Skip to main content

11-22-63



I just recently finished the novel 11-22-63 by Stephen King. The date in the title is the day that President Kennedy was assassinated. It is a date that anyone who lived through that time would recognize. I suppose it would be equivalent of September 11th, 2001 for anyone who was alive on that date, or December 7th, 1941 for anyone who was alive then. This is a book about time travel. Our protagonist (Jake) is shown a portal that leads him back to 1958. Al, the man who shows him this portal,  wanted to use it to prevent the assassination but Al came down with cancer and is unable to do the job so he encourages Jake to do it. Jake is reluctant to do this because he doesn’t know what the consequences would be.

Right on Jake. The whole thing sounded like a really bad idea to me. You can imagine how even small changes in the past can mushroom into larger changes to history over time. But to alter a seminal event like the assassination of a president would have to have enormous consequences. Al tells Jake that things would change for the better without the assassination. He states that Kennedy would probably not have gotten us mired down in Viet Nam, leading to the saving of thousands of American and Vietnamese soldiers (and civilians). Other things reliant on the Viet Nam war would also not have happened, the disruptions of the later 1960’s, the Martin Luther King assassination etc.

He convinces Jake to do it (of course, or there would be no story). But I was just going “No. Don’t do it Jake.” Characters in books so rarely listen to me. All I could think of was the complete unpredictability of the consequences. We know for a fact that between the Kennedy assassination and now, the earth was not destroyed by nuclear war. But you make a major change like that and all bets are off.

But even if he made little changes. Jake goes back in time to live there for five years. How many subtle changes would be made by the very fact of his being there? The character of Jake was not born until the 1970’s. He could easily make a change that would insure that he was never born. All it takes is the slightest alteration of timing. His parents conceive on a different night and a different child is born instead of Jake. But if Jake wasn’t born how did he go back and change history? It is the big paradox about time travel. Does reality cease to exist? Does the universe wink out? Does God say “Oh no, not again?” This is one of the things that make time travel impossible (just one of the things). This is what should place time travel stories more in the realm of fantasy rather than science fiction.

But hey, I am willing to suspend my disbelief if the story is well written and the rest of the science is valid (like Connie Willis's time travel novels, which I highly recommend). In the case of 11-22-63, it is well written. He sets the stage well. I had forgotten what it was like to live in a world where cigarette smoke was everywhere, a world without cell phones or personal computers, yet a world where the food tasted better. There were good things and bad things about living in the early 1960’s and King lets us explore a good many of them.

Whatever time period people live in, they are still people. They live; they die; they love; they strive. The same things that brought heartache to the people of 1963, bring heartache to the people of today. The same things that bring joy to the people of today, brought joy to the people of 1963. Some things are universal, with or without the paradox.

(My novel Star Liner, is now available as an e-book through Amazon, or the other usual online sources. For those who like to turn physical pages, the paperback will be out soon).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Trip Home

  My wife and I recently returned from a trip to New York to visit my son and his wife. What follows is an excerpt of my notes from that trip. Departure day. So we and the kids (adult kids) leave by 5:30 AM. These “kids” are night owls. They rarely wake before 10:00 if they don’t have to, so we appreciate the sacrifice. Daughter-in-Law (DIL) drove us the 30 minutes to the train station. Hugs and good-byes for her (we love DIL. DIL is an irresistible force). Son navigates us a route to the platform with fewer stairs than the way we came. We get a ticket and get on the train headed for the big city and Grand Central Station. I soon realize that this train is not an express train like the one we took coming out. Instead of taking a little over an hour like we did before, this one would take a little over an hour and a half. We stop at places with names like Cold Springs and Peekskill (on this trip we saw a lot of place names that ended in “kill” including Kaatskill, i.e. Catskill, and
2 comments
Read more

That 70's Decade

  Can a decade become a caricature? My teen years were in the 1970’s and none of us who lived through the 70’s thought our decade was going to be a figure of fun. When you are a part of it, you don’t realize what people are going to make fun of later. I think there are two reasons why people snicker when the 70’s are mentioned: clothing styles and Disco. Both things could be called extensions of trends that started in the 60’s. When the hippy styles of the 60’s became more formalized for the dance floor, the result was (in hindsight) rather bizarre. They did not seem bizarre at the time. People following present fashion trends never understand that they are wearing something that will be laughed at in ten years. Yes, I did have a pair of bell-bottom blue jeans (are they making a comeback?) The mere mention of the 1970’s conjures up someone in a ridiculous pose wearing a disco suit. We who lived through the 70’s just went about our normal life. There were quite a lot of things that ha
Post a Comment
Read more

Tyranny of the Masses

  I was listening to Benjamin Netanyahu on the radio. He was justifying his change in the law that removed power from the Israeli Supreme Court, saying that it was the will of the people. Majority rules. This made me think of “Tyranny of the masses,” a concept that notes: just because a majority of people are for something, that doesn’t make it right. I am sure you can think of historical examples where the people of a country supported a policy that was demonstrably wrong. When everything is completely governed by majority rule, the rights of the minority can be subverted by the majority. The framers of our American Constitution knew this, and tried to put in some checks and balances into our system of government. This was to guard against all forms of tyranny whether from a dictator, or from tyranny of the masses. One of those checks is that we have a representative government. The people themselves don’t pass laws, but instead elect representatives at the federal and local level t
Post a Comment
Read more