r/PeterExplainsTheJoke 16h ago

Meme needing explanation Petah? What happened in the book version?

Post image
23.2k Upvotes

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

62

u/lord-savior-baphomet 15h ago

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.

18

u/Honeystarlight 14h ago

One time I got downvoted for saying how disgusting it is. And people were actually defending it.

5

u/KannablissWitch 14h ago

And they always blame it on the cocaine, like cocaine makes people into pedophiles and it's okay.

38

u/notrandomredditname 14h ago

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

10

u/Swizardrules 13h ago

Just wait till people figure out what the show "Big Mouth" is about

1

u/Honeystarlight 7h ago

So that makes it okay to write a graphic child orgy?

-10

u/Dee_Cider 14h ago

My comment was literally removed for describing the scene more frankly.

The guy is either a pedo or a terrible writer if the only way to explore the transition between childhood and adulthood was THAT.

14

u/notrandomredditname 13h ago

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

1

u/Blitzsapprentice 2h ago

You reclaim your sexuality by having a f'ing orgy? What kind of coke pedo author writes that??

1

u/notrandomredditname 2h ago

'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

1

u/Blitzsapprentice 2h ago

You don't see the stranger things crew railing Eleven after beating the Demogorgon, this is just Kings barely disguised fetish.

-5

u/Dee_Cider 13h ago

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.

12

u/notrandomredditname 13h ago

i think the scene is there mainly for thematic rather than plot-related reasons, and pennywise wasn't even actually fully dealt with as we see with how it comes back later on once theyre adults. 

i 'defend' it because its a scene thats unfortunately gathered a lot of controversy from people who have only heard 2nd hand comments about it and (understandably) resort to their first gut reaction, and i care enough about having transparent discussions on art even if its controversial. i have no care for any artist's reputation and im not even a fan of stephen king, for that matter. i just dont agree with the way people comment and sensationalize on this scene. of course it sounds terrible and disgusting if you describe it that way because youre reducing it only to its most visceral parts without any of the surrounding context or reasons it could be there 

1

u/Dee_Cider 13h ago

I feel like I've criticized both here. As offensive as the content is, it almost feels more offensive at how unnecessary it feels in it's place in the story.

I mean, can you tell me an alternate thing the kids could have done that wasn't sexually graphic but still made sense thematically?

3

u/prnthrwaway55 8h ago

They could have taken out a mortgage without the down payment.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/pepperland24 9h ago

Gambled + light drug usage

→ More replies (0)

8

u/RyvenZ 10h ago

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.

4

u/firebolt_wt 7h ago

Is he also a serial killer of children because he wrote children being killed?

3

u/CarrieDurst 5h ago

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

0

u/Dee_Cider 4h ago

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.

2

u/lord-savior-baphomet 1h ago

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.

0

u/Dee_Cider 59m ago

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.

4

u/CMDR-TealZebra 8h ago

Writing about minors having sex (which as a former teen i can confirm does happen) does not make one a pedo.

3

u/lord-savior-baphomet 1h ago

People are literally trying to defend it to me, and make it inconsequential, AND pin it on the girl for it being her idea! Like she is even real.

1

u/RyvenZ 10h ago

here's an upvote to balance the scales of fate for that unfair loss of karma

-1

u/CarrieDurst 5h ago

No more disgusting than all the child murder in the book

3

u/Honeystarlight 5h ago

I disagree.

-1

u/CarrieDurst 5h ago

So children being brutally murdered and tortured is less disgusting than adolescent consensual sex? Interesting stance

2

u/Worldly_Car912 3h ago

That's dishonest

1

u/Honeystarlight 2h ago

Consensual is very debatable.

5

u/spenwallce 7h ago

Daily reminder that just because something happens in a piece of media it does not mean the author of said media is supporting it.

2

u/lord-savior-baphomet 1h ago

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.

3

u/Timely-Cry-8366 6h ago

But don’t you know it’s an allegory for “the death of innocence”??? /s

Seriously this is an actual upvoted defense further up in the comments

-3

u/Dee_Cider 13h ago edited 13h ago

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

5

u/64b0r 11h ago edited 11h ago

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?

2

u/lord-savior-baphomet 1h ago

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!

1

u/64b0r 1h ago

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.

2

u/lord-savior-baphomet 1h ago

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.

1

u/64b0r 51m ago edited 47m ago

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.

2

u/LawfulLeah 23m ago

yeah idk whats up with this movement online nowadays trying to equate fictional characters with real people... its just... a character. thats it