Sometimes an actor will get typecast in a particular role. Think Kristen Stewart and every role that requires a dependent female with a perpetual frown, or Robert Downey Jr. as the suave, fast talking male lead. 
 Just as often, authors are relegated to a certain genre and are oftentimes unable to get out. Sometimes they don't want to, of course. Arthur C. Clarke did very well as one of the preeminent science fiction writers, and though he wrote novels like The Lost World, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle will always be known for Sherlock Holmes and mysteries. 
 Likewise, I have doubts that J. K. Rowling will ever be able to get away from being known as the wizarding writer, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I also don't believe Ernest Hemingway will ever be anything more to me than the classic author who wrote books I despise. 
 Stephen King will always be known for his works of horror, I'm sure. And there's good reason why. It, Salem's Lot, Pet Sematary and (the first half of) The Stand are amazingly terrifying in their own ways. I mean, if your not frightened by clowns, vampires, zombies or a world-destroying plague, you have balls of steel. Titanium, even. 
 Beyond the terrors of the night and the mind, however, is King's ability to write in a believable style and provide realistic situations, as strange as that may sound. His settings are extremely detailed and his characters feel real. 
 All of this helps make King one of the best fiction writers, period, horror not withstanding and unnecessary. 
 Don't believe me? Movie-goers who are not King-addicts may be surprised to learn that King wrote the short stories that led to the creation of classics like Stand by Me, The Green Mile, and, of course, Shawshank Redemption. 
 King's characters are often literary representations of the rural character that is, as Sarah Palin shouted from coast to coast in 2008, the 'true America.' King writes novels in the same way that Bruce Springsteen writes lyrics. If you're a fan of one, you'll love the other. 
 Anyway, my point is that Stephen King is much more than horror. His novels evoke raw emotion and 11/22/63 is no exception. 
 This one is about as far as you can get from horror. If I had to classify it as something, I'd go with science fiction, though I'm really not comfortable with limiting it like that. It is true fiction, the type you'd find in the literary section among works like The Kite Runner and Lord of the Flies. 
 To give you a very basic description of the plot, 11/22/63 is the story of a man who discovers a way to travel back to 1958 and decides to change history by saving John. F. Kennedy from being assassinated. Unfortunately, the 'past is obdurate.' It does not want to change, and it will actively fight back. 
 King weaves in and out of the pitfalls of time travel, wisely choosing to ignore possible plot holes rather than get hung up on them. The reader doesn't fully understand how time travel works, but that's ok, because neither do the characters. King's interpretation of time travel also varies in certain ways from popular interpretations like Back to the Future, making 11/22/63 a fresh read. As the book goes on, it becomes increasingly obvious to the reader that the story of the main character, Jake, or George if that do ya, is far more important than whether Kennedy lives or dies. (But you won't get that answer out of me). This novel is a thriller, a love story and an account of the past which you won't get from many other authors. 
 All in all, as big a fan I am of many of King's works, I think this one takes the cake for the best. I think that it allows for a widespread audience, beyond those already in love with Stephen King's works. 
 But for those who are fans of King, and especially of It, I hope you enjoy this novel as much as I did.