22-11-1963 A Stephen King novel.

Is the end of the Stephen King novel 22-11-1963 plausible?
The book of course is pure sci fi,but i talk about of the consequences of failure murder of JFK.
Is plausible that in consequence of the south Vietnam fall,and of some racial riots,George Wallace become President in 1968 and sell all to hell? I think that the more probable scenario is that Richard Nixon (or some other moderate Republican) win the election
Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
in otl, Nixon won in 1968 by the hair of his teeth.

and with that I'm shutting myself away from this thread until I read the book on my own.
 
Is the end of the Stephen King novel 22-11-1963 plausible?
The book of course is pure sci fi,but i talk about of the consequences of failure murder of JFK.
Is plausible that in consequence of the south Vietnam fall,and of some racial riots, Henry Wallace become President in 1968 and sell all to hell? I think that the more probable scenario is that Richard Nixon (or some other moderate Republican) win the election
Thoughts?

I hope you meant to say George Wallace, as a Henry Wallace victory would be extremely implausible, between his low popularity, his affiliation with the discredited "Progressive Party", and having been dead for three years.
 
I hope you meant to say George Wallace, as a Henry Wallace victory would be extremely implausible, between his low popularity, his affiliation with the discredited "Progressive Party", and having been dead for three years.

Zombie Henry Wallace '68!:D
 
Zombie Henry Wallace '68!:D

Well, it is Stephen King...

Seriously, though, haven't read the book, but why does this lead to a Wallace victory? It pretty much sounds like OTL, except with Kennedy instead of LBJ...oh, and I guess Vietnam falls sooner, but still. Why wouldn't Nixon or another Republican win?
 
King wanted a good ending for his novel. He was not worried about the standards of ASB. If JFK survived I think Wallace would have run in 1968 but would have done as well as he did OTL.
 
I am not sure who wins the election of 68 ITTL this timeline. I think the Democratic nominee is probably Humphrey. I think Bobby's candidacy is handicapped by charges of nepotism and LBJ is still seen as Southern conservative.
 
Dann, I put a post on the books section.George Wallace wins in 1968.BTW DO NOT look at the back cover for a posible big spoiler.I am reading it on my Nook but got the book from library anyway.
 
I hope you meant to say George Wallace, as a Henry Wallace victory would be extremely implausible, between his low popularity, his affiliation with the discredited "Progressive Party", and having been dead for three years.
This is sigworthy...too bad I am attached to my sigs.
 
King wanted a good ending for his novel. He was not worried about the standards of ASB. If JFK survived I think Wallace would have run in 1968 but would have done as well as he did OTL.


The book is ASB.
ATTENTION,SPOILER
Is the story of a guy,Jake Epping, a high-school English teacher from Maine. Jake travels through a time portal to 1958, intending to stop Oswald from shooting JFK .
The story takes place almost entirely in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The narrative tracks Oswald's movements leading up to the Dallas shooting.
Epping has succeeded,and Kennedy lives.
But when come back in 2011 he found a dystopic present.
Now,the part really ASB is this:
San Francisco is destroyed from a catastrophic earthquake,
Because in 1999 a nuclear central in USA is exploded and have caused some type of modification in the Earth's crust.
Reading a book of history Epping found that JFK have win with strict margin on Goldwater in 64, in 65 not have send American troops in Vietnam,but have only attempted to defend the city of Saigon (in west Berlin style),and have lost Saigon (and all south Vietnam) in 1967.
Not has succeeded to achieve a civil rights legislation,but as result of a
interviews,in 1965-66, in which blame the egoism of white peoples, erupted racial riots in all American cities.
So in 1968, George Wallace become President (with Curtis LeMay like Vice),and President Wallace drop atomic bombs on Hanoi.
From this point,and sincerly do not understand why,the world go crazy in a more and more dystopic future.
Atomic war from India and Pakistan,terrorism in USA,any type of crisis,even the Beatles come back together in 80s,but are killed during a concert.
At the end we have some nuclear incidents.
So Epping come back in 63 and stop himself from saving Kennedy
 
Nothing King ever writes ends happily; thats rule number one of his books (rule two: everything takes place in Bangor or somewhere in Maine). Which is reason why he should not have written anything about someone who could lead to a calmer world. Hell, he should have done my chaotic 60s timeline instead.
 
Wallace Victory was Impossible

Wallace was terribly unpopular in most of the U.S. in 1968 except for in the deep south where his racist views were supported. First, he ran as an independent (a party affiliation virtually certifying a loss) and even with the ultimate lack of a popular democratic candidate after RFK's killing, he still only garnered a few Southern states in the national election. I am not sure how Stephen King could have ever imagined a Wallace victory. 11/22/63 was such an engrossing book (if pure entertainment), so reading about the Wallace victory in the alternative timeline was really incredible. It pretty much wrecked the book for me, in fact (as if a time tunnel itself was somehow 'credible'). In my view anyhow, assuming that JFK 'lived' and stayed on track in his second term, I think it would have been either an RFK vs. Nixon or an RFK vs. Reagan election in '68. If JFK experienced the same failed escalation of the Vietnam conflict that Johnson did, I would say Reagan or Nixon would have had an equal shot at the presidency (I think Nixon might still have an edge if Americans were nostalgic for Ike). If on the other hand JFK was able to wind down our commitment there or worked out an early diplomatic solution with the North Vietnamese and the Soviets, RFK would probably have prevailed (I have my doubts, though, whether RFK had the temperament to handle the challenges of the presidency. He might have been a 'one-termer' in my view). Ironically, I think Johnson was able to fast-track significant civil rights and other social services legislation that JFK would probably never have sanctioned even though they were essentially passed as a result of his legacy. Had JFK lived, civil rights and integration might have taken twice as long to realize, in my opinion, possibly leading to even more civil unrest in the 1970s. It might have delayed social progress in the U.S. by a decade as well as our economic and technological progress (the moon landing, for example, was largely fast-tracked in order to realize one of JFKs immortal speeches and might not have been feasible without that 'push').
 
Last edited:
Stephen King is not one of us. hHe is not worried about ASB. hHe probably does not know what that means. oOTL Wallace got 13 percent of the vote in 1968.
 
I read the book and the bizarre ending has as much to do with Jake and Al's repeated trips into the past screwing up various timelines that coexist as parallel universes as saving Kennedy, which is why the gatekeepers (i.e. Yellow Card Man) went insane. It's just that saving Kennedy was so big, it somehow distorted reality and led to that dystopic future. In other words, you can't go back and change the past without adverse consequences, especially when it's a big change. At least that's how I read it, after factoring in bizarre events such as the Los Angeles earthquake that happened even before Jake even got back to the present after saving Kennedy which never happened OTL.

In any case, it's a novel, not a true alternate history.
 
Thanks

You're completely right, of course. That was the whole point of Steven King's Wallace reference (duh). He was illustrating that the future (present) was altered to such an extreme extent due to the effects of multiple time travel events, that the improbability of Wallace becoming president was somehow realized. Thanks indeed. That makes sense now (and I do feel like an idiot). I really appreciate it. You saved the book for me. - Mike
 
Last edited:

katchen

Banned
Although Epping saved the wrong guy. He should have put his energy into stopping (and exposing) the assassination of Martin Luther King. Thanks a lot Stephen King!:mad::mad:
 
katchen said:
Although Epping saved the wrong guy. He should have put his energy into stopping (and exposing) the assassination of Martin Luther King. Thanks a lot Stephen King!:mad::mad:
JFK is more widely regarded as a righteous save, while King would piss off a lot of racists & bigots who are also fans of friend Steve.

That said, it would be interesting to see if a save of King didn't actually produce outcomes full of rainbows & bunnies.:eek:
 
Top