Never read any King because idk I guess I always thought it was too middle-brow but just speaking generally, I prefer a book that is more fucked up vs one that is less fucked up. The idea that nothing sexually perverse, uncomfortable or immoral should be written in a book is dull. The story does work without that bit obviously since they nixed it for TV, and without reading it I can't really comment on whether it works in the book or not, but in the abstract, having all your child characters be forced to have group sex in a sewer to defeat an evil clown probably improves a lot of stories. Harry Potter woulda been better that is for damn sure
cw: pedo shit ::: spoiler spoiler I like fucked up fiction as much as the next depressed western communist, but jfc I've never thought that a child sex scene would improve any novel. Mfer, what's your standard here, goddamn Lolita? :::
Lolita is actually amazing book? The sex scenes aren't meant to be titillating they're fucking horrifying.
I was waiting on someone smarter than me who's actually read it to say this. From what many smarter than me people have told me Lolita is incredibly on the nose about its message and I don't get how so many people miss that. I mean tbf its normal to be disgusted by the content of Lolita but like Nabokov is using that impulse intentionally?
I'm not sure if the pedos who use the term Lolita have actually read the book? Or they could be viewing themselves as "sticking it to the man" by "reclaiming" a term.