PDA

View Full Version : Norma Crandall was resurrected?



vcalio372
October 31st, 2010, 05:22 PM
Hi all and Happy Halloween!

I recently re-read Pet Sematary, and because I'm so dim-witted and have way too much time on my hands, I guess it took me a long time to notice something about the novel that others have probably already noticed: that Jud, perhaps years before the novel even begins, had buried Norma in the Indian burial ground and that she, for some reason that even Jud doesn't know, comes back like Jud's dog Spot - relatively normal but "kind of - dead." Anyway, I've definitely come to realize that this novel is as much, if not more, about the Jud Crandall character as it is about the Louis Creed character.

I suppose this would make sense, although it's doubtful that this is what King himself had in mind, since he wrote the screenplay for the film and didn't include the Norma character. But if this interpretation is correct, then it actually would address several questions about this fantastic novel that I've already had:

* When Norma is alive in the novel, she isn't really mentioned all that much or included in the scenes, except for the Halloween episode. Whenever Jud talks about her, he kind of talks about her as if she's a memory.

* Whenever she's described in the novel, she's described as if she's some sort of walking corpse. In the Halloween episode, when she reaches down to get candy to give to Ellie, Louis is "shocked at how clawlike that hand looked." The last time Louis sees her alive, "she had a pale and somehow transparent look that he had seen before." These are just two out of many examples of the somewhat morbid descriptions of Norma when she's alive in the novel. At first I thought it was to emphasize that Norma is elderly and suffers from arthritis, but now I think King is hinting at something more.

* Jud spends his evenings sitting on his porch drinking beer and smoking cigarettes. At first I thought that this is just what he did to hang out and chill at night. But then I started thinking there is a parallel to how Jud and his friends found Bill Baterman after his son, Timmy, comes back to life: sitting on his back porch smoking cigerettes and drinking beer. I'm thinking that there must be some sort of parallel there.

* Jud does cry after Norma dies, but he reaqlly takes her death as almost matter-of-factly. Perhaps he sees her death in the same way as Rachel saw Zelda's death? That he was almost in a way glad that she died so he doesn't have to live with her anymore?

* Jud references several times in the novel that he had gone to see prostitutes, and I always wondered why that is oft referenced. While he still loves his wife, perhaps he saw prostitutes because he knows he's living with a corpse and doesn't want to make love to her?

* I believe that it's obvious in the novel that Jud knows something more about the Indian burial ground that he and King let on. Perhaps Jud, again, for reasons that he doesn't even know, somehow discovered the secrets of the burial ground when nobody else could. He was, after all, able to bring his dog Spot back in a "dead-like" but relatively normal state, while old man Hanratty's bull comes back mean.

* Everyone else in Ludlow that Jud once knew is either dead or has left town. Why is Jud the only one who didn't leave? Could it be because he somehow made a deal with whatever it is that controls the burial ground to, perhaps, "watch over the burial ground?"

* If Jud knows the indian burial ground is so evil, why does he introduce it to Louis in the first place? The reason has to go beyond simply that Jud didn't want Ellie to experience death and loss that early in her life. Perhaps Jud is trying to groom Louis to replace him as the 'caretaker.' so to speak, of the burial ground?

* When Jud and his friends confront Bill and Timmy Baterman, Jud tells Louis about all of the evil stuff that the Timmy thing said to his friends, but he refuses to tell Louis specifically about what timmy told him? Perhaps Timmy tells Jud something to the effect of, "you see my father, Jud? You're going to be suffering the same fate."

* When Gage comes back from the dead and confronts Jud, it says, "You f%$#ed with me once, didn't you think I'd come back sooner or later and f%!k with you?" (Sorry Ms. Mod, I'm just quoting form the novel!). The Gage thing has every opportunity to kill Louis immediately after it comes back from the burial gorund, but doesn�t. The first person the Gage thing goes after with an almost venomous fury is Jud. I always thought it was because of the Timmy Baterman incident, but I think it goes beyond that. Perhaps the demon that controls the burial gorund looks at Jud in the same way that the demon in "The Exorcist" views the elderly Father Merrin: as the only person who has ever beaten it. Again, Jud is the only one who seems to have ever used the burial ground to bring anything back from the dead that isn�t evil. Maybe this upsets the demon and it wants revenge?

* Jud sues a lot of clandestine slogans, such as �A man�s heart is stonier,� �What you buy is what you own, and what you own sooner or later comes back to you,� etc. Perhaps Jud is talking more about himself then he is about Louis?

Anyway, I could be wrong, and this is just food for thought. Sorry for taking up so much space, but what do you think?

To me, an interesting follow up to the original PS would actually be a prequel. Perhaps the story of Jud Crandall? Also, while the movie makes it clear that Louis is killed in the end by the resurrected Rachel, the novel certainly does not. It would be interesting to see what happens, if King is ever declined to write a sequel.

Have a great night.
VJC:laugh:

AirTheBand
May 9th, 2011, 09:31 PM
Interesting topic, thanks for posting.

I find the theory that Norma was a "revenant" of the MicMac burial ground intriguing--it definitely made me stop and think. While I don't believe that she was (it seems there would have been more of a nod to this somehow, like an acknowledgement from the Gage-thing in regard to a Norma-thing, and I remember a pretty striking description of Norma's funeral as beautifully "natural," seeming to cement her place in the Pet Sematary universe as fully and legitimately "alive" until her ordinary death), the notion that she was secretly resurrected is chilling and evocative.

Some may agree, some may not, but either way, this illuminates the mystery surrounding not only Ludlow and the MicMac burial ground, but Jud Crandall himself. What, indeed, was that trip "12 years ago" to the burial ground all about? Was Norma really a shameless (forgive the word) whore who cheated behind Jud's back, as the Gage-thing suggests? And the Crandalls seem not to have had children. This isn't weird in itself, but why is it never acknowledged in any way? This is a curious omission which makes that "burning" question all the more powerful and haunting. There is sometimes more power in the absence of a thing than its being in front of you manifestly. I've no idea whether this was intentional or not on King's part; either way it's a fascinating literary device which has served him well.

The book is full of mystery, which is why it is my favorite King novel (of those I've read so far). If I had the chance, I would interview Stephen King for two hours about this work alone.

Nice topic, thanks again.

JellybeanJay
May 10th, 2011, 11:42 AM
This is a fantastic post, well thought out and raises some interesting questions that I have't thought of before. I found Pet Semetary horrifying and gut wrenching but after reading your post I am starting re-read. Thank you!

muskrat
May 10th, 2011, 12:56 PM
Hmmm....again; hmmm.

Interesting points indeed. Sounds almost like King was developing a subplot there, then either dropped it, or forgot about it. Like ol' Jellbean said above, I may have to start myself yet ANOTHER re-read of this book. It's one of my faves, anyhoo.

sam peebles
May 10th, 2011, 01:02 PM
I agree this was an interesting, well-thought out idea that I'd never considered when I read Pet Semetery. I may not myself believe that Norma was resurrected, but it doesn't stop the original poster from coming up with a cool concept.

Lencho_of_the_Apes
May 12th, 2011, 12:26 PM
This is a fascinating idea, my thanks to you for posting your thoughts. I'm half-convinced you're onto something here. Makes me want to reread.

We all float down here.

Eyes
June 29th, 2011, 12:01 PM
That's an interesting idea; one that I'll keep in mind next time I reread the book. It certainly makes a lot of sense. I wonder if Steve intended to imply that Norma had been resurected or did the story take on a reality on its own, allowing the reader interpret things differently from what the author intended.

Aericanwizard
June 29th, 2011, 01:53 PM
I hadn't really considered the idea of a resurrected Norma, but your post is well thought out with several good points made. The other day, I made a mention in the sequels/prequels thread that a Pet Semetary prequel might be interesting. I was thinking of the origins of the cemetery, and a bit about Jud's experience with it, but I never thought about Norma. I currently have four novels I'm sitting down to the for the first time (Yay book sales!): Under the Dome, which had to sit through my reading of the DT, Lisey's Story, which I'm starting today, the Tommyknockers, and the Dark Half, and I've been planning a re-read of Duma Key, (not to mention getting around to a re-reading of the Stand and the Shining), but Pet Semetary just made my re-read list. Curse you Stephen King, for writing so much excellent fiction!:biggrin2:

Long days and pleasant nights.

GirlfriendInAComa
January 26th, 2012, 05:49 AM
Ok, with that in mind and true or not, I'm going to re-read in the spirit of that being the case. It's becoming one of those things you can't unsee! Great job presenting that theory.

hashbaz
May 30th, 2012, 01:48 AM
I had this idea myself while reading the book, but I think the fact that Norma doesn't reek of the grave shows that King didn't explicitly mean to indicate that she was resurrected. I think he definitely means for us to wonder about it though, given all the excellent points outlined in the OP.

bryantburnette
December 20th, 2012, 12:26 PM
No.

Norma was a sick / dying old woman. If she was a zombie, King would have said so.

Daniel Lee Severn
December 20th, 2012, 11:01 PM
Food for thought, I especially like the idea of the power of the burial ground wanting revenge on Jud because I had often wondered why it went straight for Jud instead of where you'd think the Gage thing would go, to Louis. The idea of Jud grooming Louis as the new caretaker is most exciting considering you don't know for sure what happens to Louis.

GNTLGNT
December 21st, 2012, 06:18 AM
you don't know for sure what happens to Louis.

...I'm pretty sure it wasn't a one way ticket to "Happyville"...

whiteyfats
December 21st, 2012, 01:19 PM
...I'm pretty sure it wasn't a one way ticket to "Happyville"...

Yeah, there isn't any happy endings in that book.

bryantburnette
December 21st, 2012, 02:37 PM
The reason Gage went for Jud first is that he -- it? -- knew Jud could help Louis; so it eliminated Louis's help first, then set a trap for Louis.

Also: of course Louis dies. Rachel kills him. The only other scenario that would even be possible is that Louis was able to defend himself and "kill" her. But I don't think Louis was capable, or even interested, in doing so at that point.

Daniel Lee Severn
December 26th, 2012, 12:22 PM
The reason Gage went for Jud first is that he -- it? -- knew Jud could help Louis; so it eliminated Louis's help first, then set a trap for Louis.

Also: of course Louis dies. Rachel kills him. The only other scenario that would even be possible is that Louis was able to defend himself and "kill" her. But I don't think Louis was capable, or even interested, in doing so at that point.

But YOU are just assuming these things, in truth we have know way of knowing for sure what happens and it's fun to speculate, thus this discussion.

not_nadine
December 26th, 2012, 04:23 PM
I think this is an awesome theory. I must re-read, been way too long.

bryantburnette
December 27th, 2012, 02:46 PM
But YOU are just assuming these things, in truth we have know way of knowing for sure what happens and it's fun to speculate, thus this discussion.

Sure, it's fun to speculate. But the speculation really needs to be based on the internal evidence supplied by the text, otherwise you're just making stuff up that isn't in the book.

Case in point: this theory, which is, frankly, unsupportable.

GNTLGNT
December 28th, 2012, 06:27 AM
Sure, it's fun to speculate. But the speculation really needs to be based on the internal evidence supplied by the text, otherwise you're just making stuff up that isn't in the book.

Case in point: this theory, which is, frankly, unsupportable.

...really?...again?...the word here was "fun"...go crap on someone else's parade dude...

bryantburnette
December 28th, 2012, 02:25 PM
...really?...again?...the word here was "fun"...go crap on someone else's parade dude...

Believe whatever you want to believe. It's fine by me. But when someone posts something in a public forum, it's an invitation to discussion, and my viewpoint on this issue is that reading things into a text that the text does not support is an act of faulty reading. There is simply nothing to support the idea that Jud resurrected Norma. It isn't there.

Why not speculate further that not only does Louis not die in the end of the novel, but survives, vanquishes his zombie wife, moves out of town, changes his name to Alan Pangborn, gets remarried, and gets a job working for the police department? There's nothing in any of King's books to support that idea, but if you're going to invent things whole-cloth, why not really go for broke?

I apologize if my point of view on some of these things offends your sensibilities, but that's the danger of interacting with other people; sometimes they disagree with you.

GNTLGNT
January 1st, 2013, 03:12 PM
but if you're going to invent things whole-cloth, why not really go for broke?

...that's the whole point of speculative fun...it's based on a fiction within a fiction-not your so-called internal evidence Inspector Reality-Check...but you continue to believe what you wish, because the only thing offensive here is your sense of superiority...apologize to Mr. Severn-it's his parade you rained on, I don't need or want it...

Sundrop
January 1st, 2013, 10:16 PM
While I don't think that Norma was resurrected, I do think that it is quite possible that Louis could have lived. We are not told what happened to Louis, We are simply left with the ending line that still gives me a chill with every re read....and to our own imaginations as to what happened to Louis. We do have the passage about Timmy Baterman, and his father, Bill. Bill did end up killing Timmy a few weeks after resurrecting him. We also know that Bill killed himself.....but we know that Louis was probably a lot smarter than Bill. Louis was, after all, a doctor. So yeah, I think it's entirely possible for Louis to have lived....at least for a while.

I agree with Daniel.....speculating about what could have happened is fun.
I also agree with GNT.....It is not fun to have an argument pushed uppn me just because I might read a text and develop my own opinion that differs from yours.

Why argue about a moot point?.... You have your opinion based on your own interpretation of the book, and I have mine...so does everyone else.
It does not bother me in the least that someone imagines a different end for Louis than I imagine.... But it does bother me when someone arrogantly tells me what I did and did not read in any given text....you can't read my mind, and you really don't have "insider information" to support your theory, either.
I happen to think that it is perfectly fine to discuss some endings in a fun "what if" manner. A great writer is able to transport several readers in several different directions, making the story truly remarkable for each individual. Who are we to squish any reader's theory?

Daniel Lee Severn
January 2nd, 2013, 07:35 AM
Believe whatever you want to believe. It's fine by me. But when someone posts something in a public forum, it's an invitation to discussion, and my viewpoint on this issue is that reading things into a text that the text does not support is an act of faulty reading. There is simply nothing to support the idea that Jud resurrected Norma. It isn't there.

Why not speculate further that not only does Louis not die in the end of the novel, but survives, vanquishes his zombie wife, moves out of town, changes his name to Alan Pangborn, gets remarried, and gets a job working for the police department? There's nothing in any of King's books to support that idea, but if you're going to invent things whole-cloth, why not really go for broke?

Relax man, nobody is trying to say you aren't allowed to have an opinion, we are just having fun with a theory that may have no weight to it but is interesting to speculate about. Allow me to quote you, "I apologize if my point of view on some of these things offends your sensibilities, but that's the danger of interacting with other people; sometimes they disagree with you." Yes I can use your words against you, lol.

Daniel Lee Severn
January 2nd, 2013, 10:22 PM
...that's the whole point of speculative fun...it's based on a fiction within a fiction-not your so-called internal evidence Inspector Reality-Check...but you continue to believe what you wish, because the only thing offensive here is your sense of superiority...apologize to Mr. Severn-it's his parade you rained on, I don't need or want it...

I don't need an apology either, I did not start this thread, so the OP deserves an apology.

bryantburnette
January 3rd, 2013, 01:50 AM
A great writer is able to transport several readers in several different directions, making the story truly remarkable for each individual. Who are we to squish any reader's theory?

Good point, and fair enough.

To clarify, my point was so much that I feel it to inarguably be the case that Louis dies. I think he does, but ultimately, that's just my interpretation; and the Bill/Timmy thing is actually a really good point of evidence indicating that things might have gone differently.

Instead, the point I'm dead-set against is the idea that Jud resurrects Norma, and my rationale for that stance is that the text itself says nothing to indicate that that is the case. Those events would have had to occur entirely off-page, and I just don't think King had any such intentions.

However, apparently I've been unable to make that point without coming off like an a-hole. Apologies for that; 'tweren't my intent. Cry pardon, and all that.

:)

I'm not a bad-guy, I promise!

bryantburnette
January 3rd, 2013, 01:51 AM
Allow me to quote you, "I apologize if my point of view on some of these things offends your sensibilities, but that's the danger of interacting with other people; sometimes they disagree with you." Yes I can use your words against you, lol.

Isn't it great when you get to do that to someone?

I hate to be on the receiving end of it, of course, but hey, it's fair.

GNTLGNT
January 3rd, 2013, 01:39 PM
I hate to be on the receiving end of it,

....words you never want to hear when working in a men's prison...:eek2:

Sepia and Dust
January 3rd, 2013, 02:03 PM
Whulp... now I have to go read Pet Sematary again....


Mr. King: "Is that how you spell uzi?"
Mr. Straub: "I dunno... how do you spell cemetery...."

I wonder if that's a true story.

Sundrop
January 3rd, 2013, 05:36 PM
Good point, and fair enough.

To clarify, my point was so much that I feel it to inarguably be the case that Louis dies. I think he does, but ultimately, that's just my interpretation; and the Bill/Timmy thing is actually a really good point of evidence indicating that things might have gone differently.

Instead, the point I'm dead-set against is the idea that Jud resurrects Norma, and my rationale for that stance is that the text itself says nothing to indicate that that is the case. Those events would have had to occur entirely off-page, and I just don't think King had any such intentions.

However, apparently I've been unable to make that point without coming off like an a-hole. Apologies for that; 'tweren't my intent. Cry pardon, and all that.

:)

I'm not a bad-guy, I promise!


Isn't it great when you allow others to discull and share differing opinions? As I stated earlier, I don't believe that Norma was resurrected.....but It was worth hearing the OP's theory.
I think Louis may have lived....you don't. That's cool. All I ask is for the same consideration that you would want me to give to your interpretation. :)

Apology accepted.......and btw, we all look like perfect azzhats now and then.

I'm not really weird, just in case you've heard differently........okay, maybe a little :biggrin2:


Here's a daisy for you 16608

Daniel Lee Severn
January 4th, 2013, 02:44 PM
Isn't it great when you get to do that to someone?

I hate to be on the receiving end of it, of course, but hey, it's fair.

Yes, I love to do that, not that I wanted to get into a pissing match over something so silly but it is like a victory, lol.

jajatoff
January 17th, 2013, 06:29 AM
The idea that she might have been never crossed my mind, I must say. Having said that, it is still interesting to speculate. It is even interesting to consider - not that she had been but *what if she had been*....? I also think that somewhere, somehow there must have been some other tie-in between Pascow and the cemetary - not just between him and Louis ... and I wonder what...

Sealskie
April 18th, 2013, 07:30 PM
The time Louis asked Jud if somebody buried a person there and he (disgustingly) said no, but his eyes were lying, I first thought that it was going to be revealed that Norma had been buried there. Even though that was never confirmed, I wouldn't be surprised a bit if she really was.