Why 'It' Is Divided into Two Parts: Exploring the Story and Adaptation

Why did Stephen King decide to divide his iconic novel, It, into two parts? This question has puzzled many readers and fans of the thriller genre. In this article, we will delve into the reasoning behind this decision and explore the impact of this split on both the book and the subsequent adaptations.

Overview of the Novel Structure

It, written by Stephen King, is a sprawling, 1100-page novel that possesses a complex narrative structure. King chose to break the story into five distinct parts, each with its own unique purpose and significance. Here’s a brief overview of the structure:

Book 1: Phone calls that reunite the Losers in Derry. Book 2: The Losers' initial meeting in June 1958. Book 3: The reunion in Derry with the adults returning. Book 4: The climactic events in July 1958. Book 5: A complex interlude that jumps between 1958 and 1986. Interludes: Additional stories that provide background information on Derry's history.

While the novel is presented as one long story, it is divided into five parts and several interludes, which adds layers to the narrative and enhances the reader's experience. This division allows for a more focused exploration of key events and characters in both childhood and adulthood.

The Decision to Split the Story

The decision to split the story into two parts for the TV series and the subsequent film adaptations is not arbitrary. The original novel is set in two distinct timeframes—June/July 1958 and 1986. This dual timeline has a significant impact on the story and the reader's understanding of events.

Childhood and Adulthood

Part one of the novel is dedicated to the childhood experiences of the Losers as they face the terror of Pennywise the clown. These events lay the foundation for their adult lives and influence their actions and motivations in the 1986 storyline. The second part focuses on the adulthood of the characters, who are now grown and must confront Pennywise once again.

This dual timeline structure is crucial to the narrative. Many events in 1986 are directly influenced by the events of 1958. Therefore, it is essential to understand both timelines simultaneously. Jumping back and forth between the two timelines creates a more compelling and cohesive story.

Adaptation and Filmmaking Challenges

Adapting such a long and complex novel to a film or TV series presents significant challenges. The decision to split the story into two parts is not just for convenience, but to effectively convey the narrative's complexity.

Logical Splitting

Placing the two parts in separate timeframes makes logical sense, both narratively and logistically. Filming Part 1 when the characters are kids in 1958 and Part 2 when they are adults in 1986 ensures that the story remains true to its original structure. Moreover, filming both parts simultaneously avoids the need to wait 25 years for the second part, as was the case with some adaptations.

Filming Challenges

Filming the two parts together is vital for maintaining the flow of the narrative. Jumping back and forth in time can be challenging for filmmakers and actors. For instance, in the 2017/2019 film adaptation, the filmmakers had to coordinate the schedules of multiple adult actors, which could have been difficult given the 25-year gap between the events.

Impact on the Adaptation

Both the 1990 TV miniseries and the 2017/2019 film adaptation chose to split the novel into two parts. This decision was driven by the inherent structure of the novel and the need to maintain a cohesive narrative. The TV miniseries, while somewhat criticized for its length, still managed to capture the essence of the novel's structure. The film adaptation, despite some initial backlash, ultimately succeeded in conveying the complexity and depth of the original story.

Conclusion

The division of It into two parts, both in the original novel and its adaptations, is a deliberate choice that enhances the storytelling. By structuring the narrative in two distinct timeframes, King and his adaptations have successfully conveyed the intricate interplay between childhood trauma and adult resilience. This approach not only reflects the novel's complexity but also provides a clear and engaging adaptation for readers and viewers.