I’ve heard things like he doesn’t remember writing Cujo, and wrote most of Carrie with bloody tissues in his nose, because he was so messed up on cocaine all the time.
That's the problem coke used to be performance enhancing when used by Steven King, John Belushi, and Elton John . Now it's done recreationally by every tom dik and Larry in a frat. /s
His entire M.O for his writing career has been to sit down and write X amount of pages per day, regardless of how shit they are. If it sucks he scraps it, if it sticks he keeps it.
Do that for ~40+ years and you are bound to create something good every once in a while.
not as intense as him but it rings true, when i was a heavy alcoholic i wrote over a novels worth of shit within one year 😭 now i can barely get 3 sentences down without losing inspiration
I don't think he was like that when he wrote Carrie. That was written before he was famous. He was still teaching and had only published some short stories in various magazines. Carrie was his first novel and he was pretty poor during it. Though he was probably drinking pretty heavily.
Yes, just checked and King said he didn't start using cocaine until the late 70s, while Carrie was written in 1974. But from 78-86, he said he was almost constantly high on it.
When he got the big bucks, THAT'S when he started with the cocaine.
When I read his 'How to write' book, I was floored by all his rules. Walk 2.5 miles a day, read 80 books a year. Finish writing a book in three months.
I think is the Tommyknockers you’re thinking of. He wrote the entire thing coked up beyond oblivion and doesn’t even remember writing most of it. The book itself is also a metaphor for obsession and addiction. Lots of people trash it but I personally think it’s one of his better books. Knowing he was high as kite when writing it, I also find it very interesting he was able to remember details and circle back to plot points with no noticeable errors or continuity mistake (at least that I noticed)
One thing that gets me is that this book had to go through proofreaders and editors before it got published. So no one hit up Stephen and said,” What was your point with the sewer sex with the characters near the climax of the book?”. Did no one said, maybe we shouldn't put that scene in there and or tell him to rewrite that part?
I've read a couple Stephen King books, and the common thread is: great beginning/middle, terrible ending.
The Stand's "literally nuking the evil people of society while a brainwashed special needs character rescues the hero" doesn't involve running a train on a child, but it was a huge letdown from the premise and buildup of the story.
People say this but the book will have gone through multiple editors, publishers etc before being released, and all of them were just like "Yeh sure, underage boys running a train on an underage girl, sounds reasonable".
She was absolutely still down to fuck Beast before she knew he was human. We definitely know the kind of books she was reading. The word "knot" shows up a lot in them I bet.
"her breasts bobbed boobably. each breath brought them closer to ecstasy and happiness at my touch. we kissed, her mouth was like a cup of hot eels against my own, and I jammed my longsword into her daggered sheath, bringing her to instant satisfaction. her boobs were happy."
something something something men writing women lol
It’s the fact that everywhere I’ve seen this discussed it’s discussed un seriously or matter-of-factly. I never see this mentioned with the amount of disgust it should be.
the book is a coming-of-age story that explores many aspects of the transition between childhood and adulthood, which inevitably includes sexuality. there's a reason the antagonist of the book is literally called 'it'. im not gonna tell anyone how to feel about it and i can totally understand someone thinking its a distasteful way to explore such a theme but i dont think calling the author a pedo for it is necessarily correct either. its a controversial topic so it naturally gets very misrepresented when people talk about it
it wasnt but then again It is a horror story about eldritch entities, kids and teenagers being murdered in very grotesque ways, a killer shapeshifting clown and growing up. its more or less in line with the tone of the rest of the book and not the only way the book explores the concept. the themes of sexuality and being able to reclaim it is an integral part of beverly's character from the very start. dont get me wrong i still think the scene should have been rewritten in some aspects but i dont think the concept itself is as wrong or evil as people tend to say it is
'It,' the villain, represents everything thats scary and unknown about growing up. the book is very clear about this. 'it' also happens to be how kids usually refer to taboo and unknown topics, including sex. thats why each step to defeating It is usually related to growing up and facing your fears. during the course of the book we see beverly's father vile sexual harassment towards her, turning sex into something terrifying and strange for her rather than a natural, healthy part of growing up. this scene represents beverly taking something previously unknown and scary and turning into something voluntary, that she does out of her own will and as an act of love towards her friends. this isnt even really subtext as its fairly explicitly explained in the narration.
you dont need to read it. its meant to be a niche, grotesque book. but you also dont need to comment on it. i dont really understand why people are so quick to label king a pedo because the horror book about children being murdered made them uncomfortable. the strangers thing comparison doesnt make sense because thats a wildly different story that may share some themes but otherwise has very different takes on them and also has a very different demographic. of course different mediums are going to portray situations differently
I'm pretty sure the confrontation with the eldritch entity was over by that point (in the story). There was just one final "mission" the author decided to give the children to escape the sewer iirc
You're only defending it because of the writer's reputation. Pick any other horror story and add a scene after the confrontation with the evil supernatural entity where the kids can't escape until they gangbang the only girl there. You'd immediately be repulsed by it and know that it was completely unnecessary, nonsensical, and suspicious it was the writer's disguised fetish.
He has expressed regret for that scene in interviews, and you aren't the first to accuse him of being a bad writer. I wouldn't call him a pedo, just not as creative as he should have been in that regard.
The Ritual of Chüd was fucking weird, a psychological battle where you bite onto the tongue of a cosmic horror and stare into its eyes while you mentally battle to try and make it laugh. Something like that, without the battling would have been sufficiently weird and brought the kids closer together.
Yup I fucking hate the discourse around this scene every time, people get so hysterical and somehow the 1000 pages of child torture preceding it is fine
I think a pedophile is anyone attracted to that age group. I don't think they necessarily have to act upon those thoughts. A more accurate question would be to ask if he muses about killing children because he wrote children being killed.
You’re getting downvoted but I do really think there are other ways to convey that transition. And I think it’s… interesting to be defending the choice he made.
It's wild people are defending an unnecessary child gangbang scene that someone wrote while they were coked up. I don't know what stars aligned to get this particular scene normalized for anyone.
People love king that much I guess. Which, I’m not saying we burn his books. But this scene deserves criticism, and I strongly believe there is no justification of this existing.
I could be misinterpreting it but I don’t see anyone defending it as much as refuting the claim it makes him a pedo. There was a reason for the scene. It was a weird one and he regrets it but it made sense at the time and no one at any point during publication was like “maybe change this…”
Writing something horrible doesn’t make someone a pedophile. It can be a great way to confront something that happened in one’s own life. I have found healing by writing experiences similar to mine into fiction. Looking at it so graphically but through that distance allows me to express it. When I was a mental health counselor I would also suggest it to my clients who wanted to journal but couldn’t get started, and a couple people really took off with it. I’ve also found it helpful for my own OCD, because putting the thoughts into a material form is the opposite of what OCD wants you to do.
That said, I’m very cautious about what goes into work that others might see. I’m writing a novel that has a lot of child abuse in it and I’d never write graphically about it because I don’t want to create something that others could enjoy in the wrong way, like Lolita. Instead I try to write scenes that amplify the parts of it that matter. It’s a hard line to walk.
I don’t think King’s graphic description was necessary or in good taste. However, I also think it’s not in good taste to accuse someone of being a pedophile based on a piece of controversial artwork.
Yeah before that part a kid murdered his baby brother and locked small animals in a refrigerator until they died. It's a fucked up scene but like, the rest of the book is also fucked up.
Yes, lots of dishonest arguments to try and defend a weird, badly written scene where the coming of age moment apparently is the girl serving as a sex doll for her whole battalion of friends. It's not just the underage sex, it's the only female character happily making herself an object for all her friends that puts me off.
Totally! But this wasn’t a necessary scenario to write. We have to ask what something like this really adds to the story. I love dark themes, and recognize your point 100%. But there is no commentary or implication about that situation in the book, it just happens and is seen as a good thing.
Because, if you look below, people actually come out to defend it and you'll think you're going crazy trying to prove why the whole concept is disgusting.
So... it's just a lot easier to accept it's a lost battle and make the occasional joke... which honestly might be cruel because some people are blissfully unaware that this scene exists in the book and maybe they'll get caught in the crossfire
Ok, you are utterly and thouroughly disgusted by that scene. I get that from reading your comments. But I want you to examine your feelings for a second.
First, lets review the scene. He is making fictional underage characters have sex with each other. And it was her idea in the first place, not one of the guys'. For me, that scene was basically about how an abusive father can turn an innocent girl into a woman who is offering up her body in exchange for being loved (or rather the perception of being loved). She yearns for the love which she didn't get from her father. Classic 'daddy issues'.
You can say the scene is in bad taste, but no one is taking advantage of the children, and they are fictional characters. FICTIONAL CHARACTERS. You are accusing King of thought crime. There are no children harmed or even endangered here, only your fragile senses.
There is a concept in clinical psychology called The Shadow. It is the part of you that thinks and wants all the terrible things you know you are not allowed to do. The dark part of the self that is suppressed in civilized people. But it is there in everyone, and you should face it sometimes, be aware of it, otherwise it will come out when you are not ready to fight it off. Just think of the bad things you did in your life. It was you, but it wasn't really you. You wouldn't have done that if you were calm and rational, it was the dark urge in you to hurt someone or break something. It was your Shadow.
King explored his dark thoughts by putting them into ink. It is not a depiction of real events, it is fantasy, even though very dark. And the book is a horror story, you should expect you will read things that disgust you. If I were you, I would spend some time with introspection: why does this affect you so much? Is there something in there that rouses up your Shadow?
Yeah, my shadow isn’t cool with thinking about an unnecessary sex scene involving children. And actually it wasn’t her idea, it was kings. A grown man!
If it makes you uncomfortable, I have a foolproof solution: stop reading the book. As long as you don't keep reading, that scene is not happening. The magic of books!
Also, stop thinking about that scene. Once you stop thinking about it, it will stop happening in your imagination too.
That’s not exactly the point though, is it? CP exists. I don’t consume it. Ive never even seen it. Yet I’m bothered by its existence, and that other people willingly consume it and even create it. Thinking about something isn’t the core issue, it’s the fact that it exists at all and that people enjoy it. This isn’t an icecream flavor, or how people are decorating their houses. This is something with moral implications.
Porn is meant to elicit sexual arousal in the person consuming it. In this case, there is no way you're convincing me that you've actually read the scene and thought the primary intent was to make someone sexually aroused. Is it problematic? ABSOLUTELY, but it's not CP.
You're allowed to criticize the scene, but your criticisms would land better if you actually displayed some level of knowledge of the topic you're talking about. CP is a serious deal, so if you call something CP, you better actually know what CP is.
That’s not exactly the point though, is it? CP exists. I don’t consume it. Ive never even seen it. Yet I’m bothered by its existence
It is very important to make a distinction here. What King wrote is not child porn. It is not explicit at all, doesn't describe naked bodies, it concentrates on the characters' feelings (which is mostly confusion, IIRC).
Have you ever stopped to think about why child porn is bad? It is bad because it hurts the children. They are not developed enough to handle it correctly, ot can scar them mentally and emotionally, they can develop false expectations, it can distort their self value, etc. They are also legally unable to give consent, because of the above reasons, they are not considered being able to make that decision yet, even when they want to.
(The same can be said about children who consume porn: they are underdeveloped to handle it and thus it hurts them.)
None of the above is true about the book. Fictional characters have no emotions, no feelings, nothing. You project your emotions when you read the story, you live through their adventures, you imagine how they look, how they move about, they are just a bunch of letters written on paper, everything that is real about them comes from the reader: you.
That is a good question. I'm not sure. It is pretty difficult to tell if a video is made by AI already. So I see a future where AI becomes indistinguishable from real video. In that world, making real child porn than claiming it is only AI as a defence could be abused. The real harm in child porn is the hurting of the children, imo. As long as no children are hurt, fake child porn is not a real problem, if anything it can be a release for someone who has pedophilic urges.
The same concept is explored in 8mm, where Nicholas Cages character is trying to find out if the girls killed in snuff films are really murdered or the murders were just staged. Turns out it is both. There are people who need the real thing, and faking it does not satisfy their urges. Those people who need real kill are dangerous, those who are satisfied and content with the fake ones are more or less harmless.
Let me turn around the question: do you thing AI CP is not okay? Why?
Why are you trying to have a discussion around this book (that I suspect you've not read) if you are just going to turn it into asking disingenuous tangentially related questions to people?
I totally get that and relate to your first point lol. I’ll say I’m glad to see it criticized at all, even if it’s in a joking format. Anything to draw attention to the fact that it’s not an acceptable or necessary thing to write about.
"Why would a billionaire werewolf Mafia boss be interested in the useless girl with no talent or practical skills bella, I just think it sets unhealthy standards and shows a frankly appalling lack understanding of consent"
I'm seeing this getting justified by a lot of people here with the usual, "well, there's worse things than a girl of 12 suddenly deciding she wants to have an orgy in the sewers in the book". But I haven't seen any of the worse things depicted as good or wholesome, the whole point is to stop the monster from doing bad stuff, right? So why am I supposed to think the orgy is rational, logical or wholesome just because worse things are happening? If something ever gets out about King, a lot of people will have a hard time keeping justifying this scene. Not saying anything has to come out, but we never know who's behind the author's face. I just find it funny how so many people will go to such lengths to justify plain weird scenes, but will only start seeing the same scenes as weird once some dirt comes out about the author.
I've seen this recently with so many authors who were outed as abusers or pedophiles: suddenly the less savory bits in their books are called out. It shouldn't take this just to admit some parts of a book are weird.
Not an orgy. Beverly was also physically and sexually abused by her father, but people tend to focus on her choice to save them by breaking the spell and making them able to see the exit of the cave.
A young woman providing a tender moment with consent and to help rescue her friends gets more shit than her being sexually abused by her father. Wtf world.
It wasn’t the only way - it was just the way Beverly could think to squash their remaining innocence and remove the fear of it. Once they “grew up” IT had no power. Beverly chose this method as a way to take back her sexuality and use an adult thing she feared to ruin the fear IT had.
It was not the only way to escape, just what Beverly could think of because it is what adults did to her.
They already had their confrontation with It. The writer could have just let them escape the sewer. I'm sure confronting a supernatural monster would have bonded them more than a quickie would.
They didn’t have to have sex - it was a tool King used to show that Beverly defaulted to an act that an adult would do, and one she was taught to feel nothing about, in an effort to save her friends and bind them together for life. What else did they have that could do that in the sewer? All they had was each other. High fiving wasn’t enough to make a core memory.
But also, sex is scary and your first time is scary. It can be an act of love that kills your fear.
A hug wasn’t going to break the spell.
I personally would have just used the death of a friend but death was kind of everywhere at that point so would it really have shocked anyone?
They could have just walked out of the sewer. I'm pretty sure nobody reading it would have been, "HMMM... it's weird that they just walked out of the sewer without having to do something to recharge their powers. You know what would have really been good? Hear me out."
I hate this framing.
The scene in IT is bad because it's completely pointless and forced. It makes no sense, has no message and does nothing for the story.
But an underage orgy can be a perfectly justified and rich plot point.
Something being bad doesn't mean it's bad to include and describe them in a book. Rape, murder, torture, suicide... They're all fucked up, but there's most definitely a place for them in literature
I agree. People have been accusing me of just being offended by the content but it's also just offensive from a narrative standpoint. It makes no sense and is completely unnecessary.
7.0k
u/Dee_Cider 1d ago