Why Pet Sematary is the Alpha and the Omega

[Ryan002]

If God were to come up to me and say "Hey, did you know that the whole of American history exists just so that Stephen King would write Pet Sematary?"

I would say "Duh!"

Pet Sematary is the reason why I won't write a horror novel. Even if I managed to complete one (probability about equal to Iran hosting the next Miss World pageant) it would suck.

It would suck for two reasons. Firstly, people would read Pet Sematary, then read mine, and then say "Ryan your novel will forever suck, because it's not Pet Sematary".

Secondly, it would suck because it would be, however hard I try to avoid it, a sort of inferior imitation of Pet Sematary, and then people reading it would go "Hey! He totally ripped off Stephen King! And maybe Borges!"

I am so not kidding.

In fact, I believe that in some literature course held 50 years from now, there will be a conversation like this:

"Class, why do we say Northanger Abbey sucks?" (It does, btw)

"Because it's not Pet Sematery"

"Outstanding Linda! You're gonna be a goddamn Nobel Prize Winning Critic someday!"

In all seriousness, I am in awe of this novel. Pet Sematary compresses, within its pages, several volumes on humanist philosophy, discussions of life after death, the implications of mortality on the human psyche, the primeval association of death, transformation and rebirth as a journey, the role of fatherhood, the nature / nurture argument, the territorial drive latent in humanity, the differentiation between man and animal, the theological aspects of particular judgement, the symptoms of repression and PTSD, gender differentiation, and the Pax Americana in the 1980's.

Just think about it. All of the above really is in the novel.

Now Harold Bloom (a sort of Frank Kermode who is infinitely inferior to Frank Kermode) should probably have read Pet Sematary carefully before following his usual routine and deciding that his analysis of a writer is correct, and that everyone else is talking nonsense (I mean, seriously, there's a negative comment on every writer from Marquez to Auster on the introduction page of his author series).

Maybe instead of spending his time ranting on the applicability of Jewish mysticism to literary criticism (yes, I have a copy of it and he so can't deny it) Harold Bloom, along with all of his philosopher friends who should go back to their own offices, stop hijacking literary studies (I am looking squarely at Derrida, God rest his soul anyway) and read Pet Sematary.

Because it's profound, a damn good novel, and it would be a great break from Nausea, which sucks. Even if Sartre doesn't.

[wally wonder]

i'm reminded of the seagull, jonathan...argue for your limitations and sure enough, their yours. i dunno about your fiction writing ability, but if you can write a piece even half as entertaining, enlightening and boggling even, in the tradition of the Major Statements, then surely there's room on the shelf for you and yours.

[PatInTheHat]

[B]

"Outstanding Linda! You're gonna be a goddamn Nobel Prize Winning Critic someday!"

In all seriousness, I am in awe of this novel. Pet Sematary compresses, within its pages, several volumes on humanist philosophy, discussions of life after death, the implications of mortality on the human psyche, the primeval association of death, transformation and rebirth as a journey, the role of fatherhood, the nature / nurture argument, the territorial drive latent in humanity, the differentiation between man and animal, the theological aspects of particular judgement, the symptoms of repression and PTSD, gender differentiation, and the Pax Americana in the 1980's.

Just think about it. All of the above really is in the novel.

I love that Linda line!

In all seriousness, you can find all of that same stuff goin' on at a birthday party with a dozen or so 2-3 year old toddlers runnin' amok.
(and so very much more, primevally speaking that is...not to mention many places where you never thought a two year old could possibly cram a half pound of cake frosting)....and I'm completely in awe of anyone who would dare have one!

[fushingfeef]

So you're saying you like Pet Sematary?
I like it too.

[GNTLGNT]

I think I've got a handle on this now, since I have AGO(Amazing Grasp of the Obvious)-you are in lust/love with the book, huh? No argument here, it's damn well written and scares the bejeezus out of me evrytime I read it...

[Aeyviallenpoe]

Amen, good sir. You put rightly to words my every sentiment of this book. Why Steve's reputation precedes him as being just a horror novelist of pulped crap will never cease to confound me. The man is a genius. I've tried channeling him, it's not possible. My work comes out looking like the badly traced henscratches of a six year old trying to sketch a photocopy of a photocopied Rembrandt. With three crayons.
I'd link you for emphasis, but what would be the point?
Pet Sematary is the only point worth making.

Now go read the Dark Tower.

[JellybeanJay]

That is a fantastic post! Made me laugh

In all seriousness, Pet Sematary is the the only book that has ever really scared me, not sure if I can do a re-read.

[HorrorMama]

This made me laugh so hard that I had to read it multiple times.

This book scared me so bad I read it twice in a row last month. Things based on the living dead don't usually scare me. Cannibals scare me, break ins scare me, stalkers scare me, but this was a first. It felt so real--maybe because I got so into it-- and i couldn't sleep, so I read it again.

The movie is good, but the movie can never be what the book is.

[mrsbreece]

The first book I read by King, 'Salems Lot, really scared me (I was 17). That book got me hooked. I watched Pet Sematary by myself one night.....not a good idea, scared me!