I enjoyed 11/22/63 but I cannot give it a five-star rating. It was enjoyable, but it started to drag a little bit three-quarters of the way in. I’m not sure why. It wasn’t like King’s prose was obtuse, complicated or hard to read — it wasn’t, the prose actually flowing quickly throughout the whole novel. There was just something about the novel that dragged. No offence Mr. King.
I also had a hard time getting past certain historical inadequacies. I guess that’s the problem with historical fiction: once a reader spots a mistake, it is very hard for the reader to let it go.
Here are the ones I had a hard time getting over (I’m certain other readers will find more):

• When King makes reference to hunters in the late 50s, he mentions that they are wearing bright orange clothing. However, I don’t think blaze orange clothing was in widespread use in the 50s, and I don’t believe its use was mandated by law. Instead, red and black checkered clothing was the cultural norm.
• At one point a character from the novel (set in the early 60s) mentions “swag” in a sentence. I am positive that no one used the acronym for “shit we all get” back then.
• King also uses the word “pix” in reference to photographs in that long-ago setting — again hearkening back to the present (the mind reels!), slang-infused and otherwise lazily written 21st century.


These are just the ones that prevented me from having a seamless, suspension-of-disbelief read. I’m sure there are tons more in the novel, available for eagle-eyed readers the world over. And this is the problem with historical fiction; you never know what the reader will actually think, interpret, and see. It’s important to get the facts right.
All nay-saying aside, I did enjoy 11/22/63. Kudos to King for at least writing such an ambitious novel. In the case of 11/22/63 it is a pseudo-historical fiction, but mostly the novel is good ol’ Speculative Fiction.