Jump to content
The Education Forum

They're shooting the movie 11/22/63 in Dallas next week


Recommended Posts

I read the book...it was fairly good escapist literature.

Like Mr. DiEugenio, I wasn't fond of his "Ozzie-did-it-alone" certainty, because I still don't believe that was ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

But if you can suspend disbelief enough to believe in time travel, then I suppose any scenario becomes possible.

Let us never forget: the novel is FICTION.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us never forget: the novel is FICTION.

That's a good thought, Mark. But their goal is to convince the public it's the TRUTH.

Personally, I thought the book was a poorly written rip-off of a multitude of Twilight Zone wannabe TV series that have appeared over the years. The only character in the story that is not 100% cardboard is LHO. And he is 100% tissue paper.

King claims he "researched" LHO at great length. If so, his "research" ended in 1964, and he waited 50 years to write the book....

And of course King states that he "has no agenda" in taking the Lone Nut side, because his wife believes in a conspiracy.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, King has no agenda. Neither does Tom Hanks, or James Franco, or any other celebrity who just happens to accept the impossible lone assassin fairy tale. I would go further than Tom, and suggest that much of what King has written was lifted from old Twilight Zone episodes.

King's armchair psychological diagnosis of Oswald was even more contrived than Don DeLilo's in Libra. He even said, in one interview, that Marguerite used to inspect Oswald's genitals regularly, to see how he was developing. This is pure fabrication, not even based on Renatus Hartogs' type of "evidence." And like so many other liberals, King has admitted that he was never a fan of the Kennedys.

The disconnect between the general public and those who have achieved notoriety in this society, on this issue alone, should be enough to convince anyone we're being lied to. As Richard Belzer so astutely once said, "90% of the public believes there was a conspiracy. The other 10% work for the government or the media."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, King has no agenda. Neither does Tom Hanks, or James Franco, or any other celebrity who just happens to accept the impossible lone assassin fairy tale. I would go further than Tom, and suggest that much of what King has written was lifted from old Twilight Zone episodes.

King's armchair psychological diagnosis of Oswald was even more contrived than Don DeLilo's in Libra. He even said, in one interview, that Marguerite used to inspect Oswald's genitals regularly, to see how he was developing. This is pure fabrication, not even based on Renatus Hartogs' type of "evidence." And like so many other liberals, King has admitted that he was never a fan of the Kennedys.

The disconnect between the general public and those who have achieved notoriety in this society, on this issue alone, should be enough to convince anyone we're being lied to. As Richard Belzer so astutely once said, "90% of the public believes there was a conspiracy. The other 10% work for the government or the media."

i see two things:

the american public assumes intellectual integrity is part and parcel of celebrity (thanks, Mr. Mencken), and that celebrities know this and capitalize on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I didn't waste my time reading the book, my mom picked it up for 50 cents at a Goodwill or something, so I decided to get her money's worth by reading the postscript, in which King brags about all the research he performed before writing the book. As I recall the list featured Posner and Bugliosi, of course, and had little of value from the conspiracy side. I'm pretty sure there was no Thompson, no Weisberg, no Summers, no Hancock, no DiEugenio, etc. But I could be wrong. I definitely remember thinking "GIGO", however, as I inspected the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would go further than Tom, and suggest that much of what King has written was lifted from old Twilight Zone episodes.

Hi Don,

For curiosities sake, are you referring to King's stories in general, or 11-22-1963 specifically? There were two episodes involving time travel and the assassinations of Lincoln and JFK:

1. There was a season 2 Twilight Zone episode titled "Back There" written by Rod Serling himself. A man (Russell Johnson aka the "Professor" from Gilligan's Island) who has been discussing the possibility of "time travel" with several friends suddenly finds himself back in 1865 on the day of Lincoln's assassination. He hurries to the theater to warn the President, but is arrested as a troublemaker. A gentleman who is known to the policeman offers to take charge of this poor confused fellow and prevent him from causing any trouble. The gentleman slips him a drugged drink, and departs. Later, when the man regains consciousness he returns to the theater to find that Lincoln has been shot in the head and the "gentleman" was John Wilkes Booth. The lesson of the episode: Even if you could travel back in time you couldn't change history.

2. The (1985) Twilight Zone series featured an episode ("Profile in Silver") where a descendant of JFK travels back in time to Dealey Plaza, and shouts a warning to the SS who save Kennedy from the assassination attempt. LHO is caught and arrested. Within days, the USSR attacks the US, and we discover that now that history has been changed it is Kruschev that was assassinated. The time travelers decide that to prevent further damage to the timeline, JFK must die. The descendant of JFK is substituted for the real JFK and dies from a gunshot to the head. JFK has been brought 'back to the future' where 'he is desperately needed' and continues his political career. This explains all the controversy regarding the assassination because those in 1963 have no idea why the assassinated JFK isn't JFK at all. Thus, they must hide the truth...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profile_in_Silver

Here is part 1 of the episode which will automatically continue to parts 2 and 3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1UkcPFyxiU

Kennedy is rightly portrayed as a hero and Andrew Robinson does an outstanding job as JFK.

An ironic comment is made by a SS agent regarding "drinking on duty" in part 3.

Tom

Edited by Tom Neal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

Right off the top of my head, "Christine" was based on a TZ episode. I'll have to think of some others. I just don't think King is terribly creative, and he's way too predictable and politically correct for my tastes. I loved TZ and it deeply influenced my own fiction. Every novel or short story of mine eventually winds up somewhere in the Twilight Zone. But I'm talking about a feeling, an atmosphere; not copying one of TZ's scripts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think King has an agenda per se, at least the way a lot of others in the media do in relation to the assassination.

King has talked a lot about how the Kennedy assassination was a watershed moment in his life in various interviews throughout the years. If I remember correctly, years back, he was skeptical of the official story and was open to a conspiracy. He references the assassination in many of his novels. In the Tommyknockers, the Dallas PD are a symbol of incompetence and possibly corruption.

I suspect his 'research' before writing the book wasn't all that in depth and he read Bugliosi and Posner and was swayed over relatively quickly, giving a cursory look at everything else. He may have even had an idea in his mind beforehand about where he wanted to take the book and the official story might work better for his purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think King has an agenda per se, at least the way a lot of others in the media do in relation to the assassination.

King has talked a lot about how the Kennedy assassination was a watershed moment in his life in various interviews throughout the years. If I remember correctly, years back, he was skeptical of the official story and was open to a conspiracy. He references the assassination in many of his novels. In the Tommyknockers, the Dallas PD are a symbol of incompetence and possibly corruption.

I suspect his 'research' before writing the book wasn't all that in depth and he read Bugliosi and Posner and was swayed over relatively quickly, giving a cursory look at everything else. He may have even had an idea in his mind beforehand about where he wanted to take the book and the official story might work better for his purposes.

agreed. i don't suspect every LGer (i don't like the term "Nutter" even though it's referring to the theory and not the theorist) is out for CT blood.

But I much adhere to Eldridge Cleaver's idea that if we're not part of the solution, we are part of the problem. In this arena I feel that's a pretty appropriate sentiment.

Edited by Glenn Nall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...