MovieChat Forums > It (2017) Discussion > Why does the IT book have THE STUPIDEST ...

Why does the IT book have THE STUPIDEST STRUCTURE?

posted 4 years ago by [deleted]
5 replies | jump to latest

Why couldn't he just write in a chronologically straightforward fashion, like this movie did? The structure he chose removes all sense of suspense and drama, because you KNOW the Losers survived their childhood encounter with Pennywise, so it reduces HIS threat as the antagonist right there and then.

At least this movie corrected that problem outright, which probably explains why it was so popular and so bankable. And for Chapter 2, I would say that flashbacks to the past are necessary as Pennywise made the Losers forget their ordeal, or PTSD blanked their memories, so they needed to remember, plus we get some more cool encounter scenes.

The book is difficult to follow sometimes, as it goes back and forth all over the place, and I haven't been able to work out the structure yet. Even the journey into the sewer goes back and forth between time periods, and while I suppose King wrote it that way to avoid repetition, it doesn't work as it is.

King really dropped the ball on the writing of this book, but since he was on drugs at the time, it's understandable.

[–] Minirogerebert (74) 4 years ago

because you KNOW the Losers survived their childhood encounter with Pennywise, so it reduces HIS threat as the antagonist right there and then.

Not really, because you don’t know that any of the Loser’s Club will survive Pennywise as adults.

The whole point of telling the story via flashback was so that everything is revealed to the reader at the same time as the characters. They are forced to relive a period of time that had been erased from their memories. It also ties into the themes of the book, which is the fading of childhood innocence and aging.

[–] kuatorises (7467) 4 years ago

I've never read it, nor any of his books, but it sounds pretty bad. Like, there's a nice framework with the general ideas - both of which work better in the movies - but there's all kinds of weird shit like orgies, turtles, the back and forth, and things that simply aren't necessary.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 4 years ago

This is the only King novel or short story that I dislike. Keep in mind I love films and books with shifting perspectives and chronologically, non-linear narratives. I think the novel of IT is sloppily written.

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 4 years ago

The 'suspense and drama' in the book comes from from the reader wondering if the characters are going to survive the book, not just make it to adulthood. If you watched the movie before reading the book, you've already removed all 'suspense and drama' anyway.

The reason the movie makers separated the two parts was because it allowed them to create two movies instead of one five-hour epic. They needed that much time to tell the story correctly, and the break between young and old was a natural stopping point.

Yes, the movie was 'popular and bankable.' But so was the book.

My biggest problem with the story is the ending. King is my favorite writer. It's amazing how he can pull you into a story. But I've found his endings can be lacking. Some are good, and some are really bad. (Under the Dome, I'm looking at you.)

[–] DancingintheDark (1805) 2 years ago

King was doing a lot of cocaine at the time, nuff said.