In Which I, Uncharacteristically, Talk About Stephen King

Before 11.22.63, I'd only read one Stephen King novel.  And it wasn't one of his typical suspenseful/terrifying tales, either.  It was a mystery. Short, quick read.  Good writing.  I rather enjoyed it.  This one -- 11.22.63 -- was not short, nor was it a particularly quick read, but it makes the second enjoyable King novel I've read and I just might find myself reading more of his stuff in future (after years of steering clear due to my general disinterest in horror/scary books).  That's not to say 11.22.63 didn't have some problems, because it did. I was just pleasantly surprised by King's ability to create a fictional reality within a recreated era.

Granted, 11.22.63 is the kind of novel I'd be bound to enjoy.  Great characterization (the main character really is quite an interesting everyman type), quite a bit of mystery, a moral quandary or two, and a complex plot (more about this in the next paragraph).  Centred on the notion of time travel and the attempt to stop or change a moment in history, the story follows Jake, a high school teacher, as he tries to determine what he can and should do to change that moment (among others, as it happens) at the behest of an ill acquaintance.  And it doesn't really rely heavily on too much sci-fi (there are just little hints and hits of it throughout), the novel really does centre around Jake and the moral complexities he finds himself embroiled in.  What should/can he change? Why does the past seem to work against him? What does/can he really know about the past?  Is it possible to effectively change a thread of reality? And, if so, what does that mean?

As for the ins and outs of plot and whether it worked for me: I'm not sure I bought the first part of the ending with the changed reality of the present (seemed too over the top for me), but I certainly enjoyed getting there.  But the biggest problem I had with the novel wasn't really anything to do with the writing skill of King.  It was the approach to Lee Harvey Oswald which, in a novel that questions what we can know about the past and its effect on the present, was a little heavy-handed.  King isn't one of those writers who buys into any possible conspiracy theory regarding the assassination of JFK.  Nor does he think Oswald was a patsy. In the context of the novel, with its questions about certainty and culpability, this doesn't really grate, but it still doesn't ring true.  Something never has fit about the 'real' Oswald, that's why people have (and still) come up with elaborate theories, etc.  I don't think it's because (as King claims) there is a reluctance to believe in the 'lone nut' possibility.  Honestly, in my lifetime there have been enough lone nuts to make the concept something of a cliche.  No, I buy the reality of the 'lone nut'.  It's just in this case, there's something off. Simple as that.  I'm not into conspiracy theories and I don't obsess over any of the historical players and their possible guilt or innocence, but it does interest me enough to have some (flexible) opinions about it.  


Ultimately, though, a really fun read by an author I'm beginning to respect every time I chance to read anything he's written.  And I really enjoyed some of the questions and quandaries that came up in the game to change history.  To be perfectly frank, I think it could have been an even longer book. I got to the end and wanted more!