I remember reading Pet Sematary. Might even have been the first King novel I read, although I can't swear to that (I started with the stories in Night Shift, I'm pretty sure, but who knows).
The book has a reputation as being very disturbing. I honestly do not recall finding the book that disturbing, or scary. Intriguing; entertaining -- yes.
When one is younger, one doesn't necessarily understand why something is so disturbing. So, I thought about the book recently after reading Bev Vincent's excellent essay on the story over at Richard Chizmar's Revisited site. Once again, I learned that King found the book almost too frightening to publish.
In all seriousness, did he really believe that do you think, or is this something that is becoming more of a myth as opposed to fact?
If the book was truly that disturbing to him, one would almost imagine he would not publish it. But not only did he do that, but I believe -- without checking, hope I will not end up being wrong on this -- he revisited this dark well again by writing the screenplay for the movie. He also had a cameo in the project.
Obviously I can't say for sure, but I'm a bit suspicious. Losing a child is not easy, but this basically was a book of fantasy. If he wrote about the loss of a child in a very serious, non-supernatural story, then that would be scarier and more disturbing, I think. Pet Sematary, however, is simply a fun book with a cool concept. I think he's written stuff that is way more disturbing.
Great book. And I am merely curious if anyone else ever found the whole it-even-frightened-Stephen-King thing more similar to marketing than to veritas.
The book has a reputation as being very disturbing. I honestly do not recall finding the book that disturbing, or scary. Intriguing; entertaining -- yes.
When one is younger, one doesn't necessarily understand why something is so disturbing. So, I thought about the book recently after reading Bev Vincent's excellent essay on the story over at Richard Chizmar's Revisited site. Once again, I learned that King found the book almost too frightening to publish.
In all seriousness, did he really believe that do you think, or is this something that is becoming more of a myth as opposed to fact?
If the book was truly that disturbing to him, one would almost imagine he would not publish it. But not only did he do that, but I believe -- without checking, hope I will not end up being wrong on this -- he revisited this dark well again by writing the screenplay for the movie. He also had a cameo in the project.
Obviously I can't say for sure, but I'm a bit suspicious. Losing a child is not easy, but this basically was a book of fantasy. If he wrote about the loss of a child in a very serious, non-supernatural story, then that would be scarier and more disturbing, I think. Pet Sematary, however, is simply a fun book with a cool concept. I think he's written stuff that is way more disturbing.
Great book. And I am merely curious if anyone else ever found the whole it-even-frightened-Stephen-King thing more similar to marketing than to veritas.
