Greentext

Hey now, let's be clear. Stephen King did not have the clown defeated by a bunch of outcast youths gangbanging in a sewer. That's just patently incorrect. Every single part. No, he had the ancient terror disguised as a clown temporarily banished by summoning an ancient turtle from the dawn of time and engaging It in a battle of wills. Completely different and, in fact, perfectly reasonable. Anyone that's actually read the book knows the outcast youth sewer gangbang happens after that and actually has no bearing on the plot whatsoever. Stephen King's not some freak writing a book where the entire plot hinges on a bunch of traumatized kids screwing each other to save the world, no; he's a perfectly normal guy writing about a bunch of traumatized kids screwing each other for no reason at all. Bet you feel real silly now, huh?

I am fairly certain that Stephen King was molested as a child, it's a recurring theme in his work in a way that seems less like an attempt to depict a general/universal fear and way more like he's just working through his own trauma. IT isn't even the best example, he's got a short story called The Library Policeman that is not subtle about it at all. Incedentally, I first read that short story in elementary school, worked better as a stranger danger warning than anything else.

I went into IT with an open mind and was prepared for that scene. Kept thinking that it probably made a lot of sense since many King fans had said it had a very beautiful reason behind it.

Then I get to it. And it's just stupid. Genuinely stupid.

The kids are scared of forgetting each other, because that is the power of IT. It makes people forget as they grow up.

So they want to do something meaningful to remember each other. And Bev is like: y'all can fuck me.

And I am over here like: how are the boys supposed to remember each other if they only fuck you? If that scene was supposed to make a lick of sense, the kids would have an orgy with each other and not just the boys lining up to have sex with one girl.

I can go along with weird and uncomfortable ideas in books if they make sense. In this case, it made no sense. But people either seem to defend it because they just go along with the premise or they defend King because he was high or some shit.

I'm not defending bad storytelling. IT has a lot of cool concepts in it and no one can write about small communities like King can, but I'm not gonna pretend like the kids having sex is some clever narrative device. It's very, very stupid.

I also think the Turtle is goofy af.

I went in knowing nothing about the book other than there was a supernatural clown in it. When I read that scene I had to stop, then go online to find an explanation of what the fuck I just read (to be fair, I was also pretty confused by the denouement in general) and how it is related to the plot. I was absolutely baffled by the amount of people saying they thought it was fine to have, some people even said it was a good allegory for leaving childhood.

Cocaine is a hell of a drug...

"And you thought I was fucked up? I didn't have anything to do with that! I just eat children!"

It would have been so easy to just not write that part. Or her character like that at all tbh

Don't get it