Stephen King's new novel, 11/22/1963

[Don Jeffries]

In the interview quoted above, King puts the liklihood of Oswald being a lone assassin at 98%. Do you really have any interest in anything that he has to say further on the subject? If he read any of the essential works, he has to know how impossible his premise is. And yet, he proceeds with it. I understand aspiring writers being dishonest in order to get a lucrative publishing deal, but how gutless can King be? He's rich beyond imagination, and certainly could get anything published at this point. In this manner, he is akin to the mega wealthy Tom Hanks, who is nevertheless selling out historical truth with the miniseries based on Bugliosi's absurd book.

King decided to write a book about the JFK assassination, and used fictional characters to make the points he wanted to make. As a fiction writer, I understand what he's doing, and I don't like it. His overall point clearly is that Oswald acted alone. Shockingly, this is the same point everyone with a forum in the mainstream media has made for nearly fifty years, and continues to make. Except Oliver Stone- which is why I think he's a true profile in courage.

To those of you who want to make this guy even more money by breathlessly buying his disinfo, enjoy living in a literal fantasy world. If you have to read this for whatever reason, at least wait until it gets to the library, so you don't directly contribute to his ill gained profits. All fiction has a purpose, and anything dealing with an actual historical event, especially THIS seminal event of the twentieth century, has to be scrutinized by those of us who know the facts. I can't excuse his irrational conclusion because he's writing fiction. Unless he's presenting an alternate reality, and changing the nature of the event (which he clearly isn't here), then devoting a book to the subject and coming down firmly in the impossible lone nutter camp, certainly leaves him open to criticism from those who've researched the case.

Usually, I bemoan the fact that fewer and fewer people read books now. In this case, however, I'm glad that King isn't likely to get the have the impact he hopes with this LN propaganda. Most of his loyal fan base is growing older, and hopefully know better than swallow this stuff. Perhaps a few will even become disillusioned with him.

[Dean Hagerman]

In the interview quoted above, King puts the liklihood of Oswald being a lone assassin at 98%. Do you really have any interest in anything that he has to say further on the subject? If he read any of the essential works, he has to know how impossible his premise is. And yet, he proceeds with it. I understand aspiring writers being dishonest in order to get a lucrative publishing deal, but how gutless can King be? He's rich beyond imagination, and certainly could get anything published at this point. In this manner, he is akin to the mega wealthy Tom Hanks, who is nevertheless selling out historical truth with the miniseries based on Bugliosi's absurd book.

King decided to write a book about the JFK assassination, and used fictional characters to make the points he wanted to make. As a fiction writer, I understand what he's doing, and I don't like it. His overall point clearly is that Oswald acted alone. Shockingly, this is the same point everyone with a forum in the mainstream media has made for nearly fifty years, and continues to make. Except Oliver Stone- which is why I think he's a true profile in courage.

To those of you who want to make this guy even more money by breathlessly buying his disinfo, enjoy living in a literal fantasy world. If you have to read this for whatever reason, at least wait until it gets to the library, so you don't directly contribute to his ill gained profits. All fiction has a purpose, and anything dealing with an actual historical event, especially THIS seminal event of the twentieth century, has to be scrutinized by those of us who know the facts. I can't excuse his irrational conclusion because he's writing fiction. Unless he's presenting an alternate reality, and changing the nature of the event (which he clearly isn't here), then devoting a book to the subject and coming down firmly in the impossible lone nutter camp, certainly leaves him open to criticism from those who've researched the case.

Usually, I bemoan the fact that fewer and fewer people read books now. In this case, however, I'm glad that King isn't likely to get the have the impact he hopes with this LN propaganda. Most of his loyal fan base is growing older, and hopefully know better than swallow this stuff. Perhaps a few will even become disillusioned with him.

Don

The huge difference between John Q Public reading this book and a researcher like myself reading this book is that I do NOT swallow what King is feeding me

I know that Oswald did not act alone

I am not reading this book the same way I read Reclaiming History, I am reading this book the same way I would watch a great movie

I take what King has concluded about Oswald with a grain of salt

And trust me, coming from someone who has read 3/4 of the book, the whole question hanging over Al and Jake's head is did Oswald act alone, it took Al 4 years of spying on Oswald and when he says he is 96% sure (at first) he still cant bring himself to kill Oswald because there is still that 5% chance

Then Jake has 5 years closing that gap to 98%

Do you really think that after I read this book of fiction om going to come away saying King was right! It was Oswald alone!

No chance in hell, im reading this book for what it is, entertainment, and thats just what it is doing

This book is great, I might just buy another copy as a thank you to King for writting another great book

[John Dolva]

Ok Dean, from one King fan to another say no more. Sounds like another hit. He went into a bit of a spiral after his accident imo. Sounds like he's back. Thank you.

[Dean Hagerman]

Ok Dean, from one King fan to another say no more. Sounds like another hit. He went into a bit of a spiral after his accident imo. Sounds like he's back. Thank you.

Yes John, he is back

[Pat Speer]

Ok Dean, from one King fan to another say no more. Sounds like another hit. He went into a bit of a spiral after his accident imo. Sounds like he's back. Thank you.

Yes John, he is back

I suppose he is back, as a story-teller. But he is yet to establish himself as the thinker he ought to be. He has recycled an old Quantum Leap episode and made it seem original. But that doesn't excuse his bald-faced lie he's read tons of books on the assassination and that all of them--even the conspiracy books--depict Oswald as an attention-starved nut. I mean, what a bunch of crud. Some of his flock might even take him seriously. His claim Oswald beat his wife is also revealing of bias, as no one really knows what went down between Marina and Lee besides Marina, and she, to this day, refuses to portray him as a cruel wife-beater.

I mean, does his book even deal with the medical evidence, and its problems? I'd suspect not. Like Hoover and the FBI, King's "investigation" appears to have begun and ended with Oswald. Could he have done it? Well, yeah. "And look, the DPD and FBI found some evidence! Well, that seals it!" Never mind that a frame-up--to the outside, and to one only looking at Oswald--would look quite like Oswald did it. Never mind that the FBI's and Army's tests proved it highly unlikely Oswald could pull off the shots with that rifle.

In short, it's clear King is a featherweight thinker in the ring with a heavyweight issue.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Pat Speer

[David G. Healy]

Ok Dean, from one King fan to another say no more. Sounds like another hit. He went into a bit of a spiral after his accident imo. Sounds like he's back. Thank you.

Yes John, he is back

I suppose he is back, as a story-teller. But he is yet to establish himself as the thinker he ought to be. He has recycled an old Quantum Leap episode and made it seem original. But that doesn't excuse his bald-faced lie he's read tons of books on the assassination and that all of them--even the conspiracy books--depict Oswald as an attention-starved nut. I mean, what a bunch of crud. Some of his flock might even take him seriously. His claim Oswald beat his wife is also revealing of bias, as no one really knows what went down between Marina and Lee besides Marina, and she, to this day, refuses to portray him as a cruel wife-beater.

I mean, does his book even deal with the medical evidence, and its problems? I'd suspect not. Like Hoover and the FBI, King's "investigation" appears to have begun and ended with Oswald. Could he have done it? Well, yeah. "And look, the DPD and FBI found some evidence! Well, that seals it!" Never mind that a frame-up--to the outside, and to one only looking at Oswald--would look quite like Oswald did it. Never mind that the FBI's and Army's tests proved it highly unlikely Oswald could pull off the shots with that rifle.

In short, it's clear King is a featherweight thinker in the ring with a heavyweight issue.

It seems Pat most writers who perceive their American dream slipping away want to do a book on the JFK's assassination... their faith has been challenged, go figure.

Edited November 11, 2011 by David G. Healy

[Douglas Caddy]

I think a more interesting and rewarding fictional book by King, with the same title of 11/22/63, would have been a story with LBJ as the key figure, rather than JFK. It could have commenced with the strange circumstances surrounding LBJs securing the vice presidential nomination at the 1960 Democratic Convention and then followed LBJ over the next three years as the web that he had spun involving Bobby Baker, Billie Sol Estes, Texas oil men, etc. slowly but inexorably entrapped him in a horrific fight for survival so as to not end up being prosecuted and sent to prison. All these historical scandals were on the cusp of exploding just when JFK was assassinated as vividly shown by the suppressed LIFE magazine cover and article. The story could have been told through the eyes of his trusted White House aides Cliff Carter and Jack Valenti with LBJs possible role in orchestrating JFKs assassination only being hinted at through thinly sketched clandestine meetings and cryptic telephone conversations that he had. The book might end with LBJs being administered the oath of office on the plane carrying the body of JFK, with the knowing winks and slight smiles exchanged between LBJ and Texas Rep. Albert Thomas at the time. Or it might end with LBJs mental deterioration that commenced soon after that led him to seek psychiatric help, with the notes and records of the psychiatrist on his case being partially disclosed.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Douglas Caddy

[Dean Hagerman]

If the rights to this book are not bought and filmed over the next 18 months then I will eat my own underpants and once it's made into a movie we are talking about something much different.

Lee that was done before the book was even released

"On August 12, 2011, before the novel's release, it was announced that Jonathan Demme has attached himself to write, produce and direct a film adaptation of 11/22/63. King will serve as executive producer. Shooting should begin in the fall of 2012"

[Dean Hagerman]

I mean, does his book even deal with the medical evidence, and its problems? I'd suspect not.

And just why would this book deal with the medical evidece Pat? There is no reason for it

Its mind blowing how many of you guys are treating this book like its a non fiction research book on the assassination!

Its FICTION! Its a STORY!

I want to meet all of these people that you guys think are going to read this book and say "Oh yes, Stephen King was right, I believe everything he says, now let me grab some 1950s clothes and go look for Als Diner so I can go back and time and mess around"

Its ludicrous that anybody can treat this book other then fiction, the fact that its my fellow CTers who are looking at this book like its "Case Closed" or "Reclaiming History" is very dissappointing

[Pat Speer]

I mean, does his book even deal with the medical evidence, and its problems? I'd suspect not.

And just why would this book deal with the medical evidece Pat? There is no reason for it

Its mind blowing how many of you guys are treating this book like its a non fiction research book on the assassination!

Its FICTION! Its a STORY!

I want to meet all of these people that you guys think are going to read this book and say "Oh yes, Stephen King was right, I believe everything he says, now let me grab some 1950s clothes and go look for Als Diner so I can go back and time and mess around"

Its ludicrous that anybody can treat this book other then fiction, the fact that its my fellow CTers who are looking at this book like its "Case Closed" or "Reclaiming History" is very dissappointing

Dean, I agree that King has admitted the story is fiction and that he has every right to write it. But he is doing a PR blitz--beginning with his interviews with Morris and the one I just watched on MSNBC with Chris Matthews--in which he is telling MILLIONS of potential readers that he, Stephen King, has read mountains of material on the assassination and it's clear Oswald was a nut and almost certain he acted alone. That puts him on the opposite side of Oliver Stone, who created a work of fiction that came to a different conclusion, and claimed his conclusion was justified by the historical record.

So why pretend King's not setting himself up as the anti-Stone? And why pretend he's not full of hot air when he claims he's studied all the pertinent evidence, when he almost certainly has not?

[Michael Hogan]

Dean, I agree that King has admitted the story is fiction and that he has every right to write it. But he is doing a PR blitz--beginning with his interviews with Morris and the one I just watched on MSNBC with Chris Matthews--in which he is telling MILLIONS of potential readers that he, Stephen King, has read mountains of material on the assassination and it's clear Oswald was a nut and almost certain he acted alone. That puts him on the opposite side of Oliver Stone, who created a work of fiction that came to a different conclusion, and claimed his conclusion was justified by the historical record.

So why pretend King's not setting himself up as the anti-Stone? And why pretend he's not full of hot air when he claims he's studied all the pertinent evidence, when he almost certainly has not?

Part of King's PR blitz included Dallas. From the Dallas FrontBurner blog:

Stephen King: ‘Follow the Gun’ to Prove Oswald’s Guilt

November 11, 2011

As Carol reported earlier, Stephen King showed up at the Majestic last night for a chat with Lee Cullum about his new novel involving the JFK assassination, called 11-22-63. At a press conference before his talk

benefiting The Sixth Floor Museum, the best-selling author said assassination-conspiracy theorists are unlikely to be fans of the book, which portrays Lee Harvey Oswald as solely responsible for the president’s murder.

“I have no bone to pick with conspiracy theorists, but they’ll have a bone to pick with me,” King said. Riffing on Deep Throat’s Watergate advice to “Follow the money,” King said Oswald’s guilt is evident when

you “follow the gun” that was used to kill Kennedy. Oswald ordered the Italian rifle, King said, picked it up at the Post Office, was photographed with it in his backyard, used it to shoot at Army Gen. Edwin Walker

here, took it to the book depository that fateful day, and shot Dallas police officer J.D. Tippitt with it.

Said King of the skeptics: “It’s difficult to believe that one unimportant man can step forward and change the course of history.” He added later that, in contrast to Dallas’s image as a “hateful place,” he’s met

only friendly people here who’ve been eager to help him. While the city was surely scarred by the assassination, King said, “my impression is Dallas has dealt with that issue, and pretty much put it to bed.”

http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2011/11/11/stephen-king-follow-the-gun-to-prove-oswalds-guilt/

If the reporting is true, King obviously misspoke when he said Oswald shot officer J D Tippit with his Italian rifle. But King's

attempts to pawn himself off as any sort of authority on President Kennedy's murder only serve to make him look foolish.

"We don`t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody`s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand." Jesse Curry

Edited November 12, 2011 by Michael Hogan

[Guest Robert Morrow]

I think a more interesting and rewarding fictional book by King, with the same title of 11/22/63, would have been a story with LBJ as the key figure, rather than JFK. It could have commenced with the strange circumstances surrounding LBJ’s securing the vice presidential nomination at the 1960 Democratic Convention and then followed LBJ over the next three years as the web that he had spun involving Bobby Baker, Billie Sol Estes, Texas oil men, etc. slowly but inexorably entrapped him in a horrific fight for survival so as to not end up being prosecuted and sent to prison. All these historical scandals were on the cusp of exploding just when JFK was assassinated as vividly shown by the suppressed LIFE magazine cover and article. The story could have been told through the eyes of his trusted White House aides Cliff Carter and Jack Valenti with LBJ’s possible role in orchestrating JFK’s assassination only being hinted at through thinly sketched clandestine meetings and cryptic telephone conversations that he had. The book might end with LBJ’s being administered the oath of office on the plane carrying the body of JFK, with the knowing winks and slight smiles exchanged between LBJ and Texas Rep. Albert Thomas at the time. Or it might end with LBJ’s mental deterioration that commenced soon after that led him to seek psychiatric help, with the notes and records of the psychiatrist on his case being partially disclosed.

Funny how that is a far more interesting and truthful story than the pablum that Stephen King has put in 11/22/63 A Novel. In fact, you can read all about what Doug Caddy is referring to in "LBJ: the Mastermind of JFK's Assassination" by Phillip Nelson:

http://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1616083778/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

I highly recommend the "new and imporoved" 2nd edition, which is being published by Skyhorse Publishing this month.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Robert Morrow

[Bernice Moore]

Stephen King's New Monster in '11/22/63': Lee Harvey Oswald - WSJ.com

http://online.wsj.co...KEYWORDS=oswald

Edited November 13, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

Stephen King Delights at the Majestic Theatre for Museum Fund Raiser

Dallas Art News - ‎Nov 10, 2011‎“I've got this book, 11.22.63, and the people from The Sixth Floor Museum at the Dallas [school] Book Depository helped me a lot,” said King at the press conference. “I wanted to come down and do something to help them, if I could. So here I am. ...

[Douglas Caddy]