Did IT ever occur to you?..

GOTCHA!!!

JD wrote: BTW Shadowyzard, IT's not April 1st yet. Obviously a pun. Winner of shortest thread ever!

I don't deem anybody as "fool", so April Fools' Day is not my thing. 

If it were "April's Fooling Day" or something, I'd be all for that!!! 

BaldJean wrote: Shadowyzard wrote: @BaldJean The clown Pennywise is called as IT. Occur's one of the meanings is: exist or be found to be present in a place or under a particular set of conditions. And, this is the "Just For Fun" section.  I know it is the clown from the movie "It" based on the Stephen King novel of the same name. I am just wondering what this "particular set of conditions" might be

Then, take its another meaning, which is: (of a thought or idea) come into the mind of

This meaning also suitable for a "fictional character", which can also appear and disappear at will. Can I dare to categorize all the fantasy fiction as schizophrenic, if the protagonists and/or the other characters of the works believe what they see?.. Or do they really "see" reality as it is?

So, I'm not a native English speaker. Also the "American intellect" is something that I occasionally have problems with. Perhaps it is time for the Americans to have such with mine. 

Also, one other meaning of occur is: to exist or be present

So please accept this balloon as a present.

BaldJean wrote: I know it is the clown from the movie "It"

It is not a movie, BTW.

BaldJean wrote: Shadowyzard wrote: BaldJean wrote: I know it is the clown from the movie "It"  It is not a movie, BTW. it actually is a movie too, or rather a series of 2 movies released in 2017 and 2019

Which IT was it in the first picture? The one from the mini-series or the movie(s)?

We are indeed(!) having so much fun...

Edited by Shadowyzard - January 18 2021 at 07:47

BaldJean wrote: I saw neither the movies nor the series; I am not a fan of King. I only ever read one of his books, "Needful Things". it was good until about the last 30 pages where it turned into a massacre that in my opinion was totally unnecessary. mark that I am not generally opposed to massacres; the fantastic novel "Die andere Seite" ("The other Side") by Alfred Kubin, which I highly recommend, ends with a massacre compared to which the one in King's novel is child's play. but in Kubin's novel the massacre does in my opinion make perfect sense while in King's novel it is in my opinion put on. by the way: Kubin's novel has one of my absolute favorite passages from literature ever. it is about the death of the character Dr. Lampenbogen. I know it by heart and will give the German original first and then the translation: "So endete Lampenbogen seine Existenz als Spießbraten, und zwar als ein schlechter; der obere Teil war größtenteils roh, kaum gebräunt, die Bauchteile dagegen gänzlich verkohlt. Nur an den Seiten war er richtig knusprig". and now the translation: "Thus Lampenbogen ended his existence as a spit roast, and a bad one at that; the upper part was mostly raw, hardly browned, the abdominal parts, however, completely charred. He was only really crispy on the sides". this passage is accompanied by this illustration of the author himself:

I think Stephen King generally "ruined" his own book endings deliberately. As he knew that lots of teenagers were reading them too. It is a very ethical approach, given his popularity and impact in the world.

Thanks for the recommendation, I generally abstain from reading translated books but I may make an exception here.  Oh, and I'm a book translator, see the irony? 

Ah, did I say "Which IT was it?"