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
  • New 2019 Hours: The message board is closed between the hours of 4pm ET Thursday and 8:30am ET Tuesday.

    As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.

kingricefan

All-being, keeper of Space, Time & Dimension.
Jul 11, 2006
29,071
120,629
Spokane, WA
#44
The known facts of the case have convinced me it wasn't just a Lone Gunman. My money is on the military-industrial complex, but it could have been the maffia, Cuba, Soviets, or any combination thereof.

It's not so much a conspiracy as an inevitability of history. JFK upset the establishment too much. He would have been stopped one way or the other. This is why WW1 would have happened, one way or the other, stopping Prinzip would not have prevented WW1.
You might also add the death of Marilyn Monroe into this mix. There is a conspiracy theory that she was murdered by the mafia. She apparently had had (or was having) affairs with both John and Bobby Kennedy (both Kennedy brothers were out to break the power of the mafia and also of the FBI). The FBI knew of the affairs and had her phone tapped. The first person to show up at her house after she was dead was Peter Lawford (he was part of the 'Rat Pack' and had ties with the mafia). He made a phone call to someone with in minutes of arriving and all he said was 'She's gone.' and hung up. By killing off a mega star like Marilyn they (mafia or FBI) sent a clear message to the Kennedy brothers that they could do it and get away with it and that the Kennedy brothers could be next, if they didn't stop their pursuit of breaking the mafia and FBI. As history shows (if this theory is correct), they did do it, as both brothers were murdered, and got away with it.
 
#46
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT

The big plothole is of course the effects of a reset button. To know for sure if Oswald was the killer, Jake could have killed Oswald in 1958, gone back to 2011 to see if Kennedy survived or not. If he hadn't, Oswald would not have been the killer, and he would have had to go back to 1958 which would have reset Oswald into life again. That might even have prevented him from becoming a patsy, saving Oswalds life. And then he would have had to wait for the real killers to show up.
This doesn't get mentioned a lot by reviewers, only some boards discuss this like the Guardian and Reddit.

Preventing the attack would have been easy with a modern fake IED, (to spook the Secret Service) that would explode BEFORE Dealy Plaza, at a point where the motor cade could still turn.
But sure, then we wouldn't have a 800 page novel, so I guess that's motivation to ignore the plothole right there.

Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty good novel, even if it was a little saccharine at times. Especially when it came to small towns.

[blockquote]It's noted in the book that Jake couldn't kill Oswald outright until he knew he was acting on his own. If he had killed Oswald early, and he was part of a group, they could have just used another killer.[/blockquote]​

Don't see how that changes anything. The reset is still in effect. Plus, King offers us a binary choice: it's either Oswald or a "conspiracy" which King tries to ridicule.
Lets say JFK still gets murdered, then we know that all detective work should look at other people, not Oswald. But King is a bit lazy to fully work out alternatives, perhaps because there is a ton of material on every little move Oswald made, but not on alternatives.
That isn't a hole in the plot. Jake Epping and Al are caring, human beings with a sense of ethics and a clear understanding that they are experimenting with things they don't fully comprehend. In short, they don't find murder an acceptable notion without proof, i.e. the ends do not automatically justify the means for Al and Jake. What you address doesn't get talked about by a lot of reviewers because most people don't assume that murder can be done that casually by an ethical person. You are quite correct that if a T-1000 Terminator were in the same position it would just terminate Oswald with extreme prejudice and then go back to check its work. Epping isn't a machine, a sociopath, or a psychopath. The hole isn't in the plot. Sadly, it is in your reasoning. The reason Al and Jake don't take the easy route is clearly established by their characters. Moreover, there is also the issue of getting out to check one's work. Crime (murder) for which one gets caught in the past would prevent you from going forward to check one's work. Failure in an attempt would likewise mean failure in the mission. Remember how much thought Epping put into what he would do after he killed the abusive jerk in Derry. It is the morality and ethics of the protagonists which provide the conflict in their situation. Without a doubt, a sociopath (or far less ethical person) would have had little trouble altering the past, taking lives, and checking their work. Of course, such people would probably not have been interested in stopping Oswald in the first place. Thus, the hole isn't in the plot. You should consider your line of reasoning. The hole is in a very uncomfortable place.
 

muskrat

Dis-Member
Nov 8, 2010
4,486
19,262
Under your bed
#47
Here's yez a plothole:

So Jake sees Al one day, who is fine. Next day, Al's ate up with cancer, which he got during the last four or so years he spent in the past.

Now, Al's only been back ONE day, yet, here on page 69 of the hardback, Al talks about his visiting nurse worrying about him being careful not to exceed the dosage of his OxyContin.

So Al, in ONE DAY, has a nurse (whose been at Al's house several times?) and OxyContin?
 

muskrat

Dis-Member
Nov 8, 2010
4,486
19,262
Under your bed
#49
Apparently Al saw a doctor in Portland, in that one day, mind you, who must have examined him and wrote his script. Okay, I can ALMOST see that, but the nurse? A nurse who had been, by Al's own admission, at his house multiple times/days before? How? He didn't HAVE cancer yesterday, see?

Sorry, folks. I want my No-Prize.
 

Ashcrash

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2015
1,331
4,922
Wutsittoyu
#53
Although JFK was before my time I do know one thing 11/22/63 was a work of fiction not a biography. I am sure Stephen King spent a heck of a lot of time figuring out which way to run with it. Or possibly no time at all because the story wrote itself in his mind and even he was surprised by it. But I think it was a lose lose or win win situation no matter what way he went with it. He could have came to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy with multiple gunman and many would disagree as they will disagree with the lone gunmen. This is one of the principle factors in what makes the JFK assassination so haunting and unforgettable. In my opinion he did I good job of bringing up those feelings because here we are discussising the event again years and years later. My guess is this had a great impact on him and he did his best to capture every angle he could to make us feel something. But at the same time he had to reach a reasonable conclusion. Because JFK did not live. So how could we connect with the story if he did. At the same time throughout the story we are hoping for a savior to 're write history. But we got to be careful because changing history effects the outcome of the future it has to. So with all that said I think the book was written quite well. For literature to combine fact with fiction in an event such as this there will always be unsatisfied readers. It is like you are being forced to face the truth and being asked to let go of reality at the same time.
 

Ashcrash

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2015
1,331
4,922
Wutsittoyu
#56
Although JFK was before my time I do know one thing 11/22/63 was a work of fiction not a biography. I am sure Stephen King spent a heck of a lot of time figuring out which way to run with it. Or possibly no time at all because the story wrote itself in his mind and even he was surprised by it. But I think it was a lose lose or win win situation no matter what way he went with it. He could have came to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy with multiple gunman and many would disagree as they will disagree with the lone gunmen. This is one of the principle factors in what makes the JFK assassination so haunting and unforgettable. In my opinion he did I good job of bringing up those feelings because here we are discussising the event again years and years later. My guess is this had a great impact on him and he did his best to capture every angle he could to make us feel something. But at the same time he had to reach a reasonable conclusion. Because JFK did not live. So how could we connect with the story if he did. At the same time throughout the story we are hoping for a savior to 're write history. But we got to be careful because changing history effects the outcome of the future it has to. So with all that said I think the book was written quite well. For literature to combine fact with fiction in an event such as this there will always be unsatisfied readers. It is like you are being forced to face the truth and being asked to let go of reality at the same time.
U know it took forever to write that because I am trying all this out with a phone
I had to finally join the crowd and get a cell phone. Its a pain
 
Sep 5, 2015
15
81
42
#58
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT

The big plothole is of course the effects of a reset button. To know for sure if Oswald was the killer, Jake could have killed Oswald in 1958, gone back to 2011 to see if Kennedy survived or not. If he hadn't, Oswald would not have been the killer, and he would have had to go back to 1958 which would have reset Oswald into life again. That might even have prevented him from becoming a patsy, saving Oswalds life. And then he would have had to wait for the real killers to show up.
This doesn't get mentioned a lot by reviewers, only some boards discuss this like the Guardian and Reddit.

Preventing the attack would have been easy with a modern fake IED, (to spook the Secret Service) that would explode BEFORE Dealy Plaza, at a point where the motor cade could still turn.
But sure, then we wouldn't have a 800 page novel, so I guess that's motivation to ignore the plothole right there.

Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty good novel, even if it was a little saccharine at times. Especially when it came to small towns.

[blockquote]It's noted in the book that Jake couldn't kill Oswald outright until he knew he was acting on his own. If he had killed Oswald early, and he was part of a group, they could have just used another killer.[/blockquote]​

Don't see how that changes anything. The reset is still in effect. Plus, King offers us a binary choice: it's either Oswald or a "conspiracy" which King tries to ridicule.
Lets say JFK still gets murdered, then we know that all detective work should look at other people, not Oswald. But King is a bit lazy to fully work out alternatives, perhaps because there is a ton of material on every little move Oswald made, but not on alternatives.
Hi! Regarding the plothole your absolutely right but here is my take on it.
Its possible that King really didnt think of that, but can it also be possible that he though of that but to have jake not think of that? Can it be in readers mind to maybe accept that something like this could have been overlookd by the main caracter?
Anyway its one of the best books ive read take care
 
Likes: GNTLGNT

Roger M

New Member
Jan 5, 2016
2
1
55
#60
S
Aside from the plot hole, Kings certainty that it is Oswald is odd for several reasons:
- majorities of Americans think there was some conspiracy and reject the Lone Gunman Theory
- The Magic Bullet Speculation. And yes, I've seen the youtube docus that say seven bullet holes with one bullet is possible. I don't buy it.
- The undamaged bullet on the gurney.
- Oswald was never a skilled shooter, and that MC gun is not a good weapon.
- All the potential witnesses dying mysteriously.

Lesser reasons:
- The New Zeeland thing
- The photoshopped photo

Also, there is the simple fact that big things usually are effected by large powerful groups, not by individuals.
  • World War 1 would have happened even without the assassination in Sarajevo.
  • Hitler would have lost no matter what, because of supply lines and because he was simply outnumbered.
  • The civil war was 22 million against 7 million, with most or all of the warindustrial advantages to the North.
and so on.
The Warren commission seems biased, their goal was to not rock the boat. If they had said: We think sections of the Army/CIA have done this, there'd been a new Civil War.
But saying that a killer is "crazy" is the usual excuse. This is said about Sirhan Sirhan, and about Dylan Roof. Both have or had excellent motives for their assassinations other than "crazy"
Sure - but also the majority of Americans think that the world is only 6,000 years old!!
 
ELEVATION is now available in hardcover, ebook, and audiobook!