Talk:It (novel)/Archive 1

WTF
I just read this book. It's such a sweet and tragic story of the unity and friendship between 7 people and their lives and remembering the past. It's just great. And there were childish crushes between the boys Beverly, nice plot detail and added realism. And I'm not a stranger to the random King perversions in his books that pop up...but a 6 person gang bang on an 11 yearold? WTF!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.85.50.1 (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Curiously... do you have any problems concerning the article? Because if not, I must point out that Wikipedia is not a talk page.
 * Oh yeah, and please remember to add your section to the bottom of the page. And remember to sign your post with four tildes.

--MwNNrules (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh
I really think that IT (monster) needs it's own page again.


 * I don't. We just don't learn all that much about It. Certainly not too much to address in the main article. 72.202.143.28 (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Child-murders
It is said in the article that the implied reason that the murders aren't reported is because It doesn't want them to. It's not implied. Mike Hanlon SAYS that it is because It doesn't want the murders to get out. 172.190.112.149 17:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mike says that, but more specifically suggests that. So, basically, it's implied. MwNNrules (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy
This article is alarmingly repetitive, with several plot points detailed time and again. Only one plot summary is really needed, I think. Minaker 19:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, why merge such long, in-depth articles on noteworthy and distinct topics? -Silence 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that if they were merged, and the monster article is as long as everyone says, then it'll fall under the "too long" category, and it'll probably have to be undone.Eyeball kid 03:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep them seperate. Having character pages works well for other book topics when there is enough info for a character to warrent one, and Pennywise certainly does.  No reason to merge. ZPS102 22:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually believe that IT (monster) contains many details from the Novel and infact should be merged with the Novel. --Stripedtiger 11:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Movie
Do we really need the two links to the IMD and Rotten Tomatoes reviews for the "It" movie? This article is really on the book, and I think those links would be more appropriate in the It (movie) article. Psycho Medic 03:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I removed them. (Ibaranoff24 15:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

Source?
Turtle is based on other World Turtle stories, such as the Discworld's Great A'Tuin

Where is the source?

"IT" or "It"?
I believe "It" is correct, both for the title of the book and for describing the monster.

I made that change, plus took out all the excessive links (like "murder" and "racist" and various character names that went nowhere). Willerror 03:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI both the title of the movie and the novel are "IT" -- s u m n j i m  talk with me·changes 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's true. But at least in the novel, the character is referred to as It, not IT. I dunno if that's how it's spelled in the movie, but that's not relevant for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MwNNrules (talk • contribs) 16:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a hosted image (or link to) of the glyph on the door to Pennywise's lair? I lost my book, and can't remember what it was like.

Re: title and name of entity
Please stop altering the title of the novel from It to IT. Though the cover of the book reads IT, King always lists the novel as It on his book list page, and when discussing the book. The typeface on the cover is clearly a logo and graphic design choice. For random example, the covers of Insomnia and Needful Things actually read INSOMNIA and NEEDFUL THINGS, and we do not feel the need to write Christine in chrome just because it appears that way on the cover. The title is It. The eponymous entity in the novel is not referred to as "IT" by the characters, ans so should not be in articles. I have also just removed a lot of unnecessary bold face from the article for proper formatting.

If anything, editors may want to discuss putting the character's name in quotation marks ("It"), as the word is a common pronoun and may make the article easier to read. Discuss? Chris Stangl 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I own the Book Club Edition of the novel, and on top of each page on the left hand side, is "IT", not "It". 209.247.21.247 05:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Its" versus "It's"
I notice that in the article the word "Its" is use to indicate possession of "It". However, since "It" is a name, and not a pronoun, the usage should be "It's". Unfortunately this can be confusing since the pronoun "it" and the possessive pronoun "its" can also be used as well, so it could be that whenever "Its" is seen at the beginning of a sentence and capitalized that the pronoun "it" is being used, not the noun "It". -68.114.154.249 17:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, a mixture of both is used. I have moved all of them to "It's" on the grounds that, starting with a capital letter, "It" is a proper noun. --John Lunney 13:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"It" is still a pronoun, capital or not, it's not a proper noun. The only other time I can think of when you capitalize pronouns is when referring to God, and you still say His, not He's then. Also, this is a book we're talking about, you can look at the book itself and see that the correct possessive is "Its." Cheesechimp 07:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever the correct possessive, Its or It's is still used way too much throughout the article. The excessive use of a name in a passage of writing isn't commendable.


 * For example in this random passage from the article, if you replace It with a common name Mike, it can be seen how excessive the name is used:


 * ''Mike apparently originated in a void containing and surrounding the Universe, a place referred to in the novel as the "Macroverse". Mike's real name (if indeed Mike has one) is unknown—although at several points in the novel, Mike claims Mike's true name to be Robert Gray—and is christened Mike by the group of children who later confront it. Likewise, Mike's true form is never truly comprehended. Mike's final form in the physical realm is that of an enormous spider, but even this is only the closest the human mind can get to approximating Mike's actual physical form. Mike's natural form exists in a realm beyond the physical, which Mike calls the "deadlights." Bill comes dangerously close to seeing the deadlights, but successfully defeats MIke before this happens. As such, the deadlights are never seen, and Mike's true form outside the physical realm is never revealed, only described as writhing, destroying orange lights. Coming face to face with the deadlights drives any living being instantly insane (a common H. P. Lovecraft device).


 * Mike's natural enemy is "The Turtle," .... 


 * I think that a lot of these It's need to be replaced with lower case its, as if talking about the monster, not using its name. ArdClose (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not call him "Pennywise"?... wouldn't it be easier to read this way? 201.167.5.127 (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Nubita
 * Because although she calls herself Pennywise on occasion, the children only ever seem to call her It. Valacan (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Bigger Plot Summary
If its no big deal, and somebodys looking for something to write, can somebody make a newer more detailed plot summary of It? Its an 1000+ page novel so I dont think that summary gives it justice. --Gunmetal2k4 04:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to be critical but it doesn't seem like really all that much happens in the book. They play in the barrens, fight Henry (over and over and over), the older people return, catch up on old times, fight It. Each of them runs into It individually twice and since there are 7 of them that takes a lot of time, but really, there's not much else to say in the summary. Valacan (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

richie
''It is interesting to note that he is the only Loser who didn't previously see It, before they formed their club. One theory suggests that this may be because he has the "least serious" ka, and It's powers didn't effect him.''

I erased this part because Richie DOES in fact see It before they formed the club, he just refused to accept it as real and never told anyone. This occurs during the scene where as an adult, he remembers the incident with the statue of Paul Bunyan. Johnnyt471 22:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is "ka"!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.64.4 (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean ka? -- Orange Mike 14:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A stupid edit I made when I was a considerably worse editor. It was offline, and I take full reponsibility. MwNNrules (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And I meant Ka like this. MwNNrules (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Stan
His description states that he is racially persecuted, but since he is a jew, that should make him religiously persecuted. - Redmess 11:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Stan WAS a Jew with a loose faith, but he was also born into a physically Jewish family. This is referenced when one of the losers says Stan doesn't have a big nose like most Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.248.199 (talk • contribs)


 * There is no Jewish race. Stan was religiously persecuted if that. By 'physically Jewish' i take it that you're in reference to a middle-eastern appearance, of which there is no reference in the book to say Stan had. ArdClose 22:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Race" means more than just physical indicators. The term "race" can refer to a group of people that have a common cultural background. And as Judaism is an ethnic religion (as opposed to a Proselytizing religion) there is such a thing as a non-religious Jew, who is a a member of the Jewish race (a person of Jewish decent) but who is not a member of the Jewish faith. Cheesechimp 03:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That use of the term "race" is archaic and considered offensive by many people nowadays; read the article. -- Orange Mike 14:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you honestly expect me to read that whole article? If you could please just point me in the direction of the subsection of the article that says that it's offensive, as the header doesn't clearly deny that the term can be used for factors other than physical (and in fact even brings into question the validity of breaking people up into "races" based on physical attributes alone). And even if the TERM is offensive (and I apologize to anyone who I have offended) there are still people who consider themselves Jews who do not actually practice the religion. And that is how they define their own cultural background, so you can't blame me for being prejudice for categorizing them that way. The fact of the matter is that being a Jew has to do with more than just religious practice. Cheesechimp 18:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, there're plenty of atheist jews in the world, such as Eliezer Yudkowsky. They have no problem with the "Jew" label, even though they don't follow the religion. --Miguel1626 22:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In light of this, it would be best to keep 'racially persecuted' in the article (although I would of thought Henry Bowers's gang believe they 'religiously persecuted' Stan). ArdClose 23:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since amongst themselves Jews are usually considered to be Jewish if they convert to Judaism or are born of a Jewish mother, anyone of any "color" can be a Jew so use of the terms "race" or "ethnicity" can be misleading. The term "religious" implies that a Jew is persecuted for following Judaism, when in fact Jews may be secular or of any other belief system, as stated. My practice is simply not to categorize Jews using vague terms that mean many different things to different people. -Bikinibomb 23:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You're and Your
My friend's been reading this book, and he showed me many instances of Stephen not using you're and your correctly. Does anyone know why? 68.9.197.232 00:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a 1st edition hard cover of this book, and I am really interested in re-reading this book again (last time I read it was 13 years ago). If I see the same thing as your friend describes, I'll try to put my .02 in -- s u m n j i m  talk with me·changes 19:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

King's books have countless errors in them, never incorrect spellings but wrong words entirely. For instance 'if' used instead of 'it' and 'them' used instead of 'there' etc. Errors like these are trickier to correct as the human brain tends to read them as they should be, rather than noticing an incorrect word. ArdClose 22:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

l was just reading my veersion of It and realised that on page 582 where Richie sees a giant poster for an all-dead rock show. It says that thin lizzy's ex-bassist Phil Lynott was playing but King spells his name "Phil Linnot" Is this just a typo in my copy or is it like that in them all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.64.4 (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Lynott's name even appears on the banner in an event to have taken place in 1985 is an error on King's part. Phil Lynott didn't die until January of 1986, so his name doesn't belong with the names of musicians who were already dead when the banner was to have appeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.11.15 (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that grammatical errors really just come down to the editting, but i get the impression that any of King's discrepancies in names are deliberate, either for deeper meanings or personal ones. ArdClose 23:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the correct Race term of Jew is Hebrew which is a culture Jew is someone that practices Jewish religon i think this may clear some facts  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.231.240 (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Hebrew" as an ethnic term is even more archaic and offensive than "Jewish race"! Hebrew is a language. -- Orange Mike 00:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Connections to other King works section
"Beverly makes mention of a "crazy cop" killing women in Castle Rock, Maine. This is a reference to Frank Dodd from King's novel, The Dead Zone." isn't that acually a reference to Cujo? i mean i just read the book, i think it's cujo and not the dead zone ( or is it that it's another reference? 170.215.46.25 07:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since It takes place in 1985, Cujo in 1981, and The Dead Zone in 1979, my guess would be that it is referencing Cujo -- s u m n j i m  talk with me·changes 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Its a reference to The Dead Zone. Cujo also referenced the Dead Zone's crazy cop, but that doesn't make It's reference one to Cujo.--CyberGhostface 19:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mike hanlon makes reference to a small town in Texas which has a very low violence rate because of something in the water. This is a reference to king's short story "The End of the Whole Mess". 172.190.112.149 17:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Who and why did they erase this section from the page? 192.85.78.90 18:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Liantener
 * well 'A Man In Black' deleted the connections to other King works saying that it's,"all trivial, largely speculative, all original research" on 10 June 2007 Amben27 09:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well That 'Man In Black' doesn't seem to make sense, since many of the other Stephen King books have a "Connections to other King works" or "Trivia" section that doesn't seem speculative, it's more like fans fun. Why IT is an exception? Liantener 192.85.78.90 20:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, i have no clue. Maybe we should restore the section. Anyone agree?Amben27 04:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's always interesting to read things like that. ArdClose 22:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK i'll try to bring it back, and if i messed it up will someone fix it please? Amben27 08:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ok i'm REALLY bad at codeing, so can someone fix it? Amben27 08:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleared it up a bit, unfortunately i'm also quite shit with stuff like that... After i read it i spotted an error that needed editting in the Christine entry:

''Henry claims that his crazy father's dream car that he one day swore he would have had always been a red and white 1958 Plymouth Fury, which is the same kind of car that Arnie Cunningham buys in "Christine." That car was previous owned by an evil and crazy old man, Roland LeBay, who could easily be compared to Henry Bowers' crazed and racist father, Butch Bowers''

This starts off saying that Butch Bowers wanted to own the car, and ends with him being the previous owner of it. Seeings as when Henry claims this his father is already dead, and it ges to show that he never infact got the car. Therefor he could not have been the previous owner in Christine. I replaced it with a differnt idea entirely. ArdClose 16:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have strong doubts that Roland the Gunslinger (a MAJOR hero in the King universe) would be Roland Le Bay in any form or facet. The two characters are nowhere NEAR similar, and given Roland the Gunslinger's role as the "ultimate avatar" in the Dark Tower series, to even suggest the two are the same implies that whoever has said this has possibly not even read both works. Besides, this, even if TRUE, does NOT belong in the It section, does it?:::
 * no it doesn't, that theroy should either be in the dark tower books or in christine ( or both), also i see what the person was trying to say in the section of the butch bowers/ roland lebay comparison, just they worded it very badly. i'm thinking they were trying to that butch is racist like roland and wanted the same kind of car, and not implying that butch ever owned a red and white '58 plymouth furyAmben27 04:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No you're right, i just stuck in that Roland thing cos he's a recurring character. I've not read Dark Tower. Seeings as that needs to be taken out then would the whole Christine entry need to go? It's a pretty weak connection if he just mentions the car model. Oh yeah, how comes the short story titles are written in quotation marks without italization? ArdClose 16:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Because standard practice in English is that short stories and article titles are enclosed in quotes; book, film, etc. titles are italicized. -- Orange Mike 16:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok thankyou ArdClose 17:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * no i think we should leave the cristine part in ( well maybe alter it), because i remember a part in christine that one of the characters says that a red and white colored plymouth fury wasn't a standard color and that roland lebay would have had to have it custom painted. And wasn't the car that belch drove a red and white plymouth fury and not that it was his (henry's) father's dream car? Amben27 06:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this whole section original research? Some of it is duplicated elsewhere in the article and some of it, like "The Whole Mess", doesn't seem connected to It. I think it should be deleted.--ThreeAnswers 10:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well by reading the notes up above, it was originally in the article, then removed by a user because it was Original Research. An anonymous IP debated it, stating "a lot of other King works have original research and/or trivia in it".  This is flawed for 2 reasons.  1) OR and Trivia are by nature not supposed to be in the article.  Trivia should be included in the main article, and OR needs to be backed up with sources, hence making it not original research.  Because the faulty reaoning for re-adding it in the first place, I am going to re-delete this section, and if you want to re-add it, get some sources.   Just because other articles bases on Stephen King's works have this stuff in there, does not mean that this article should have it either. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 17:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well there are a lot of connections vague and strong in King's work, but sourcing is probably the way to go. MwNNrules (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Final form modification
It says in the book '...It was imprisoned in this final shape, the shape of the Spider, by their common unsought and unfathered vision.' Although the current description of Its final form is true in a sense, I really think that the use of the word 'common' in the above text should mean it is reiterated that the form of the Spider is not quite the closest the human brain could come to percieving It, but the closest the Losers' brains as a group could. I think the current form might be misleading, as if a different group of people entered the lair then i take it It would have manifested into a different entity. ArdClose 20:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not how I read it. Please forgive me for being too lazy to get out my copy and find the page, but it says on that same page something close to "Just the closest our minds can come to (the deadlights) whatever It really is." It also repeatedly talks about the Spider being what it really is. And in Its thoughts, It notes that "It did not dress up in Its place." 72.202.143.28 (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sex?
I've read the book a few years ago (and I'm trying to read it again), and I know that the kids make sex after the first fight with It back in 1958.

But isn't it too gratuitous to mention this fact at the end of the plot summary? It seems tackled on to the end of the section, just for the sake of mentioning underage sex (another editor even wrote "underage gangbang"). For now I won't edit the entry again, but I think it should be discussed whether or not to mention it.

IMHO, it shouldn't be mentioned in the plot summary as it currently stand, since it has no details whatsoever. That's why adding the sex bit seems gratuitous to me. We should either remove the mention altogether or expand the summary, including more detail, before writing this part.

I plan to improve on the summary once I finish the book, but it'll take a while.

Miguel1626 15:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning the sex scene at the end of the plot summary made no sense anyway, as the final paragraph references the adults and the sex scene took place in 1958. So it would be out of context even if it was not gratuitous. As it now stands there is no place in the summary appropriate for this point so I was unable to move it anywhere. ArdClose 15:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved it to a different point and modified the text slightly. It is a big part of the book. Its not like its devoting a paragraph to the Henry/Patrick stroke section.--CyberGhostface 18:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Henry/Patrick stroke, haha I remember that bit! ArdClose 23:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Patrick has to be one of the most disgusting characters in King's canon...between hocking up the boogers on Eddie, collecting dead flies, killing animals and suffocating his little brother *shivers*...I usually end up skipping that chapter on rereads.--CyberGhostface 23:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I liked It so much because of how terrible it was. Not just a cheesey horror story but one with real-life monstrosities. It shows how well written the book is, and how well the Patrick character is formed because when you read about him you actually want to kill him - as if he's real. ArdClose 19:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as Patrick Hocksetter goes, he should be mentioned (whole chapter for him, included in part four), but it should only go for the basics. Why not have a five paragraph summary (one paragraph for each part of the book)? I haven't read It in a long time, and I trust most people to make a good summary. --MwNNrules (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of pages
The page number wass originally 1138, then 1089. Seeings as the page number differs with what format and who published the book, I have removed the specific numbers stated in the article. I've meanwhile replaced it with an approximate figure, which still gets the point across that is a damn thick book. ArdClose 16:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:It cover.jpg
Image:It cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Links to other novels
If this section is going to stay, can somone do it properly please? And how is a Plymouth Fury seen in a book exactly? ArdClose (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm actually against having it in the first place. Anyone who's read a fair amount of King's work will see that there are countless connections, big and small. Besides, there are other problems in the article that are worth going to first. I propose that we delete the section. However, I will take a backseat to more experienced editors. If following editors would respond to my request. When three editors (other then myself) respond, I'll either delete it or keep it. Where do you stand ArdClose? MwNNrules (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I know trivia and links sections like this aren't exactly encouraged but I personally do not see a problem with sections like this. An online encyclopedia needs not trimming down on extra info unless that info becomes to unessesary and gratuitous (which in this case I think is neither). I am all for keeping this section, but I'd prefer for it to be done decently - a mention of something that happened in the film and saying that Derry is in other novels is very poor going! If some decent connection were added that may not be so obvious to a reader then I think it would make a nice little section, like some of the other King novel articles have.


 * Personally, I do enjoy reading sections like this, and picking up lil' tidbits like he thrusts his fist against the post and still insists he sees the ghost appearing in 'Salem's Lot, and I believe there was a massive section before on all the links that got deleted a while ago. But I understand that some people don't approve of sections like this, but it can be difficult to incorporate stuff like this into the main article. I will follow you in sitting back and letting other editor discuss, but if nothing happens for a while I might go and improve the section myself. ArdClose (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You make a good point. I also think it's interesting, but don't find it to be of much use (you can find stuff about Derry all over the internet). Then there are better points worth defense (Dick Hallorann being in two novels is noteworthy enough, especially considering he actually uses "the Shining" when he's mentioned. But as we've seemingly agreed, we should wait until the section either buffs up, or stays useless (okay it's not useless, but not effective in establishing it's points. And a lot of featured articles are really tense about what goes in, and it would be nice to see this as one of those (or at least a good article at some point). MwNNrules (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I do agree with you. The township of Derry or Castle Rock aren't really connections to other novels in my opinion; characters and events are. The fact that a town is used more then once is just a fictional occurrance in King's universe. Dick Hallorann at the Black spot is a decent example, as well as Frank Dodd's murder spree being mentioned and some of the events from "The End of the Whole Mess". But alas, where do you draw the line? ArdClose (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If I could do the section and try to cram in the details I find, I would. I've read the book once, and am currently re-reading it. Unfortunately, while I can pick up on most of his references (Dodd comes up a lot), I won't be able to do it well. As I said, there are other problems, and while I'm for most cool facts, I'd rather get to the bigger problems. MwNNrules (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well now it's gone. Note that neither I nor Ardclose were involved, instead, A Man in Black went through with it. I'm not adding it back in, because I neither liked nor disliked the section. My primary concerns with this article are the plot section, protection against vandalism, and grammar. Oh well. It was interesting when it was there. MwNNrules (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

List of It's Victims
I'm not too sure about the recent inclusion of a list of It's victims. I don't have any strong objection to it or anything, but I'm not sure if it's...unnecessary? Most of the victims are secondary, or even lesser, characters who otherwise don't play a large part in the book. It's nice info to have, but perhaps not useful enough to devote so much space to it. As I said, I don't really have a strong opinion either way, so I'd like to know what others think. Chaoticfluffy (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is, to me, quite similar to the situation stated above this section. It's fun information, cool to look at, but it's overfilling the article, which desperately needs more citation to keep the claims from looking like original research. There are a lot of things to get to. First of all, the character is never referred to in the text as IT, simply as It. I'll get to that. And any references to characters "not being seen" must be changed. If you want to get specific, we don't "see" anyone. We merely look at the text, which translates into the story the author has represented. MwNNrules (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

MwNNrules, I'm new-ish here and still a little unsure - how long do editors generally wait for further comment before deleting something like the It's Victims section? And how is it some - that is, does someone just up and take it out, or is there an announcement, etc? Chaoticfluffy (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC), who wants to know everything to keep from offending anyone by doing it wrong

I wouldn't wait on deleting this. Whilst an interesting list, it is not needed for a good and informative article. Many of the characters are only mentioned for a page or so. It isn't referenced either, and a lot of editors would delete it just by that. No one has bothered to object, or cares deeply enough to protect it here. That makes it fair game for deletion. There's a good manual to read on specifications. The Manual of Style is a guide that can be used to protect productive edits and destroy counter-productive ones. Need anything else, just leave a note on my talk page. MwNNrules (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Its" versus "It's": Revisited
After getting in an inadvertent edit-scuffle with user:Firsfron earlier today, I realized that what I had remembered as a consensus on the talk page about the the issue of It's vs. Its was in fact nothing of the sort; the discussion seems to have petered out last year with no agreement. I'd like to try to settle the issue once and (maybe?) for all. My personal view is that in the case of this novel, "It" is a proper noun, a character name, that just happens to share a spelling and pronunciation with the pronoun "it." If this is true, there is no reason to omit an apostrophe when making a possessive out of a proper noun that isn't historical and doesn't end in 's'. Before anyone responds to that, though (really! hold on!) - it occurred to me that I, and everyone else, can have all the opinions we want about this; there's one very easy way to resolve the issue: what form does Stephen King use in the actual text? The easy way to solve this is for someone to check the book - I think we can all agree that whatever form the author used is the correct form in this case, yes?

I own a paperback copy of the book, but I won't be able to get to it until Friday morning. Anyone else want to check this before then? If not, I will report back sometime Friday. Chaoticfluffy (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting a note here, Chaotic.


 * As you know, pronouns do not get apostrophes when indicating possession. Proper grammar is "its", "ours" "yours", "his", "hers", "theirs", etc, not "it's", "your's" "hi's", "her's", "their's", etc. This trips people up all the time, and Wikipedia has over a thousand articles with these types of mistakes, which show up in Google.


 * "It" is a pronoun. Changing the word to "It's" confuses the reader because "It's" means "it is" or "it has". When you change a phrase to "approximating It's actual physical form," you're causing the sentence to read "approximating it is actual form", which makes no sense. And a number of reliable sources agree that "It's" never means "belonging to it". They actually use the word "never": :*""It's" means "it is." It never means "belonging to it."
 * "it's (only ever means 'it is', never 'belonging to it')"


 * So why would we stick an apostrophe in there? Because "It" is a proper noun here ("It" is capitalized)? But is it? The pronoun "I" is capitalized, but that doesn't make it a proper noun. "I" is a pronoun which happens to be capitalized. So too are any pronouns which come at the beginning of a sentence: "He went to the park. It was a Wednesday." Just because the pronouns are capitalized doesn't make them proper nouns.


 * There's even literary precedence for capitalized pronouns to still be considered pronouns. In biblical phrases such as "in Thy name", "Thy" is still a pronoun, even though it is capitalized. "He", "His", "Your", "Thine", etc, also appear capitalized in the Bible, when referring to God. In your edit summary, you stated that because "It" is a being, it was a proper noun. But capitalizing "He" doesn't make the word "He" a proper noun. We don't add an apostrophe when indicating pronoun possession: "In His name" doesn't become "In Hi's" name", even though "His" is capitalized.


 * Someone above in the earlier conversation stated that even King himself didn't abuse "It's" in this way. It would be good to double-check, for certain, but this is an encyclopedia. A formal tone should be established at any rate. Firsfron of Ronchester  09:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Phew, finally (how many weeks later?) got around to checking my copy of the book like I said I would. You're right, Firsfron, King uses "Its" and not "It's" for the possessive. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced The Dark Tower connections - remove?
Over the past month or so, a lot of stuff regarding The Dark Tower series has piled up. I use the term "piled up" not to suggest that some of the stuff isn't true, but because much of it is orginal research, fan-based, and to some degree, irrelevant. Some of these could be cited from the comic book series (which seems to be where a lot of the information is coming from). More importantly, User:SilverOrion has added a template suggesting that a lot of this article is filled with fan-based material. I agree. I may delete this. I will at least fix the citation which claims that Stephen King said that It and the Crimson King are "probably of the same species." It is actually impossible to tell if that is what he said, for quotation marks are not used by the website. Any comments? --MwNNrules (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The fancruff template is there for a reason. I think that we should remove what the template is referring to in accordance with Wikipedia's policy. --MwNNrules (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Plot Summary?
I couldn't help but notice that there's what appears to be two plot summaries on this page. There is an appropriate summary under the heading "Plot Summary," but then under "Cycle" a user apparently felt the need to add in ANOTHER plot summary that further details It's character and the book's plot. This is clearly misplaced. If anyone can see what I'm saying and agree, say so and I'll make the appropriate edits.

MahoganyCow (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about anyone else, but you have my permission to alter the summary for the good of the article. --MwNNrules (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I took out a lot of unnecessary/misplaced crap that was clogging the "Cycle" section and I think it reads much smoother now. MahoganyCow (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's good, it really was getting unruly. --MwNNrules (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Beverly's Father
There is a small ambiguity concerning whether the character is her father or her stepfather. At one point in the novel, he is referred to as her stepfather; at another, he is described as the man whose genes gave her red hair. Rather than change the existing information, I have simply added a note concerning the stepfather reference. If someone else can come up with a more appropriate way of referencing this, by all means please do so. --BRPierce (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Before IT, there was Wendy's Friends
Surprising similarity between the plot of It and this] 1982 Fantastic Four story; any connection? --Noclevername (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the themes present in both were long established in fiction before either of them were published.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Critical Reception?
I feel this article could be made better with a "Critical Reception" section. I'd like to know what critics thought of the novel and how it was received by the public. Toadspring (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are two reviews from The New York Times from August of 1986: http://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/21/books/books-of-the-times-547486.html & http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/09/lifetimes/kin-r-it.html Jmj713 (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm
Ahh...yeah...majorly overhauled the entire article. We can argue semantics, but, I mean, this is clearly much better. Trying to tell the story the way the book was written out, jumping back and forth between 1958 and 1985 in a plot summary, was just awkward and unnavigable. If people want to know exactly how the book was laid out, they can read it. Also, I corrected numerous punctuation errors that made the article bad. Let me know what you think. Bricklayerp (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)