Tommyknockers according to the STEPHEN KING UNIVERSE
Lou Van Hille
They say in the book that TOMMYKNOCKERS is in the Prime Reality along with
IT etc. only because they connect via DERRY and PENNYWISE & JACK SAWYER in
the TALISMAN. They say they are in the same reality.
I don't actually agree.
The action of TOMMYKNOCKERS takes place in 1988
The action of IT takes place in 1985
TALISMAN takes place in 1981
Therefore, Jack Sawyer would be around 19 in 88 !!!! He wouldn't be the kid
Gardener meets on the seashore.
And Pennywise dies in 1985... How can they see it in 1988?
I come to the conclusion that this is an alternate reality and not the prime
reality...
Now, the point is that this reality CAN'T be the same of that of the
TALISMAN and that's where the problem is !
Jack no longer have doubles !!!! They all died when younger. There can't be
another Jack in another reality. If there were, then Jack wouldn't be unique
and he couldn't have brought the Talisman back with him...
The only solution I come across is that KING made a huge mistake by
mentioning Jack in TOMMYKNOCKERS... Even if he hadn't plan the huge
connection between all works, this connection couldb't have fit anyway as
Jack is unique !
What do you think of it?
Lou from France
http://membres.tripod.fr/ClubStephenKing/Index.html
Brainspiller
>I've just read SK Universe and something is bothering me.
>They say in the book that TOMMYKNOCKERS is in the Prime Reality along with
>IT etc. only because they connect via DERRY and PENNYWISE & JACK SAWYER in
>the TALISMAN. They say they are in the same reality.
>I don't actually agree.
>The action of TOMMYKNOCKERS takes place in 1988
>The action of IT takes place in 1985
>TALISMAN takes place in 1981
>Therefore, Jack Sawyer would be around 19 in 88 !!!! He wouldn't be the kid
>Gardener meets on the seashore.
>And Pennywise dies in 1985... How can they see it in 1988?
I always took this as a good and fairly deliberate reference to It...i saw
it as something which we were meant to find a little disturbing...as you
say...if It was was killed in 1985, how could they see It in 1988? Depends
on the tone of voice one asks the question in, i guess...
>
>I come to the conclusion that this is an alternate reality and not the
prime
>reality...
>
>Now, the point is that this reality CAN'T be the same of that of the
>TALISMAN and that's where the problem is !
>
>Jack no longer have doubles !!!! They all died when younger. There can't be
>another Jack in another reality. If there were, then Jack wouldn't be
unique
>and he couldn't have brought the Talisman back with him...
>
>The only solution I come across is that KING made a huge mistake by
>mentioning Jack in TOMMYKNOCKERS... Even if he hadn't plan the huge
>connection between all works, this connection couldb't have fit anyway as
>Jack is unique !
Im fairly sure Straub says the kid was never intended to be Jack, but Im not
sure what King has said, whether he has confirmed or denied this, anyone got
any info?
Randall Flagg
news:9d8s2q$nq4$1...@wanadoo.fr...
the beach is Jack Sawyer. After the events of THE TALISMAN, Jack Sawyer was
much more mature than the Jack on the beach in THE TOMMYKNOCKERS. And, like
you said, Jack Sawyer would be older, too. King may not have made a mistake,
however. He could've simply put a boy named Jack on the beach on purpose to
make us think of Jack Sawyer, without the kid actually being Jack Sawyer.
IT was supposedly killed in 1985, but what if IT didn't quite die. Then
again, IT had a 20+ year cycle, so showing up in 1988 is way too soon. Maybe
it was like the Jack thing. I believe he simply referred to a clown in the
sewer without mentioning its name.
Whatever, I'm disappointed in the SK UNIVERSE. I hope the rest of the book
has stronger ties than the Jack thing, which is very weak. I want to see
some solid stuff, not some wild-ass theories. Damn, and I already sent for
it.
Brainspiller
>IT was supposedly killed in 1985, but what if IT didn't quite die. Then
>again, IT had a 20+ year cycle, so showing up in 1988 is way too soon.
Maybe
>it was like the Jack thing. I believe he simply referred to a clown in the
>sewer without mentioning its name.
Doesnt he say something about slivery eyes?
hot toddy
> IT was supposedly killed in 1985, but what if IT didn't quite die.
> Then again, IT had a 20+ year cycle, so showing up in 1988 is
> way too soon. Maybe it was like the Jack thing. I believe he
> simply referred to a clown in the sewer without mentioning its
> name.
What if you assume that IT *did* die - but not all of IT's children
did? Maybe Ben missed an egg when he was doing the Bristol
Stomp. A young IT may not be on the 20+ year cycle yet, as it
needs to feed to grow and so on. So it could be conceivable
that what was seen in '88 wasn't IT, but one of IT's offspring.
Todd
just a thought
bg1...@binghamton.edu
Honestly, I'm not too sure myself that Pennywise is really dead and
gone. In Insomnia.....
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
which also takes place in Derry (only instead of the kids' war, it's
the older folks' war), Ralph confronts the Crimson King in Ed's plane.
I can't find my copy right now, but doesn't the Crimson King mention
something about his being the "Queenfish" instead of the kingfish -
and that while Ralph might not have known it, shape-shifting was a
time-honored tradition in Derry?
Since IT was both a shape-shifter AND female, maybe there is a
connection there...damn I wish I could find my book... >:-(
- Amy
You Raver
Plus, the placque in DREAMCATCHER from the Losers Club is spraypainted
witht he words "PENNYWISE LIVES".
Lou Van Hille
hot toddy
> bg1...@binghamton.edu wrote:
>> which also takes place in Derry (only instead of the kids' war, it's
>> the older folks' war), Ralph confronts the Crimson King in Ed's plane.
>> I can't find my copy right now, but doesn't the Crimson King mention
>> something about his being the "Queenfish" instead of the kingfish -
>> and that while Ralph might not have known it, shape-shifting was a
>> time-honored tradition in Derry?
>> Since IT was both a shape-shifter AND female, maybe there is a
>> connection there...damn I wish I could find my book... >:-(
>
> Plus, the placque in DREAMCATCHER from the Losers Club is
> spraypainted witht he words "PENNYWISE LIVES".
But is it the *same* Pennywise? Or Son/Daughter of Pennywise?
Just figure genetic memory into the picture, and you're still left with
the question - is this IT or is this IT's offspring?
Todd
prefers to think that the Losers *did* in fact kill IT, but
Ben just missed an egg in the dark. shit happens.
Alex Cain
> And Pennywise dies in 1985... How can they see it in 1988?
>
The Stephen King Universe is unique, transcending many plains
across many universes. Perhaps it is seen because it has come
from another universe.
shadow...@hotmail.com
wrote:
What about the possibility that all the post-1985 stuff is the work of
a ghost? As SK points out in IT, Derry is "haunted" in many ways, so
it would seem to fit to have a surviving ghost of the creature... It
seems that everything we see after 1985 could be the work of a ghost
or spirit -- we don't hear anything else about child disappearances,
etc., so maybe there doesn't need to be any physical presence. Plus,
if memory serves, all the people who see IT-related things in King's
other novels are in altered states, either from pain, blood loss (the
kid in Tommyknockers) or special hocus pocus (Jack, Ralph, Jonesy).
That seems to me to be an indicator that they might be more sensitive
to ghosts, weird vibrations, whatever. As for the Crimson King in
Insomnia, isn't that a bit different from IT? IT had many masks, but
all of them were linked to the viewer's instinctive terrors, and I
don't remember Ralph in Insomnia being particularly terrified by
crawfish... It always seemed to me that IT was not an intelligent
shapeshifter so much as a single creature that appeared differently
depending on the viewer's expectations.
John
Randall Flagg
news:aPjK6.12925$4f7.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
bg1...@binghamton.edu
>What about the possibility that all the post-1985 stuff is the work of
>a ghost? As SK points out in IT, Derry is "haunted" in many ways, so
>it would seem to fit to have a surviving ghost of the creature... It
>seems that everything we see after 1985 could be the work of a ghost
>or spirit -- we don't hear anything else about child disappearances,
>etc., so maybe there doesn't need to be any physical presence. Plus,
>if memory serves, all the people who see IT-related things in King's
>other novels are in altered states, either from pain, blood loss (the
>kid in Tommyknockers) or special hocus pocus (Jack, Ralph, Jonesy).
>That seems to me to be an indicator that they might be more sensitive
>to ghosts, weird vibrations, whatever. As for the Crimson King in
>Insomnia, isn't that a bit different from IT? IT had many masks, but
>all of them were linked to the viewer's instinctive terrors, and I
>don't remember Ralph in Insomnia being particularly terrified by
>crawfish... It always seemed to me that IT was not an intelligent
>shapeshifter so much as a single creature that appeared differently
>depending on the viewer's expectations.
>
>John
>
Ahhh....but actually, child Ralph WAS scared of the fish - a catfish
it was. His brother had caught one, and while it was flailing around,
he told Ralph that the whiskers were poisonous. I beleive that the
mouth of the fish clamped down on Ralph's hand or something (I still
can't find my damn book) Ralph had been terrified, cried, and wouldn't
go near catfish for a long time.
The book makes it clear that this was a childhood terror of Ralph's.
And, like Mike and the crow that hovered over his cradle when he was a
baby (to show up as the huge bird later), childhood terrors turn into
adult battles with Pennywise.
I really hope it is Pennywise - not even a child of hers, but her
herself. IT has always been my favorite King book, and I think IT
(Pennywise) is one of the best monster concepts I've ever encountered.
JMHO -
Amy :)
hot toddy
> I really hope it is Pennywise - not even a child of hers,
> but her herself. IT has always been my favorite King
> book, and I think IT (Pennywise) is one of the best
> monster concepts I've ever encountered.
NonononoNONONO! It *can't* be Pennywise! I mean.
de Trashmouth *died* to kill that bitch. For her to have
somehow lived through that scene would be a horrible
insult to the wonderful character of Richie Tozier, imo.
Todd
headin' out
hot toddy
> NonononoNONONO! It *can't* be Pennywise! I mean.
> de Trashmouth *died* to kill that bitch. For her to have
> somehow lived through that scene would be a horrible
> insult to the wonderful character of Richie Tozier, imo.
(slaps self across face)
Now that I have recovered from my crack high, I'll tell you
that I was actually talking about *Eddie*. Good Lord.
Todd
goin' senile, apparently, with insomnia to boot
Cuthbert Allgood
<hott...@smileyface.com>, on Fri, 11 May 2001 20:42:46 GMT, writing in
alt.books.stephen-king that
>de Trashmouth *died* to kill that bitch.
...and anyway, wasn't It coming out every 27 years?
How could It be back after a lot of years LESS?
'Bert
Baron Of Hell
wrote:
Put in so spoiler space next time. This is Tommyknockers thread not
Dreamcatcher.
Looney
>Put in so spoiler space next time. This is Tommyknockers thread not
>Dreamcatcher.
>
It is common courtesy to add spoiler space, esp. in this ng, as there are
frequent newcomers who haven't read SK's older works. Keep the spoiler space
in there.
Anthony "Looney" Toohey
-------------------------------------
...any live man is better than any dead man
but no live or dead man is very much better
than any other live or dead man...
- William Faulkner: THE SOUND AND THE FURY
Michael
Baron Of Hell <asim01H...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3afeae6b...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Thu, 10 May 2001 01:17:48 GMT, You Raver <rave...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Put in so spoiler space next time. This is Tommyknockers thread not
> Dreamcatcher.
Ummm... listen, "Baron of Hell", don't you have, like, more pressing
matters to concern you. I mean, you pick a stupid freaking name
like "Baron of Hell" and here you are worried about some freaking
Stephen King spoiler.
Hell must be slow tonight.
Michael
... never knew the "Baron of Hell" was a native American.
Baron Of Hell
1. Dreamcatcher came out a month ago.
2. The subject line doesn't mention dreamcatcher.
You can not be that stupid to see why this would bother me. Then
again considering you think an alias should dictate what one should
worry about you might just be that stupid.
Michael
> On Sun, 13 May 2001 00:39:26 -0500, "Michael" <w...@nada.com> wrote:
>
>
> You can not be that stupid to see why this would bother me. Then
> again considering you think an alias should dictate what one should
> worry about you might just be that stupid.
Let me guess.... English really is a second language for you, eh? Sorry
for teasing you about it earlier.
Michael
Microsoft Gump 2K1
view if I can't stick my head that far up my ass? This is how I see it:
> > You can not be that stupid to see why this would bother me. Then
> > again considering you think an alias should dictate what one should
> > worry about you might just be that stupid.
>
> Let me guess.... English really is a second language for you, eh? Sorry
> for teasing you about it earlier.
Michael, don't tease the foreigners!
scold'd
- Dave -
- Remove SPAM from my address -
- http://homepage.eircom.net/~msgump -
- Limericks Update + *New* Images -
Michael
Microsoft Gump 2K1 <SPAMm...@eircomSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:lsbtft41g785lap7r...@4ax.com...
> Listen, Michael, how can you expect me to look at this from your point of
> view if I can't stick my head that far up my ass? This is how I see it:
>
> > > You can not be that stupid to see why this would bother me. Then
> > > again considering you think an alias should dictate what one should
> > > worry about you might just be that stupid.
> >
> > Let me guess.... English really is a second language for you, eh? Sorry
> > for teasing you about it earlier.
>
> Michael, don't tease the foreigners!
>
> scold'd
> - Dave -
B-b-but... *I'm* a foreigner to him! Doesn't that cut me some slack?
feigned foreignness,
Michael
Wojo
Michael, who said:
>> Put in so spoiler space next time. This is Tommyknockers thread not
>> Dreamcatcher.
>
>Ummm... listen, "Baron of Hell", don't you have, like, more pressing
>matters to concern you. I mean, you pick a stupid freaking name
>like "Baron of Hell" and here you are worried about some freaking
>Stephen King spoiler.
>
>Hell must be slow tonight.
Bored Michael?
I agree with BoH. (I hate the name as well, however). Lack of
spoiler warnings annoy the hell out of me (though I've done it myself
on a few occasions). Dreamcatcher was out for 2 weeks before I got
it, so I skipped a lot of threads here as a result. I would have been
pretty pissed to be in an "IT" thread and somebody suddenly says "So
it turns out Duddits was gay and he killed Beaver with a choke move".
Wojo