The Eyes of the Dragon was one of my favorite Stephen King books when I was younger. It wasn't scary, it was relatively short, and it was a fun adventure story. I reread it in 2005, just because I felt like it one day and ran out to buy a copy. In the most recent rereading of it, I again enjoyed it, and I think that it makes a great 'short' novella after IT--remembering, of course, that SK's novellas in Different Seasons were written after completing his major books.
This time around, I was very much reminded of 'Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption' because I think that the two stories operate in very similar ways. Both are, of course, about a man who is jailed because of a crime that he didn't commit. But SK uses several of the same techniques too. He gives clues about what will happen in advance, so if you are paying close attention you might put everything together. Both men come up with elaborate plans (that rely on gifts) to make their escapes. Eyes of the Dragon is intended for a younger audience--specifically King and Straub's kids--which I think changes the overall tone. There is also a dog as a major character in the form of Frisky, which is an idea that will stick around for SK too, particularly with the introduction of Oy in The Waste Lands.
Also worth noting, of course, is the return of Flagg, who hasn't been around for a while. In fact, I think his last definitive appearance was in The Gunslinger (....or was it? If you read the original, maybe not. If you read the revised 2003 version, probably), and he was obliquely hinted at in 'Children of the Corn.' Flagg will be back in a big way, of course, in the Dark Tower series. In this novel, Flagg even has moments where he resembled It: he bares his teeth, he smells monstrous (according to Frisky), he poisons the sewers, and SK even refers to him as It at one point. Not quite the same, but a terrifying monster nonetheless.
In sum, quick read, fun stuff, great adventure. I still like this one a lot. In fact, I am surprised that it has not been adapted, seems like it would be pretty easy to make it a compelling movie.
Friday, January 3, 2014
Saturday, December 28, 2013
I did IT!
I am very proud to announce that I read IT. And survived. And can even take the dog out for a walk at night without fearing a horrible death by clown. This is some serious progress from the first time I read the book.
And in rereading the book, I understood in part why it scared me so much the first time--and possibly why it would scare anyone. When I was a kid, I used to volunteer at a historical museum and I often had to go into the creepy, dark basement by myself, where the modern plumbing and everything was (you went if you needed to get water, since we did not have a handy creek as they did back in the day). Having to go down in the dark by yourself reminded me of the opening of IT, particularly the cellar part. That really stuck with me. So did Stanley's death and the haunted house. And this is where SK gets you. He takes moderately creepy everyday situations and turns them into actual terror (remember that garbage disposal in Firestarter?). But I found it interesting how much did not stick with me, and I think that this book might have too much horror in it, in the sense that there are simply too many scenes to process and still be afraid. In fact, by the time we were back in 1985 and reminiscing in the Chinese restaurant, I was getting a bit done with horror scenes (oh no! The cookies have terrifying things instead of fortunes!). Then later, there was a scene with Audra at the hotel where the TV came on by itself and there were horrifying noises from the bathroom. This didn't scare me at all as a kid, which surprised me. My first instinct was that perhaps I simply had not stayed in too many hotels by that point in my life, which is probably true. But I think I may have read too much that was scary by that point and it started to blur together.
It's very clear that this book was a pivotal one for SK, because I think that it contained references to pretty much every single previous book that he wrote. Entire town destroyed? Carrie. Group bands together to fight evil bullies? 'The Body.' A werewolf? The Cycle of the Werewolf. Haunted house? The Talisman. Haunted town? 'Salem's Lot. Scary stuff in a bathroom? The Shining. I think you get the idea. Really, there was everything. Even stuff coming in the future. A reference to a bird from Africa? Misery (I can't tell you where that happened, it was very brief but stuck with me). A group banding together to fight evil for the Turtle? The Dark Tower. Small town goes gradually insane as though possessed by an evil force? Needful Things. Violence at a lumberjack camp? The Wind Through the Keyhole. Seriously, this one runs deep.
The book, at its core, is of course not about an evil killer sewer clown or even an evil female spider, but really about the boundary between childhood and adulthood, and how these collide. The idea that the characters had forgotten so much about their past didn't surprise me so much this time, as it did when I was a kid. Of course we forget many things as we age, we can't possibly remember it all. While the premise of IT was that the Losers forget because of the trauma that they experienced, it seems to me that perhaps it was the simple act of forgetting that we all encounter as we age.
I also was less disappointed by the ending than I was the first time. I felt like SK just ran out of ideas when I initially read the book, but now I am more convinced that he had a much bigger story in mind, but couldn't put it all in this one. I mean, it's not like he didn't try. The whole thing comes in at 1142 pages, after all. But this is the closest thing to the seven-volume Dark Tower that exists in his whole oeuvre, I think. And there is a bigger story, with the Turtle and larger forces and galactic battles--in other words, exactly The Dark Tower. But I think he hadn't quite formulated all of that yet. He would get back to it soon afterward, churning out 2 and 3 in the series within the next five years. And maybe this novel marks the bifurcation between the epic and the mundane in SK (not that they are ever fully bifurcated). Books set more in reality took one path, while books that thrived on fantasy took another. Considering that the next book is The Eyes of the Dragon, this idea of a split makes sense.
SK took four years to work on IT, which is virtually unheard of in his works. I hadn't realized this until completing it, but he also did not have any real novels that came out during this time. In fact, the previous novel was Pet Semetary, which means he went from a pretty dark place to an even more dark place (there was The Talisman, but that was co-written, and I am assuming that the Bachman books were earlier). So despite the fact that SK appeared to be very prolific, he was in fact honing this one novel for a long time. Certainly it shows in places. The beginning, with George's death, is incredibly captivating and well-written. The same can't be said throughout, which is not surprising to me since it is a very long novel. But what bugged me the most was that it was unclear why the Losers kept getting away, while others could not. With George, we see that he is tricked by IT because he doesn't know enough to be suspicious of a clown in the sewer (in fact, much of this reminded me of Erlkönig again, especially when IT tried to convince his victims that they were going to a more beautiful, fun world). But it's not clear in other places why the Losers could escape him, unless you buy the 'protected by the Turtle' argument.
Oh, and you don't really need the clown, of course. The situations in which the kids find themselves are all perilous and it seems pretty clear that they could have died regardless of what IT did. For instance, Ben tried to walk home by himself in the cold, even though the adults had haphazardly tried to stop him. Stanley should never have been in the Standpipe by himself, which was a known danger. Beverly's father is clearly close to insane and unquestionably abusive, whether he is possessed by IT or not. George never should have been playing in the storm water in the first place. I haven't even mentioned the bullies yet, who pose yet another hazard. In fact, the book serves as a reminder of just how perilous childhood can be, and how seemingly normal activities can, in fact, end tragically.
I was thinking that I would write multiple entries on the book and I may still have more to say later, but for now, I think that these are the most salient points from my rereading of IT. I am super glad that it wasn't nearly as scary as the first time around, although I am still not quite ready to tackle the mini-series. I did really enjoy this commentary on the book and recommend for more consideration of it: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/09/the-great-stephen-king-reread-it
And in rereading the book, I understood in part why it scared me so much the first time--and possibly why it would scare anyone. When I was a kid, I used to volunteer at a historical museum and I often had to go into the creepy, dark basement by myself, where the modern plumbing and everything was (you went if you needed to get water, since we did not have a handy creek as they did back in the day). Having to go down in the dark by yourself reminded me of the opening of IT, particularly the cellar part. That really stuck with me. So did Stanley's death and the haunted house. And this is where SK gets you. He takes moderately creepy everyday situations and turns them into actual terror (remember that garbage disposal in Firestarter?). But I found it interesting how much did not stick with me, and I think that this book might have too much horror in it, in the sense that there are simply too many scenes to process and still be afraid. In fact, by the time we were back in 1985 and reminiscing in the Chinese restaurant, I was getting a bit done with horror scenes (oh no! The cookies have terrifying things instead of fortunes!). Then later, there was a scene with Audra at the hotel where the TV came on by itself and there were horrifying noises from the bathroom. This didn't scare me at all as a kid, which surprised me. My first instinct was that perhaps I simply had not stayed in too many hotels by that point in my life, which is probably true. But I think I may have read too much that was scary by that point and it started to blur together.
It's very clear that this book was a pivotal one for SK, because I think that it contained references to pretty much every single previous book that he wrote. Entire town destroyed? Carrie. Group bands together to fight evil bullies? 'The Body.' A werewolf? The Cycle of the Werewolf. Haunted house? The Talisman. Haunted town? 'Salem's Lot. Scary stuff in a bathroom? The Shining. I think you get the idea. Really, there was everything. Even stuff coming in the future. A reference to a bird from Africa? Misery (I can't tell you where that happened, it was very brief but stuck with me). A group banding together to fight evil for the Turtle? The Dark Tower. Small town goes gradually insane as though possessed by an evil force? Needful Things. Violence at a lumberjack camp? The Wind Through the Keyhole. Seriously, this one runs deep.
The book, at its core, is of course not about an evil killer sewer clown or even an evil female spider, but really about the boundary between childhood and adulthood, and how these collide. The idea that the characters had forgotten so much about their past didn't surprise me so much this time, as it did when I was a kid. Of course we forget many things as we age, we can't possibly remember it all. While the premise of IT was that the Losers forget because of the trauma that they experienced, it seems to me that perhaps it was the simple act of forgetting that we all encounter as we age.
I also was less disappointed by the ending than I was the first time. I felt like SK just ran out of ideas when I initially read the book, but now I am more convinced that he had a much bigger story in mind, but couldn't put it all in this one. I mean, it's not like he didn't try. The whole thing comes in at 1142 pages, after all. But this is the closest thing to the seven-volume Dark Tower that exists in his whole oeuvre, I think. And there is a bigger story, with the Turtle and larger forces and galactic battles--in other words, exactly The Dark Tower. But I think he hadn't quite formulated all of that yet. He would get back to it soon afterward, churning out 2 and 3 in the series within the next five years. And maybe this novel marks the bifurcation between the epic and the mundane in SK (not that they are ever fully bifurcated). Books set more in reality took one path, while books that thrived on fantasy took another. Considering that the next book is The Eyes of the Dragon, this idea of a split makes sense.
SK took four years to work on IT, which is virtually unheard of in his works. I hadn't realized this until completing it, but he also did not have any real novels that came out during this time. In fact, the previous novel was Pet Semetary, which means he went from a pretty dark place to an even more dark place (there was The Talisman, but that was co-written, and I am assuming that the Bachman books were earlier). So despite the fact that SK appeared to be very prolific, he was in fact honing this one novel for a long time. Certainly it shows in places. The beginning, with George's death, is incredibly captivating and well-written. The same can't be said throughout, which is not surprising to me since it is a very long novel. But what bugged me the most was that it was unclear why the Losers kept getting away, while others could not. With George, we see that he is tricked by IT because he doesn't know enough to be suspicious of a clown in the sewer (in fact, much of this reminded me of Erlkönig again, especially when IT tried to convince his victims that they were going to a more beautiful, fun world). But it's not clear in other places why the Losers could escape him, unless you buy the 'protected by the Turtle' argument.
Oh, and you don't really need the clown, of course. The situations in which the kids find themselves are all perilous and it seems pretty clear that they could have died regardless of what IT did. For instance, Ben tried to walk home by himself in the cold, even though the adults had haphazardly tried to stop him. Stanley should never have been in the Standpipe by himself, which was a known danger. Beverly's father is clearly close to insane and unquestionably abusive, whether he is possessed by IT or not. George never should have been playing in the storm water in the first place. I haven't even mentioned the bullies yet, who pose yet another hazard. In fact, the book serves as a reminder of just how perilous childhood can be, and how seemingly normal activities can, in fact, end tragically.
I was thinking that I would write multiple entries on the book and I may still have more to say later, but for now, I think that these are the most salient points from my rereading of IT. I am super glad that it wasn't nearly as scary as the first time around, although I am still not quite ready to tackle the mini-series. I did really enjoy this commentary on the book and recommend for more consideration of it: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/09/the-great-stephen-king-reread-it
Friday, December 6, 2013
Skeleton Crew
Okay, I need to fess up about this book and the reason that it took me so long to read it. I ordered a copy from the library in August, then when it didn't turn up, did some quick investigating and learned that:
1) There was only one copy at the library;
2) It was reported missing.
So that put me behind by a few weeks.
Then I ordered a copy from Amazon and started reading. I had read this book before (summer of 1994, to be exact) and some stories I remembered well. For instance, the leading story, 'The Mist.' You can probably guess that it terrified me. Soon after reading it, I found myself walking around a strange city somewhat late at night and that terrified me even more, because what if a mist suddenly rolled in with the accompanying terrifying monsters? Naturally, that was not very likely, but you know how it is.
I also remembered a few more, like 'The Monkey,' particularly because I had the older copy of the book with the monkey toy on the cover:
I also remember 'The Monkey' being pretty predictable and not that great, which was true in this rereading as well. In fact, I did not remember all that many stories, and I have concluded that the reason for this is that several are not very good. Here is my assessment:
Very good stories: 'The Mist' (don't read if you live in a foggy area); 'Mrs. Todd's Shortcut' (I feel like this one really tends to stick with people, it is a fun story); 'Survivor Type' (sort of a proto-Misery, only ickier); 'Nona' (sort of predictable but still good); 'The Reach,' 'Word Processor of the Gods,' 'Ballad of the Flexible Bullet,' 'Gramma,' 'The Jaunt.'
Stories that made me want to put the book down and possibly never ever read it again and OH MY GOD HOW PAINFUL WAS THAT: 'The Wedding Gig' (WHY??????) and 'The Man Who Would Not Shake Hands.' Conclusion: I do not like stories that go to that gentleman's club in New York that is also featured in Different Seasons.
Stories that were meh: everything else in the book. 'The Raft' especially.
So that is my assessment: a mixed bag. The good stories really are very good and if you have never read 'The Mist,' you really should. Some fine stuff. But I officially give you permission to skip over ones that you find to be less than intriguing. They don't get any better.
Anyway, that is why it took me so long to get to this one, even though I had been trying to since August. I promise that this was not solely an attempt to procrastinate from the next book. Honest. Even though the next book is.......
1) There was only one copy at the library;
2) It was reported missing.
So that put me behind by a few weeks.
Then I ordered a copy from Amazon and started reading. I had read this book before (summer of 1994, to be exact) and some stories I remembered well. For instance, the leading story, 'The Mist.' You can probably guess that it terrified me. Soon after reading it, I found myself walking around a strange city somewhat late at night and that terrified me even more, because what if a mist suddenly rolled in with the accompanying terrifying monsters? Naturally, that was not very likely, but you know how it is.
I also remembered a few more, like 'The Monkey,' particularly because I had the older copy of the book with the monkey toy on the cover:
 |
| This one |
Very good stories: 'The Mist' (don't read if you live in a foggy area); 'Mrs. Todd's Shortcut' (I feel like this one really tends to stick with people, it is a fun story); 'Survivor Type' (sort of a proto-Misery, only ickier); 'Nona' (sort of predictable but still good); 'The Reach,' 'Word Processor of the Gods,' 'Ballad of the Flexible Bullet,' 'Gramma,' 'The Jaunt.'
Stories that made me want to put the book down and possibly never ever read it again and OH MY GOD HOW PAINFUL WAS THAT: 'The Wedding Gig' (WHY??????) and 'The Man Who Would Not Shake Hands.' Conclusion: I do not like stories that go to that gentleman's club in New York that is also featured in Different Seasons.
Stories that were meh: everything else in the book. 'The Raft' especially.
So that is my assessment: a mixed bag. The good stories really are very good and if you have never read 'The Mist,' you really should. Some fine stuff. But I officially give you permission to skip over ones that you find to be less than intriguing. They don't get any better.
Anyway, that is why it took me so long to get to this one, even though I had been trying to since August. I promise that this was not solely an attempt to procrastinate from the next book. Honest. Even though the next book is.......
 |
| What have I got myself into here??? |
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Thinner
The last of the Bachman books. I had an old copy. Here is how I can tell:
I thought that I had read Thinner when I was younger, then wasn't sure, then decided that probably I didn't since I didn't remember a thing about it. For some reason, I found the beginning to be a really slow read, but it went faster as I went along. I think that I would still argue without a doubt that this book would be better as a short story, although perhaps SK views a 300-page book as akin to a short story.
Anyway, the main idea of this book was that a lawyer, who had gotten away with manslaughter, was cursed by a gypsy and started losing massive weight. Obviously. This curse started when the gypsy touched him and said, 'Thinner' -- hence the title. Two other people were cursed in this book, one with scales and the other with a horrible skin condition. I am really curious to know how the gypsy summoned these two conditions ('Scales!').
We start in Connecticut, then guess where we go? No really. See if you can guess. Did you guess Maine? Because you are correct! We have already had a conversation about not setting pseudonym books in Maine, so I will just leave it at that.
There were some pretty gruesome moments in this book. Maybe not quite horror and I didn't find the premise of the thing very scary, but very gruesome. To exact his revenge, the main character, Billy, calls on a gangster friend to do the dirty work and he is about as brutal as you can get without actually killing anyone (part of the deal). Also, ball bearings did considerable damage in this book. Possibly more than they could do in real life using a slingshot.
Then everybody eats a slice of pie and dies. For real.
I am still not quite convinced on this book. It definitely was not my favorite, but it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it was going to be from the beginning. Probably skippable, if you are doing anything other than reading everything by SK in chronological order.
 |
| Maybe if you don't want people to think it's a pseudonym, add a bit more detail to the biography? |
I thought that I had read Thinner when I was younger, then wasn't sure, then decided that probably I didn't since I didn't remember a thing about it. For some reason, I found the beginning to be a really slow read, but it went faster as I went along. I think that I would still argue without a doubt that this book would be better as a short story, although perhaps SK views a 300-page book as akin to a short story.
Anyway, the main idea of this book was that a lawyer, who had gotten away with manslaughter, was cursed by a gypsy and started losing massive weight. Obviously. This curse started when the gypsy touched him and said, 'Thinner' -- hence the title. Two other people were cursed in this book, one with scales and the other with a horrible skin condition. I am really curious to know how the gypsy summoned these two conditions ('Scales!').
We start in Connecticut, then guess where we go? No really. See if you can guess. Did you guess Maine? Because you are correct! We have already had a conversation about not setting pseudonym books in Maine, so I will just leave it at that.
There were some pretty gruesome moments in this book. Maybe not quite horror and I didn't find the premise of the thing very scary, but very gruesome. To exact his revenge, the main character, Billy, calls on a gangster friend to do the dirty work and he is about as brutal as you can get without actually killing anyone (part of the deal). Also, ball bearings did considerable damage in this book. Possibly more than they could do in real life using a slingshot.
Then everybody eats a slice of pie and dies. For real.
I am still not quite convinced on this book. It definitely was not my favorite, but it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it was going to be from the beginning. Probably skippable, if you are doing anything other than reading everything by SK in chronological order.
The Talisman (OMG You Guys, This Book Is Really Good!!!!!)
When I started this project, I don't think that I was anticipating the discovery of any great SK books that I did not already know. I figured that I was vaguely aware of his oeuvre, enough so that I had read the ones that I liked and that the others would probably not be up my alley. Sure, there were some pleasant surprises (like The Dead Zone), but for the most part I was right. Books that I figured I would not really like that much, such as Christine and Firestarter, were not my favorites.
I also was less than enthused about reading The Talisman for two reasons. First, it was really long. Ugh. Second, there is a sticker on my library copy that states unequivocally that this book is science fiction. Ugh. Not that I don't like science fiction (I am writing this while watching an episode of original Star Trek), but from my previous encounter with SK's version of science fiction I was not impressed. By which I mean The Tommyknockers, which gets a full 5/5 in ughs from me. We will see how I think about it after a reread but from what I remember, it was a clunker.
However, as soon as I started The Talisman, I pretty freaking much loved it. It is like the Dark Tower in only one book (so the length is now okay with me). And it was in no way science fiction. The sticker totally lied. It was fantasy, and it blended together a large number of fantasy tales along with it, which was awesome. Also, it has all kinds of ties with his other work. Before, when people asked me which SK novel I would recommend for those new to his oeuvre, I would give this super long, drawn-out response. Now my answer is The Talisman.
So what is in here? Everything! Narnia, lots of Narnia (and it even references the Narnia references): sick mother (The Magician's Nephew) and closets to other worlds (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe). Lord of the Rings, particularly when Jack almost can't give the talisman to anyone else (......precious........). Future King books (people are dim, like Flagg will be in The Eyes of the Dragon). Scary monsters in tunnels/sewers. A haunted hotel. A guy who is kind of like Tom from The Stand, only he is also a werewolf, so he is also kind of like a dog in human form (Wolf). Tom Sawyer. In other words, the same blend of features that make The Dark Tower work: eclectic combinations of references and influences. And you know what? It's fun too.
In fact, I think that in some ways it is even better than many other King novels because of its clarity. King wrote this in tandem with his friend Peter Straub and maybe Straub cleaned up some of his prose. The action sequences felt particularly clean and easy to follow. I don't always find that with King, and I have always assumed that this is because he was cranking through so many books that sometimes things got by that were obtuse. This time around though, it was really simply to follow what he was saying, particularly in the action scenes because they were so vivid. I still remember them now.
So, if you are looking for a fun Stephen King book that is kind of long but not obnoxiously so, then I highly recommend The Talisman. And I am already looking forward to reading it again someday.
(T-2 until IT)
I also was less than enthused about reading The Talisman for two reasons. First, it was really long. Ugh. Second, there is a sticker on my library copy that states unequivocally that this book is science fiction. Ugh. Not that I don't like science fiction (I am writing this while watching an episode of original Star Trek), but from my previous encounter with SK's version of science fiction I was not impressed. By which I mean The Tommyknockers, which gets a full 5/5 in ughs from me. We will see how I think about it after a reread but from what I remember, it was a clunker.
However, as soon as I started The Talisman, I pretty freaking much loved it. It is like the Dark Tower in only one book (so the length is now okay with me). And it was in no way science fiction. The sticker totally lied. It was fantasy, and it blended together a large number of fantasy tales along with it, which was awesome. Also, it has all kinds of ties with his other work. Before, when people asked me which SK novel I would recommend for those new to his oeuvre, I would give this super long, drawn-out response. Now my answer is The Talisman.
So what is in here? Everything! Narnia, lots of Narnia (and it even references the Narnia references): sick mother (The Magician's Nephew) and closets to other worlds (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe). Lord of the Rings, particularly when Jack almost can't give the talisman to anyone else (......precious........). Future King books (people are dim, like Flagg will be in The Eyes of the Dragon). Scary monsters in tunnels/sewers. A haunted hotel. A guy who is kind of like Tom from The Stand, only he is also a werewolf, so he is also kind of like a dog in human form (Wolf). Tom Sawyer. In other words, the same blend of features that make The Dark Tower work: eclectic combinations of references and influences. And you know what? It's fun too.
In fact, I think that in some ways it is even better than many other King novels because of its clarity. King wrote this in tandem with his friend Peter Straub and maybe Straub cleaned up some of his prose. The action sequences felt particularly clean and easy to follow. I don't always find that with King, and I have always assumed that this is because he was cranking through so many books that sometimes things got by that were obtuse. This time around though, it was really simply to follow what he was saying, particularly in the action scenes because they were so vivid. I still remember them now.
So, if you are looking for a fun Stephen King book that is kind of long but not obnoxiously so, then I highly recommend The Talisman. And I am already looking forward to reading it again someday.
(T-2 until IT)
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Cycle of the Werewolf: This is IT
I have to say that I was not super excited to read The Cycle of the Werewolf. This book had many features that do not appeal to me. For instance, the plot felt very gimmacky: every month, during a full moon that has a great deal of artistic license regarding when it actually occurs, a werewolf attacks a person in a small Maine town. Meh. This project supposedly originated as a calendar, which was meant to have illustrations and a quick vignette from SK. This is one of the weirdest projects I have ever heard of. Who dreamed this up?
Another reason I was not excited about this: illustrated books. I am not huge on illustrated books. The whole graphic novel thing has passed me by. Maybe someday I will find out what makes these so popular, but right now they are not my thing. Yes, I am old.
(I want to point out that this is not the reason that I left Creepshow out of the blog. I left it out because I could not find a reasonably priced copy of it. If I ever do, then I will add it later. And yes, I will add it out of sequence and we will just all have to live with that).
A third reason I was not excited about this: werewolves. Meh. I guess I don't find werewolves that scary. Still better than haunted cars.
However, I liked it. I liked it more than I thought I would. Perhaps the fact that it was under 200 pages (with pictures!) helped. But I also liked that this was very clearly the precursor for It. There can't even be any debate on this point:
1) Small town terrorized by supernatural creature
2) Young boy places himself in danger and saves town
3) Young boy is somehow disabled--in this case, physically
That, in a nutshell, is the plot of It. Just add six more kids to #2 and you're good to go. And around 1000 more pages.
I also liked that SK came awfully close to admitting that his books would be much scarier without the supernatural element. When the constable is talking about the fact that this probably isn't a werewolf but some kind of psychopath, that seemed very close to an admission of the fact that what is really terrifying about these books is the events that take place and the fact that such horrific events can take place without the supernatural. In fact, the constable believes that Marty, the child who saves the town, interpreted his first encounter with the monster as a 'werewolf' to protect himself from the truth--that he saw a person from the town but was too traumatized to remember who it was. Nope. It was really a werewolf.
I will say that I did not like the name of our hero in this story: Marty Coslaw. I kept reading it as 'Marty Coleslaw.' And that sounded weird. Perhaps if you crank out as much prose as SK, sometimes your choice of names suffers as a result (TAD. That is all).
Another reason I was not excited about this: illustrated books. I am not huge on illustrated books. The whole graphic novel thing has passed me by. Maybe someday I will find out what makes these so popular, but right now they are not my thing. Yes, I am old.
(I want to point out that this is not the reason that I left Creepshow out of the blog. I left it out because I could not find a reasonably priced copy of it. If I ever do, then I will add it later. And yes, I will add it out of sequence and we will just all have to live with that).
A third reason I was not excited about this: werewolves. Meh. I guess I don't find werewolves that scary. Still better than haunted cars.
However, I liked it. I liked it more than I thought I would. Perhaps the fact that it was under 200 pages (with pictures!) helped. But I also liked that this was very clearly the precursor for It. There can't even be any debate on this point:
1) Small town terrorized by supernatural creature
2) Young boy places himself in danger and saves town
3) Young boy is somehow disabled--in this case, physically
That, in a nutshell, is the plot of It. Just add six more kids to #2 and you're good to go. And around 1000 more pages.
I also liked that SK came awfully close to admitting that his books would be much scarier without the supernatural element. When the constable is talking about the fact that this probably isn't a werewolf but some kind of psychopath, that seemed very close to an admission of the fact that what is really terrifying about these books is the events that take place and the fact that such horrific events can take place without the supernatural. In fact, the constable believes that Marty, the child who saves the town, interpreted his first encounter with the monster as a 'werewolf' to protect himself from the truth--that he saw a person from the town but was too traumatized to remember who it was. Nope. It was really a werewolf.
I will say that I did not like the name of our hero in this story: Marty Coslaw. I kept reading it as 'Marty Coleslaw.' And that sounded weird. Perhaps if you crank out as much prose as SK, sometimes your choice of names suffers as a result (TAD. That is all).
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Pet Sematary
If you have been following this blog at all, I probably do not even need to tell you that when I read this book as a teenager, it scared the living bejeezus out of me--if fact, you should just take for granted that the scary books scared me. This one had much to recommend it from a scary standpoint. There are ghosts, zombie cats, the dead resurrected, small children communicating with the dead from afar (King is big on this) and, of course, Sister Zelda. And Sister Zelda was not even a supernatural creature! Plus back then, it wasn't so easy to look up the symptoms of spinal meningitis through the power of the internet (in fact, it was impossible), so I actually thought that you mutated into a horrible monster with claw hands if you got meningitis.
Spoiler alert: you don't (thanks, internet!). I kept trying to figure out if maybe you did back in the 1960s or something, like when people used to have to live in iron lungs because they had polio and this is not a scenario that we are familiar with any more due to medical advances, but no, really. People do not mutate into monsters with claw hands from spinal meningitis. Here is what the Mayo Clinic has to say on the matter:
Now I realize that this version of events is totally from Rachel's point of view, so perhaps she just misunderstood things. But still. Something is off here. Or just factually incorrect, take your pick.
Anyway, back to Pet Sematary. As you may have guessed from my ability to treat Zelda's debilitating illness with a degree of levity, this time around the book didn't freak me out at all. And I even sat up very late at night reading it. I have no idea why. Maybe my fear of an SK book diminishes significantly for each re-read. But this may also be the book that I find easiest to understand within the framework of mythology. The story is basically the Orpheus myth retold, and I think that SK touches on exactly why Orpheus turns around before he reaches the surface.
As you may recall, the myth of Orpheus hinges on the idea that he has lost his beloved, so he retrieves her from the Underworld so that he can bring her back to life. There is only one stipulation, which is that he is not permitted to turn around until he reaches the surface. Naturally, like in any good horror story, Orpheus does not follow the rule and he loses Eurydice forever. Now, when most people encounter this myth they don't get it. Why would Orpheus turn around? SO DUMB. All he had to do was not turn around, and all would be well. Piece of cake.
Which is why a lot of retellings miss what I think is one of the key points in the original myth. He has no idea what is behind him since he has not seen Eurydice. He needs to take it on faith that she is there and that she will return as Eurydice, and not some terrifying Zelda monster, with the claw hands. You try walking through Hell without being able to turn around and make sure that your beloved is still your beloved! Less fun now, isn't it?
Pet Sematary plays on this myth because Louis keeps thinking that he can retrieve the dead, even though he should know after Gage that he really can't--heck, for that matter, he should know after the cat that he can't. The creatures that return from the Micmac burial site are the most horrific versions that could return. He should have turned around and left them behind forever. Orpheus turned out to be smarter than we thought!
Although not really, at least not the in version that has been preserved in Ovid's Metamorphoses. For Orpheus returns to the living, only to run around complaining about women and how it was all their faults that he could not bring back his beloved. He was so annoyed that he started dating men instead. A group of women--possibly the followers of Dionysus--took issue with this, ripping his body to shreds and leaving his head in a stream. I found a parallel with the succinct ending to Pet Sematary in that Rachel is the one to return. The final scene is, of course, ambiguous: we only know that she has returned from the grave and we suspect that she is now a corrupted, evil version of herself from the clues that SK provides. I like to imagine that she then rips his head off and tosses it in a stream to make the Orpheus theme complete.
This book returns to one of the major themes that is preoccupying King at this point in his career, which is the death of children, in particular little boys. A very similar thing happens, of course, in Cujo, and I have to say that I did not start on Pet Sematary for a while because I was concerned that it would be as grim as Cujo was. I found that overall it wasn't, which isn't to say that the part after Gage dies is anything less than very bleak. But I felt like Cujo was worse, particularly with the suffering that the kid had to endure. The line that stuck with me from that book was 'How long has Tad been dead?' Grim! I didn't find any single equivalent in Pet Sematary, it was more of an overall grimness that bedecked the Orpheus myth. In fact, the pacing was pretty interesting. The first part set up the situation very well and for once, we had almost all of our characters fully fleshed out. It was around 200 pages. The second part detailed all of the grimness that followed Gage's death and the ability (or lack thereof) to accept grief. That one was around 150 pages. The third part was really short, only about 30 pages, even with the epilogue. In fact, the most terrifying section, when Gage comes back to life, only needs a little bit of time to play out. The scenario has been totally set up already. What is key is the fact that then Louis/Orpheus takes the same journey again, only this time with his Eurydice.
(Am I losing my mind or do 'Louis' and 'Orpheus' kind of sound similar too? I may be reading too much into this).
There is one further quality that I find Louis and Orpheus share, which is that of hubris, to go all totally Greek on everything here--in some versions of the story, Orpheus is too confident and his attempt to rescue Eurydice is less about his love for her and more about his desire to prove that he can accomplish a feat that no other man has done in bringing back the dead. Louis is not a wholly flawed character; he is no Jack Torrence, where you are afraid for everyone in his presence, and he doesn't seem to be a bad father on the whole. In fact, he is mostly pretty normal. But there are some moments of hubris and these are what destroy him in the end. He views himself as detached from those around him because of his profession as a doctor; in the beginning of the story, in fact, he almost doesn't talk to his neighbor Jud because he fears that Jud will only want free medical advice. Okay, but that is viewing yourself through your professional accomplishments. At other points in the book he has similarly proud moments, such as when he is preparing to tear into a colleague through a professional critique in a journal. Of course, his greatest moment of pride is thinking that he can control Gage in case things do not go as planned. However, the antidote to his hubris is the fact that he is aging, a fact that is made abundantly clear throughout the novel. After his night of dragging Gage up to the burial site, he is in severe pain and exhausted. It is his exhaustion that allows Gage to get the scalpel and go on his rampage of terror. Had Louis been less sure of himself, probably he never would have even tried to rebury the body, of course. It is his confidence that as a doctor he will be able to assess the situation clinically (he even states so at one point) that is his downfall.
Death is a central theme in this book, but even in his understanding of it, Louis shows his pride. He explains to his wife that death is a natural thing; however, the majority of the deaths in Pet Sematary are not at all natural. I probably don't need to rehash Zelda's death by choking because she has turned into some kind of surreal demon as one example. Three accidents are caused by creatures getting hit by cars (I am counting the cat, Victor Pascow, and Gage). None of these creatures should be dead. They are all young, and Victor, as a jogger, was even trying to stay in shape and better his health. As we hear about the various physical ailments that Louis endures in the course of the novel--feeling tired after a walk in the woods, straining himself from carrying the cat--we start to realize that he is not in great shape. Could he be next? Is this really all his own fear of death manifesting itself? I think that probably yes. His hair going white at the end signals that he is now old too.
The return of the dead, in particular the dead soldier from World War 2, really reminded me of the evil reanimated corpse in The Gunslinger. In fact, this book had numerous parallels with other SK works, including a character revealing small-town secrets (this will come back in Needful Things), twins digesting each other in the womb (The Dark Half, although King brings this idea up a lot in his books) and some kind of ancient evil surrounding a small town in Maine (do I even need to say?).
I have one last thing to say about this book: if I had to give it a 'Fractured Fairytales' subtitle, it would be 'The Wendigo Ate My Baby.'
Spoiler alert: you don't (thanks, internet!). I kept trying to figure out if maybe you did back in the 1960s or something, like when people used to have to live in iron lungs because they had polio and this is not a scenario that we are familiar with any more due to medical advances, but no, really. People do not mutate into monsters with claw hands from spinal meningitis. Here is what the Mayo Clinic has to say on the matter:
The complications of meningitis can be severe. The longer you or your child has the disease without treatment, the greater the risk of seizures and permanent neurological damage, including:Don't get me wrong: these are bad things. But they are not the same as what is described with Zelda. Also, how long did this agony go on for in their house? The novel makes it seem like this disease lasted for years and years. Unlikely in the case of meningitis. I now have this giant conspiracy theory that actually Zelda had something else, only the family couldn't talk about what it really was, and maybe she just mutated into a horrible demon. Which would be kind of awesome. Someone get on this prequel.
- Hearing loss
- Memory difficulty
- Learning disabilities
- Brain damage
- Gait problems
- Seizures
- Kidney failure
- Shock
- Death
Now I realize that this version of events is totally from Rachel's point of view, so perhaps she just misunderstood things. But still. Something is off here. Or just factually incorrect, take your pick.
Anyway, back to Pet Sematary. As you may have guessed from my ability to treat Zelda's debilitating illness with a degree of levity, this time around the book didn't freak me out at all. And I even sat up very late at night reading it. I have no idea why. Maybe my fear of an SK book diminishes significantly for each re-read. But this may also be the book that I find easiest to understand within the framework of mythology. The story is basically the Orpheus myth retold, and I think that SK touches on exactly why Orpheus turns around before he reaches the surface.
As you may recall, the myth of Orpheus hinges on the idea that he has lost his beloved, so he retrieves her from the Underworld so that he can bring her back to life. There is only one stipulation, which is that he is not permitted to turn around until he reaches the surface. Naturally, like in any good horror story, Orpheus does not follow the rule and he loses Eurydice forever. Now, when most people encounter this myth they don't get it. Why would Orpheus turn around? SO DUMB. All he had to do was not turn around, and all would be well. Piece of cake.
Which is why a lot of retellings miss what I think is one of the key points in the original myth. He has no idea what is behind him since he has not seen Eurydice. He needs to take it on faith that she is there and that she will return as Eurydice, and not some terrifying Zelda monster, with the claw hands. You try walking through Hell without being able to turn around and make sure that your beloved is still your beloved! Less fun now, isn't it?
Pet Sematary plays on this myth because Louis keeps thinking that he can retrieve the dead, even though he should know after Gage that he really can't--heck, for that matter, he should know after the cat that he can't. The creatures that return from the Micmac burial site are the most horrific versions that could return. He should have turned around and left them behind forever. Orpheus turned out to be smarter than we thought!
Although not really, at least not the in version that has been preserved in Ovid's Metamorphoses. For Orpheus returns to the living, only to run around complaining about women and how it was all their faults that he could not bring back his beloved. He was so annoyed that he started dating men instead. A group of women--possibly the followers of Dionysus--took issue with this, ripping his body to shreds and leaving his head in a stream. I found a parallel with the succinct ending to Pet Sematary in that Rachel is the one to return. The final scene is, of course, ambiguous: we only know that she has returned from the grave and we suspect that she is now a corrupted, evil version of herself from the clues that SK provides. I like to imagine that she then rips his head off and tosses it in a stream to make the Orpheus theme complete.
This book returns to one of the major themes that is preoccupying King at this point in his career, which is the death of children, in particular little boys. A very similar thing happens, of course, in Cujo, and I have to say that I did not start on Pet Sematary for a while because I was concerned that it would be as grim as Cujo was. I found that overall it wasn't, which isn't to say that the part after Gage dies is anything less than very bleak. But I felt like Cujo was worse, particularly with the suffering that the kid had to endure. The line that stuck with me from that book was 'How long has Tad been dead?' Grim! I didn't find any single equivalent in Pet Sematary, it was more of an overall grimness that bedecked the Orpheus myth. In fact, the pacing was pretty interesting. The first part set up the situation very well and for once, we had almost all of our characters fully fleshed out. It was around 200 pages. The second part detailed all of the grimness that followed Gage's death and the ability (or lack thereof) to accept grief. That one was around 150 pages. The third part was really short, only about 30 pages, even with the epilogue. In fact, the most terrifying section, when Gage comes back to life, only needs a little bit of time to play out. The scenario has been totally set up already. What is key is the fact that then Louis/Orpheus takes the same journey again, only this time with his Eurydice.
(Am I losing my mind or do 'Louis' and 'Orpheus' kind of sound similar too? I may be reading too much into this).
There is one further quality that I find Louis and Orpheus share, which is that of hubris, to go all totally Greek on everything here--in some versions of the story, Orpheus is too confident and his attempt to rescue Eurydice is less about his love for her and more about his desire to prove that he can accomplish a feat that no other man has done in bringing back the dead. Louis is not a wholly flawed character; he is no Jack Torrence, where you are afraid for everyone in his presence, and he doesn't seem to be a bad father on the whole. In fact, he is mostly pretty normal. But there are some moments of hubris and these are what destroy him in the end. He views himself as detached from those around him because of his profession as a doctor; in the beginning of the story, in fact, he almost doesn't talk to his neighbor Jud because he fears that Jud will only want free medical advice. Okay, but that is viewing yourself through your professional accomplishments. At other points in the book he has similarly proud moments, such as when he is preparing to tear into a colleague through a professional critique in a journal. Of course, his greatest moment of pride is thinking that he can control Gage in case things do not go as planned. However, the antidote to his hubris is the fact that he is aging, a fact that is made abundantly clear throughout the novel. After his night of dragging Gage up to the burial site, he is in severe pain and exhausted. It is his exhaustion that allows Gage to get the scalpel and go on his rampage of terror. Had Louis been less sure of himself, probably he never would have even tried to rebury the body, of course. It is his confidence that as a doctor he will be able to assess the situation clinically (he even states so at one point) that is his downfall.
Death is a central theme in this book, but even in his understanding of it, Louis shows his pride. He explains to his wife that death is a natural thing; however, the majority of the deaths in Pet Sematary are not at all natural. I probably don't need to rehash Zelda's death by choking because she has turned into some kind of surreal demon as one example. Three accidents are caused by creatures getting hit by cars (I am counting the cat, Victor Pascow, and Gage). None of these creatures should be dead. They are all young, and Victor, as a jogger, was even trying to stay in shape and better his health. As we hear about the various physical ailments that Louis endures in the course of the novel--feeling tired after a walk in the woods, straining himself from carrying the cat--we start to realize that he is not in great shape. Could he be next? Is this really all his own fear of death manifesting itself? I think that probably yes. His hair going white at the end signals that he is now old too.
The return of the dead, in particular the dead soldier from World War 2, really reminded me of the evil reanimated corpse in The Gunslinger. In fact, this book had numerous parallels with other SK works, including a character revealing small-town secrets (this will come back in Needful Things), twins digesting each other in the womb (The Dark Half, although King brings this idea up a lot in his books) and some kind of ancient evil surrounding a small town in Maine (do I even need to say?).
I have one last thing to say about this book: if I had to give it a 'Fractured Fairytales' subtitle, it would be 'The Wendigo Ate My Baby.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)