The Laughing Place is a Rabbit Hole to Disney’s Animal KINGdom, Part III: The Shining

The Writing on the Wall Carries Critterations and Shitterations

Well, you ain’t never caught a rabbit / And you ain’t no friend of mine

Big Mama Thornton, “Hound Dog” (1953); Elvis Presley, “Hound Dog” (1956).

(This inhuman place makes human monsters.)

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

Well, since my baby left me / Well, I’ve found a new place to dwell

Elvis Presley, “Heartbreak Hotel” (1956).

He was reminded of the 3-D movies he’d seen as a kid. If you looked at the screen without the special glasses, you saw a double image—the sort of thing he was feeling now. But when you put the glasses on, it made sense.” (boldface mine)

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

I mean, these were some of the astutest people I’ve ever known, and they were in [most] cases almost totally overlooked, except as a beast of burden—but even at that age, I recognized that: Hey! The backs of these people aren’t broken, they [can] find it in their souls to live a life that is not going to take the joy of living away. (boldface mine)

Peter Guralnick, Sam Phillips: The Man Who Invented Rock n Roll (2014).

The Shadow Has Exploded

I concluded Part II of this discussion with Bryan Fuller’s question: “Is Christine the Overlook ghost on wheels?” Wheels are an apt symbol of the previously mentioned Thermidor Effect, which in turn pretty much exactly replicates/describes my experience of attempting to read through the Kingverse chronologically—one step forward, two steps back is how the wheel rotates.

Bryan Fuller is a noteworthy figure in the Kingdom for having written the teleplay of the ’02 television miniseries version of Carrie, an adaptation that no one really seems to want to remember, but one that indicates he’s done a closer study than most on this foundational King canon text.

Fuller’s version is in keeping with King’s fidelity trend in television adaptations of his own work–the 1997 television miniseries version of The Shining that King himself wrote to fix what he hated about Kubrick’s version (ironically, since Kubrick’s remains pretty much definitively the most influential adaptation of his work) is a quintessential example, though King did make some changes, like the exchange that confirms for Hallorann Danny’s shining abilities:

The Shining (1997).

Hallorann: [out loud] “My Bessie… Ain’t she sweet?” [in head] “Sweet as honey from the bee.”

Danny: [out loud] “Sweet as honey from the bee.”

The Shining (1997).

Fuller is also apparently directing a new adaptation of Christine, that vehicular entity which, in his ’03 interview with Magistrale, King explicates at the site of the intersection of horror and humor, and consumption:

When I wrote Christine I wanted LeBay to be funny in a twisted sort of way. He’s the same blend of horror and humor that you find in the car itself. Christine is a vampire machine; as it feeds on more and more victims, the car becomes more vital, younger. … The whole concept is supposed to be amusing but scary at the same time.

Tony Magistrale, Hollywood’s Stephen King (2003).

In his version of Carrie, Fuller restores a couple of the major elements from the novel that Brian De Palma changed in his 1976 adaptation–namely, the epistolary structure that allows for a retrospective reflection of and attempted accounting for Carrie’s destruction via the device of a detective’s interrogation, and showing Carrie stopping her mother’s heart when she kills her. But there is a pretty major change in Fuller’s version: it turns out Carrie is still alive, and that Sue helped her escape.

But what really “escapes,” figuratively, in the novel version of Carrie, is the “shadow” from the text-within-the-text The Shadow Exploded, the shadow that is a manifestation of Toni Morrison’s Africanist presence and that Carrie’s trigger moment reveals to be inextricable to the history of American music and how this history enacts and underwrites the history of America itself.

Royal Labor Pains

The novel Black House (2001), which King co-wrote with Peter Straub, refers to Albert Goldman’s 1981 book on Elvis Presley as a “trash tome,” but “trash has its place,” as King notes about his mother’s influence on his qualification of literature in the afterword to ‘Salem’s Lot (1975), in which he essentially explicates that novel’s nature as a mashup between Dracula and Peyton Place. Without conceptions of “trash,” it seems rock ‘n’ roll would not exist…

“Sam would come in and say, ‘That’s it, that’s what I want.’” And the band, or the blues singer, would be totally taken aback and say, “But that’s trash, Mr. Phillips.” And he would say, “That’s what I want.”

Peter Guralnick, Sam Phillips: The Man Who Invented Rock n Roll (2014).

Goldman’s tome opens with a worthwhile reflection on the American preoccupation with royalty, or as he puts it, “the trappings of royalty.”

At the Rock N Soul Museum in Memphis, TN.

Goldman’s reading opens the door to a key to a map of American musical royalty. We like to mint kings, as we’ve done in music:

The King of the Blues, the King of Rock ‘n’ Roll, and the King of Pop, respectively.

The King of Pop bears a white glove, identified in Nicholas Sammond’s study on the history of animation as a sign of the minstrel…

As well as their relations…

The Artist Formerly Known as Prince, Queen Bey, and the Fresh Prince, respectively.

There are also other things we treat as kings….

The idea that a fetus is not just a full human but a superior and kinglike one—a being whose survival is so paramount that another person can be legally compelled to accept harm, ruin, or death to insure it—is a recent invention. (boldface mine)

Jia Tolentino, “Is Abortion Sacred?” (July 16, 2022).

Baz Luhrmann’s recent Elvis biopic also pivots around three kings:

B.B. King, Elvis Presley, and Martin Luther King, Jr.

This is fitting for a couple of reasons. One would be the three acts both Elvis’s career (and hence Baz’s film) neatly divides itself into:

Like Gaul, the career is divided into three parts: Memphis Elvis (the singer), Hollywood Elvis (the movie star), and Vegas Elvis (the sacred monster).

Mark Feeney, “Elvis Movies,” American Scholar 70.1 (2001).

Another reason is that Elvis liked to watch three screens at a time, as his Graceland basement reveals–sadly not one of the parts of his house recreated for the film, and sadly not one I got a decent picture of when I visited this past December:

Elvis’s basement rec room with mirrored ceiling at Graceland.

Others have taken better pics:

From here.

Graceland is an important place…

Bruce Springsteen explicates the state of grace as a place in an Elvis documentary:

Graceland. Just the name of it itself pulled directly out of gospel tradition. It’s an idealized home, the perfect symbol of someone who’s come up from the bottom and–and enjoyed the best the country has to offer. It was a huge moment for Elvis to walk through those doors and call that place his home.

Elvis Presley: The Searcher (2018).

Later in The Searcher, after post-Hollywood Elvis is returning to his musical roots, Springsteen notes that “you can take the boy out of Memphis, but you can’t take Memphis out of the boy.”

This figurative sense of place is echoed in a description of an Uncle Remus-like figure in the biography of legendary Memphis record producer Sam Phillips:

“[Uncle Silas] liked to sit in the kitchen and put me on his knee, grab me by my bony shoulder and say, ‘Samuel, you’re going to grow up and be a great man someday.’ I mean, I was just a sickly kid—physically, I don’t know, maybe mentally, too—but somehow, as much as I didn’t believe him, I did believe him. Because he sounded so confident. And he was a great storyteller—but [what I got from his stories] is that, number one, you must have a belief in things that are unknown to you, that what you see and hear is really not all that important, except for the moment. I mean, Africa was just another way of him pointing to the things that were all over and available to us one way or another. Africa was a state of mind that he hoped everybody could see and be a part of or participate in.” Most of all, rather than moralize, he just tried to teach the sickly little boy, as much by example as anything else, “how to live and be happy, no matter what came along, [that] even when you’re feeling bad, you’re feeling good.”

Peter Guralnick, Sam Phillips: The Man Who Invented Rock n Roll (2014).

Sam Phillips is the founder of Elvis’s initial record label, Sun Records in Memphis, and is credited with creating rock ‘n’ roll in an oft-repeated labor metaphor that implicitly likens him to a midwife:

Writing on the wall at an exhibit at the Graceland complex in Memphis, TN.

(The B-Side of Elvis’s first single “That’s All Right” is a cover of a bluegrass song (a white genre), so if the A-Side is shown by Baz to be a mashup of blues and gospel, this morphs into a “‘three-way’ appeal” as record-store owner Ruben Cherry put it, of pop-hillbilly-r&b, or blues-gospel-bluegrass.)

As a child of the media, I have been pleased to have attended the healthy birth of rock and roll, and to have seen it grow up fast and healthy . . . but I was also in attendance, during my younger years, at the deathbed of radio as a strong fictional medium.

Stephen King, Danse Macabre (1981).

The birth of rock ‘n’ roll is contingent on the circumstances created by post-WWII culture, the pivotal shift into which is embodied in the history buried in the basement scrapbook of The Shining‘s Overlook Hotel…

For many critical historians, that moment in August 1945 delineates Modernism from a postmodern era that was violently born out of it.

Tony Magistrale and Michael Blouin, Stephen King and American History (2020).

A rooster (or a cock) is the critter Phillips chose as the centerpiece of his label’s design, inadvertently evoking its deeper function: cock rock is the foundation of the patriarchy. Or, to use one of my buzzwords, cock rock underwrites the patriarchy, as well as underwrites the expression of the patriarchy in the KINGdom.

The Sun Records label’s color scheme also potentially evokes the mascot of Phillips’ alma mater Coffee High School:

The yellow jacket at Graceland…not a bee, not a wasp, not a hornet, but another stinging insect.

It’s also intriguing that the midwife of Rock ‘n’ Roll apparently became so due to the influence of that magical Black uncle…

The story of Uncle Silas is at the epicenter of everything that Sam Phillips ever believed both about himself and the “common man,” in that most uncommon narrative that became the lodestar for his life. It was not sympathy for this old black man’s plight that drew him to Silas Payne—far from it, Sam Phillips always insisted. Rather, it was admiration for those same qualities of imagination, creativity, and invincible determination that he had first noted in the black fieldworkers on his father’s farm—that and the kind of emotional freedom, the unqualified generosity and kindness that he himself would have most liked to be able to achieve.there was something almost magical about Uncle Silas, with the hundreds of chickens he kept out back, every one of whom he could distinguish by name, and the Bible stories he rhymed up, the songs he sang, the stories he told of an Africa he had never known, with battercake trees and a Molasses River that took a twelve-year-old boy away to a world in which he was freed from all the emotional and physical bonds by which he felt so constricted in his day-to-day existence.

Peter Guralnick, Sam Phillips: The Man Who Invented Rock n Roll (2014).

So that cock logo might well derive from Uncle Silas’s influence…in which the Black man helps free the white boy in a way that in addition to bearing resemblance to Uncle Remus will resemble the function of B.B. King’s character in Baz’s flick, in which Elvis is shown to be cut from the same cloth as B.B. when they converse in the famed Beale Street Lansky Brothers clothing store about Elvis’s upcoming television appearance on the Milton Berle show, with B.B. referring to the host as “Uncle Miltie” as the pair examine themselves in the mirror…

B.B. is an important presence but still disappointingly functions as a magical Black bestie for Elvis, offering a version of “freedom” to the white man by having his own record label and touring wherever he wants as a corollary for the restrictions Elvis ends up with when he allows Colonel Tom Parker to take over all of his business enterprises.

Another example of Baz’s B.B. function is when Elvis shows up at the Beale Street club where B.B. plays, distraught about how to navigate the backlash against him, and, echoing the language of the place of that state of mind passed down from Uncle Silas that “even when you’re feeling bad, you’re feeling good,” B.B. advises:

“If you’re sad and you want to be sad, you’re at the right place. If you’re happy and you want to be happy, guess what? You’re at the right place.”

Elvis (2022).

But is he? Confronting the film’s imagery of Beale Street itself, it is striking for being NYC-like in its teeming pedestrian traffic, striking for the image of Elvis as a lone white person navigating an exclusively African American population.

Writing on the wall in Candyman (2021).

Striking the more so in light of Sam Phillips’ own description of his initial encounter of this place when he first visited Memphis in 1939:

Well, I’d heard about Beale Street all my life, pictured it in my mind what it was—I could not wait! We arrived at four or five o’clock in the morning in pouring-down rain, but I’m telling you, Broadway never looked that busy. It was like a beehive, a microcosm of humanity—you had a lot of sober people there, you had a lot of people having a good time. You had old black men from the Delta and young cats dressed fit to kill. But the most impressive thing to me about Beale Street was that nobody got in anybody’s way—because every damn one of them wanted to be right there. Beale Street represented for me, even at that age, something that I hoped to see for all people. That sense of absolute freedom, that sense of no direction but the greatest direction in the world, of being able to feel, I’m a part of this somehow.

Peter Guralnick, Sam Phillips: The Man Who Invented Rock n Roll (2014).

This quote was deemed significant enough for inclusion in the Sun Records section of one of the Graceland exhibits:

The idea of being part of something larger than oneself is part and parcel of hive symbolism for the individual v. collective, with traditional American narratives of the West manifesting/championing/fostering the former, as in the conclusion of Eminem’s 2002 semiautobiopic 8 Mile:

This time, however, he echoes the Western hero who, in splendid isolation, rides off into the sunset.

Roy Grundmann, “White Man’s Burden: Eminem’s Movie Debut in 8 Mile,” Cinéaste, Vol. 28, No. 2 (2003), p. 33. 

One critic invokes hive-metaphor language to describe one of the scenes in Baz’s Elvis:

When Elvis passes through Black crowds in Memphis’s Beale Street, they lovingly swarm him for autographs.

Richard Brody, “‘Elvis’ Is a Wikipedia Entry Directed by Baz Luhrmann” (June 27, 2022).

This image evokes a description in Goldman’s biography of Elvis at age sixteen:

The onset of Elvis’s emotional crisis was signaled by the appearance of recurrent nightmares. These dreams were so powerful that they resembled states of absolute possession or even the condition of being spellbound. Night after night… he would imagine that he was being attacked by a mob of angry men. They would circle him ominously as he hurled at them defiant challenges. Then a violent struggle would commence. (79)

The primary image presented by Elvis’s nightmares is the familiar paranoid delusion of the one against the many.

Albert Goldman, Elvis (1981).

Stephen King also experienced a recurrent nightmare:

In another dream—this is one which has recurred at times of stress over the last ten years—I am writing a novel in an old house where a homicidal madwoman is reputed to be on the prowl. I’m working in a third-floor room that’s very hot. A door on the far side of the room communicates with the attic, and I know—I know—she’s in there, and that sooner or later the sound of my typewriter will cause her to come after me (perhaps she’s a critic for the Times Book Review). At any rate, she finally comes through the door like a horrid jack from a child’s box, all gray hair and crazed eyes, raving and wielding a meat-ax. And when I run, I discover that somehow the house has exploded outward—it’s gotten ever so much bigger—and I’m totally lost.

Stephen King, Danse Macabre (1981).

Elvis’s being “lost” is another of the motifs in Baz’s depiction…Is there a mind meld going on reminiscent of that titular device in The Shining?

“By the light of day … Beale Street might not have looked so glamorous, but it was shining with the hopes and aspirations and beliefs of all the people who thronged to its sights”

Peter Guralnick, Sam Phillips: The Man Who Invented Rock n Roll (2014).

And then there’s Paul Simon’s invocation of the literal place of Graceland (in which state becomes synecdoche for nation…) evoking a larger figurative one….

The Mississippi Delta
Was shining like a national guitar
I am following the river
Down the highway
Through the cradle of the Civil War

I’m going to Graceland, Graceland
Memphis, Tennessee

Paul Simon, “Graceland” (1986).

The musical appropriation that occurred in the making of Simon’s Graceland album, which he recorded in South Africa, is intriguingly documented in Under African Skies (2011) (in her collection Florida exploring literal and figurative place-states, Lauren Groff’s “Ghosts and Empties” derives from “Graceland” lyrics in one example of the shrapnel of Elvis’s explosive influence). Are Simon’s “ghosts” and “shining” references (in conjunction with his dating Shelley Duvall right before she filmed The Shining), qualify as strong enough evidence to be invoking The Shining?

Regardless, the “national guitar” Simon conjures renders the guitar a symbol, opening the door to explore other “semiotic levels” (per Magistrale) such a symbol might operate on, like the weaponization of music (such as in the covert history of the national anthem as premeditated partisan propaganda) … a tool/weapon to prop up an illusion of freedom… and also evoked in the guitar as “axe,” which is, of course, Kubrick’s Jack Torrance’s weapon of choice. (The guitar, more specifically its neck, also becomes a weapon–inadvertently–in a 1986 Twilight Zone episode penned by George R.R. Martin in which Elvis’s twin kills him.) King’s Jack Torrance’s weapon of choice is the roque mallet, which will evoke a Disney influence (by way of Lewis Carroll) via the underwriting influence of Alice in Wonderland on King’s novel that I am eventually getting to below…but not quite yet.

The Singer-Gunslinger

B.B. King reads the label of “rock ‘n’ roll” itself as racially coded distinction:

B.B. spoke diplomatically of the rock ’n’ roll revolution as it unfolded. Decades later, in a moment of candor, he would dismiss the genre as “just more white people doing blues that used different progressions”: “Elvis was doing Big Boy Crudup’s tunes, and they were calling that rock and roll. And I thought it was a way of saying, ‘He’s not black.’”

Daniel de Visé, King of the Blues: The Rise and Reign of B.B. King (2021) (here).

Elvis potentially underwrites the center of the Gunslinger Song Cycle by being a figure that explodes the color line with his music…

[Sam Phillips] had sensed in Elvis a kindred spirit almost from the start. … It was almost subversive what they had done, sneaking around through the music. They had gone out into this no man’s land, “where the earth meets the sky,” as Sam always liked to put it, without so much as a map or a compass … Together they had “knocked the shit out of the color line.”

Peter Guralnick, Sam Phillips: The Man Who Invented Rock n Roll (2014).

…and then becoming a crossover Hollywood star; his first “dramatic” role is in a Western, playing a “gunslinger” character with a white father and a Native American mother.

Baz’s film emphasizes that the backlash against Elvis when his popularity explodes in 1956 is a predominantly race-based fear, starting with the emphasis that Elvis’s first single is a mashup of two Black genres, Blues and Gospel, and the emphasis on Black sexuality latent in the Blues genre. A fear of Black sexuality, or of Black people because of their more open sexuality, is an implicit fear of their reproduction…

Baz’s biopic invokes a motif of literal signs, and Elvis himself is a sort of sign, refracted out of personhood into reproduced images, as Andy Warhol evinces:

Eight Elvises by Andy Warhol.

Eight is a sideways infinity sign

At the time of his death in 1977, Elvis Presley’s was the second most commonly reproduced image in the world. The first was Mickey Mouse.

Albert Goldman, Elvis (1981).

Alongside Disney’s, Elvis’s influence (and via that, the influences on him) essentially refracts infinitely. Baz notes in text at the film’s conclusion that “His influence on music and culture lives on.” Long live the King…Elvis died (reportedly) in 1977, the same year The Shining was published, and so the same year the presence embodied in its Overlook Hotel explodes to reverberate throughout the rest of the KINGdom.

Does Elvis himself, referred to as an “atomic-powered singer,” embody this explosive presence and what it symbolizes?

From here.

On The Shining, one critic notes about what another critic notes:

Roger Luckhurst, who has written so convincingly on trauma and torture, describes “the scenes around the events inside Room 237 [to be] the enigmatic core of the whole film” (57) … Luckhurst notes in talking of the twins‚ “can they really be Grady’s daughters, who Ullmann states were eight and ten years old? Might they not signify something else, subliminally encoded? Of course! All ghosts are signs of broken story, and bear witness to silent wrongs” (47). Here I believe The Shining, as is appropriate for a film genre-challenger like Kubrick, fights the common trope of ghosts like, say, Hamlet’s father, those spirits who wish to give a story of a contemptible crime, a free transgressor, and a plea that his son avenge him and kill his uncle. (boldface mine)

Danel Olsen, “‘Cut You Up Into Little Pieces’: Ghosts & Violence in Kubrick’s The Shining,” Violence in the Films of Stephen King (ed. Magistrale and Blouin, 2021).
The Shining (1980).

This is the first shot of the twins shown in the movie, which flashes very quickly in Danny’s first horrific vision (which he has via talking to his finger/Tony in the mirror) of the blood pouring from the elevators early on before the nuclear trio of the Torrance family leaves for the Overlook Hotel. Thus the twins are instantly and irrevocably linked to an expression of this place as a horrific entity.

Would/should twins potentially find this expression offensive? I haven’t done the official academic research to support this, but it seems like twins have the potential to evoke horror via representing some kind of reproduction of the self that is unsettling for the way it violates selfhood…if there can be two of the same person, that somehow has the potential to diminish the value of my individual, distinct selfhood–though such horror really bespeaks larger cultural conditioning of valuing the individual over the collective: the “splendid isolation” factor, which through the producing influence of Sam Phillips will be disseminated through rock ‘n’ roll, as Phillips is:

a father who was different from anybody else’s father that they knew, a father who, in the little time they got to spend with him, emphasized over and over, to their own occasional bewilderment, the importance of being yourself, the imperative to be a rebel without becoming an outcast, to always choose individualism over conformity. (boldface mine)

Peter Guralnick, Sam Phillips: The Man Who Invented Rock n Roll (2014).

(Noticing the prominence of Alice in Wonderland in The Shining that will be discussed below, I’m also wondering if King derived the creepy twins from Tweedledee and Tweedledum…)

The one thing he was not prepared to scrimp on was the sign that would announce the presence of the Memphis Recording Service to the world—well, two identical neon signs, actually, one for each of the plateglass windows on either side of the door.

Peter Guralnick, Sam Phillips: The Man Who Invented Rock n Roll (2014).
Twin signs. From here.

Elvis himself was a twin whose brother Jesse died at birth, which I learned on the Graceland tour’s recorded narration by John Stamos, aka Uncle Jesse from Full House, whose character is named for Elvis’s twin and whose character’s love of Elvis derives from John Stamos’s irl-love of Elvis. What Elvis’s twin’s ghost is a sign of is that Elvis became divested with “the strength of two men.”

And Andy Warhol dated two different twins, Jed and Jon, respectively…he creepily liked ’em younger, just like Elvis…

twin shadows…

The story of Memphis’s music history is inextricably linked to movies the way Elvis’s career was–a centerpiece of the Memphis Music Hall of Fame is the twin Oscars won by Memphis artists for Best Original Song for the films Shaft and Hustle and Flow.

The Rock N Soul Museum near Beale Street also covers the “persistent legend” of blues guitarist Robert Johnson:

That Johnson, with his “haunting songs,” supposedly died of poisoning becomes part of a musical “curse” that explodes from a site at the intersection of literal and figurative place, that of the “crossroads,” which I hadn’t considered having a literal corollary until my brother recently told me that he’d gone on a pilgrimage, not to the site of Johnson’s Morgan City grave, but to the crossroads invoked in the 1996 Bone Thugs-n-Harmony single “Tha Crossroads.” Hint: the song appears to be about the crossroads of the Robert Johnson legend:

This song is definitely paying homage to the late and great Robert Johnson. Legend has it he sold his soul to the devil in exchange for guitar playing skills at the crossroads (insersection of hwy 49 and hwy 61 in Clarksdale Miss.). The legend also claims he was a terrible guitar player until making his pact. After the pact, he became a legend. Johnson claims that when he went to the crossroads he “never felt lonely”. … This is also stated in BTNH”s hook in “The Crossroads”. Keep in mind RJ was a blues legend and is often considered the father of rock and roll during the 1930’s. Just my 2 cents!

Joe from Lewisville, Tx (here).

The musical curse is that of the “27 Club,” meteorically talented musicians who have, like Johnson, died at age 27. There’s a moment in Baz’s flick when the Colonel is hearing Elvis’s “That’s All Right” single for the first time where the track slows down in apparent homage to DJ Screw, and the radio DJ voiceover says they’re going to play the track “for the 27th time,” a phrase that then starts repeating on a loop. The film’s narrative is that in Elvis’s deal for the Colonel to manage him–made, symbolically, on a ferris wheel–Elvis has, like Johnson in the legend, essentially sold his soul to the devil. There are many reasons the Colonel’s management of Elvis could be considered thus (it would eventually be deemed “financial abuse” in a court of law), with a major one being that his agreed-upon cut of Elvis-generated income would be HALF. Fifty percent is pretty exorbitant compared to the traditional ten percent this management role is more associated with.

(Stephen King also experienced contractual mismanagement of income proportion with his initial publisher, Doubleday.)

Like King’s (Stephen’s), that self-identified “child of the media,” Elvis’s history is the history of media development (and the technology that media is necessarily disseminated through) writ large–Elvis’s “atomic powered” identity, his true plutonium, is an array of media modes to ensure global dissemination, which becomes concurrent with domination–identified on the poster above that brands him thus: he is the “dynamic star of television, records, radio and movies.” Like Disney is also taking advantage of at the time, these different modes allow for “transmedia dissipation,” and as the Colonel claims to invent merchandise and put Elvis’s “face on every conceivable object,” Elvis’s mother’s protest to her son that “you’re losing yourself” takes on a disturbing resonance. Elvis, in selling his soul, goes from being a 3-D person to a 2-D image.

For his deal with the devil Elvis was not cursed to die at 27, like other members of that haunted club such as Jimi Hendrix, Amy Winehouse, Kurt Cobain and Janis Joplin whose portraits Elvis’s shares ceiling space with…

Above the bar of the Hard Rock Cafe on Beale Street in Memphis, TN.

But two years ago this month, Elvis’s only (maritally legitimate) grandson joined this club in what seems very possibly the product of bearing the burden of the King’s legacy. (Elvis himself died at age 42, which commentators in Room 237 (2012) have pointed out is a number that appears prominently in Kubrick’s version of The Shining.)

As part of the development of the theme of the Colonel being the devil, Las Vegas is rendered in Elvis as nothing less than a Hellscape in a truly Kingian fashion–the sweeping shots up the facade of the International Hotel to Elvis’s penthouse at the top felt like I was watching the Randall Flagg’s Vegas sequences in The Stand. The wheel-like ouroboros of consumption Vegas represents is evoked via emphasis on two of the Colonel’s favorite gambling devices, the roulette wheel and the slot machine. We’re informed at the film’s end that the Colonel spent the final years of his life “pouring” his fortune into the slot machines of the casino that had paid him that fortune to keep Elvis in residence there at the International Hotel. In this way Elvis’s first major-label single, “Heartbreak Hotel,” offers further (highly circumstantial) evidence that Elvis is part and parcel of the Africanist presence (carried over from Carrie) that explodes from the Overlook Hotel at the end of The Shining: Elvis offers a similar “index of the post-WWII American character,” as Jack describes the Overlook being in King’s novel:

“I had an idea of writing about the Overlook, yes. I do. I think this place forms an index of the whole post–World War II American character.” (boldface mine)

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

An inextricable element of Elvis’s character embodies the type of “fluid duality” of Carrie White in the trigger moment the (Overlook’s) shadow explodes out of:

When you examine Elvis’s life in detail, however, you find countless instances of contradictory behavior that appear to spring out of a personality that was unconsciously dichotomous.

…It must not be thought that once the Bad Elvis started to emerge the Good Elvis began to recede. Quite the contrary: Both characters developed apace, alternating, like the faces on a turning coin. (84)

Basic to [Elvis’s ideal] pattern was the perfect positioning of his polar twins. Elvis the Bad acquired the classic punk look and began his evolution toward that Snarling Darling who would become eventually the greatest hero of rock ‘n’ roll. Elvis the Good moved off at this time in precisely the opposite direction. He elected to become a lay priest, a gospel singer, a dancer before the Lord. (p87, boldface mine)

Albert Goldman, Elvis (1981).

The symbolic concept of twins generally embodies “duality,” and one framework for duality that King likes to fall back on in his own critical analyses is Apollonian v. Dionysian–basically, rational v. emotional. These seem more like binaries that would qualify as symbolic “polar twins” than horror and humor per se, which would both likely be deemed more emotional, but they evoke the duality concept by being “seemingly oppositional elements,” as Magistrale puts it. King also locates Kubrick’s work at the site of a horror-humor nexus (that embodied in the Kingian “Laughing Place”–which is an “inhuman place that makes human monsters” as manifest in The Overlook in The Shining)–though notably omitting The Shining among his examples:

…an interesting borderline that I want to point out but not step over—this is the point at which the country of the horror film touches the country of the black comedy. Stanley Kubrick has been a resident of this borderline area for quite some time. A perfectly good case could be made for [Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange,] and for 2001: A Space Odyssey as a political horror film with an inhuman monster (“Please don’t turn me off,” the murderous computer HAL 9000 begs as the Jupiter probe’s one remaining crewman pulls its memory modules one by one) that ends its cybernetic life by singing “A Bicycle Built for Two.”

Stephen King, Danse Macabre (1981).

Chopped and Screwed

Elvis’s imprisonment in his Vegas residency by what Baz’s flick underscores is a “father figure” anticipates the parallel Vegas imprisonment of Britney Spears by her father…which Baz underscores in a mashup of Spears’ “Toxic” with Elvis’s “Viva Las Vegas.”

So it turns out that one of the prominent literal signs in Baz’s biopic…

Exhibit at Graceland in Memphis, TN.

…is a sign of the devil. It’s funny to me that people would call the Colonel’s character “enigmatic” in Baz’s film portrayal because he’s basically unequivocally the devil. Tom Hanks’ version of the Colonel is even compared to South Park‘s Eric Cartman in one Reddit thread…

Eric Cartman and Tom Hanks as Colonel Tom Parker.

…and Eric Cartman is one of the most unequivocally evil/corrupted characters ever created. His name is an anagram for CRTN AMERICA. Eric Cartman is the embodiment of “Cartoon America”–that is, he’s the ethos of America embodied (or more specifically, the ugly underbelly that constitutes its psyche), which only a cartoon character could fully capture; it has to be “larger than life” because the spirit of a country is necessarily too large to be encapsulated in an individual physical body, unless that individual body is capable of transcending the boundaries of a “real” physical human body, a capability granted by the genre of animation. (Or maybe his name could also be “Carton America,” embodying America’s fast-food consumption…)

And what, ironically, is Elvis’s name an anagram of? “Evils.” And if you were wondering what the “B.B.” in B.B. King STANDs for…

Riley King…had quickly become more broadly identified by a less product-oriented label, first as the Singing Black Boy, then as the Singing Blues Boy, then as the Boy from Beale Street, until, finally, he was recognized simply as Bee Bee—transmitted to the world at large on his records as “B.B.”—King. (boldface mine)

Peter Guralnick, Sam Phillips: The Man Who Invented Rock n Roll (2014).

So we have three minstrel figures…

And if the media-savvy mass-disseminator of Elvis’s image (i.e., the Colonel) is a grotesque villain as he’s portrayed with just cause in Baz’s biopic, that would imply that the mass-disseminator he’s on par with (i.e., Disney) is also a grotesque villain…

I’d argue Baz’s film also evidences the influence of De Palma’s Carrie (1976) via his liberal (but strategic) use of the split screen, which at one point explodes into innovative combinations of those De Palma shots I mentioned last time, the split screen and kaleidoscope–Baz chops and screws the screen not unlike some of the places he chops and screws the timeline.

But it was the triple-split screen that might be the most thematically impactful, specifically composed of young Elvis juxtaposed with older Elvis juxtaposed with Arthur Crudup, the Black blues artist who initially recorded Elvis’s breakout 1954 single “That’s All Right.” (Elvis recorded this breakout single at the age of nineteen, a number that becomes significant in King’s Dark Tower series seemingly because King himself started work on what would become that series at the age of nineteen.) Some cranky critics consider such cinematographic showmanship to be more style than substance:

“Elvis” is a cold, arm’s-length, de-psychologized, intimacy-deprived view of Presley that Luhrmann microwaves with quick cuts, montages of multiple images arrayed side by side, tricky lighting, huge sets, crowd scenes, and, above all, the frenetic onstage impersonation of Elvis that its star, Austin Butler, delivers.

Richard Brody, “‘Elvis’ Is a Wikipedia Entry Directed by Baz Luhrmann” (June 27, 2022).

This review says more about Brody than it does about Baz, with the irony that he sounds about as out of touch as the critics who wanted to throw Elvis in jail for the way he moved back in 1956. There’s a point made by Baz’s visual composition of the passage/evolution of a (musical) text through time that visually renders the history “buried” in music. Jordan Peele’s new movie appears to highlight the role and history of Blackness in cinematic movement, which in Memphis is linked to music history…

Twin Kings

Elvis and Stephen could be considered twin Kings based on a number of likenesses.

Both are icons in respective fields. Both reflect the American patriarchy. Both had close relationships with their mothers who died when both Kings were still relatively young, in their 20s. Both have relationships with Hollywood as a product of their primary career field. Both suffered from addiction. Both had recurring nightmares, and both had/have distinctive custom themed gates at the entrance of their estates (Stephen King’s gates were erected in 1982, the same year Graceland’s gates opened for public tours).

Elvis’s Graceland estate in Memphis, TN (top); King’s estate in Bangor, ME (bottom).

But the most significant parallel might be in how these twin Kings evince a stance indicative of the colorblindness that underwrites/facilitates our culture’s ongoing systemic racism…

The Gatekeepers. Top: Stephen King opens the new gates to his bat-guarded Victorian home in this November 1982 photograph. BANGOR DAILY NEWS PHOTO BY CARROLL HALL. Bottom: Elvis at his new gates in 1957.

This stance obscures the existence of racism by way of being well-meaning. Elvis doesn’t understand why people would be upset at his way of moving/performing when Black people have always been doing it that way:

“…Them critics don’t like to see nobody win doing any kind of music they don’t know nuthin’ about. The colored folk been singing it and playing it just the way I’m doin’ now, man, for more years than I know. Nobody paid it no mind till I goosed it up.” (81)

Elvis quoted in Albert Goldman, Elvis (1981).

With this stance, Elvis evinces an ignorance of the racism that underlies this reaction to him, a white man, moving the way Black people do. When a white man moves in the “Black style,” he starts to erase a marker of the distinction between black and white that threatens the white-supremacist order. This aspect is aptly captured in the This is Elvis (1981) documentary in footage of a white man articulating his problem with Elvis’s type of music while standing next to a certain sign:

footage from the 50s in This Is Elvis (1981).

And is reminiscent of another likeness Eminem could have included on his Elvis soundtrack number “The King and I”:

…Eminem’s overbearing presence takes from rap more than it gives: it erases rap’s history before the film can reference it, overlooking or simply ignoring many of rap’s historical and cultural details. (boldface mine)

Roy Grundmann, “White Man’s Burden: Eminem’s Movie Debut in 8 Mile,” Cinéaste, Vol. 28, No. 2 (2003), p. 33. 

Historical erasure is a theme that provides one of the confluences between The Shining and Candyman

The Shining (1980).
Candyman (2021).

The idea of playing the HAND you’re dealt in life…

“Perfect imperfection” was [Sam Phillips’] watchword—both in life and in art—in other words, take the hand you’re dealt and then make something of it.

Peter Guralnick, Sam Phillips: The Man Who Invented Rock n Roll (2014).

…echoes the concept of colorblindness as a sort of false narrative erasing white privilege, and, in invoking playing cards, will relate to the underwriting connection between Alice in Wonderland and The Shining, that text which presents us with our first example of that well-documented phenomenon of King’s well-meaning but still racist depictions of Black characters, the “Magical Negro.” Jordan Peele outlines the quintessential examples of this Kingian trope in a setup to a Shining spoof on Key and Peele in the episode “Michael Jackson Halloween” (October 31, 2012), during which Peele identifies the insects that come out of John Coffey’s mouth–a symbol of people’s evil nature/horrible pain sucked out of them–as BEES…

The ’92 Candyman, ’99 John Coffey, and ’46 Brer Bear

And in King’s The Shining, we’re going to meet the bee’s evil twin: the wasp.

OverlooKing the Rabbit Hole

The Shining is another text in which the Disney influence on King is palpable in King–though it’s arguable if the motif that emerges related to Alice in Wonderland is more based on the Disney version or Lewis Carroll’s source text. What is clear is that the influence of Alice on our culture is pretty major: Jefferson Airplane’s “White Rabbit,” Go Ask Alice (1971), Susan Sontag’s play Alice in Bed (1991), and The Matrix (1999) all invoke it.

The function of the hedge animals in The Shining are an interesting critteration through the lens of Sarah Nilsen’s “creatureliness” aspect: here are inanimate facsimiles of animals that become horrific when they start acting like “real” animals (i.e., become animate). It turns out that technically these hedge animals are, arguably, the device that underwrites The Shining‘s entire plot–i.e., a necessitating element or starting point without which the rest of the narrative cannot unfold, as is the white rabbit that Alice follows down the hole. (To which Jack Torrance’s first published story, “Concerning the Black Holes,” might constitute a racialized connection; in The Shining, the Rabbit Hole is a Black Hole.)

We learn that the hedge animals are the reason Jack Torrance gets the job as Overlook Hotel caretaker because…

“Those animals were what made Uncle Al think of me for the job,” Jack told him. “He knew that when I was in college I used to work for a landscaping company. That’s a business that fixes people’s lawns and bushes and hedges. I used to trim a lady’s topiary.”

[he and Wendy laugh about this…]

“They weren’t animals, Danny,” Jack said when he had control of himself. “They were playing cards. Spades and hearts and clubs and diamonds. But the hedges grow, you see—”

(They creep, Watson had said … no, not the hedges, the boiler. You have to watch it all the time or you and your fambly will end up on the fuckin moon.)”

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

Here we see that an Uncle figure, Uncle Al, is the underwriter of Jack’s caretaker job–underwriter in the traditional, financial sense of the term–and thus the generative underwriter of the novel’s entire plot. His name could be an homage to the figure of Alice, who’s been invoked directly in the text by this point, and playing cards are a big motif in Alice in Wonderland, with the Red Queen’s playing-card soldiers (i.e., animate playing cards).

Further, that Jack conflates the hedges with the boiler becomes significant in light of the latter’s climactic explosion and the “shadow exploded” concept…

He walked over to the rabbit and pushed the button on the handle of the clippers. It hummed into quiet life.

“Hi, Br’er Rabbit,” Jack said. “How are you today? A little off the top and get some of the extra off your ears? Fine. Say, did you hear the one about the traveling salesman and the old lady with a pet poodle?”

His voice sounded unnatural and stupid in his ears, and he stopped. It occurred to him that he didn’t care much for these hedge animals. It had always seemed slightly perverted to him to clip and torture a plain old hedge into something that it wasn’t. (boldface mine)

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

Animating the inanimate is a relatively common device to evoke horror. Kubrick famously changed the hedge animals in the novel to the hedge maze in the film, which he seems to have done by way of observation of the prominence of Alice in Wonderland in the source text…

Disney’s Alice in Wonderland (1951).

And there’s bee imagery associated with the Red Queen via the pattern of her black-and-yellow garb…

Disney’s Alice in Wonderland (1951): the evil Queen Bee evokes the horrors of the matriarchy.

The Queen Bee, which Chris Hargensen is also an example of a “type” of as defined in Rosalind Wiseman’s 2002 study (with her book on these teen types being the basis for Mean Girls (2004)), a type that is by definition evil. This then imparts that a matriarchy would be horrific, thus reinforcing the patriarchy.

Charles the First by Jean-Michel Basquiat (1982).

It’s also interesting that in Disney texts, queens are evil while princesses are the ideal…

Via animal comparisons/creatureliness/critterations, overlapping themes of “laboring bodies” surface here again via rhetorical justifications/contortions of who is and is not a “person/human” that resonate with the abortion debate (white people had to rhetorically dehumanize those they wanted to enslave, i.e., “slaves” are not considered human the same way one side of the abortion debate does not consider fetuses “human”). These hedge animals manifest the evil spirit/ghost of the Overlook itself when they start to come “alive,” but before they do, a different “critter” (according to Orwell’s animal-defining paradigm in Animal Farm from Part I) manifests the Overlook ghost: wasps, or “wall wasps” as Jack refers to them at one point.

Wasps are invoked as a symbol of savagery underlying civilized veneers, and are shown to manifest powers to manipulate psychologically via being vehicle that reveals Jack’s backstory, and to manipulate physically by being the first undeniable physical manifestation of a supernatural element when wasps come back from the dead, but still an ambiguous/deniable one via the possible explanation that the “poison” Jack uses on them is defective. As the wasps manifest the Overlook ghost by haunting Jack via his personal history, they also, in this same capacity, as I previously discussed here, reveal the lack of individual characterization that King’s first “Magical Negro” figure, Dick Hallorann, gets. (I also noticed looking at the wasps this time around that the wasps in Jack’s childhood memory are in a nest up in an apple tree, while the wasps that Hallorann’s childhood memory are in a ground nest.)

I initially thought that in manifesting as a sign of the novel’s “evil” presence of the Overlook ghost(s), this same presence figured in the wasps would manifest “signs” of being an Africanist presence, but then the wasps actually seem a sign of something else:

Jack enters most fully into the ghostworld of the Roaring Twenties (instead of his son and wife, too), as Magistrale evinces, because Jack most wants what the 1920s offers adult male WASPS: booze, flappers, unquestioned freedom, and an embarrassment of riches without an embarrassment of one’s (retreating) ethics. (boldface mine)

Danel Olsen, “‘Cut You Up Into Little Pieces’: Ghosts & Violence in Kubrick’s The Shining,” Violence in the Films of Stephen King (ed. Magistrale and Blouin, 2021).

It makes perfect sense: wasps as a sign of a white-supremacist presence: such a satisfying sibilance.

The mallet (which Kubrick changes to an ax)…

…appears to be another sign of the presence of Alice in Wonderland via the croquet in that text. The mallet does not function in the sense of a traditional weapon therein, nor does a traditional weapon of force exist so much as a manipulation of rules. This is only one aspect of the rhetorical manipulation Alice comments on…if not Disney:

Well before Kafka and George Orwell, who dismantled the mechanisms of Fascism and Communism, Lewis Carroll exposed the mainspring of totalitarian powers: manipulating language, twisting words to make them signify the opposite of what they mean in order to grab and manipulate minds. (boldface mine)

Bruckner, Pascal, and Nathan J. Bracher. “On Alice in Wonderland.” South Central Review, vol. 38, no. 2-3, 2021.

Such manipulation of language is also a major hallmark of legal rhetoric…the pattern in the Alice stories of characters harping on literal meanings brought to mind the semantic manipulations of Bill Clinton during his impeachment interrogations (“it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”). Such legal-language wrangling lurks in a particular description of wasps in the novel:

A few wasps were crawling sluggishly over the paper terrain of their property, but they were not trying to fly. From the inside of the nest, the black and alien place, came a never-to-be-forgotten sound: a low, somnolent buzz, like the sound of high-tension wires.

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

WASPs exert power via property ownership via manipulations of legal rhetoric manifest on the paper of “official” documentation, violence enacted via paper, implicit rather than explicit force.

So the wasps represent/manifest the ghost of the Overlook Hotel, and “the hotel represents the successful epitome of white male domination over all other races and women” as Tony Magistrale and Michael J. Blouin put it in their 2020 study, Stephen King and American History (pp. 90-91, boldface mine). The wasps as a sign of a white-supremacist presence fits with the excessive racial slurs the Overlook ghost projects in Hallorann’s mind to try to deter him from coming to help.

This white-supremacist presence should, in theory, be oppositional to the Africanist presence that’s become associated with the bee–so, wasp v. bee. Yet by Orwell’s Animal Farm paradigm, wasps and bees should manifest versions of the same thing/presence rather than opposing forces. But bees manifesting an Africanist presence by way of being a “laboring body” that produces honey led me to google whether wasps also made honey:

NO. Wasps steal honey in large amounts if they can get access to a bee-hive but usually they are carnivores, feeding on larvae and small insects. They have powerful jaws to chew up chitinous insects. A most unpleasant sight is to see a wasp neatly cut a honey bee in half and fly away with the abdomen section, leaving the poor bee’s head and thorax still alive and walking about. Wasps do not in fact store anything. Their paper-like combs are only used to rear wasp larvae.

From here.

Jack himself also specifies a distinction between bees and wasps in their ability to inflict harm:

Wasps don’t leave them in. That’s bees. They have barbed stingers. Wasp stingers are smooth. That’s what makes them so dangerous. They can sting again and again.” (boldface mine)

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

And if there was any doubt the wasps are linked to the haunted Overlook presence:

…he didn’t like the Overlook so well anymore, as if it wasn’t wasps that had stung his son, … but the hotel itself. (boldface mine)

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

There’s a fluid duality across this bee-wasp symbolism in stinging ability as well in being aligned by way of the Orwellian paradigm, but opposed by way of certain biological distinctions. There’s also a fluid duality within the wasp itself in being a more personal/individually relevant symbol (for Jack Torrance) or general symbol (Overlook/imperialism). (In a 2020 podcast on King’s The Stand, The Company of the Mad, Jason Sechrest notes that he interpreted the wasps as symbolic of Jack’s anger, but then he potentially undermines this reading in which this symbolism is limited to Jack’s individual character when he points out that in The Stand, the dog Kojack also is described as having wasps in his head in a similar way.)

In The Shining, King evokes Jack’s individual anger most vividly in conjunction with the sport of football:

Football had provided a partial safety valve, although [Jack] remembered perfectly well that he had spent almost every minute of every game in a state of high piss-off, taking every opposing block and tackle personally. He had been a fine player, making All-Conference in his junior and senior years, and he knew perfectly well that he had his own bad temper to thank … or to blame. He had not enjoyed football. Every game was a grudge match.

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

Much has been made of a certain sweater of Danny’s in Kubrick’s version…

The Shining (1980).

But in light of the relevance of football to Jack’s anger in the source text, perhaps this one is also important:

The Shining (1980).

Then the wasps start to manifest their own fluid duality in another way. It turns out there is a species of wasps that don’t sting, not “wall wasps,” but “gall wasps,” as I learned from a recent article in my alumni magazine about the discovery of a new type of this species of non-stinging wasp on the Rice campus outside of its graduate-student pub, a pub that is named for a Norse god that will now become the namesake for these wasps as well, with the headline in the print magazine reading “Cheers to the Valhalla Wasp,” and a description that notes it “spends 11 months of the year locked in a crypt.”

A new species of the gall…a different type of wasp (from here).

This is not the first time a new gall species of wasp has been discovered at Rice (an earlier article documents the parasitic tendencies of this species in terms out of a horror movie), but as the latter discovery was unfolding, I was also in the process of discovering a new type of wasp: one that’s capable of mutating. This type transmutes from white-supremacist to Africanist, thereby embodying how this binary exists in all single/individual bodies, as one is predicated on the other, and thus symbolizing, per Morrison, the inextricability of the Africanist presence to the white-supremacist one.

The transmutation in The Shining‘s wasp references occurs in chapter 33, “The Snowmobile,” which comes right before chapter 34, “The Hedges.” (So the snowmobile becomes the vehicle for the transmutation.) If Jack undergoes a transition in the process of being possessed by the Overlook, transitioning from loyalty to his family unit to loyalty to the forces of the hotel, the wasp symbolism transitions with him. Early on, while Jack is still loyal to his family, he initially encounters the wasps as an entity that pose a threat to the family, one that does enact harm by stinging Danny’s hand. In enacting this harm, the wasps are aligned with or carrying out the (evil white-supremacist) will of the Overlook. By chapter 33, Jack’s loyalties are passing the tipping point so that he’s no longer loyal to his family but now to the hotel. And in this chapter, the snowmobile is extensively compared to a wasp:

The snowmobile sat almost in the middle of the equipment shed, a fairly new one, and Jack didn’t care for its looks at all. Bombardier Ski-Doo was written on the side of the engine cowling facing him in black letters which had been raked backward, presumably to connote speed. The protruding skis were also black. There was black piping to the right and left of the cowling, what they would call racing stripes on a sports car. But the actual paintjob was a bright, sneering yellow, and that was what he didn’t like about it. Sitting there in its shaft of morning sun, yellow body and black piping, black skis, and black upholstered open cockpit, it looked like a monstrous mechanized wasp. When it was running it would sound like that, too. Whining and buzzing and ready to sting. But then, what else should it look like? It wasn’t flying under false colors, at least. Because after it had done its job, they were going to be hurting plenty. All of them. By spring the Torrance family would be hurting so badly that what those wasps had done to Danny’s hand would look like a mother’s kisses.

…It was a disgusting thing, really. You almost expected to see a long, limber stinger protruding from the rear of it.

Stephen King, The Shining, 1977.

Now this wasp-like entity does not pose a threat to the family as the wasps did previously, but rather a hope for the family in the snowmobile-wasp being a means of escape–thus the wasp is now associated not with a threat to the family, but has transmuted to being associated with a threat to the Overlook. Instead of doing the Overlook’s harmful bidding, the figurative wasp now manifests a threat to the Overlook’s will, so the wasps are now opposed to the white-supremacist spirit of the hotel, which means they can be read as manifesting its opposite, an Africanist presence.

Which brings us to another sign of the white-supremacist presence: snow. Morrison notes that no writer is more important to “American Africanism” than Edgar Allen Poe, and Poe is arguably as important a literary underwriter of The Shining as Alice in Wonderland, via a direct epigraph; the novel could be considered a mashup of Alice in Wonderland and Poe’s “The Masque of the Red Death.” (And King could be considered a mashup artist not unlike that which Baz’s construction of Elvis reveals both Baz and Elvis to be.)

Snow would count as what Morrison uses a couple of variations in term for: “figurations of impenetrable whiteness,” “images of impenetrable whiteness,” and “images of blinding whiteness.” Snow would seem to manifest a white-supremacist presence in its threat to blot out all in whiteness. (Baz also echoes these themes of snow as a sign of a white-supremacist presence in his treatment of the Colonel as a villainous “snowman,” with the term being synonymous for “conman.”) In keeping with the Overlook ghost being a white-supremacist presence by virtue of its historical ghosts and evils being the byproducts of the white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy, the snow is a means through which the Overlook can trap its occupants. (Snow will play a similar negative threatening role in Misery, whose importance will be even more significant in underwriting that novel’s plot than The Shining‘s, and in keeping with the fact that both of the plots in which the snow plays a significant role take place in the same geographical vicinity of Sidewinder, CO.)

If The Shining offers ample evidence of Poe’s ample influence on King, it’s just the tip of the iceberg, as it were. In the ’03 Hollywood’s Stephen King interview, Magistrale asks King about the influence of the “Poepictures” on his work, quoting a term King uses in On Writing and asking whether the film adaptations of Poe’s stories or the written stories themselves had more of an influence on him; King claims the latter, though noting The Masque of the Red Death is the best of the Poepictures, as well as the influence of the images of their “scare moments,” noting in particular the concluding image of The Pit and the Pendulum, which resonates with the Carrie trigger moment in being an image whose evocativeness is contingent on the way eyes look:

All you see are the horrified eyes of Barbara Steele gazing out through a small opening in the contraption that encases her.

Tony Magistrale, Hollywood’s Stephen King (2003), p11.

King further reveals a preoccupation with the way eyes look in a discussion of The Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) via an image also associated with some of the recurring elements in this ongoing discussion of the Kingian Laughing Place (mud and walls):

…the image that remains forever after is of the creature slowly and patiently walling its victims into the Black Lagoon; even now I can see it peering over that growing wall of mud and sticks.

Its eyes. Its ancient eyes.

Stephen King, Danse Macabre (1981).

This brings us to another major tenet of The Shining‘s plot and themes, the idea/refrain that “the pictures in a book…couldn’t hurt you.” This is Hallorann’s claim to Danny about the hotel’s ghosts, and of course, Hallorann turns out to be very wrong about this. But the general idea resonates with the opening of Carroll’s first book on Alice:

Alice was beginning to get very tired of sitting by her sister on the bank, and of having nothing to do: once or twice she had peeped into the book her sister was reading, but it had no pictures or conversations in it, “and what is the use of a book,” thought Alice, “without pictures or conversations?”

Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865).

This is an idea Disney also emphasizes in its opening, changing the interaction from being with Alice’s sister to being with her tutor, who is trying to use a book to teach Alice lessons. It’s also part and parcel of an idea I emphasize in my composition classes when I have students rhetorically analyze visual texts, in particular the ethics of visual texts, with the overall lesson being, as The Shining demonstrates, that the pictures in a book could hurt you.

When we analyze the ethics of visual texts, I emphasize that this amounts to analyzing the ethics of the overall message(s) the text is imparting to its viewers. I have to warn the students, by way of the repetition of a refrain, not to fall into the TRAP of stopping short at evaluating the ethics of the actions of the characters themselves (that is, just because a character in the text does something unethical, that does not necessarily/automatically make the overall text itself unethical). In Through the Looking Glass, Carroll’s sequel to the original Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, there is a specific category of “messenger”: “those queer Anglo-Saxon Messengers.” These messengers impart an “attitude” that Carroll’s text conflates with physical gesture:

“But he’s coming very slowly—and what curious attitudes he goes into!” (For the messenger kept skipping up and down, and wriggling like an eel, as he came along, with his great hands spread out like fans on each side.)

“Not at all,” said the King. “He’s an Anglo-Saxon Messenger—and those are Anglo-Saxon attitudes. He only does them when he’s happy. …”

…the King said, introducing Alice in the hope of turning off the Messenger’s attention from himself—but it was no use—the Anglo-Saxon attitudes only got more extraordinary every moment, while the great eyes rolled wildly from side to side. (boldface mine)

Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass (1872).

WASP alert…the snowmobile sequence in chapter 33 has a weird potentially Protestant emphasis when part of what constitutes this as a critical turning point for Jack is his looking at the hotel and thinking its windows LOOK LIKE EYES, and this facilitates the epiphany that in turn facilitates Jack’s transition in loyalties, specifically the epiphany “that it was all true”–i.e., that the Overlook’s ghosts are indeed “real.” This epiphany is underscored by a memory digression in which Jack recalls “a certain black-and-white picture he remembered seeing as a child, in catechism class” presented by a nun:

The class had looked at it blankly, seeing nothing but a jumble of whites and blacks, senseless and patternless. Then one of the children in the third row had gasped, “It’s Jesus!” …

…What had only been a meaningless sprawl had suddenly been transformed into a stark black-and-white etching of the face of Christ-Our-Lord. … The face of Christ had been in the picture all along. All along. (boldface mine)

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

This objective correlative for the Overlook ghost(s) really being there “all along,” which the novel’s narrative bears out as “true,” or “real,” thus seems to reinforce that Jesus is “real/true” in a similar way–except it’s not actually Jesus himself that’s really there, but, Magritte-like, only a picture of him. So this sequence could be read as underscoring not a Protestant deity as “real,” but only the belief in it as such (while at the same time iterating a biblical Genesis narrative of the gaining of world-changing knowledge). The passage also underscores a fluidity underlying what should be the opposite of fluid, the “black-and-white picture,” since “black-and-white” is supposed to mean clear-cut–yet more often, it’s muddy, concealing more beneath the surface encountered initially.

The Keys to the Kingdom

It’s dramatic irony that Danny is the one who is told the ghosts can’t hurt him, when he himself is specifically the “key” to their gaining the ability to do so. Though as we’ll see, the Overlook Hotel, or its ghost(s), in addition to the bee, is also a key to the Africanist presence that explodes through the King canon…

Danny uses a literal key to get into Room 217; in the movie with Room 237 it would appear a ghost uses a key to open its door, since Danny discovers it already opened:

The Shining (1980).

This is interesting in light of King’s debate of should you open the door or not in chapter 5 of Danse Macabre:

I think both Wise and Lovecraft before him understood that to open the door, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, is to destroy the unified, dreamlike effect of the best horror. “I can deal with that,” the audience says to itself, settling back, and bang! you just lost the ballgame in the bottom of the ninth.

My own disapproval of this method—we’ll let the door bulge but we’ll never open it—comes from the belief that it is playing to tie rather than to win. There is (or may be), after all, that hundredth case, and there is the whole concept of suspension of disbelief. Consequently, I’d rather yank the door open at some point during the festivities; I’d rather turn my hole cards face-up. And if the audience screams with laughter rather than terror, if they see the zipper running up the monster’s back, then you just gotta go back to the drawing board and try it again.

Stephen King, Danse Macabre (1981).

Room 217 (and 237) is where Danny is first demonstrably harmed by one of the ghosts (if you don’t count the wasps in the novel/miniseries). In the novel’s buildup to Danny finally using the key to enter the room, the Overlook is manifesting a voice in his head (rendered in King’s signature parentheticals), one that “was as if [it] had come from outside, insectile, buzzing, softly cajoling,” and one that prominently adopts the voice of the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland and her off-with-his-head refrain as Danny turns the key in the lock while trying to convince himself the ghosts can’t hurt him since what he had seen in the “Presidential Sweet” had disappeared. (Another image-reference Danny associates with what’s behind the closed door of the room is Bluebeard, which echoes the off-with-his-head decapitation motif when it turns out Bluebeard’s former wives’ heads are behind the door. The losing-your-head idea literally and viscerally evokes the horror of losing your head (i.e., mind) figuratively.)

Both Kubrick and King do show what’s behind the door of Room 217/237, and Kubrick goes a bit farther with that bulge in the door…

The Shining (1980).

This is the bathroom door, the same door Danny lipsticks the “Redrum” on and the third of three bathrooms in which significant scenes occur.

The theme of real v. imagined emphasized by the haunting entities in The Shining‘s plot is underscored by the treatment of geographical place in the novel…

The Shining (1980).

…with the Overlook apparently positioned between the the fictional town of Sidewinder and the real town of Estes Park:

“I guess I know well enough where that is,” he said. “Mister, you’ll never get up to the old Overlook. Roads between Estes Park and Sidewinder is bloody damn hell.”

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

One of the scrapbook articles that evokes the Overlook via a critteration emphasizes the key theme:

The Overlook Hotel, a white elephant that has been run lucklessly by almost a dozen different groups and individuals since it first opened its doors in 1910, is now being operated as a security-jacketed “key club,” ostensibly for unwinding businessmen. The question is, what business are the Overlook’s key holders really in?

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).
Elvis’s high school key club directory at Graceland.

“Poisonous Inspiration”

Associations with positive and negative iterations of “poison” also mark the fluid duality of the bee-wasp symbolism, which we will see more of in future parts on Misery and The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon. The earliest memory of his that King describes in On Writing involves a fantasy of being a circus ringmaster demonstrating his strength by lifting a cinderblock that’s hiding something…

Unknown to me, wasps had constructed a small nest in the lower half of the cinderblock. One of them, perhaps pissed off at being relocated, flew out and stung me on the ear. The pain was brilliant, like a poisonous inspiration. (boldface mine)

Stephen King, On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft (2000).

This is not unlike the “muddy insights” he credits Magistrale crediting him with… It turns out this “poisonous inspiration” is part and parcel of the Africanist presence that will explode out of the trigger moment in Carrie, through the Overlook ghost in The Shining, and on through Misery (to be discussed in Part IV) and The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon (Part V). Another major marker, or sign, of the fluid duality across the bee-wasp symbolism in King’s oeuvre is that Misery will refer to bees as “poisonous” while Tom Gordon will refer to wasps as “poisonous.” And one thing that’s famously “poisonous,” and a reference point for Carrie herself in her trigger moment, is Snow White’s apple:

They were still all beautiful and there was still enchantment and wonder, but she had crossed a line and now the fairy tale was green with corruption and evil. In this one she would bite a poison apple, be attacked by trolls, be eaten by tigers.

They were laughing at her again. (boldface mine)

Stephen King, Carrie (1974).

This means in the trigger moment in the novel that is doubly rendered, once in Norma’s perspective and once in Carrie’s, both invoke Disney texts as reference points. In his nonfiction treatise on horror Danse Macabre, King discusses Snow White specifically in a chapter that further reveals Disney’s extensive influence on him:

…in Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, one with her enticingly red poisoned apple (and what small child is not taught early to fear the idea of POISON?)…”

Stephen King, Danse Macabre (1981).

and

I took Joe and my daughter Naomi to their first movie, a reissue of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. There is a scene in that film where, after Snow White has taken a bite from the poisoned apple, the dwarves take her into the forest, weeping copiously. Half the audience of little kids was also in tears; the lower lips of the other half were trembling. The set identification in that case was strong enough so that I was also surprised into tears. I hated myself for being so blatantly manipulated, but manipulated I was, and there I sat, blubbering into my beard over a bunch of cartoon characters. But it wasn’t Disney that manipulated me; I did it myself.

Stephen King, Danse Macabre (1981).

I’ll beg to differ on that one. (Also, the movie‘s title is not spelled “Dwarves,” but “Dwarfs.”)

Here King is discussing the consumption of a visual text depicting the consumption of food, a type of consumption that Alice in Wonderland is also preoccupied with via Alice’s movements between parts of Wonderland necessitated by her eating or drinking something in order to (physically) change herself, which, since this is all Alice’s own dream, reflects a preoccupation of the character of Alice herself:

“What did they live on?” said Alice, who always took a great interest in questions of eating and drinking.

Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865).

Consumption of visual texts and consumption of food (of a sort) are conflated in both King’s and Kubrick’s Shinings when the Torrance family discusses the Donner party on their initial drive to the Overlook:

The Shining (1980).

Is our consumption of visual texts toxic…? What seems potentially toxic is how so many problematic visual texts can be excused as “products of their time” but then via Disney’s re-issue strategy are shown to people who are not of that time, and so become a means for the (problematic) values of one generation to be passed down to another in a way that might potentially hinder progress…

Now the snow was covering the shingles. It was covering everything.

A green witchlight glowed into being on the front of the building, flickered, and became a giant, grinning skull over two crossed bones.

Poison,” Tony said from the floating darkness. “Poison.”

Other signs flickered past [Danny’s] eyes, some in green letters… (boldface mine)

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

King comments directly on a different aspect of Disney’s re-issue strategy:

Yet it is the parents, of course, who continue to underwrite the Disney procedure of release and rerelease, often discovering goosebumps on their own arms as they rediscover what terrified them as children . . . because what the good horror film (or horror sequence in what may be billed a “comedy” or an “animated cartoon“) does above all else is to knock the adult props out from under us and tumble us back down the slide info childhood. And there our own shadow may once again become that of a mean dog, a gaping mouth, or a beckoning dark figure.

*In one of my favorite Arthur C. Clarke stories, this actually happens. In this vignette, aliens from space land on earth after the Big One has finally gone down. As the story closes, the best brains of this alien culture are trying to figure out the meaning of a film they have found and learned how to play back. The film ends with the words A Walt Disney Production. I have moments when I really believe that there would be no better epitaph for the human race, or for a world where the only sentient being absolutely guaranteed of immortality is not Hitler, Charlemagne, Albert Schweitzer, or even Jesus Christ-but is, instead, Richard M. Nixon, whose name is engraved on a plaque placed on the airless surface of the moon.

Stephen King, Danse Macabre (1981).

I have discussed the Nixon/Watergate legacy’s presence in The Shining–which it turns out is part and parcel of the Africanist-presence-associated symbolic shadow exploding from it throughout the rest of King’s canon–here.

From here.

Kubrick invokes a Snow White reference in his film…

The Shining (1980).

After Danny has his first vision of the elevators gushing blood, a sticker of Dopey the Dwarf (3) on his bedroom door disappears: “Before,” Cocks says, “Danny had no idea about the world. And now, he knows. He’s no longer a dope about things.”

Bilge Ebiri, “Four Theories on The Shining From the New Documentary Room 237” MAR. 17, 2013 (here).

Here you can also see the color scheme of clothing that Wendy and Danny are frequently shown in together, a visual cue of their unity against Jack/the Overlook.

The Shining (1980).

Via the Overlook ghost’s possession of Jack, his mind is effectively poisoned against his family. Part of the poison he consumes is the narrative of History in the scrapbook from the Overlook’s basement, which, in is keeping with the cannibalism themes:

In The Shining, then, Jack’s impulse to organize, to make meaning out of such gory madness, is itself a crucial component of the violent acts that he chronicles. Caretakers like Jack (or [Pet Sematary‘s Louis] Creed) practice abject servility to the mighty tide of American History and, in turn, find themselves consumed by its relentless, cannibalizing force. (boldface mine)

Tony Magistrale and Michael Blouin, Stephen King and American History (2020).

The “gory madness” referred to in this passage is American History itself, which to me is another way of saying The Shining portrays American History as black and white and re(a)d all over (reified by the film’s tide of elevator blood), as the newspaper clippings in the scrapbook themselves are. Magistrale implicates WASPs in this bloody history:

Located near the center of America geographically, the Overlook is also a testament to the triumph of white Protestant male capitalism–and its ability to exploit the labor and land of others to strengthen its own position. (boldface mine)

Tony Magistrale, Stephen King: America’s Storyteller (2010), p104.

The way this WASPy system achieves this is encoded in the most prominent writing on the wall in The Shining…except it’s actually on a (bathroom) door….

The Shining (1980).

…that has to be properly “read” in a mirror, mirror on the wall…

The Shining (1980).

The writing on the wall as a symbol of a rhetorical construction, as it is in the case of “Carrie White eats shit” and as Candyman manifests when he claims “I am the writing on the wall,” is itself a version of a symbolic mirror. The Candyman is summoned through mirrors specifically, further implying/emphasizing that mirrors are symbolic writing on the wall–that is, that our constructions of others are actually subverted constructions of ourselves; we–our worldviews and biases–are reflected in our projections. (Jack only sees the Room 237 woman as a rotting corpse when he sees her in the mirror.)

So it is that a critic’s criticism of a novelist/filmmaker is actually a mirror, saying more about the critic than about the content criticized, or about the creators of that content. Just like visual texts themselves are mirrors of our culture capable of both reflecting it, but in that process of reflection, also shaping it.

Magistrale’s logic that…

So central is the scrapbook to King’s narrative that it appears at a critical junction in the book and is the exclusive subject of its own chapter (18)… (boldface mine)

Tony Magistrale, Stephen King: America’s Storyteller (2010), p107.

…reinforces the importance of two of my earlier discussion points that get their own chapters, the hedges and the snowmobile (the latter qualifying as a “critical junction” via Jack’s epiphany that “it was all true”). Magistrale also notes that:

In Kubrick’s film, the scrapbook occupies a much more subdued position… But its presence is notable in scenes that feature Jack at his typewriter.

Tony Magistrale, Stephen King: America’s Storyteller (2010), p107.
The Shining (1980).

But in the novel:

…Jack finds himself alone in the basement of the hotel searching for “good places to set [rodent] traps, although he didn’t plan to do that for another month–I want them all to be home from vacation, he had told Wendy” (154). It is highly ironic that Torrance plans such a strategy against the vermin living in the basement, for it is clear that it is actually the hotel itself that has set the trap… (boldface mine)

Tony Magistrale, Stephen King: America’s Storyteller (2010), pp109-110.

According to Magistrale’s analysis, “the scrapbook documents the Overlook’s rebirth” and facilitates Jack’s bond with the Overlook as a “place” by way of its “secret history” that echoes Jack’s own history of secret-keeping, becoming part of a larger Kingian pattern in which:

…his male protagonists use the silence of secrets–that is, the deliberate omission of language–to exclude women from narrative action and empowerment.

Perhaps it is this very preclusion of women that makes the keeping of secrets so dangerous and ultimately self-destructive for the men who elect to maintain them. For their adherence pushes King’s males toward isolation and into a state that forfeits the familial bond so sacred in King’s universe. Although it is true that these men derive a certain level of perverse power from the concealed knowledge they possess, secret knowledge in King is always forbidden knowledge. (boldface mine)

Tony Magistrale, Stephen King: America’s Storyteller (2010), p116.

This concept of “forbidden knowledge” echoes the epistemic exchange of the apple in Genesis, a premise that posits this exchange as poisonous in a way that is recapitulated in the Snow White narrative, which, as it happens, is a typical example of a parallel that further demonstrates Disney’s influence on King:

Steven Watts has noted, “Disney carried out of boyhood a great fondness for a big family full of warmth and happiness, a feeling largely shaped by his own family’s lack of such qualities” (14), with reference to the strained relations between Disney and his father and the difficult times the children experienced under his stern paternalism. An emphasis on the family as a source of social cohesion would lead Disney to what Watts called “the Disney Doctrine: a notion that the nuclear family, with its attendant rituals of marriage, parenthood, emotional and spiritual instruction, and consumption, was the centerpiece of the American way of life” (326). (boldface mine)

The narrative impulse and urge of the entire film is toward family stability and social cohesion. Given Disney’s attitude and belief system, this happened naturally and inevitably and would happen again in many more films to come.

M. Thomas Inge, “Walt Disney’s Snow White: Art, Adaptation, and Ideology,” Journal of Popular Film and Television 32(3) (2004), p141.

Despite killing the patriarch in a literal explosion (the same explosion through which the shadow of the Overlook escapes into his future work), King fails to explode the concept of the nuclear family bond passed through this narrative. (Does the language “nuclear family” imply instability/an inherently explosive nature?) But Donald Barthelme made a valiant effort to do so in his postmodern novel Snow White (1967), which I’ve discussed here, and which invokes the concept of a “failure of imagination”–Snow White’s reason for why she cohabitates with the dwarfs–that potentially implicates Disney’s failure in conceiving a more diverse family framework as well as the failure of King, who’s deployed similar phrasing against criticism of his own failures in this regard.

While King did not experience the “stern paternalism” Disney personally did because his father left altogether, that absence creates a parallel with Disney’s in his childhood experience being outside the traditional family bond conception influencing his emphasis on this aspect, which is not then unrelated to assuming the role of a major cultural storyteller (or “Uncle”).

The role of the nuclear family unit in King’s work is also interesting in light of the fact that King’s father apparently started another family after leaving the one he started with King’s mother, from which King has four half-siblings. On the PBS show Finding Your Roots in 2014, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., perhaps most famous in academic circles for his book (on critterations) The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of Afro-American Criticism (1988), reviewed records with Stephen King (here) showing that King’s father had unofficially changed his surname from “Pollock” to “King” at some point while he was in the Merchant Marines; Gates concludes that “…the origin of the surname ‘King’ remains a mystery.”

The importance of family to Elvis is a mainstay in Baz’s Elvis in both theme and plot: early on we see the Colonel spying on Elvis and his family in their pre-performance huddle, with his mother saying they’re family, which is “the most important thing.” Thereafter the Colonel uses this as a manipulative wedge to control Elvis–very successfully. (That nuclear family is part of the emotional expression inherent in the blues/soul/gospel music Elvis was influenced by is emphasized by two singers who are portrayed in the film, Big Mama Thornton and Sister Rosetta Tharpe.)

Left: Vernon, Gladys & Elvis Presley; Center: Jack, Wendy & Danny Torrance from The Shining first ed. cover; Right: Elvis, Priscilla, and Lisa Marie Presley.

As discussed in Part II, Sarah E. Turner reads Carrie as rendering but not promoting either side of the abortion debate, but Magistrale’s observation of this larger pattern in King’s work of emphasizing the sacredness of the “familial bond” is potential evidence of the cultural movement backward we’ve just experienced via the Dobbs decision, with the irony, or one of them, being that King himself would disavow this decision and the political system that’s fostered it, but his work’s promotion of the importance of the traditional family unit would undermine this.

The social scientist Silvia Federici has argued, in her book “Caliban and the Witch,” that church and state waged deliberate campaigns to force women to give birth, in service of the emerging capitalist economy.

Jia Tolentino, “Is Abortion Sacred?” (July 16, 2022).

The concept of secret, forbidden knowledge is also evoked in Elvis in relation to metaphorical cannibalism and sexuality when the Colonel appraises the reaction to the first performance of Elvis he experiences by noting that Elvis appears to one girl as “forbidden fruit” and that she “could have eaten him alive.”

Articulate, Recapitulate

Via the Overlook ghost’s possession of Jack that the scrapbook initiates, The Shining‘s premise essentially recapitulates/reiterates/reenacts a form of blackface: it is a monster that wears a human face…which might also have implications for the critical placement of the black-and-white image of Jesus’s face.

It came around the corner. In a way, what Danny felt was relief. It was not his father. The mask of face and body had been ripped and shredded and made into a bad joke. (boldface mine)

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

This blackface-recapitualation is reinforced in the climactic confrontation when Danny in part defeats the monster by way of articulating its nature as a “false face.” At one point, wasps actually compose this symbolic blackface the same way the pig blood does in Carrie:

A door opened with a thin screeing sound behind him.

A decayed woman in a rotten silk gown pranced out, her yellowed and splitting fingers dressed with verdigris-caked rings. Heavy-bodied wasps crawled sluggishly over her face.

“Come in,” she whispered to him, grinning with black lips. “Come in and we will daance the taaaango …”

False face!!” he hissed. “Not real!” She drew back from him in alarm, and in the act of drawing back she faded and was gone. (boldface mine)

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

Though according to the original racist “logic” of the blackface minstrel performances, a monster wearing a human face would be a form of inverse blackface, which then is a form or version–or ITeration–of the whiteface clown makeup that Pennywise wears… or that of another ka-tet quartet of implicitly white-power rockers…

Do the letters stand for “Keep It Simple Stupid” or “Knights in Satan’s Service”? (From here.)

Or kind of like this reverse appropriation of Mickey Mouse…

From here.

Is the refrain to Danny that “You will remember what your father forgot”–in reference to the boiler’s potential to explode and destroy everything–the white man’s burden carried over from Carrie?

The Shining (1980).

It is basically “the white man’s burden” to be the WASP–“the hotel represents the successful epitome of white male domination over all other races and women” as noted that Tony Magistrale and Michael J. Blouin put it: that success is the burden, because it creates the pressure to maintain that success. And it’s a lot of work to maintain your authorit-eye over that many territories…

The shadow of the Africanist presence has exploded through American pop culture via the domination of Mickey Mouse the (secret) minstrel, as well as through the history of American music perpetuated by the minstrel-trickster figure of Elvis. “I know you are lost. Burdened,” the Colonel tells Elvis in a hall of mirrors, which segues into the ferris-wheel “this can all be yours” deal-with-the-devil sequence. Elvis says he’s “ready to fly,” but once he takes off, he’ll never be able to land again, as the character himself articulates in the final words he speaks in the film. Baz evokes thematic cycles with a motif of spinning wheels that transpose into each other: a ferris wheel into a 45, a roulette wheel into a driving car’s tire. Thus we might read what Magistrale calls the scrapbook’s “record of evil” (109) as inherently connected to musical records, as are referenced in Danny’s initial Tony-induced vision of what will happen at the Overlook:

Pictures torn off the walls. A record player

(?Mommy’s record player?)

overturned on the floor. Her records, Grieg, Handel, the Beatles, Art Garfunkel, Bach, Liszt, thrown everywhere. Broken into jagged black pie wedges.

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

Like wedges of Don McLean’s “American Pie”…

Another way musical (history) themes are implicitly present in The Shining intersects with one of its major critterations, Overlook owner Horace Derwent’s patsy Roger, the “AC/DC” “dogman” (previously discussed here). I mentioned that this dogman treatment creates interesting implications for King identifying his favorite bands–which he’s noted he listens to as he’s writing–as AC/DC, Guns ‘n’ Roses, and Metallica. In light of one writer essentially implicating the likes of these as white-power bands…

[Eldridge] Cleaver believed that the younger generation of whites would be wooed away from their omnipotent administrator fathers by African-American dance and music. Whites began to dance better, but that didn’t make them more humanistic. Rock and roll made billions for white artists and became the entertainment at white-power rallies and accompanied the black-hating lyrics of Axl Rose.

Ishmael Reed, preface to Eldridge Cleaver’s Soul on Ice (1999).

…this might imply an explanation for some of the undermining white-supremacist undertones so prevalent in King’s work.

It is a theme of Orwell’s Animal Farm that music has the power to indoctrinate/be propagandized, via the recurring anthem of the animals, “Beasts of England,” described as “a stirring tune, something between ‘Clementine’ and ‘La Cucaracha’.” The other major historical discovery I’ve made since entering the Matrix of the Kingdom at the beginning of 2020, akin to the discovery of Mickey Mouse’s blackface minstrel nature and parallel to it in manifesting a historical erasure narrative, is about “The Star-Spangled Banner”:

In the Journal of the Early Republic, historian William Coleman argues that the “standard accounts” of the Star-Spangled Banner’s origin focus on Francis Scott Key’s individual composition of it in a “single moment of patriotic inspiration,” that this account “obscure[s] his connection” to the Federalist tradition, and that “the partisan political aspects of ‘The Star Spangled Banner’ have largely been overlooked precisely because the song was (and continues to be) so successful at presenting its specific vision of national unity as a universal model for American patriotism” (601-02 emphasis mine); (note this article is from 2015). These “standard accounts” thus themselves function as an erasure narrative, downplaying the Banner’s “political history” and the use of music in general “as a way of convincing the public to unify through common consent to government power” (602), as Coleman puts it. 

From here.

In Orwell’s Animal Farm, the concept of heaven is also rendered a rhetorical construction, that of a mountain:

In Sugarcandy Mountain it was Sunday seven days a week, clover was in season all the year round, and lump sugar and linseed cake grew on the hedges. (boldface mine)

George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945).

A symbolic mountain, independent of the literal mountain the Overlook Hotel is on (which is never named), also appears in The Shining:

Martin Luther King had told them not long before the bullet took him down to his martyr’s grave that he had been to the mountain. Dick could not claim that. No mountain, but he had reached a sunny plateau after years of struggle. He had good friends. 

…Was he going to chance the end of that—the end of him—for three white people he didn’t even know? (boldface mine)

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

The answer is yes, because he’s a “Magical Negro,” and the asking of the question is supposed to articulate and thereby address the problem of the trope. That is, to “say it” is to solve the problem. But articulation of the issue is not enough to alleviate/circumvent it, which is a trap King falls into repeatedly…to “say it” is only the beginning of the problem…

Candyman (2021).

Rap’s defense goes along the lines of, ‘We don’t create hatred-we simply rearticulate what’s already out there.’ (boldface mine)

Roy Grundmann, “White Man’s Burden: Eminem’s Movie Debut in 8 Mile,” Cinéaste, Vol. 28, No. 2 (2003), p. 33. 

One critic draws a parallel between the consumption of alcohol and the consumption of blood in a process of articulation:

If Jack Daniels signals the earthly waters of oblivion and release and forgiveness for Jack Torrance, the fresh blood of the Overlook’s visitors announces memories, actions, and feelings to the ghostly denizens of that hotel—and they know what is going to happen in the end to Jack and to Wendy and Danny. We recall from chapter seven of Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams that the dead sipping blood in dreams and in The Odyssey are trying to recall who they were and who they were connected to and what they were doing—and blood allows them to articulate all this. (boldface mine)

Danel Olsen, “‘Cut You Up Into Little Pieces’: Ghosts & Violence in Kubrick’s The Shining,” Violence in the Films of Stephen King (ed. Magistrale and Blouin, 2021).

This same critic traces a lineage of animated and comedic Shining parodies:

The interest here is to offer some more unusual and less often cited reasons for The Shining to have such long reach in its terror—around the world and across generations and throughout media from cartoons like those obligatory riffs appearing on The Simpsons, Bojack Horseman, South Park, and Bob’s Burgers (the episode “The Belching: A Masterpiece of Modern Burger” being my favorite) to a clutch of Pixar Movies either directed, produced, or co-written by Lee Unkrich [Caretaker of TheOverlookHotel.com] or comedy skits like those of Key & Peele (Peele of Get Out fame) to commercials for Mountain Dew–No Sugar featuring Bryan Cranston, a terrified woman in a bathroom, an axe, and a flood of sickly green soda splashing out of the elevators and drowning the cameras. That does not begin to catalog all the filmic nods to The Shining in recent films of race, gender, or class-isolation, like, respectively, Get Out, Sorry to Bother You, and Passengers.

Danel Olsen, “‘Cut You Up Into Little Pieces’: Ghosts & Violence in Kubrick’s The Shining,” Violence in the Films of Stephen King (ed. Magistrale and Blouin, 2021).

I still don’t know where Olsen got this Bob’s Burgers title; when you google it, the only result that comes up is Olsen’s quote of it above, and the name of the episode in which Bob’s Burgers spoofs The Shining is their second episode ever, “Crawl Space” (January 16, 2011), with Bob becoming delirious after he gets trapped in the walls. But the South Park spoof, in the episode “A Nightmare on FaceTime” (October 24, 2012) is worth mentioning for its commentary on modes of media dissemination: the Overlook Hotel is rendered a Blockbuster Video store that Randy Marsh purchases, convinced it’s a cash cow. Spoiler: he’s wrong.

Speaking of cartoon animation…what’s in Danny’s name? Something that Kubrick carries over from the novel and that becomes even more significant in light of its relevance to the title of The Shining‘s sequel, Doctor Sleep (2013):

The Shining (1980).

Apparently there’s been a white male pissing contest over credit for the creation of Bugs Bunny, with a man named Bob Clampett vying for credit alongside a couple of the other of the posse of original white male Looney Tunes directors. Clampett is notable for being the director of the Snow White parody Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs (1943) which is one of the Warner Bros. “Censored Eleven” cartoons deemed, like Disney’s Song of the South, too offensive in their depiction of ethnic stereotypes to be distributed. This is a little ironic considering that another one of these Eleven that Clampett is credited with was apparently selected for another distinction:

Clampett’s Tin Pan Alley Cats (1943) was chosen by the Library of Congress as a “prime example of the music and mores of our times” and a print was buried in a time capsule in Washington, D.C. so future generations might see it.

From here.

It’s interesting that “Looney Tunes” is a reference to “toons,” short for “cartoons,” being synonymous with “tunes,” as though a reference to their roots in (blackface) musical performance, though apparently this moniker is Disney’s fault:

The Looney Tunes name was inspired by Walt Disney‘s musical cartoon series, Silly Symphonies.[4]

From here.
Room 237 (2012).

Which Room 237 notes is the source of Jack’s “Three Little Pigs” riff before he chops down the bathroom door…

A shadowy confluence between Bob Clampett and Walt Disney.

Nicholas Sammond implicates Looney Tunes and Song of the South alongside each other and among others, and, implicitly, the Thermidor Effect:

There is no doubt that animation went through rapid and significant technological and formal changes during the first fifty years of its development, yet assuming that this development has been unreservedly progressive—that the fading of explicit links to minstrelsy in American commercial cartoons necessarily indicates a gradual improvement in animation’s articulation of racial formations—risks producing a narrative that glosses over profound and significant discontinuities in the form. Rather than becoming less racist as live minstrelsy faded, American commercial animation engaged in an intensification of racist imagery in its depiction of music generally and swing music in particular, as in racially problematic cartoons such as many of the Warner Bros. Merrie Melodies and Looney Tunes, in George Pal’s stop-action Puppetoons (1932–1947), and in Disney’s combination of live action and animation Song of the South (Jackson and Foster, 1946). Likewise, an implicitly progressive narrative occludes the ways popular commercial animation actively participated in (rather than simply reflected) the racial formations of the day through its circulation of fantastic embodiments of dominant notions about the relationship between blackness and whiteness in the United States. Cartoons created visual correlates that associated African Americans with slavery, the jungle, and animals, literalizing and animating long-standing stereotypes.

NICHOLAS SAMMOND, BIRTH OF AN INDUSTRY: BLACKFACE MINSTRELSY AND THE RISE OF AMERICAN ANIMATION (2015).

Olsen’s thesis boils down to the sentence that follows the reference-cataloguing passage above:

I contend it is the way violence emerges in The Shining that aids the film’s longevity and relevance for viewers and for filmmakers.

Danel Olsen, “‘Cut You Up Into Little Pieces’: Ghosts & Violence in Kubrick’s The Shining,” Violence in the Films of Stephen King (ed. Magistrale and Blouin, 2021).

His argument proceeds to defend that “the way violence emerges” is a product of the process of the ghosts becoming “realer” which the “fresh blood” of the Torrances enables them to do. And it’s Jack’s alcoholism (and his not unrelated anger) that makes him susceptible to the ghosts’ (rhetorical) manipulations.

These themes of addiction “demons” manifest a kind of circular “logic”: Jack gets far enough gone to consume ghost alcohol in the empty bar, then returns later to find it full of ghost people which are a sign of the haunted presence of the hotel getting stronger specifically because he consumed the ghost alcohol…

The Shining (1980).

A thought of Wendy’s in relation to Jack’s hurting Danny (an action inextricably linked to his drinking) evokes the Thermidor effect:

“What happened, doc?” she asked, although she was sure she knew. Jack had hit him. Well, of course. That came next, didn’t it? The wheels of progress; sooner or later they took you back to where you started from.”

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

And the Indian face Danny sees behind a wheel that evinces this wheel of progress connects to the thematic idea of Jack donning the Overlook ghost’s “false face” amounting to an iteration of blackface:

Things were missing. Worse still, things had been added, things you couldn’t quite see, like in one of those pictures that said CAN YOU SEE THE INDIANS? And if you strained and squinted, you could see some of them—the thing you had taken for a cactus at first glance was really a brave with a knife clamped in his teeth, and there were others hiding in the rocks, and you could even see one of their evil, merciless faces peering through the spokes of a covered wagon wheel. (boldface mine)

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

The DONNER PARTY was traveling in covered-wagon times, and turned cannibalistic in order to survive, as Jack notes:

The Shining (1980).

In an interview from last fall, King notes that one of his favorite of his own works is the story “Survivor Type“; this hails from the collection Skeleton Crew (1985); it is about a guy stranded on a deserted island who has to cannibalize himself–which might be, essentially, what King is doing in and with his own work at this point?

A Skeleton Crew review quotes King describing his inspiration for “Survivor Type” by way of a shitteration:

…Mr. King explains: ”I got to thinking about cannibalism one day . . . and my muse once more evacuated its magic bowels on my head. I know how gross that sounds, but it’s the best metaphor I know.” Freud would have gone crazy – and so would Mr. King’s readers, if he did not distance himself from his material through humor, self-awareness and irony.

From here.

Via cannibalism, the Donner party became no longer whole human beings but pieces of food, an idea Kubrick surely includes to resonate with the quote Olsen takes for the title of his essay, a quote that is not in the novel, “cut you up into little pieces” (since the Alice-derived mallet in the novel can’t execute this labor like the film’s axe).

Jack’s dream in The Shining (1980).

This links violence to “pieces” like those in a jigsaw puzzle, or the pieces of a behind-closed-doors historical narrative in the basement scrapbook, through whose

…juicy moments from the hotel’s past especially designed to intrigue a writer’s imagination, [Jack] is absorbed into the structuralist method, into piecing together the hotel’s History “like pieces in a jigsaw“…, Jack feels emboldened in his quest due to his sudden conviction that there must be a “mystic connection” that ties together the stray bits of information scattered in the belly of the building.

Tony Magistrale and Michael J. Blouin, Stephen King and American History (2020).

Magistrale and Blouin consider this conception that pieces can be made into a whole part of an American “curse”:

In this way, The Shining intentionally critiques a structuralist account of American History prevalent in the immediate aftermath of the world wars. Jack’s proposed neat-and-tidy chronicle of the hotel–dependent as it is upon the illusion of omnipotence, the bird’s-eye view from History’s “overlook,” nestled in Colorado in the middle of the American landscape–is revealed to be part and parcel of a curse that has enthralled generations of American citizens.

Tony Magistrale and Michael J. Blouin, Stephen King and American History (2020).

The way that this critique occurs in this analysis is that:

…Jack is compelled to imagine that the chronology of his own life synthesizes perfectly with the hotel’s bloody marching orders, and that he and this metonymic building are, in fact, “simpatico”…

Tony Magistrale and Michael J. Blouin, Stephen King and American History (2020).

Which, figured another way, is Jack synthesizing himself with the larger collective of the hotel in a way that echoes the bee and its hive, and this giving Jack the illusion of a “bird’s-eye view” echoes Cristopher Hollingsworth’s take in his Poetics of the Hive academic study that connects the hive metaphor in literature to the forbidden (Edenic) knowledge in the scrapbook:

[Nietzsche] begins The Genealogy of Morals with an invitation to join the collective. Tellingly, he uses the Hive to make this appeal. More forcefully than in Virgil’s picture of Carthage, Nietzsche assumes that we are by nature citizens of the Hive: ‘‘We knowers are unknown to ourselves, and for good reason: how can we ever hope to find what we have never looked for? There is a sound adage which runs: ‘Where a man’s treasure lies, there lies his heart.’ Our treasure lies in the beehives of our knowledge. We are perpetually on our way thither, being by nature winged insects and honey gatherers of the mind. The only thing that lies close to our hearts is the desire to bring something home to the hive’’ (149). The Hive’s pictorial space is bipolar; its emotional associations follow suit. Community attracts, but it also repels. To know a social order as a whole is an act of simplification that extends to all of its elements. Yes, to see the whole, the city, the future from afar is to long for it, to wish, as it were, to join the masons raising its walls. However, to see in this way is also to stand apart and above, to be superior. To see a human group thus is to be privileged with the big picture, to be beyond and thereby relieved of the problems of cooperative becoming, of history, of a shared present and a future complicated by others. (boldface mine)

Cristopher Hollingsworth, Poetics of the Hive: Insect Metaphor in Literature (2001).

This is significant for the difference in Jack’s remembered wasps’ nest being up in an apple tree (even if it’s in the “lower branches”) while Dick’s remembered wasps’ nest is in the ground–Jack’s position is “privileged with the big[ger] picture.”

Thus seeing through the symbolism of the bee is a way to see a buried history of systemic racism and white privilege, evinced in the imagery of the 2021 Candyman credits…

The eye of the bee in the shadow in Candyman (2021).

And being “privileged with the big[ger] picture” might also have implications for external perspective shots…

Wasp on the hand in The Shining (1997).

v. internal perspective shots…

Bee sting on the hand in Candyman (2021).

As implications necessarily arise from the point of view or “gaze” in visual texts, the Alice in Wonderland Queen’s off-with-his-head refrain might recall the implicit violence latent in media headlines that may or may not be describing explicit violence; one newspaper headline on display in Baz’s Elvis is “Elvis the Pelvis Belongs in the Jungle,” which:

1) essentially cuts Elvis “up into little pieces” by figuring him as–by reducing him to–a body part, enacting what Coco Fuscol calls “symbolic violence” and reinforcing the 3-D to 2-D flattening process engendered in the infinite reproduction of his image as an inherently violent process,

and 2) recalls a racialized critteration/creatureliness association of the jungle with Blackness via the negative association with savage animals that I pointed out the critic Henry Louis Gates, Jr. pointing out in a previous post… Elvis continued to develop the motif (or “own” it, as it were) both by covering the song “Tiger Man” (including the lyrics “I’m the king of the jungle, they call me the tiger man”) and by decorating the “Jungle Room” at Graceland, and King’s Overlook’s carpet is repeatedly described as evoking the “jungle.” One point King’s carpet is “the black-and-blue-twined carpets,” which recalls an early (the first from Danny’s perspective) description of Hallorann as “this black giant in blue serge,” shortly after the introductory and more general description of him as:

…a tall black man with a modest afro that was beginning to powder white. He had a soft southern accent and he laughed a lot, disclosing teeth too white

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

Then there’s the carpet in Kubrick’s version…which is in a liminal space, a horror-evoking device one of my students used Kubrick’s Overlook hallway as an example of in their presentation on the concept, going on to compare this physical liminal space to the psychological liminal space of Carrie’s state of mind in her trigger moment. By thus doing this student has blown my mind by reinforcing the reading of “the shadow exploded” as manifest in Carrie’s trigger moment being present in the Overlook, out of which it will explode again… it also links bullying to the Kingian(/American) Laughing Place. The Overlook could be considered a sort of metaphysical-historical liminal space…one that we keep cycling around and around…a cycle that might be reinforced by a detail pointed out in Room 237–the pattern in the carpet in the scene where Danny goes in Room 237 changes directions:

The Shining (1980). (The change is most noticeable in the brown line the ball travels down toward Danny in the top shot being absent in bottom shot.)

Jerome Charyn’s novel The Tar Baby was published that year of Roe v. Wade, 1973 (as was Donald Bogle’s landmark study Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies and Bucks: An Interpretative History of Blacks in Films). The titular Tar Baby is a publication, (highlighting the more general nature of the “tar baby” as a construction) and a “polyphonic narrative” not unlike Carrie (I usually refer to this aspect as “epistolary,” as King himself refers to Carrie in On Writing, but that technically refers to letters and not other genres), but The Tar Baby is an even more fragmented narrative with replications of advertisements alongside its newspaper/magazine stories.

The tar baby of Old India was seldom a baby at all; it might be a grown man, an old woman, or a monkey, depending on the text, and was often made of wax (or wood chips, blood, feathers, and soft coal). The tar baby performed a thousand functions: votive, seer, voluptuary, scarecrow, caretaker, shaman, murderer, savior, stud, moralist, viper, broom. Hence in one version from Hemachandra’s Paricistaparvan, a band of rowdy monkeys fighting over a lone female wastes itself and the she-monkey in its blind attacks; the oldest monkey, wilier than the rest, manages to survive; it ruts the dead female, then sits exhausted on a rock. The rock happens to ooze with bitumen, and the thirsty monkey, dumbed by its fighting and rutting, licks the bitumen, imagining it to be rusty water. A farmer passing the rock sees the bituminous monkey, swears it’s a devil, and clubs it to death. …

The Cherokee, the Zulu, and the Mpongwe of Nassau, among others, also adopted the tar baby; again, these tar babies were complicated, multi-layered beings (dead warriors encased in the hardened blood of their enemies, adulterous wives who were feathered and left in caves, false prophets who lived among cattle and caked themselves with dung to emphasize their disgrace); and in suggesting The Tar Baby Review to Korn, I was hoping for a subtle, varied magazine that would further the tar baby legend, reflect the voices and faces of Galapagos, and encourage indigenous art; instead, Korn…turned The Tar Baby into a flabby, corrupted image of himself. (pp189-190, boldface mine)

Jerome Charyn, The Tar Baby (1973).

That is, the Tar Baby as a publication becomes a mirror of one man… It’s no coincidence that tar babies would sometimes be made of wax and Charyn names the main character in this text Anatole Waxman-Weissman, the hyphenated addition to “waxman” imparting that this construction as a man(-baby) is only one part of his identity…

‘The time has come,’ the Walrus said,
    ‘To talk of many things:
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax
    Of cabbages—and kings

Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass (1872).

Then, like Alice through the looking glass, I stepped through a door still bearing a desiccated Christmas wreath, and that’s when everything got awesome. Graceland’s formal rooms are all white carpet and gold trimmings and mirrors — walls and walls of mirrors. 

Margaret Renkl, “Graceland, At Last” (Jan. 6, 2018).

Which makes Elvis himself simpatico with Graceland…

Marion said Elvis was like a mirror, with everyone seeing in him what they wanted to see, but Sam saw in him the very person that he himself was but rarely showed. Where Elvis appeared unsure, tongue-tied, incapable of expressing himself, Sam saw in him the same kind of burning ambition that had driven Sam from the start, he was only lacking the ability to verbalize it.

Peter Guralnick, Sam Phillips: The Man Who Invented Rock n Roll (2014).

That is, to articulate it… And the facade of Graceland evokes a Song-of-the-South-type plantation-fantasy of whiteness…

MEMPHIS, TN – CIRCA 1957: Rock and roll singer Elvis Presley strolls the grounds of his Graceland estate in circa 1957. (Photo by Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images, here)

…one King specifically explodes at the end of Firestarter, essentially blowing up the “cradle of the Civil War”?

Firestarter (1984).

The postmodernist/New Historicist deconstruction/fragmentation into which The Shining (axe-/mallet-)smashes American History, largely via the newspaper accounts in the basement scrapbook, has implications for what academic Jason Sperb calls Disney’s “transmedia dissipation” strategy, which strips problematic textual elements from their original context seemingly in service of stripping the problems. But this strategy is itself problematic, because you’re not removing the problem: you’re just hiding it via covert racism. Olsen’s essay’s title of Kubrick’s “cut you up into little pieces” quote essentially describes and embodies the symbolic violence wrought via the erasures manifest in Disney’s transmedia dissipation strategy (if not the generational re-issue strategy issue). The violence implicit in necessarily dissociating mediation, of the refraction into a media image, is echoed in Baz’s split-screen extravaganza to capture Elvis’s 70s touring, a frenetic pace that indicates its own inability to be sustained.

So one can essentially track the Africanist presence that “explodes” in Carrie’s trigger moment through the entity of the Overlook ghost that then itself explodes when the boiler does at the end of King’s novel. Of course we know that “exploded” is not the same thing as “destroyed,” as signs of the Overlook’s presence will manifest again in King’s oeuvre–and will do so well before The Shining‘s 2013 sequel Doctor Sleep. The next post will tackle the manifestation of this presence in Misery (1987) and the one after that The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon (1999), but at the conclusion of this part it’s worth noting how it continues to manifest in 2022: a new show called Shining Vale offers a comedic play on The Shining, with the wife and husband played, respectively, by Courtney Cox and Greg Kinnear, aka 2020 Stand‘s vaping Glen Bateman.

The show amounts to a rewriting of the patriarchal order often reinforced (unintentionally) in King’s work by making the Jack Torrance writer figure a woman. Wonders never cease.

-SCR

The Laughing Place is a Rabbit Hole to Disney’s Animal KINGdom, Part II: Carrie

The Writing on the Wall Carries Critterations & Shitterations

Carrie White eats shit.

Stephen King. Carrie (1974).

“ ‘Hip-deep in pigshit’? Man, you are absolutely on the money. I have been hip-deep in pigshit, not to mention chest-deep and even chin-deep in pigshit, most of my life.”

Stephen King & Peter Straub, Black House (2001).

wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up first—these phrases and others like them aren’t for the drawing-room, but they are striking and pungent.

Stephen King, On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft (2000).

It does not end happily with all of united once more, chastened and disciplined, for life is not concerned with results, but only with Being and Becoming.

Mabel Dodge Luhan, Preface to Lorenzo in Taos (1932).

The question of who carries the shadow is central to the psychology of a culture, a group or pairing, an individual, or an analysis. Equally important is the response of the individual or group receiving a shadow projection.  

John Ensign, “Rappers and Ranters: Scapegoating and Shadow in the Film ‘8 Mile’ and in Seventeenth Century Heresy,” The San Francisco Jung Institute Library Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4 (November 2005), p.18. 

The Menstrual Minstrel

One review of Karina Longworth’s podcast season on Disney’s Song of the South notes:

…Every time I listen to another season of You Must Remember This, I’m always struck by how we seem to continuously loop back into the exact same struggles.

So, and I actually learned this term while researching the season, but some historians refer to what they call the “Thermidor Effect,” which basically means … that progress moves two steps forward, one step back. And so in times when we see progressive change, usually the culture will make a leap forward and then it’ll rubber-band and there will be a backlash.

From here.

As Jason Sperb tracks in his 2012 Song of the South study, this happened with the Reagan era after the Civil-Rights era, and it’s happening again now with the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The Thermidor Effect also manifests historical erasure/revisionist narratives, as can be seen in the history of cartoon animation covertly carrying on the legacy of blackface minstrelsy as discussed in Part I via Nicholas Sammond’s study:

Cherished cartoon characters, such as Mickey Mouse and Felix the Cat, were conceived and developed using blackface minstrelsy’s visual and performative conventions: these characters are not like minstrels; they are minstrels. They play out the social, cultural, political, and racial anxieties and desires that link race to the laboring body, just as live minstrel show performers did.

From here.

The animated characters’ WHITE gloves are a vestigial relic of minstrelsy recycled for a new generation that didn’t overtly associate it with that, but the gloves are nonetheless a sign that still covertly encodes that history. Multiple generations have now imbibed racist images without realizing these images are racist.

While “laboring bodies,” as invoked by Sammond, are linked to race via describing the physical labor of people historically enslaved, this term can also describe maternal bodies in the labor of giving birth. So the fluid duality inherent in the figure of Carrie White is in embodying both of these types of “laboring body,” via the prominence of the period that signifies the ability to bear children (encoded in her first name), and in manifesting an Africanist presence via the blackface minstrel references.

This fluid duality might then be captured most concisely in identifying Carrie White as a MENSTRUAL MINSTREL.

Sarah E. Turner notes that in her review of De Palma’s Carrie, film critic Pauline Kael makes: 

references to menstruation and pregnancy albeit through a problematic, misogynistic lens: she calls the film ‘a menstrual joke—a film noir in red’ and refers to Carrie as seemingly ‘unborn—a fetus’ (Kael). Menstruation becomes a joke while Carrie is infantilized. (boldface mine)

Sarah E. Turner, “Stephen King’s Carrie: Victim No More?” in Violence in the Films of Stephen King (ed. Magistrale & Blouin, 2021).

To read Carrie as a “menstrual minstrel” is to read her as a version of a tar baby.

The Writing on the Wall: Shitterations

If a “critteration” is an iteration of a critter, then, it stands to reason, a “shitteration” is an iteration of shit. An “iteration” by concept can run the gamut between literal and figurative; an example of a literal shitteration would be a prominent element of the recent trial surrounding two Kingverse actors–Johnny Depp (who played Mort Rainey in Secret Window in 2004) and Amber Heard (who played Nadine Cross in The Stand 2020).

Another would be, as Simon Brown quotes in my previous post, King referring to “academic bullshit,” and another would be King’s direct response to Spike Lee’s criticism of The Green Mile‘s John Coffey being a “Magical Negro” in the interview with Tony Magistrale:

TM: According to [Spike] Lee: “You have this super Negro who has these powers, but these powers are used only for the white star of the film. He can’t use them on himself or his family to improve his situation.” How accurate is this criticism?

SK: It’s complete bullshit.

Tony Magistrale, Hollywood’s Stephen King (2003).

And via the “bull,” that’s a critteration-shitteration…

The ’92 Candyman backstory legend also manifests a “shitteration” when some of the literal writing on the wall is written in literal shit:

…which appears in concurrence with the bees that are a sign of the Candyman’s presence then manifesting in a shitteration….

Candyman (1992).

Like the South Park creators I’ve previously likened King to via using the example episode “Turd Burglars”–which turns out to be very appropriate for this discussion–King is quite fond of shitterations–a more academic term for which would be the scatological–to the point that they’re nothing less than a critical ingredient in the composition of the Kingdom, perhaps critical, especially to that critical Kingian nexus of horror and humor.

I reluctantly agreed to do the surgery myself. I think I did a fairly good job, for a writer who has been accused over and over again of having diarrhea of the word processor. (boldface mine)

Stephen King, preface to 1990 Uncut edition of The Stand (1978).

In his response to Magistrale’s humor/horror question discussed in Part I, we can see that King specifically associates shitterations with this horror-humor nexus when his go-to example is Christine‘s villain Roland LeBay, whose defining catchphrase is to call anyone who displeases him a “shitter”; when Arnie starts using this unique phrase, it becomes a sign of LeBay’s presence manifesting in him.

It was via The Green Mile (1996) that I realized a major element of the Kingdom most prominently developed via The Dark Tower series–the concept of ka–was itself a shitteration:

That night, when Brutal ran his check-round, Wharton was standing at the door of his cell. He waited until Brutal looked up at him, then slammed the heels of his hands into his bulging cheeks and shot a thick and amazingly long stream of chocolate sludge into Brutal’s face. He had crammed the entire Moon Pie into his trap, held it there until it liquefied, and then used it like chewing tobacco.

Wharton fell back on his bunk wearing a chocolate goatee, kicking his legs and screaming with laughter and pointing to Brutal, who was wearing a lot more than a goatee. “Li’l Black Sambo, yassuh, boss, yassuh, howdoo you do?” Wharton held his belly and howled. “Gosh, if it had only been ka-ka! I wish it had been! If I’d had me some of that—”

“You are ka-ka,” Brutal growled, “and I hope you got your bags packed, because you’re going back down to your favorite toilet.”

Stephen King, The Green Mile: The Complete Serial Novel, 1996. 

Since the word is spelled “caca” as it usually appears (with most if not all variations spelled with “c” instead of “k”), King seems to be making an in-joke by spelling it with the Dark Tower cosmology’s defining concept. In this Green Mile passage, we also see a shitteration linked to a major stereotypical trope mentioned on the “Magical Negro” wikipedia page:

Critics use the word “Negro” [in “Magical Negro”] because it is considered archaic in modern English. This underlines their message that a “magical black character” who goes around selflessly helping white people is a throwback to stereotypes such as the “Sambo” or “noble savage“.

From here.

Wharton is an unequivocally evil character in The Green Mile, rendering the use of “ka” for shit in this context as negative, but in Christine, ka-as-shit it takes on a more positive role when it’s a major function of the vehicle that the novel’s protagonist Dennis uses to defeat the evil titular vehicle:

‘What is she?’

Pomberton poked a Camel cigarette into his mouth and lit it with a quick flick of his horny thumbnail on the tip of a wooden match. ‘Kaka sucker,’ he said.

‘What? ‘

He grinned. ‘Twenty-thousand-gal on capacity, he said. ‘She’s a corker, is Petunia.’

‘I don’t get you.’ But I was starting to.

Her job was pumping out septic systems.

Stephen King, Christine (1983).

Cycling back to how these themes manifest in Carrie, let’s start with King’s take on the comedy of John Travolta’s performance specifically in his interview with Magistrale discussed in Part I:

What Billy Nolan and Christine Hargensen do to Carrie is both cruel and terrifying, but the two of them are also hilarious in the process. [Actor John] Travolta in particular is very funny

TONY MAGISTRALE, HOLLYWOOD’S STEPHEN KING (2003).

It’s noteworthy where Travolta diverges from the source material for his character to enhance the comedic element, specifically when he and Chris set up the pig blood buckets together (instead of Billy doing it by himself as he does in the novel). Here we see Chris repeat a label for him that he previously made clear he finds offensive when she calls him a “stupid shit,” and when she orders him to hurry up, he slips into a parody of the same language that essentially defines John Coffey, who refers to main character Paul Edgecombe as “boss” (which is ironically called attention to in Wharton’s invoking the stereotypical language Coffey himself uses in the above passage):

“Yes, ma’am! We’se doin the best we can, we really are, boss.”

Carrie, dir. Brian De Palma (1976).

(I probably would not have known exactly what Billy is parodying here, that it’s a visual text, were it not for a similar reference in another visual text I saw as a kid.)

In the novel, when Billy sets up the pig blood buckets alone, it’s noted that there is a witness of sorts:

A bust of Pallas, used in some ancient dramatic version of Poe’sThe Raven,” stared at Billy with blind, floating eyes …. (boldface mine)

Stephen King, Carrie (1974).

This reference becomes significant when read for Toni Morrison’s Africanist presence, as Morrison notes that “No early American writer is more important to the concept of American Africanism than Poe,” who frequently manifests “these images of blinding whiteness [that] seem to function as both antidote for and meditation on the shadow that is companion to this whiteness.” (boldface mine)

Visual imagery might also help cement a certain likeness…

The bust of Pallas with the raven; Uncle Remus in Song of the South (1946) with the bluebird.

In a previous post on Cujo I talked about Jonathan Franzen’s concept of “Consuming Narratives” from his 2001 novel The Corrections, derived from a scene therein of a professor teaching a class on “Consuming Narratives” and having a student challenge his (essentially rhetorical) analysis of a visual text.

“Excuse me,” Melissa said, “but that is just such bullshit.”

“What is bullshit?” Chip said.

“This whole class,” she said. “It’s just bullshit every week. …” (boldface mine)

Jonathan Franzen. The Corrections (2001).

The scene concludes (after the student articulates more specific criticisms of Chip’s criticism) by repeating the same critteration-shitteration about academic criticism that King has applied to it:

Melissa’s accusations had cut him to the quick. He’d never quite realized how seriously he’d taken his father’s injunction to do work that was “useful” to society. Criticizing a sick culture, even if the criticism accomplished nothing, had always felt like useful work. But if the supposed sickness wasn’t a sickness at all—if the great Materialist Order of technology and consumer appetite and medical science really was improving the lives of the formerly oppressed; if it was only straight white males like Chip who had a problem with this order—then there was no longer even the most abstract utility to his criticism. It was all, in Melissa’s word, bullshit. (boldface mine)

Jonathan Franzen. The Corrections (2001).

Like Remus’s bluebird or the bust of Pallas’s raven, I have a Chip on my shoulder about not so much the utility of criticism as the institutional systems by which it’s bound in our capitalist system. That such criticism is all just “academic bullshit,” as King himself as puts it, is also the root reason that, much like what happens to Julie in Julie and Julia (2009), Stephen King would hate my blog…

Chip may put it in a pompous way, but it’s hard to argue with his analysis of the visual text itself problematically seducing students with a narrative that purports to empower women for the ultimate purpose of consuming products.

When I read about the current state of the world…

In a single week in late June, the conservative Justices asserted their recently consolidated power by expanding gun rights, demolishing the right to abortion, blowing a hole in the wall between church and state, and curtailing the ability to combat climate change. (boldface mine)

Jeannie Suke Gersen, “The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Have Asserted Their Power,” The New Yorker, July 3, 2022.

…a refrain from another visual text rings in my head:

Zoolander (2001)

Consuming Carrie

A variation (or iteration) of a “consuming narrative” seems to surround the character of Carrie White via a shitteration, as constituted by the repetition (or refrain) of the idea that Carrie “eats shit.” This assertion appears twice in the novel–notably both times made not verbally, but in writing–first as graffiti on a grammar-school desk with just that phrase (very early, before the locker-room scene unfolds), and the second as graffiti on a junior-high desk that’s slightly more developed:

Roses are red, violets are blue, sugar is sweet, but Carrie White eats shit.

Stephen King. Carrie. 1974.

This reflects an “abject” horror tactic (“abject” being something that would be objectively horrifying to anyone/everyone):

The gibe “Carrie White eats shit” thus in fact paints Carrie as doubly abject, as it not only mockingly accuses her of ingesting bodily waste, already abject in itself, but also confounds the traditional functions of two distinct bodily orifices.

Victoria Madden, “‘We Found the Witch, May We Burn Her?’: Suburban Gothic, Witch-Hunting, and Anxiety-Induced Conformity in Stephen King’s Carrie,” The Journal of American Culture; Malden Vol. 40, Iss. 1,  (Mar 2017): 7-20.

But it might be more complex:

The abject and its emphasis on the body—on waste and fluids and expulsion—is not gothic in the sense that Madden argues, but instead may be read as a personification or manifestation of the future as envisioned by those opposed to the women’s right to choose. What this means, I would argue, is that the sociocultural concerns expressed and explored in Carrie are not those of the homogeneous suburban need to/fear of containing the ‘other’; instead, what Carrie is exploring is the impact of the 1973 Supreme Court Decision in Roe v. Wade.

Sarah E. Turner, “Stephen King’s Carrie: Victim No More?” in Violence in the Films of Stephen King (ed. Magistrale & Blouin, 2021).

This reading was intriguing when I first read it back in March. When I revisited it in May after a certain draft of a Supreme Court decision was leaked, it was mind-blowing, and since then, of course, it’s been overturned officially, leaving me and many others in a state of numb shock. Via Turner’s reading, this development has made reading Carrie, and in turn, King, more relevant than ever.

Turner essentially places the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 as underwriting the success of the King canon when she places it as pivotal to the cultural climate that engendered the success of De Palma’s Carrie. For Turner, this answers the question of why King set Carrie a few years ahead of the year it was published; for us, it means now reading Carrie embodying not the horrifying potential of a woman’s right to choose, but that of a woman who does not have the right to choose.

Let us just take a moment to process that for basically the entire span of King’s career as a writer, almost fifty years, abortion has been legal (minus some complications at the state level, as in Texas, the one where I happen to live). If the Thermidor effect is supposed to be two steps forward, one step back, it feels like now we’ve gone at least twenty steps back. The current cultural climate renders not only Carrie relevant again, but all of the horror genre as a horrifyingly accurate representation of the world in which we live.

Turner’s reading of Carrie as an “abortion practitioner” requires for me a re-reading of a moment I might have misread initially: I did not, as Turner does, read Carrie as aborting Sue’s fetus in that moment near Carrie’s death when they have their telepathic exchange. Turner’s discussion also illuminates something else I’ve always struggled to understand–the “logic” behind the continued pursuit of criminalizing abortion again. Conservatives can claim Christianity as their motive all they want, but in the mouths of politicians that’s a bullshitteration of covert rhetoric for sure. If one thing qualifies as laughable, it’s the vociferous defense of fetuses when so many conservative imperatives have hung so many actual human beings not out to dry, but to DIE. Usually the ulterior motive of such political hypocrisy is directly connected to the capitalist incentive, and in the case of the abortion issue, I still struggle to understand how this particular predominant ulterior motive would be at work. Criminalizing abortion doesn’t seem like it would be good for the economy or as a means to line the puppet-masters’ pockets, so is it just for the sake of controlling women?

Apparently, the answer is yes:

Abortion then, a woman’s right to choose, was initially criminalized to ensure the male medical monopoly and to disenfranchise women who sought to practice medicine. That midwives and female healers became defined and persecuted as witches further underscores the desire to control the female body, and for many, this includes the right to choose.

Sarah E. Turner, “Stephen King’s Carrie: Victim No More?” in Violence in the Films of Stephen King (ed. Magistrale & Blouin, 2021).

Or the answer is almost yes… capitalist incentive is at work in this history of the medical industry:

The other side of the suppression of witches as healers was the creation of a new male medical profession, under the protection and patronage of the ruling classes.

Sarah E. Turner, “Stephen King’s Carrie: Victim No More?” in Violence in the Films of Stephen King (ed. Magistrale & Blouin, 2021).

Talk about unearthing a “buried history” of the term “witch.” Turner reads “competing visions” of Carrie as the subversive “witch/abortionist” figure offered in the novel v. film versions:

Both King and De Palma see Carrie as a threat, but King’s Carrie embodies the empowering but “threatening” potential of Roe v. Wade, while De Palma’s Carrie is an outlier, a threat to traditional femininity as defined and oppressed by the patriarchy. These two views set up the tension at the heart of this reading of Carrie that seeks to reclaim her—to move her from ostracized victim to subversive challenger.

Sarah E. Turner, “Stephen King’s Carrie: Victim No More?” in Violence in the Films of Stephen King (ed. Magistrale & Blouin, 2021).

Here Turner is offering a couple of other versions of Carrie manifesting what I’ve designated “fluid duality”: “witch/abortionist” being one version and “victim/challenger” another (though these overlap with each other as well as with my fluidly dual categories of “menstrual/minstrel”). Turner reads King’s version of Carrie as more nuanced, offering a meaningful cultural critique while De Palma’s Carrie merely titillates, though the narratives of both versions revolve around Carrie’s “power”–telekinesis, which per Turner in King’s version, can be read as dramatizing the figurative empowerment women gained over their bodies via the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Thus, what Carrie does with this empowerment plays out cultural fears and narratives surrounding what women will do with their new cultural empowerment, a nuance that De Palma, per Turner, fails to capture:

Ultimately, the reader of King’s text is left with a sense of ambiguity: King presents both sides of the abortion debate, albeit hyperbolically, but he does not dictate how to read them. He creates tension between mother and daughter that represents the duality of the debate around abortion and a woman’s right to choose. Margaret White is the hyperbolic manifestation of the religious right—an extreme King seems to reject even as he creates her; Carrie is the potentially monstrous implications of the Roe v. Wade decision: destructive, vindictive, unnatural, deadly. However, De Palma’s movie engenders no sense of ambiguity… Ending the film with Carrie’s hand reaching out from the grave to grab Sue’s arm, even though the moment is embedded within Sue’s nightmare, signals De Palma’s interpretation of Carrie as a monster, a hysterical woman who must be destroyed. (boldface mine)

Sarah E. Turner, “Stephen King’s Carrie: Victim No More?” in Violence in the Films of Stephen King (ed. Magistrale & Blouin, 2021).

That is, the hand is a sign…

Carrie (1976).

(Turner doesn’t mention this, but it’s worth noting that the plot of King’s Insomnia (1994) revolves around a pro-choice rally … and is also a Dark Tower entry perhaps most notable for marking the first appearance of the Crimson King.)

In the context of the influence of Disney’s problematic Happy Endings, Tony Magistrale mentions an academic take on my primary example in a previous discussion:

If Chelsea Quinn Yarbro is right in her interpretation of the Cinderella myth as a vehicle for programming women to accept their social role and obligation to Western culture (47-49), then Carrie’s classmates torture her to reaffirm their own unstable positioning as emerging women. (29)

Tony Magistrale, Hollywood’s Stephen King (2003) (citing “Cinderella’s Revenge–Twists on Fairy Tales and Mythic Themes in the Work of Stephen King” in Fear Itself: The Horror Fiction of Stephen King eds. Tim Underwood and Chuck Miller, 1982).

Carrie purports to subvert the Cinderella narrative, which as some have noted, would have ended at about this point if it was simply re-enacting it:

And the screenwriter of Song of the South, Maurice Rapf, was a Communist whose only other screenwriting credit is…CINDERELLA, which Karina Longworth in her podcast series on Song of the South notes provides a narrative that is sympathetic to the plight of exploited workers. So Rapf was a “red,” and as such he was eventually “blacklisted.” And Cinderella can be read as programming women for the patriarchy, or as fighting the power of the patriarchy by highlighting its exploitation.

At any rate, part of the reason Carrie‘s narrative can’t reasonably end at the Happy Place is specifically because of history–in this localized case, the history of Carrie being constructed as an outcast/other by her classmates. Despite Sue’s attempt to erase this construction by assimilating Carrie into their peer group, the assimilation is foredoomed by the pre-existing construction.

De Palma’s Carrie invokes the shit-eating abject construction of Carrie-as-outcast more directly by verbalizing it in its (added) opening scene, positioning the high-school girls in a gym-class volleyball match that precedes the infamous locker-room tampon-pelting scene. In her essay “The Queen Bee, the Prom Queen, and the Girl Next Door: Teen Hierarchical Structures in Carrie,” from The Films of Stephen King: From Carrie to Secret Window (2008), Alison M. Kelly applies Rosalind Wiseman’s 2002 criteria of different teen types to Carrie‘s characters, and analyzes De Palma’s opening in more detail to show that “[t]he female hierarchy in Carrie is immediately established in the opening scene: the P.E. volleyball game” (13). Namely, the scene establishes Chris as “Queen Bee” and Carrie as “Target”–or put another way, Chris as bully and Carrie as victim. The less-than-a-minute opening scene concludes with Chris growling at Carrie, “You eat shit.”

A bit later, when Ms. Collins (Ms. Desjardin in the book) is reprimanding the girls who harassed Carrie–telling them, twice, that it’s a “really shitty thing” they did, there’s a shot of Carrie looking in from outside, where she would be unable to see what the viewer can from the camera angle, the rather large graffiti reading “Carrie White eats shit” on the inside of the gym door/wall.

And of course we all know what will happen in this same gym later…in this shot, Carrie’s classmates’ construction of her is essentially shown to “underwrite” the destruction that will take place here; it’s the writing on the wall that in this moment literally positions Carrie as outsider.

Perhaps “you eat shit” was a common insult in the 70s–though it is still present, even prominent, in the ’02 and ’13 Carrie adaptations–but it’s the technical (abject) logic of it that strikes me as interesting: eat the waste product of your eating. A kind of ourouborous configuration…

“Houston’s largest mural brings attention to food insecurity”

Which a certain trial apparently also was…

The [Depp-Heard] trial, in short, turned the op-ed into an ouroboros: what was intended as a #MeToo testimonial about women being punished for naming their experiences became a post-#MeToo instrument for punishing a woman who named her experiences. (boldface mine)

Jessica Winter, “The Johnny Depp-Amber Heard Verdict is Chilling,” The New Yorker (June 2, 2022).

An ouroboros also visually replicates a circle, or cycle…of how we are consuming ourselves.

Last semester I read Carrie with a group of high-school students for an elective on horror writing, and after seeing Kelly’s essay, I was inspired to use it in a new way in my college composition classes. I’d already been using the figure of Carrie as an example of how to apply monster theory to the culture for one set of composition classes–applying the criteria of what makes a monster a monster laid out by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen’s monster theory essay in a way similar to how Kelly applies criteria from Wiseman’s categories for different teen types to the Carrie characters.

Via Kelly’s argument that the brief opening scene efficiently establishes a “female hierarchy”–more specifically, one with Carrie at the very bottom and Chris at the very top–Kelly provides a version of a “rhetorical analysis” of the opening scene compatible with the first major essay my composition students have to write about a visual text. But it’s Kelly’s inclusion and discussion of a specific screen shot from the scene as evidence to support her argument–a shot of the opening scene’s culmination in which Chris verbalizes (or more specifically, sneers) “you eat shit” at Carrie, cementing her “queen bee” status–that prompted me to use the essay as a model for what my students have to do in their first essay assignment.

“You eat shit.”

I’ve had students analyze pop-culture “visual texts” in their major essays for years, with the requirement that they have to discuss a specific screen shot(s) from the text they pick to support one of their points that in turn support their thesis. Kelly generates a numbered list of discussion points based on observations of the above screen shot that replicates a version of what our course textbook Writing Analytically calls the “Notice & Focus” exercise. (One observation I might make is that the stripes on the white socks of the girls visible walking away behind Chris are bee-like.)

Tony Magistrale also presents a screenshot-based discussion of De Palma’s opening scene in a less explicitly structured way, with this shot at the top of a chapter on “lost children” in King’s work:

From Hollywood’s Stephen King by Tony Magistrale (2003).

When I tried to grab a screen shot for a color version, I found that this exact angle weirdly does not seem to exist in full frame, with the closest being:

At any rate, Magistrale’s point is about how the shot treats Carrie:

As the camera zooms in on Carrie White and she is pushed deeper into the upper corner of the volleyball court by her unsupportive teammate, we note that the square shadow of a basketball backboard looms directly behind her. … [B]y the end of the scene she also stands inside the only shadow cast on the volleyball court’s surface. Boxed into a shadowed corner, swatted in the face for her athletic failings, and and told to “eat shit,” Carrie retreats alone into the girls’ locker room. (boldface mine)

Tony Magistrale, Hollywood’s Stephen King (2003).

Both versions of the screen shot provide evidence of the prominent use of shadows in relation to the figure of Carrie, which I can now use to support a point Magistrale is not actively making here, about how Carrie manifests an Africanist presence, not just in the trigger moment, but from the beginning. Magistrale proceeds to note:

…these initial images of Carrie portrayed in shadowy isolation and boxlike enclosures are restated in an effort to dramatize forcefully her own experience in high school as “a time of misery and resentment.” (boldface mine)

Tony Magistrale, Hollywood’s Stephen King (2003), p27.

With that last quote being from a 1999 speech of King’s describing his own high-school experience. Magistrale’s description of the trigger moment tracks the role of the laughter:

In response to this final indignity, Carrie goes ballistic. While none of the other promgoers is actually laughing at her plight, except for Chris’s vile friend and co-conspirator Norma (P.J. Soles), Carrie automatically perceives them from the perspective of her mother. Their imaginary laughter sparks Carrie’s telekinetic wrath, and in a scene inspired by the Old Testament, Carrie punishes everyone in Bates High School gymnasium–the innocent as well as the guilty. (boldface mine)

Tony Magistrale, Hollywood’s Stephen King (2003), p24.

This Old-Testament-style destruction is also likened to a Shakespeare text, something De Palma took from the source text, though Turner frames it slightly differently in her analysis of Carrie’s likeness to Lady Macbeth as integral to her reading “competing visions” of Carrie in the novel v. the film:

Brian De Palma has famously acknowledged his debt to Gustave Moreau’s 1851’s portrait of Lady Macbeth as the inspiration for the seminal shot of Carrie—drenched in pig’s blood and backlit by flames—as well as her posture and gait in the later parts of the film. And clearly at some level King had her in mind as well—as readers are told that Carrie was “unaware that she was scrubbing her bloodied hands against her dress like Lady Macbeth” after the destruction of the high school and town (140). And yet, the two men have competing visions of both Lady Macbeth and Carrie; for De Palma, the women are destructive, unnatural, a threat to the heteronormative patriarchal culture of their time. … Lady Macbeth, in her violation of the Elizabethan great chain of being, also acts to violate the king’s divinity and the rules of domestic hospitality by goading Macbeth into action. Shakespeare, like King with Carrie, may be critical of Lady Macbeth’s actions, but he creates a powerful woman whose actions insofar as they stand in defiance of traditional woman’s role bridled by patriarchal law and custom may be read as the precursor to Carrie as “witch/abortionist.” (boldface mine)

Sarah E. Turner, “Stephen King’s Carrie: Victim No More?” in Violence in the Films of Stephen King (ed. Magistrale & Blouin, 2021).
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 8756d61b39aca4f806575bef71a13df5.png
From here.

Macbeth doesn’t have any prominent uncles, but it does emphasize the theme of the divine right of kings, which is an interesting theme to consider in light of the plot-significance of the tradition of prom king and queen in Carrie

It makes a certain kind of sense that Carrie would be triggered by an imaginary construction (i.e. Magistrale’s reading of “imaginary laughter”), since her being triggered is itself a response to the way she’s been constructed in the imagination of her classmates manifest in their writing on the wall–i.e., that she “eats shit.” It’s also worth noting that the way the laughter sequence unfolds in the novel is more protracted than the film version, including but not limited to how it’s rendered in different perspectives: first Norma’s, then Carrie’s. Interesting that it would be rendered first from the perspective of the character who is the only one to laugh at her in the film…

Also interesting how hard Norma hits the guy next to her who is not laughing, as if De Palma is punctuating the violence manifest in Norma’s laughter.

In the novel, Norma explains why they all laughed at Carrie via the Song of the South reference that has led me down this rabbit hole, and if we might think it’s possible that Norma, who in the novel is recounting this in her memoir, could be exaggerating about how many people were laughing to save face if she were in fact the only one who did laugh, we then get Carrie’s perspective, though this also has the potential to be skewed. So is it “imaginary laughter” that “sparks Carrie’s telekinetic wrath” in the novel? The moment of “imaginary laughter” in De Palma’s version is one of the times you can see him taking from but adjusting the source text, specifically these shots:

The key link between the film and novel versions is the “kaleidoscope” perspective, which brings us to the description of the trigger moment in the novel from Carrie’s point of view:

Carrie sat with her eyes closed and felt the black bulge of terror rising in her mind. Momma had been right, after all. They had taken her again, gulled her again, made her the butt again. The horror of it should have been monotonous, but it was not; they had gotten her up here, up here in front of the whole school, and had repeated the shower-room scene . . . only the voice had said

(my god that’s blood)

something too awful to be contemplated. If she opened her eyes and it was true, oh, what then? What then?

Someone began to laugh, a solitary, affrighted hyena sound, and she did open her eyes, opened them to see who it was and it was true, the final nightmare, she was red and dripping with it, they had drenched her in the very secretness of blood, in front of all of them and her thought

(oh . . . i . . . COVERED . . . with it)

was colored a ghastly purple with her revulsion and her shame. She could smell herself and it was the stink of blood, the awful wet, coppery smell. In a flickering kaleidoscope of images she saw the blood running thickly down her naked thighs, heard the constant beating of the shower on the tiles, felt the soft patter of tampons and napkins against her skin as voices exhorted her to plug it UP, tasted the plump, fulsome bitterness of horror. They had finally given her the shower they wanted.

A second voice joined the first, and was followed by a third—girl’s soprano giggle—a fourth, a fifth, six, a dozen, all of them, all laughing. Vic Mooney was laughing. She could see him. His face was utterly frozen, shocked, but that laughter issued forth just the same.

She sat quite still, letting the noise wash over her like surf. They were still all beautiful and there was still enchantment and wonder, but she had crossed a line and now the fairy tale was green with corruption and evil. In this one she would bite a poison apple, be attacked by trolls, be eaten by tigers.

They were laughing at her again.

Stephen King, Carrie (1974).

As Magistrale notes about De Palma’s version, Carrie is essentially seeing through her mother’s perspective when she experiences the “imaginary laughter,” reflected by her hearing her mother’s refrain in her head: “They’re all gonna laugh at you,” which is what we hear during the above “kaleidoscope” shots, and which is a line that does not appear in the book. But this depiction is all in keeping with the novel’s description of Carrie’s thought in this moment that “Momma had been right.” Carrie’s novel account does depart from Norma’s memoir’s in describing a “solitary” burst of laughter initially before more join in, though the solitary laugh is what causes her to then finally open her eyes, and according to Norma, it’s what Carrie looks like after she opens her eyes specifically–the pop eyes that, like white gloves, are another sign of a blackface minstrel’s presence–that makes, supposedly, everyone laugh. And Carrie’s perception of the laughter in general is called into question by the end of the above passage when Vic Mooney is described as laughing even though his face is “frozen”–a blatant contradiction. This plays out as the passage proceeds from there in Carrie’s perception of Miss Desjardin:

Miss Desjardin was running toward her, and Miss Desjardin’s face was filled with lying compassion. Carrie could see beneath the surface to where the real Miss Desjardin was giggling and chuckling with rancid old-maid ribaldry.

Stephen King, Carrie (1974).

So Carrie is even aware that the laughter she’s perceiving is not “real,” so a version of “imaginary laughter” is propelling her here–fear/paranoia of laughter, an outcome of her conditioning from her classmates’ construction of her–as she proceeds to use her power to hurl Miss Desjardin against the wall:

“Let me help you, dear. Oh I am so sor—”

She struck out at her

(flex)

and Miss Desjardin went flying to rattle off the wall at the side of the stage and fall into a heap.”

Stephen King, Carrie (1974).

Here Carrie turns a tool of her classmates’ construction of her into a weapon, that same tool, which was really also a version of a weapon in its capacity to enact harm (the wall, with writing on it) that De Palma previously emphasized as elemental in her classmates’ construction of her, and we see the tragedy of the fallout of what was written on that wall affecting an innocent party, though this also emphasizes the evil of what caused all this in the first place…laughter.

At this point in the novel, Carrie then leaves the gym and the building entirely, basically passing through a gauntlet of (imaginary) laughter along the way:

She went down [the steps] in great, awkward leaps, with the sound of the laughter flapping around her like black birds.

Then, darkness.

Stephen King, Carrie (1974).

She then lies on the school lawn outside mulling things over for a bit before she decides to use her power to teach them all a lesson and then returns to the gym to do so–so the film handles the sequence a little more efficiently.

Via Norma being the only one laughing (minus possibly one other guy in a fleeting shot that’s not a distorted kaleidoscope one), De Palma seems to have been attuned to the importance of Norma’s role in the trigger moment in the novel. Another observation for the Notice and Focus exercise about De Palma’s opening scene is that the girls are all in yellow and black uniforms–except one girl, whose shorts are red and who is wearing a matching red hat. This girl is Norma, who throughout the entire film is NEVER not wearing her red hat. She is still wearing it with her prom dress in the shot of her violently laughing above, and in one of the places De Palma deploys humor in the film, as she’s getting ready for prom:

Still wearing the red hat, sort of…

The scene that cuts directly to the shot above also has a character wearing a red hat:

The red hat is a sign of another “vile co-conspirator” of Chris’s (she is visible in the background at the center of the shot).

Given the role of conformity, something Norma conforms to via, per Kelly, being the teen type of the “sidekick” to Queen Bee Chris, it’s interesting that her clothes mark her as an outlier, which resonates with her being the only one whose laughter Carrie is not imagining in the film.

Chris and the laughter brings us back to the bees…

Per Kelly, Chris as “queen bee” constitutes the film’s “real horror,” and if, via Song of the South associating bees with The Laughing Place that manifests a similar merging of horror and humor as is enacted in the Carrie trigger moment, bees are associated with the Africanist presence, this means that Chris too potentially manifests an Africanist presence. Kelly notes as well the depiction of the school’s mascot in the film: “Bates High School’s colors [] are yellow and black and their mascot is the Stinger. According to art director Jack Fisk, ‘We didn’t want anything cuddly or too friendly’” (15). In the screen shot analysis from the opening scene, Kelly notes that the school gym uniform fits Chris but is too big on Carrie, meaning the unfriendly stinging atmosphere of the school is a better “fit” on Chris. Here’s a screen shot from a different scene that could also be used as evidence from the text to support this point:

Queen Bee and Sidekick conspiring…this (amazing) shot is angled so that Chris looks like both the wings and stinger (or bottom half with the stinger) are protruding from her body…

The potential viciousness of a “queen bee” is evoked in a more current pop-culture text, an episode of The Big Bang Theory from 2009 with what’s certainly in contention for the show’s most disgusting episode title, “The Dead Hooker Juxtaposition.” The titular “dead hooker” is derived from a new girl who moves into the apartment building where the main characters live and becomes a threat to Penny, at that point the show’s only main female role (the counterpoint to the typical all-male ka-tet quartet comprised by the rest of the main cast); this girl, like Penny, aspires to be an actress and is thrilled to land a role as a “hooker that gets killed.” At one point, Sheldon seems to be attempting to shed some light on the situation by invoking a metaphor, but it’s elemental (so to speak) to Sheldon’s character that he isn’t capable of this type of symbolic thinking; he takes most things literally in a way that seems to verge on the autistic (though this aspect of his quirkiness, much like his sexuality, is never named):

Sheldon: You know, Penny, there’s something that occurs in beehives you might find interesting. Occasionally, a new queen will arrive while the old queen is still in power. When this happens, the old queen must either locate to a new hive or engage in a battle to the death until only one queen remains.

Penny: What are you saying, that I’m threatened by Alicia? That I’m like the old queen of the hive and it’s just time for me to go?

Sheldon: I’m just talking about bees. They’re on the discovery channel. What are you talking about?

Penny: Bees. 

The Big Bang Theory 2.19, “The Dead Hooker Juxtaposition” (March 30, 2009).

What’s in a Name, Again

If “What’s in a name?” were a riddle, then one answer would be: letters.

The symbolism of bees and insects as used in literature is tracked extensively in the academic study Poetics of the Hive: Insect Metaphor in Literature by Cristopher Hollingsworth (2001); the introduction’s title “The Alphabet of the Bees” implicitly underscores the potential importance of a single letter in the context of shifting meaning.

Take, for example, the change of a single letter in the spelling of Chris’s last name–I noticed that in his Hollywood’s Stephen King analysis, Magistrale (or his copyeditor) spells her last name “Hargenson” instead of “Hargensen” as it appears in King’s text. Chris’s patriarchal lineage plays an explicit role in the book if not the movie when her lawyer-father barges into the principal’s office and demands Chris be allowed to attend the prom, and King portrays the principal in the localized context of the scene as a minor/momentary hero when he is not intimidated by litigious threats and does not change his mind about Chris being banned from the prom. But King potentially undermines himself (again) when the narrative necessitates/generates the possibility that if the lawyer-father Hargensen had succeeded in his rhetorical (white-privileged) manipulations, then none of the rest of the book (more specifically the horrible violence and death that unfolds in it) would have happened, because the punishment Chris was trying to avenge, that which was compelling her to carry out the pig-blood plot, would have been nullified. But the change in this single letter in the spelling led me to a new discovery; when I went to see how Chris’s last name was spelled in the film screenplay after confirming it was “Hargensen” in King’s text, I discovered this screenplay draft that is credited to both Lawrence D. Cohen, who has sole screenwriting credit for the final version, and Stephen King; this draft has two full scenes before the one the final version opens with. (And in this draft, “Hargensen” appears as it does in the novel.)

We saw the implications of King changing the initial of the last name of The Green Mile‘s John Coffey from “B” to “C”–which is itself a phrase that essentially tracks the Poetics of the Hive study’s thesis: the figure of the bee is the key to seeing: from bee to see.

The Hive topos’s primary office is to picture social order, to define by mutual contrast the human individual and the organized collective. This topos’s core is an imitation of a visual experience, that of surveying a group from a sovereign position. From this external position, the observer may apprehend the group as a whole, now simplified. The visual field is then divided into two antithetical regions, which (along with their contents) are interpretable according to a code of proximity and similitude. This process of interpretation then enables the observing consciousness to attribute otherness to the observed collective. And depending upon a collective’s degree of organization and its ethical alignment, it tends to be figured as either an angelic beehive or a demonic ant heap. (boldface mine)

Poetics of the Hive

As tracked by Hollingsworth across the history of literature, the bee symbolism, or hive symbolism–because the bees as a symbol are a “synecdoche” (pronounced sin-ech-duh-KEY), meaning one necessarily signals or stands in for the presence of a larger whole–gets quite complicated, evolving over time in its deployment to reflect how literature reflects the evolution of the culture.

It also defines human nature…

“Synchrony is a highly effective “biotechnology of group formation,” as neuroscientist Walter Freeman put it—but why would such a technology be necessary?

Because, says Jonathan Haidt, “human nature is 90 percent chimp and 10 percent bee.” Haidt, a psychologist at NYU’s Stern School of Business, notes that in the main, we are competitive, self-interested animals intent on pursuing our own ends. That’s the chimp part. But we can also be like bees—“ultrasocial” creatures who are able to think and act as one for the good of the group. Haidt argues for the existence in humans of a psychological trigger he calls the “hive switch.” When the hive switch is flipped, our minds shift from an individual focus to a group focus—from “I” mode to “we” mode. Getting this switch to turn on is the key to thinking together to get things done, to extending our individual minds with the groups to which we belong.

Annie Murphy Paul, The Extended Mind: The Power of Thinking Outside the Brain (2021).

That is, bees are the key to seeing outside of ourselves…

Another example of the significance of a single letter is the spelling of “lynchpin” v. that of “linchpin.” It is spelled the latter in a text edited jointly by Sarah E. Turner, the author of the Roe v. Wade essay on Carrie discussed above, and Sarah Nilssen, the author of the essay on Cujo and “creatureliness” discussed in Part 1:

What makes diversity work from a colorblind standpoint is that it ostensibly supports its main ideological linchpin—the claim that race no longer matters. (boldface mine)

The Colorblind Screen: Television in Post-Racial America, ed. Sarah Nilsen and Sarah Turner, New York
University Press, 2014.

The spelling of “linchpin” v. “lynhcpin” is explained in some detail here, which notes, among other things, that:

Lynchpin is a variant spelling of [linchpin]. It is used somewhat frequently, although it is nonstandard and incorrectly suggests an association with lynch. (boldface mine)

From here.

“Incorrectly” according to the word’s etymology in Old English, which would predate all of post-Columbus American history, but then the advent of a particular part of that American history once it does occur–i.e., the role of lynching, means that an association of “lynchpin” with lynching today is not so much “incorrect” as unavoidable, whether consciously or not. Turner and Nilssen don’t seem to acknowledge the irony of using the term “linchpin” in the context of the concept of “colorblindness,” i.e., the idea that racism no longer exists, this problematic erasure of racism as a means to perpetuate covert racism that aligns with Sperb’s study of Song of the South.

From one perspective, it seems potentially more respectful to spell this word with “i” instead of “y” so that it does not call to mind this horribly violent aspect of American history. Since the term does not officially derive from a tool used for lynching and thus derive from lynching itself and so is not associated with it in that most fundamentally integral way, it does not seem to technically be a form of erasure of the history of lynching itself. But I still wonder. Jason Sperb uses “linchpin” in his study on Song of the South, as does Simon Brown in his Screening Stephen King study, both published by University of Texas Press; Barker’s “The Forbidden”–the basis for Candyman and from a British publisher–uses “lynchpin.”

The ’92 Candyman film adds what was not in Barker’s source text–the backstory that the Candyman is the ghost of a Black man lynched by white men, who lynched him–after cutting his hand off–by way of painting him with honey and unleashing bees on him–so the bees become the weapon that carries out the lynching, and are ever present with the Candyman’s ghost as a sign of his presence, one that evokes horror, but also implicitly evokes that of America’s history of lynching; now the Candyman’s ghost deploys as a weapon (to inspire fear even if we don’t see him sic the bees on people) that which was used as a weapon against him–which is something he has in common with Carrie in how she deploys the wall (and how, as we’ll see shortly, she deploys something else that was used in her construction as an object of laughter).

The construction of bees: Untitled by Tom Friedman (2002). “A progression of handmade bees showing the step-by-step process of their making or unmaking, displayed on a wood shelf.”

This likeness between Carrie and the Candyman, as well as the Remus reference at the trigger moment, will add another “semiotic level” (i.e. symbolic level) to those Magistrale points out about a critical object:

Although she is naked throughout [the locker-room] scene, Carrie does wear a single key on a string around her neck. The key operates on several semiotic levels simultaneously. Since it appears to be the key to her gym locker, she apparently wears it around her neck so as not to lose it, and thus it signals Carrie’s emotional immaturity… Carrie’s key also reminds us of the fact that she is “locked up,” emotionally and physically; she has not been open to society, open to her own sexuality… As the key symbolizes that part of Carrie that has been padlocked up and contained, separated from the rest of the world, it thereby connects with the visual images of enclosure and confinement that are found throughout the film’s opening sequence. But the key may also be viewed as signaling the dramatic change that is about to occur to Carrie, for she holds the key to unlocking herself from the bondage of her past and the opportunity to view, however ephemerally, the possibilities of an emancipated future. (boldface mine)

Tony Magistrale, Hollywood’s Stephen King (2003), pp27-28.

By the end of this passage, Magistrale really starts using language that underscores Carrie’s manifesting an Africanist presence. And though this is not one of the “semiotic levels” of the key he points out, in light of the Song of the South reference at the trigger moment, the image of Carrie with the key around her neck–

Carrie (1976): Carrie with blood on her hands…

–recalls that of Brer Rabbit as he’s leading Brer Fox and Brer Bear to his Laughing Place:

Song of the South (1946): Brer Rabbit at his Laughing Place with a rope around his neck.

An important way the bee is a key to both Kingian semiotics and King’s general appeal to readers is in how, as Cris Hollingsworth puts it, the bee “imitates a particular visual experience,” which is what King’s prose does generally in a different context in his being a visual or “cinematic” writer and seems to be a major key to his success, both in the popular success of the books in and of themselves, but also in their potential for screen adaptations.

(And if we ask what is in the name of that original Disney minstrel, Mickey Mouse, we will find a key–MicKEY.)

The name of “Bates High” is a change from the “Ewan High” of the novel, an homage to the character Norman Bates from Alfred Hitchcock’s classic slasher Psycho (1960), which the name of Norma from the novel is an homage to also also, since Hitchcock is as much an influence on King as he is on De Palma (one of the influences critical to his development as a “cinematic” writer), and King frequently invokes variants of this name in Hitchcock’s honor, though you could argue it’s in honor of Robert Bloch’s novel as the source text. Bloch and Hitchcock alike would qualify as a synecdoche for the larger Hive of Horror, and the “Norman” name is also an homage to the general horror principle King extols in his study on the subject:

After all, when we discuss monstrosity, we are expressing our faith and belief in the norm and watching for the mutant. The writer of horror fiction is neither more nor less than an agent of the status quo.

Stephen King, Danse Macabre (1981).

How the name “Norma/Norman” encodes this agency (and how King uses it as carte blanche to demonize minorities) is articulated in Dreamcatcher (2001):

“Queerboy!” Jonesy yells, rubbing frantically at his mouth . . . but he’s starting to laugh, too. Pete’s an oddity—he’ll go along quietly for weeks at a time, Norman Normal, and then he’ll break out and do something nutso.

Stephen King. Dreamcatcher: A Novel (2001).

King inverts the name being a sign of the “normal” (while simultaneously reinforcing it as such) in Rose Madder (1995) when the evil abusive psycho cop villain husband of the titular character Rose is named Norman:

“That’s his for-real no-fooling name?”

“Yes.”

“As in Bates.”

“As in Bates.”

Stephen King, Rose Madder (1995).

One of the other talks in my PCA potpourri panel on King was by Amber Moon on Rose Madder; Moon’s argument that in it Norman fits the criteria of a stereotypical monster and Rose the criteria of a stereotypical “ideal victim” would support my broad thesis that King is a stereotypewriter, and her discussion of Norman’s monstrousness manifest in his dehumanization via being repeatedly likened to a bull offers an example of Kingian tics I’ve tracked–the use of the refrain, which in this case reinforces the bull-likening via the repetition of “Viva Ze Bool,” with this bull-likening being another example of a critteration, though this provides an example of the distinction between my “critteration” concept and Nilssen’s “creatureliness” concept–the creatureliness is animal-likening that’s explicitly scary, wild animal as savage monster, while the critteration is a likening to a cute non-threatening animal not intended to evoke fear but implicitly scary for manifesting some form of dehumanization and covering it up. Moon’s talk did remind me there is an intersection of creatureliness and critteration in Rose Madder when Norman snatches a rubber Ferdinand-the-Bull mask off a kid and dons it himself. Ferdinand the Bull is a critteration in the fully non-threatening sense that King’s novel subverts to manifest creatureliness. The character first appeared in the 1936 children’s book The Story of Ferdinand that was then adapted by Walt Disney into an animated short film in 1938, which means Moon’s talk can support more than just the broad argument of King-as-stereotypewriter: King-as-stereotypewriter specifically due to the influence of Walt Disney. There’s even a bee that plays a critical role in the plot and Ferdinand’s fate when it accidentally stings Ferdinand:

Horror as humor in Disney’s Ferdinand the Bull (1938): “…and he sat on a bumblebee!”

Stinging bees are invoked in Carrie when Carrie tries out this weaponized brand of harmful humor herself on no less significant a character than Norma herself: 

“You’re positively GLOWING. What’s your SECRET?”

“I’m Don MacLean’s secret lover,” Carrie said. Tommy sniggered and quickly smothered it.

Norma’s smile slipped a notch, and Carrie was amazed by her own wit—and audacity. That’s what you looked like when the joke was on you. As though a bee had stung your rear end. Carrie found she liked Norma to look that way.

Stephen King, Carrie (1974).

Carrie’s taste for enacting the same abuse she’s endured herself speaks to the cyclical/toxic nature of violence. (The blood on her hands by the end all occurs because of the blood on her hands at the beginning.) The “looked like” in this passage underscores the literary nature of bees as a visual signifier (as well as the strange circularity of Norma’s description of the trigger moment amounting to people laughing at what Carrie’s eyes looked like), but we also have an auditory signifier via the reference to singer Don McLean, probably most famous for the song “American Pie” from his 1971 album American Pie:

This offers a connection between consuming narratives via music, and the consumption of food.

“You haven’t touched your pie, Carrie.” Momma looked up from the tract she had been perusing while she drank her Constant Comment. “It’s homemade.”

“It makes me have pimples, Momma.”

“Your pimples are the Lord’s way of chastising you. Now eat your pie.”

Stephen King, Carrie (1974).

De Palma accentuates this moment with the set dressing, specifically a large image of The Last Supper visible above the dinner table intermittently illuminated by lightning and initially shown in close-up right before the above exchange, in which “pie” is changed to “apple cake,” perhaps invoking the original Biblical consuming narrative of Eve eating the apple, for, as Margaret emphasizes when she earlier exhorted Carrie to “‘say it,'” “‘Eve was weak.'” Or maybe it could (also) be a Snow-White reference in deference to Carrie comparing her trigger experience to Snow Whtie eating the poison apple in the novel.

Carrie’s Last Supper with her mother…

A concern about what she consumes causing pimples is something Carrie shares with Sue:

Hubie had genuine draft root beer, and he served it in huge, frosted 1890s mugs. She had been looking forward to tipping a long one while she read a paper novel and waited for Tommy—in spite of the havoc the root beers raised with her complexion, she was hooked.

Stephen King, Carrie (1974).

Of course, this is a common concern for teenagers (it will plague Arnie “Pizza-Face” Cunningham in Christine as well) in a horror trend that King tracks in his own study on the subject:

In many ways I see the horror films of the late fifties and early sixties—up until Psycho, let us say—as paeans to the congested pore.

Stephen King, Danse Macabre (1981).

Which, in invoking a “paean,” aka a song of praise, is a passage that merges this particular fear with music.

What’s in a Name: Momma Songs and Musical Curses

In a two-part essay from 2017 entitled “The Curses,” John Jeremiah Sullivan attempts to track the origin of the phrase “playing the blues” and what is supposedly the very first “‘blues song,'” discovering that it seems to be a song called “Curses” by Paul Dresser. In another example of the significance of a single letter, this Paul Dresser is the brother of Theodore Dreiser, author of, among other novels, Sister Carrie (1900), and whom Sullivan credits with “chang[ing] the course of American literature.”

Why the surname difference between brothers? After noting that Paul Dresser’s mother referred to herself as Pennsylvania Dutch, Sullivan notes:

that term “Dutch” being in this case not our surviving word meaning Hollanders but a corruption of “Deutsch” — Germans who had left the homeland

John Jeremiah Sullivan, “The Curses, Part II: The Curse of the Dreamer,” The Sewanee Review (2017).

Sullivan then goes on to note:

The pocket-biographical line is that Paul Dresser ‘changed his name’ from Dreiser, which it had been at birth, but that’s putting a complicated problem in a very simplistic way. Nobody, it seems, could ever decide how to spell the family name. Even back in Germany, it had been written several different ways (Dreysers, Dreeser, etc.), and the first time the boy’s name appears in print, in the 1860 census, it’s spelled Dresser, just as he later took to writing it. At least a few local businessmen knew them as the Dressers. It seems truest to say that anyone born into that family had surname options. Certainly, though, in the end, there was a difference. The rest of the family settled on Dreiser, and he went with Dresser. It helped that the variant sounded less German, because if ever a man was American, it was Paul Dresser. (boldface mine)

Sullivan also notes that Dresser was “one of the fattest men in America, and for a time its most successful songwriter” offering a parallel obliquely present in Carrie’s Don McLean joke between the consumption of music and the consumption of food–a parallel that is distinctly American.

In tracking the different accounts of the origin of the blues, Sullivan notes:

A feature of the blues origin narrative is that, at the center, one tends to find the teller.

John Jeremiah Sullivan, “The Curses, Part I: Ahjah is Coming,” The Sewanee Review (2017).

This might actually be a feature of all narratives…side note: Sullivan also wrote a 2011 piece for The New York Times about Disney World, or more specifically, being high at Disney World.

In keeping with the prominence of the period in Carrie, that which is often referred to as the “monthly curse,” Turner in her reading of Carrie as “witch/abortionist” also invokes the concept of curses:

Stamp Lindsey argues that “monstrosity is explicitly associated with menstruation and female sexuality . . . [but] menstruation and female sexuality here are inseparable from the ‘curse’ of supernatural power, more properly the domain of horror films” (36). Reading Carrie’s powers as a “curse” serves to disenfranchise Carrie herself; instead of taking charge of her life, she is “cursed” and thus must be saved…

Sarah E. Turner, “Stephen King’s Carrie: Victim No More?” in Violence in the Films of Stephen King (ed. Magistrale & Blouin, 2021).

That as a society we often refer to menstruation as a “curse” when it’s a sign of the potential for biological reproduction and therefore should be a positive sign of our capacity to endure as a species is itself a sign of the patriarchy…

At one level, the class response to Carrie’s panic when she begins to menstruate reflects how women are taught to hate their own bodies and particularly their periods—“plug it up” is more than just derisive mockery; it is the language of self-abjection. Societal taboos dictate that menstruation is “dirty”—something to hide—not something to publicize let alone celebrate.

Sarah E. Turner, “Stephen King’s Carrie: Victim No More?” in Violence in the Films of Stephen King (ed. Magistrale & Blouin, 2021).

The repetition of “Plug it up” constitutes what turns out to be a common Kingian device, the refrain, that might well derive from King’s love of music–he is a rhythm guitarist, after all…

King with the Rock Bottom Remainders in 1994 (from here)

…and rhythm in prose is often manifest in repetition. The “plug it up” phrase, in the context of the trigger moment scene, made me think of the phrase “plug it in,” which might be an old slogan for Glade air-freshener, but I thought of it because Carrie’s potential to enact harm in this scene, while obviously derived from her telekinetic powers, depends on what is in her immediate surroundings that she can weaponize; what she seizes on is the water in the pipes, and this causes a lot of damage and death due to the presence of electrical music equipment, as we see from Norma’s perspective:

I looked around and saw Josie Vreck holding onto one of the mike stands. He couldn’t let go. His eyes were bugging out and his hair was on end and it looked like he was dancing. His feet were sliding around in the water and smoke started to come out of his shirt.

Stephen King, Carrie (1974).

Laughed at for looking like a minstrel, Carrie has now turned Josie into one. We also see the musical equipment very fleetingly from Tommy’s perspective, which continues into the moments immediately following his death:

He was still sprawled on the stage when the fire originating in the electrical equipment of Josie and the Moonglows spread to the mural…

Stephen King, Carrie (1974).

And again from Carrie’s perspective (right after we see that she calculated the danger of unleashing the water because of the presence of all the “power cords”):

He caught hold of one of the microphone stands and was transfixed. Carrie watched, amazed, as his body went through a nearly motionless dance of electricity. His feet shuffled in the water, his hair stood up in spikes, and his mouth jerked open, like the mouth of a fish. He looked funny. She began to laugh.

(by christ then let them all look funny)

Stephen King, Carrie (1974).

This description could essentially function as one of a parody minstrel performance, and also recalls an earlier time Carrie invoked looking, or actually being, “funny,” in the Last Supper scene (an exchange that is rendered identically in the novel and film):

“Momma, please see that I have to start to . . . to try and get along with the world. I’m not like you. I’m funny—I mean, the kids think I’m funny. I don’t want to be. I want to try and be a whole person before it’s too late to—”

Mrs. White threw her tea in Carrie’s face.

Stephen King, Carrie (1974).

As noted by the “White Commission” in the novel:

One of the fictional texts excerpted within the novel, The Shadow Exploded, which, along with Norma’s memoir’s invoking the “Black Prom,” signifies that Carrie’s telekinetic powers manifest an Africanist presence, notes that:

The White Commission‘s stand on the trigger of the whole affair—two buckets of pig blood on a beam over the stage—seems to be overly weak and vacillating… (emphases mine)

Stephen King, Carrie (1974).

This passage identifies the two key ingredients to Carrie’s construction as Menstrual Minstrel–the pig blood renders the Menstrual and the stage renders the Minstrel. (And might foreshadow the significance of the “beam” in the Dark Tower series.)

As with the wall that she weaponized when she hurled Ms. Desjardin against it, the potential for destruction latent in the power cords, or live wires that Carrie realizes is another instance of her weaponizing what was weaponized against her in becoming an element of her construction-as-outcast in the imagination of her classmates, in this case a minstrel-critical element in its relation to music, a link that’s reinforced when the other explicit “minstrel” reference occurs–notably in an omniscient rather than localized to any one character’s perspective, and notably in parentheses–in a description of the townspeople emerging to witness the destruction that segues to one of these townspeople’s descriptions of trying to avoid the live wires:

They came in pajamas and curlers (Mrs. Dawson, she of the now-deceased son who had been a very funny fellow, came in a mudpack as if dressed for a minstrel show); they came to see what happened to their town, to see if it was indeed lying burned and bleeding. (boldface mine)

Stephen King, Carrie (1974).

It’s noteworthy that she doesn’t ever “laugh” while unleashing her powers on the student body in De Palma’s version, which would likely make her less sympathetic, but which does speak to the seemingly counterintuitive logic that those who have been bullied will bully others when given the chance rather than refrain from doing so due to their personal insight into the pain that bullying causes.

De Palma also localizes the destruction to the school instead of the whole town as occurs in the novel, but having recently visited Memphis (where I grew up), more specifically the “Rock n Soul” museum there just down the block from Beale Street, reputed birthplace of the blues, Carrie’s music-facilitated destruction of the larger township resonated for me with the understated yet devastating conclusion of the exhibit:

Beale Street now is something of a depressing tourist trap where you can buy souvenirs commemorating the Black musicians whose community was systematically destroyed; you can see a highly stylized version of it in its 1950s heyday in Baz Luhrmann’s new Elvis biopic.

Trapping the Trickster in the Shadow

So if I have argued that in the critical trigger moment, Carrie White is Black and White and re(a)d all over, enacting our Civil War legacy–by invoking blackface minstrelsy, Carrie’s critical trigger moment can also be read as showing that American music is Black and White and re(a)d all over, specifically by way of enacting it as a nexus of horror and humor and recapitulating its position as pivotal/foundational to American history.

Musical keys: black and white and red all over….

The stinging bees linked to the “Laughing Place” in the Song of the South text are integrally linked to the blackface minstrel dynamic of violence provoking laughter and vice versa in what iterates an endless (or snowballing) cycle predicated on vengeance and the fear of same.

The stinging bees are also linked to the violence latent in the subjectivity/fluidity of this cycle; as Brer Rabbit explains:

“I didn’t say it was your laughing place, I said it was my laughing place.”

Song of the South (1946).

This is not the punch line of a joke so much as the revelation of a “trick,” for Brer Rabbit embodies the trope of the critteration of the “trickster figure”:

…Brer Rabbit [] originated from the hare-trickster figure found in folktales in South, Central and East Africa…

Emily Zobel Marshall, “’Nothing but Pleasant Memories of the Discipline of Slavery’: The Trickster and the Dynamics of Racial Representation,” Marvels & Tales, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Spring 2018), p59. 

If Carrie is the tar baby (which evokes minstrel blackface), then she is the tool that’s constructed to trick the trickster, since the tar baby is supposed to be a trap for the trickster figure of Brer Rabbit. The trap works, but then Brer Rabbit is able to trick his way out of the trap. His deployment of the bees at his Laughing Place is also a trick carried out in response to being trapped. His tricks, then, are in vengeance, or even just as a practical means of escape. He only tricks in response to tricks (which often manifest as traps), so is Brer Rabbit really the trickster, or just constructed as one by tricksters with more power?

Emily Zobel Marshall offers a compare-contrast reading of the ancestor of Brer Rabbit with that of another mythological trickster figure, Anansi the spider (a figure King will deploy in IT (1986)), finding that the spider trickster historically doesn’t carry the uglier history that Brer Rabbit does:

…variances in cultural and political context have affected the interpretation of the tricksters and suggests that having “no [Joel Chandler] Harris for Anansi” was key to the continued sense of ownership felt by African decedents in the Anglophone Caribbean for Anansi, in contrast with the problematic racial representations the American Brer Rabbit still provokes. 

Emily Zobel Marshall, “’Nothing but Pleasant Memories of the Discipline of Slavery’: The Trickster and the Dynamics of Racial Representation,” Marvels & Tales, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Spring 2018), p59. 

Brer Rabbit is very much central to King’s continued “problematic racial representations,” and this figure’s weaponization of the bees at the site of his Laughing Place–a site which in the Disney version embodies an overlap/intersection between abstract/figurative and concrete/literal places–could be the key to the Kingian version of the Laughing Place as it expresses and relates to the American minstrel dynamic (i.e., blackface minstrelsy). That is, both the Stephen King canon and the history of American music/America itself via blackface minstrel performances iterate a HARMONY between HUMOR and HORROR in the way these two latter elements work together, or in “harmony,” to achieve a certain psychological effect, one of unease. Harmony to underscore/create discord. Which is potentially the answer to a question Magistrale posed quoted in Part I:

The merging of horror and humor characterizes some of the most memorable cinematic adaptations of your work. I’m thinking of films such as CarrieMiseryStand by Me. Why do these apparently oppositional elements appear to work so harmoniously with each other in these films? (p. 11, boldface mine)

TONY MAGISTRALE, HOLLYWOOD’S STEPHEN KING (2003). (From here.)

And bees are potentially the key to how King’s work recapitulates and is linked inextricably with the history of American music.

The fluidity of ownership manifest in Brer Rabbit’s Laughing Place reflects a fluidity of ownership in the history of American music that reflects the problematic nature of ownership in America in general, a problem directly descended/inherited from the institution of slavery.

Perhaps no figure embodies the nature of the theme of black v. white ownership in music than Elvis Presley. This shadowy duality is at play in John Carpenter’s Elvis (1979), in which Elvis speaks to his dead twin brother Jesse, embodied at one point by his own shadow on the wall:

John Carpenter’s Elvis (1979)

Like Mickey Mouse, you could argue Elvis is a minstrel.

Elvis, black and white and red all over in Viva Las Vegas (1964)

If Mickey Mouse and cartoon animation highlight how “animal” is the basis for “the name for movement in technology, animation” (as quoted from Laurel Schmuck in Part 1), Elvis, along with “The King of Daredevil Comedy,” Harold Lloyd:

…embodied unique places at the crossroads of a shifting culture and the meaning of physical performance. Each challenged the standards of what was possible and accepted within the moving image, becoming icons—and ultimately reflections—of their changing times.

From here.

The new Elvis movie revolves around the machinations and manipulations of Elvis’s manager Colonel Tom Parker, in the film a self-identified “snowman” in the sense of “snowing” = conning, or tricking people. Parker’s narration of the film is an attempt to exonerate himself by way of insisting he and Elvis were a team consisting of the “snowman and the showman.” The film undermines Parker’s claims (intentionally) at pretty much every point, a significant one being when Parker tells Elvis that he, Elvis, is a “trickster,” and Elvis insists “I’m no trickster,” with Parker insisting in turn, “Yes, you are. All showmen are snowmen.” We might then split hairs about whether part of the criteria of being a “trickster” is tricking with intent rather than only doing so inadvertently, but as Norma’s complex network of comparisons in the Carrie trigger moment shows, the figures of the trickster and minstrel are inextricably linked via the work of Harris and passed on and further problematized via Disney, so presenting the possibility that Elvis was a “trickster” necessarily invites the minstrel comparison. The prominence of the idea that Elvis was “caught in a trap” as he famously sings in “Suspicious Minds” (a theme Baz continues to emphasize in the new biopic) further reinforces a reading of Elvis as the trickster rabbit figure specifically, as it’s Brer Rabbit caught in the trap of the tar…

Though Brer Rabbit escaped and Elvis ultimately didn’t.

As many visual texts about Elvis, including Baz’s, like to visually emphasize, before he ascended to his throne as the King of Rock and Roll, Elvis once worked for Crown Electric Company:

Top: Elvis (1979); Bottom: The Twilight Zone, “The Once and Future King” (1986).

That is, Elvis worked with power cords. This was before his breakthrough as a recording artist and performer with the single (which, like all of his songs, was a cover of someone else’s, in this case blues singer Arthur “Big Boy” Crudup’s) “That’s All Right,” which could have been called “That’s All Right, Mama.” Elvis’s love for his mother is a major component of accounts of his life, so even if Elvis did not write this song (or again, any song) it is a true expression of feeling, one in keeping with an aspect of the blues revealed in Sullivan’s aforementioned history revolving around Paul Dresser, he who was first credited with “playing the blues,” and who was white, and who was a prolific songwriter in his own right:

Paul loved his mother to the point of awe. His entire songbook is shot through with his feelings for her. When dismissive twentieth century critics referred to the pop music of the 1890s as “mother songs,” they were thinking mainly of Dresser. He had used the phrase himself with pride.

John Jeremiah Sullivan, “The Curses, Part II: The Curse of the Dreamer,” The Sewanee Review (2017).

Eminem does not love his mother, but despite this major difference was able to find many similarities between himself and Elvis to list on a track for Baz’s Elvis soundtrack, “The King and I,” similarities that invoke Carrie-like themes by way of linking shitterations as wordplay to a critical aspect of the history of American music, its weaponization:

It seems obvious: one, he’s pale as me/ Second, we both been hailed as kings/ He used to rock the Jailhouse, and I used to rock The ShelterI stole black music, yeah, true, perhaps used it / As a tool to combat school kids / Kids came back on some bathroom shit / Now I call a hater a bidet / ’Cause they mad that they can’t do shit”. (boldface mine)

Eminem, “The King and I” (2022). (From here.)

(Another shitteration at a prominent musical crossroads would be Elvis’s infamous death on the toilet.)

Eminem, for the same reason as Elvis and that he explicitly articulates above when he states “I stole black music,” has also been designated a trickster:

[Eminem] appears to relish his role as a shadow figure, personified in the suitably named artistic persona, Slim Shady, a trickster traceable to such half-mythic figures as the bluesman’s Staggerlee. (boldface mine)  

John Ensign, “Rappers and Ranters: Scapegoating and Shadow in the Film ‘8 Mile’ and in Seventeenth Century Heresy,” The San Francisco Jung Institute Library Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4 (November 2005), pp.20-21. 

In his semiautobiopic 8 Mile (2003), Eminem’s alter ego is not Slim Shady but Bunny Rabbit, or “B. Rabbit.” His mother’s character in the movie claims this nickname derived from his buck teeth as a kid, and Ensign reads the role of his mother as critical in a way that resonates with the negative influence of Carrie’s mother:

Rabbit responds to threats and humiliations with defiance and violence. But beneath their defensive masculinity, he and his friends are caught in the world of the mother, a truth he alone has the temerity to utter. In this sense, the narrative fits the mythic pattern of the young male hero struggling to free himself from the enveloping and castrating feminine. (boldface mine) 

John Ensign, “Rappers and Ranters: Scapegoating and Shadow in the Film ‘8 Mile’ and in Seventeenth Century Heresy,” The San Francisco Jung Institute Library Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4 (November 2005), pp.22. 

Carrie can’t technically be “castrated” by her mother, but De Palma abjectifies a domestic implement, the one that will stab Carrie in the back, by seeming to highlight its castrating potential:

Carrie (1976).

One might be tempted to think the name “B. Rabbit” is a reference to his trickster figure status. (This idea might be complicated by one version of the script bearing an epigraph from John Updike’s novel Rabbit, Run (1960), indicating the character is named for Updike’s main character who is nicknamed Rabbit and who might represent every ugly aspect of the patriarchy at work in the western literary canon in being a glorification of a quintessential white male asshole.) Ensign describes the dynamic captured in 8 Mile in which Eminem as B. Rabbit “assumes a ‘double shadow'” whose vulnerabilities “become a source of power at the film’s conclusion when the protagonist publicly claims his limitations in an obscene diatribe, thereby reversing his powerless position and vanquishing his rival in a ‘rap battle'” (18), a description that recalls the Kingian dynamic, played out by Danny Torrance in the climax of The Shining, of defeating a monster by engaging in a specifically face-to-face verbal confrontation in which the protagonist articulates the truth of the monster’s evil nature (in keeping with this aspect, Eminem as B. Rabbit articulates his rival’s shortcomings in addition to his own).

From here.

Returning to this climactic moment again, Ensign notes:

This scene marks the apex of Rabbit’s progression over the course of the narrative, a process of shadow integration interpretable in terms of the scapegoat archetype. (boldface mine) 

John Ensign, “Rappers and Ranters: Scapegoating and Shadow in the Film ‘8 Mile’ and in Seventeenth Century Heresy,” The San Francisco Jung Institute Library Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4 (November 2005), pp.24. 

Ensign then tracks this archetype’s origins back to (the critteration of) the ritualistic sacrifice of literal goats. In Carrie, Miss Desjardin tells the principal that Carrie “has always been a group scapegoat,” while later, after Carrie is dead and so can no longer be the active scapegoat–or put another way, is a shadow that can conclusively not be integrated–Sue twice accuses the White Commission of making her, Sue, the scapegoat.

In another example of Carrie‘s cyclical resonance (or cyclical cyclical resonance), the Kingcast podcast did a recent episode on Carrie with director Scott Derrickson in which one of the hosts, Scott Wampler, rectified a point he’d made on an episode on Carrie two years earlier with director Karyn Kusama (whose film Jennifer’s Body (2009) one of the PVA students did their presentation on in our horror elective). In the earlier episode, Wampler told an anecdote about how King himself first saw De Palma’s Carrie screened on a double bill with the movie Sparkle (1976), a film with an all-Black cast (despite being written by Joel Schumacher, who is white) and so it turned out for the screening garnered an all-Black (except for King) audience. King was worried they wouldn’t like the movie, but when it turned out they did, he knew it would do well with mainstream audiences.

Sparkle is a musical movie (often cited as a prototype for Dreamgirls (2006)) about a talented girl group who struggles with the forces of exploitation surrounding them, even though the story ultimately belongs to the man who manages them, Stix, despite the movie’s title character being a woman (Sparkle only rises to the forefront after the group’s leader, Sister, succumbs to drug addiction). In the film’s climax, Sparkle and the group are performing at an important show while, elsewhere, Stix is stuck in the backseat of a car with a mobster holding a gun to his head who we understand is demanding to manage Sparkle and take a cut of their proceeds. Between shots of Sparkle triumphantly singing on stage in an elaborate red dress, Stix, sweat pouring down his face, shakes his head every time the mobster dry clicks the gun’s trigger at his temple. Ultimately Stix wins the standoff and for reasons that aren’t completely clear, is released with his management (and concurrent manhood) in tact.

Watching this, it was Sparkle’s red dress that was particularly arresting in the way it seems an inversion of the imagery of Carrie White in her trigger moment:

Carrie (1976); Sparkle (1976)

But in the more recent Carrie Kingcast episode, Wampler revealed he had done more research into the matter for a Fangoria article. Unable to substantiate the original claim about King first seeing Carrie alongside Sparkle, which was a statement made by the screenwriter in commentary on a DVD version, Wampler discovered Carrie was never screened with Sparkle but rather alongside “a sex comedy called Norman… Is That You?” about a Black father who finds out his son is gay and tries to change him. So the anecdote still goes that King did first see Carrie with a Black audience, and that, as Wampler puts it, “Black audiences were the first to embrace Stephen King.” (They also apparently saw a double bill of films heavily influenced by Norman Bates.) In response to this, the guest Scott Derrickson noted, by way of a shitteration, that horror as a genre has always been more appealing to Black and Latino audiences:

“Of course it’s going to be appealing to people who society has been shitting on for the entirety of the American experiment.”

From here.

Reading Carrie as an iteration of a demographic that’s been “shit on,” I was struck on a recent rereading by a confluence that occurs at the moment of Carrie’s death as telepathically experienced by Sue:

Sue was suddenly overwhelmed with terror, the worse because she could put no name to it: The bleeding freak on this oil-stained asphalt suddenly seemed meaningless and awful in its pain and dying

(o momma i’m scared momma MOMMA)

Sue tried to pull away, to disengage her mind, to allow Carrie at least the privacy of her dying, and was unable to. She felt that she was dying herself and did not want to see this preview of her own eventual end.

(carrie let me GO)

(Momma Momma Momma oooooooooooooo OOOOOOOOOO)”

Stephen King, Carrie (1974).

Listening to Sissy Spacek perform this for the audiobook version, I had to stop in my tracks: Carrie plaintively calling out for her mother in her death throes was an uncanny anticipation of George Floyd calling out for his mother with a knee on his neck.

As is this:

Bee Movie (2007).

Carrie as the Menstrual Minstrel, embodying a fluid duality across types of “laboring bodies,” also helped me realize that my first fiction teacher’s injunction against the word “flow” embodies a parallel duality that’s emblematic of the Updikean literary patriarchy. This teacher banned use of what he termed “the F-word,” claiming the idea that a story “flowed” was a common student fallback position in workshop critiques that was unconstructive in its vagueness. But banning this particular term also smacks of Turner’s discussion of the abjectification of menstruation as something dirty and unspeakable, rendering the ban misogynist. “Flow” is also a term associated with hip hop, marking its exclusion as racist as well.

The Stage Construction Crew

If the stage is an integral ingredient in Carrie’s construction as a minstrel, the Africanist presence underwrites the most prominent converging influences and actions of the three characters who get Carrie to the stage: Chris Hargensen, Sue Snell and Margaret White.

In addition to being the previously discussed “Queen Bee,” Chris manifests an Africanist presence via an explicitly racial comparison, that of “her lip puffed to negroid size” after she’s hit by her boyfriend Billy.

The text’s only invocation of the N-word slur appears in a passage where Sue is projecting a horrific vision of suburban conformity that she would like to avoid, and that she then goes on to try to avoid specifically through the gesture of getting Carrie to the prom, a gesture that marks her as anticonformist. Thus Sue, and through her the overall text (aka King as author of it), seem to be condemning this racism. Analyzing this passage the first time around, I couldn’t find a real-life referent for “Kleen Korners,” but in yet another example of the significance of a single letter, I have since heard that spellings that replace what should be a “C” with a “K” are implicitly racist, possibly due to the precedent of the Ku Klux “Klan”; indeed, the KKK is one of the original “racist associations.” The “Kleen” also thematically invokes racial cleansing parallel to the “whitewashing” Uncle Remus invokes. We see through Sue’s perspective how the identity of the town of Chamberlain itself is constituted by the Africanist presence, more specifically the fear of it. Sue’s actions of getting Carrie to the prom to assimilate her with her peers—i.e., conform with them—become an ironic rejection of conformity, undermining King’s apparent critique of the subdued yet virulent racism manifest in white suburban America—reinforced when Sue’s rebellion is doomed, her efforts to help Carrie thus reinforcing Carrie’s tarbaby function of being “a difficult problem, that is only aggravated by attempts to solve it” (Coates).

Sue could also be read as representing a modern version of white guilt for white privilege–if Carrie can be read as an Africanist presence, Sue’s manipulations to get her to prom could be read as symbolic of the original white subjugators who kidnapped people from Africa–Sue brings Carrie to the prom, aka America, and at first it seems like it’s worked out great until everything goes wrong; Carrie’s Africanist violence is vengeful in nature and engenders both the destruction of her captors/tormentors and herself; the scope of this destruction is so vast as to leave Sue the only survivor (in the movie; in the book Norma is also a survivor like Sue). In the movie’s final sequence, Sue floats in a (virginal) white gown toward Carrie’s black grave as we hear her mother tell someone that a doctor claims Sue is young enough that she will “forget all about it in time,” but then Carrie’s HAND reaches up from the grave to snatch hers, and even though this hand is not “real,” we see it is in the sense of having a material effect on Sue, the final shot of Sue shaking in her mother’s arms an unequivocal indication that Sue will essentially be haunted by this forever. (This is perhaps further underscored by being Sissy Spacek’s real hand.)

Signs of the Africanist presence permeate Margaret White’s construction of the religious fanaticism that in turn leads to Carrie’s construction as an outcast by her peers, from Margaret’s Poe-invoking insistence that “the raven was called sin” to the iconography in the closet she locks Carrie in:

…the Black Man sat on a huge flame-colored throne with a trident in one hand. His body was that of a man, but he had a spiked tail and the head of a jackal. (boldface mine)

Stephen King, Carrie (1974).

Black Man as beast man…as with Sue’s construction of Chamberlain’s constructed racism, layers of construction are present here: these are icons of Margaret’s constructed religion, and it is the Margaret-specific construction of religion, verging past fundamentalist to the outright demonic, that is critiqued as monstrous aberration.

Carrie (1976).

We can also see in one passage how De Palma took from this passage for the (new) opening scene:

Carrie always missing the ball, even in kickball, falling on her face in Modern Dance during their sophomore year and chipping a tooth, running into the net during volley-ball; wearing stockings that were always run, running, or about to run, always showing sweat stains under the arms of her blouses; even the time Chris Hargensen called up after school from the Kelly Fruit Company downtown and asked her if she knew that pig poop was spelled C-A-R-R-I-E: Suddenly all this and the critical mass was reached. (boldface mine)

Stephen King, Carrie (1974). 

Here Chris goes beyond the abjectification of Carrie eating shit to equating Carrie herself with shit–and not just any shit, but pig shit–thus, here we see a critteration shitteration. Significantly, the duality of this double-designation is positioned here as the “critical mass” that engenders Carrie’s tipping point–or trigger moment.

Critterations of Carrie: The Pig Blood

While Carrie in the trigger moment is rendered the Menstrual Minstrel from Norma’s perspective, she is also manifesting a critteration by way of the blood that’s likened to blackface being from a pig.

The pig: black and white and re(a)d all over…

In George Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945), the pig in particular embodies a duality when, emphasized as the most “clever” animal, a pair of pigs become the leaders of the new animal movement until one of the pigs, named Napoleon, banishes the other pig, named Snowball; Napoleon can only maintain his reign thereafter by blaming any problems on Snowball, rendering Snowball integral/crucial to Napoleon’s rule in a way that parallels the inextricability of the Africanist presence in constructions of hegemonic whiteness.

The pig becomes the most significant “critter” in Carrie, an integral element of her construction as the Menstrual Minstrel per the White Commission’s claim in the Shadow Exploded text within the novel that “the trigger of the whole affair” was “two buckets of pig blood on a beam over the stage,” a passage that identifies the underwriting (in the plot-generating sense) elements critical to rendering Carrie the “Menstrual Minstrel”–the stage for the latter and the blood for the former. It also invokes a key phrase that encodes the dehumanizing element of animal comparisons/critterations/creatureliness: “pig blood” as opposed to “pig‘s blood.” The phrase “pig’s blood” literally never appears in the novel; every time, and it is several times, it is “pig blood” (all boldface below mine):

Billy found he was slimed in pig blood to the forearms.

Pig blood. That was good. … It made everything solidify. Pig blood for a pig.”

Pig blood for a pig. Yes, that was good, all right.

…and a shadow of humor crossed his face. “Pig blood for a pig.”

…and got the two buckets of pig blood.

…the pig blood had began to clot and streak.

Pig blood for pigs, right?”

“Billy, did you . . . that pig blood . . . was it—”

We’ve seen how a single letter can make a big difference in shifting meaning; now we see, via the apostrophe, the potential significance of a marking no bigger than ant-sized. As with the lack of a possessive apostrophe in Disney‘S “Remus stories”…

…there is a subtext that reiterates the original form of cultural theft of minstrelsy–that it did not constitute “theft” because the people from that culture did not have the right to property–just like animals don’t. (The book spines recapitulate this idea as the backbone of our culture, more specifically of its systemic racism.)

It’s also interesting to consider the possessive constructions of the two of Magistrale’s major studies on King: Hollywood’s Stephen King (almost as if Stephen King is demonically possessed by Hollywood), and Stephen King: America’s Storyteller.

And possessive constructions in other contexts…

Luhrmann squeezes his name into the credits more times and more quickly than any other director I’ve seen, aided by the idiosyncrasies of contractual punctuation: it’s a Baz Luhrmann film, from a story by Baz Luhrmann and Jeremy Doner and a screenplay by Baz Luhrmann & Sam Bromell and Baz Luhrmann & Craig Pearce and Jeremy Doner, and it’s directed by Baz Luhrmann. 

Richard Brody, “’Elvis’ Is a Wikipedia Entry Directed by Baz Luhrmann,” The New Yorker (June 27, 2022).

I was going to call out Magistrale and Turner for incorrectly using the phrase “pig’s blood” instead of “pig blood” in their discussions of the novel, then noticed King himself does the same thing when he discusses Carrie in On Writing right next to the passage where he describes Sue getting her period rather than suffering a miscarriage/abortion as Turner interprets it:

When I read Carrie over prior to starting the second draft, I noticed there was blood at all three crucial points of the story: beginning (Carrie’s paranormal ability is apparently brought on by her first menstrual period), climax (the prank which sets Carrie off at the prom involves a bucket of pig’s blood—“pig’s blood for a pig,” Chris Hargensen tells her boyfriend), and end (Sue Snell, the girl who tries to help Carrie, discovers she is not pregnant as she had half-hoped and half-feared when she gets her own period). (boldface mine)

Stephen King, On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft (2000).

At least he spells “Hargensen” right… Billy vaguely credits Chris for the concept that pig blood is good for the prank, but we never see Chris actually tell him “pig’s blood for a pig” (or “pig blood for a pig”), and when he utters the phrase to her at one point she responds as if she doesn’t know what he’s talking about, obscuring the phrase’s source in a way that parallels the obscuring of credit at the heart of the origin of American music.

De Palma grants Chris a more direct role in carrying out the pig blood prank–i.e., heightens her Queen-Bee villainy (in a potentially misogynist way)–when she accompanies Billy and his friends, including the male counterpart-conspirator to Norma marked by the red hat, to the farm where he kills a pig. The aesthetics in this sequence seem to emphasize both animalism and animation at play (or at work?) in a villainous groupthink dynamic…

Carrie (1976)

In the film Chris also helps Billy set up the buckets on the beam above the stage, and is the one driving what is presumably Billy’s car (we see him drive it earlier in the film) with which she tries to kill Carrie and instead is killed in turn. Realizing that the novel identifies Chris’s full name as “Christine Hargensen,” I am now incubating a theory that Christine the haunted car in King’s Christine (1983) is haunted not by, or not just by, the ghost of Roland LeBay…

Carrie (1976).

And the segue to the next post on these themes in The Shining and Misery will be a question the television writer and producer Bryan Fuller posed as a guest in a Kingcast episode on Christine (appropriately, since Fuller is supposedly directing the upcoming remake of it):

“Is Christine the Overlook ghost on wheels?”

From here.

Or put another way, is Christine the Shadow Exploded…?

Carrie (1976).

-SCR

The Laughing Place is a Rabbit Hole to Disney’s Animal KINGdom, Part I

The Writing on the Wall Carries Critterations & Shitterations

The brother in black puts a laugh in every vacant place in his mind. His laugh has a hundred meanings. It may mean amusement, anger, grief, bewilderment, chagrin, curiosity, simple pleasure or any other of the known or undefined emotions.

Zora Neale Hurston, Mules and Men (1935).

“They’re all going to laugh at you.”

Carrie (1976).

I am joking, but it’s nervous joking, the kind analogous to whistling past the graveyard.

Stephen King, “Stephen King on violence at the movies,” EW.com (October 8, 2007).

“When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?”​

The Bible, MATTHEW 24:3.

Black and White and Re(a)d All Over

My previous post discussed the critical trigger moment in Carrie exemplifying the intersection of horror and humor, more precisely locating music’s specific confluence of these two via blackface minstrel performances as fundamental to the foundation/formative contradiction/oxymoron at the heart of American history. This amounts to the site of the (re)production of violence manifest in America’s cyclical wheel of inciting race-based hatred. Or a ferris wheel of it…

Because another name for a “theme park” is an “amusement park.”

Well, we’re on the wheel again.

Horror and humor might seem to be diametrically opposed but are inextricably linked in the Kingverse–or Kingdom–manifest in the characters that certain merch would indicate qualify as King’s most iconic creations:

Likely iconic enough to need no introduction…but just to be safe: King at the center of the film adaptation versions of Pennywise from It (1986/1990), Carrie from Carrie (1974/1976), Jack Torrance from The Shining (1977/1980), and Annie Wilkes from Misery (1987/1990).

I initially read Carrie through the lens of Toni Morrison’s concept of the Africanist presence here, back when Covid was nary a blip on my mental radar and George Floyd was still alive, but, after instituting Carrie as a primary text in three different courses I taught in 2021, I recently read Carrie through Morrison’s lens so again as the basis for a talk at an academic conference for the Popular Culture Association (which has its own “Stephen King” area). And this time, having a little more context for the Kingverse, I unearthed a bit more.

Okay, a (‘Salem’s) LOT more.

The “Africanist presence” is not only Black characters or explicit references to Blackness/Black people in a given text. It is anywhere you can detect the influence/effects/constructions of Blackness, often in attempts to erase or implicitly/unconsciously marginalize it. It turns out that white characters and entities that are not technically Black can also manifest an Africanist presence. And it turns out that in the text of Carrie (1974), Carrie White herself becomes an Africanist presence, both Black and White, a bifurcated duality implicitly reinforced by the imagery of both the first-edition book cover and movie poster:

The figure of Carrie, in a sense, constitutes a “merging” of Black and White, her Blackness manifest as an otherness via the marginalization of her by her classmates–that is, Carrie is constructed as an outcast in the imagination of her classmates. She is “imagined” as one by them, and thus essentially becomes one; the “imagined” construction has real, material effects. Imagined and real merge.

In his academic essay “King Me: Inviting New Perceptions and Purposes of the Popular and Horrific into the College Classroom,” Michael A. Perry explicitly compares Stephen King’s fiction to Toni Morrison’s, finding both characterized by a: “merging of fact and truth, of real life events with creative re-imaginings” (emphasis mine). This thesis is a bit oversimplified for my taste, as this statement is true for most if not all writers of fiction. But the concept of “merging” is also invoked by master of King criticism Tony Magistrale in his study Hollywood’s Stephen King, for which Magistrale interviewed King himself:

The merging of horror and humor characterizes some of the most memorable cinematic adaptations of your work. I’m thinking of films such as Carrie, Misery, Stand by Me. Why do these apparently oppositional elements appear to work so harmoniously with each other in these films? (p. 11, boldface mine)

Tony Magistrale, Hollywood’s Stephen King (2003).

Well, “apparently oppositional elements” by nature create tension, because to be in opposition is to be in conflict and conflict is the genesis of tension, which is fiction’s narrative engine. But King has a bit more detailed of a theory:

SK: We can only speculate here. I think that what happens is that you get your emotional wires crossed. The viewer gets confused as to what reaction is appropriate, how to respond. When the human intellect reaches a blank wall, sometimes the only thing left is laughter. It is a release mechanism, a way to get beyond that impasse. Peter Straub says that horror pushes us into the realm of the surreal, and whenever we enter that surreal world, we laugh. Think of the scene with the leeches in Stand by Me. It’s really funny watching those kids splash around in the swamp, and even when they try to get the leeches off, but then things get plenty serious when Gordie finds one attached to his balls. Everything happens too fast for us to process. We all laugh at Annie Wilkes because she is so obviously crazy. But at the same time, you had better not forget to take her seriously. She’s got Paul in a situation that is filled with comedy, and then she hobbles his ankle. Like Paul Sheldon himself, the viewer doesn’t know what to do. Is this still funny, or not? This is a totally new place, and it’s not a very comfortable place. That’s the kind of thing that engages us when we go to the movies. We want to be surprised, to turn a corner and find something in the plot that we didn’t expect to be there.

What Billy Nolan and Christine Hargensen do to Carrie is both cruel and terrifying, but the two of them are also hilarious in the process. [Actor John] Travolta in particular is very funny. His role as a punk who is manipulated by his girlfriend’s blow-jobs suggests that he’s not very bright. But a lot of guys can appreciate Billy Nolan’s predicament. He’s got a hot girlfriend who wants to call all the shots. He’s the one character in De Palma’s film that I wish could have had a more expanded role. He’s a comic character who behaves in an absolutely horrific manner (boldface mine).

Tony Magistrale, Hollywood’s Stephen King (2003).

King’s interview with Magistrale is infamous in academic circles due to King’s infamous disdain for academia; as Simon Brown notes, Magistrale is one of the only, if not the only, academic King has engaged with:

[King] has been openly skeptical of what he describes as “academic bullshit” (King 1981b, 268), a clear example of which comes from one of his few engagements with critical analysis, his endorsement on the front cover of Landscape of Fear: Stephen King’s American Gothic by Tony Magistrale:

Tony has helped me improve my reputation from ink-stained wretch popular novelist to ink-stained wretch popular novelist with occasional flashes of muddy insight.” (1988)

King is not denigrating Magistrale’s book; indeed, Magistrale remains one of the few academic writers on King with whom King will engage, even offering an interview for Magistrale’s book Hollywood’s Stephen King (2003).

Instead, this endorsement reflects King’s self-deprecating discomfort with his work being subjected to such examination. The origins of this attitude appear to lie in his well-documented, poverty-stricken background and bluecollar roots, which are inextricably linked to his desire to simply tell entertaining tales. (boldface mine)

Simon Brown, Screening Stephen King (2018).

Yet in his desire to be entertaining, King does things in his writing that warrant subjecting his work to “such examination,” and one might even think that his aversion to this examination is a fear of what people will see when they look more closely…which is the “undermining” factor I had definitely identified before I found more official academic support for it in the book Stephen King and American History (2020) that Magistrale wrote with his former student Michael J. Blouin (which I’ve previously quoted here): that “in his rush to dismantle History as a tool manipulated by the powerful, King sometimes empowers the ruling class that he apparently wishes to undermine” (boldface mine). Which is another way of saying that King undermines himself, or undermines his own commentary/critique. So you can read King as being modestly self-deprecating in the blurb he provided for Magistrale’s 1988 academic study when he credits himself only with “occasional flashes of muddy insight,” but King’s own characterization of his insight reveals some unconscious associations one can trace through manifestations of the Africanist presence in invocations of the “minstrel” (a reference King reaches for when mud masks manifest in both Carrie (1974) and The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon (1999)). The figure of the minstrel, via its defining feature of blackface in the American context, constitutes a type of “merging” of Black and white via a white person performing as a Black person–or a construction of a Black person–what Wesley Morris and Nicholas Sammond call performing “imagined blackness.” And one can trace these racist associations through precisely the texts Magistrale references as quintessential examples of King’s “merging of horror and humor”–Carrie, Misery, and Stand By Me, with the racial/racist associations more prominent in King’s source texts than in the adaptation versions. In another study, Stephen King: America’s Storyteller (2010), Magistrale again identifies these three texts as examples of this primary (indeed, defining) Kingian trait:

De Palma’s film version of Carrie managed to capture the slippery blending of horror and humor that is often a crucial–albeit elusive–element in a King text, and characterizes several of the most memorable cinematic adaptations of his work, such as Stand by Me and Misery. (p9, boldface mine)

Tony Magistrale, Stephen King: America’s Storyteller (2010).

This crucial, blended element would seem to elude Magistrale at least, who, in this same study’s discussion of King’s The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon (1999), mentions that the Tom Gordon figure is a “Magical Negro,” but then Magistrale seems to excuse this:

In creating blacks who are long-suffering and whose reasons for existence are primarily defined via their service to white characters, these critics argue that King undercuts [i.e., undermines] whatever liberal spirit may have inspired their creation and, ironically, produces racist stereotypes that lack both independence and individuality, characteristics that are always associated with his Maine heroes and heroines. I will leave it to others, however, to pronounce judgment on King’s racial sensibilities; I wish to point out only that whatever deficiencies are inherent in the writer’s construction of the “Magical Negro” figure, they are at least in part fueled by his regionalism. As a Mainer, King’s exposure to blacks has been necessarily limited; throughout the past century, Maine has remained the whitest state in the union, and has thereby necessarily restricted King’s exposure to black people throughout most of his life. So once more we witness evidence of the influence of Maine on King’s writing, and always as a decidedly ambivalent presence (boldface mine). (p37)

Tony Magistrale, Stephen King: America’s Storyteller (2010).

The Africanist presence as an “ambivalent presence”…Magistrale’s use of the term “blacks” instead of “black people” (until his third reference) is implicitly dehumanizing and might indicate that his exposure has been potentially as limited as King’s…which might be why he wants to leave it to others to “pronounce judgment.”

Is it a coincidence that these three texts (among others) that I will show manifest similar racist associations via blackface minstrelsy share this “elusive” yet “crucial” trait of merging horror and humor? Since minstrelsy essentially constitutes the original site of America’s nexus, or merging, of horror and humor–using humor as a means to mask horror–it would seem likely not. (And since The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon also invokes minstrelsy, I will be circling back to it as a major part of this discussion.)

“Crucial” is also a descriptor Toni Morrison uses for a critical (or crucial) point in Playing in the Dark:

These speculations have led me to wonder whether the major and championed characteristics of our national literature—individualism, masculinity, social engagement versus historical isolation; acute and ambiguous moral problematics; the thematics of innocence coupled with an obsession with figurations of death and hell—are not in fact responses to a dark, abiding, signing Africanist presence. It has occurred to me that the very manner by which American literature distinguishes itself as a coherent entity exists because of this unsettled and unsettling population. Just as the formation of the nation necessitated coded language and purposeful restriction to deal with the racial disingenuousness and moral frailty at its heart, so too did the literature, whose founding characteristics extend into the twentieth century, reproduce the necessity for codes and restriction. Through significant and underscored omissions, startling contradictions, heavily nuanced conflicts, through the way writers peopled their work with the signs and bodies of this presence—one can see that a real or fabricated Africanist presence was crucial to their sense of Americanness. And it shows (boldface mine).

Toni Morrison, Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination (1992).

And nowhere does it show more than in King’s work. Morrison’s penultimate sentence here about what’s “crucial” reinforces that this study is not about Blackness in and of itself, but about Whiteness defining itself by constituting itself in relation to Blackness.

Tracing the connections of King’s racist associations to minstrelsy has led down quite the rabbit hole–a figurative rabbit hole that has a literal corollary not only in the one in Alice in Wonderland (which is a foundational, underwriting text in The Shining), but also in Song of the South (1946), that Disney text at the trigger site of Carrie’s critical trigger moment. Similar in being a Disney rabbit hole, it’s also different, because in SoS it’s not a “literal” rabbit hole as it is in Alice. It is the “Laughing Place,” which in the SoS film constitutes a site of the “real” merged with the “imagined” and which I wrote about as manifesting a nexus of horror and humor in relation to Carries’ trigger moment last time.

Here I will trace a fuller lineage of The Laughing Place I found tracing through the texts Magistrale invokes but a couple more: Carrie (1974), The Shining (1977), Misery (1987), and The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon (1999). (Magistrale also mentioned Stand by Me as “merging [] horror and humor” and I can fit “The Body” into this lineage in a near-future post since Different Seasons is next on the write-up list chronologically.)

A recent teabag tag I encountered declares that “Laughter is the same in all languages.” But it can function in diametrically opposed ways. For example, my mother recently had an extensive operation on her large intestine, and since she laughs pretty much harder and louder than anyone I know (excepting, though only possibly, her sisters), I worried about what potential damage boisterous laughter could lead to during her post-op recovery. It turned out to be helpful in strengthening her core, reinforcing on literal and figurative levels that clichéd maxim that “laughter is the best medicine.” But in The Shining, the benevolence of this sentiment is undermined (intentionally) by the malevolent refrain voiced initially by Jack Torrance’s abusive father–“‘Take your medicine'”–that, when eventually uttered by Jack himself, becomes a significant marker (or a “sign”) of his sinister transition.

Laughter also has its own history of racial associations, as elucidated by Ralph Ellison in his essay “The Extravagance of Laughter” (1985), which echoes King’s idea via Peter Straub quoted above, that “the greater the stress within society, the stronger the comic antidote required.” And since American society is inherently white supremacist, “stress within society” is necessarily going to be more intense for Black people. Which means, in turn, Black people need/have created a “stronger [] comic antidote.”

The Carrie trigger moment demonstrates, obviously, a harmful function of laughter…laughing “at” instead of “with”…

This moment is first described retrospectively by Norma Watson in her memoir, whose title, We Survived the Black Prom, manifests a sign of the Africanist presence. When Norma describes this moment by comparing Carrie to a minstrel, it becomes a re-enactment of the original minstrel performances. (And let’s also remember that Norma refers to Carrie not just as a minstrel but as a “Negro minstrel”–a Black person performing as a white person’s construction of imagined blackness, a doubling of humiliation.) By dramatizing the horror that the harmful laughter leads to, and, further, by placing the origin of that harmful laughter in a stereotype (one, the tarbaby, that is in the mouth of another stereotype, Uncle Remus–a doubling of stereotypes), King purports to demonstrate the harmful and inextricable nature of bullying and pop-culture-perpetuated stereotypes.

But, as ever, King seems to undermine his own critique.

In the infamous 2003 academic interview discussed above, Magistrale starts to push King toward a closer examination of his own work by bringing up Spike Lee’s (infamous) criticism of John Coffey’s character in The Green Mile, which some cite as the origin or at least popularizing of the “Magical Negro” trope. King sounds entirely defensive when he asserts that Magistrale’s idea that Coffey’s suffering might somehow be related to his race “represents an imaginative failing on your part” (p15)–this is the (Trumpian) rhetoric of accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of. King’s evidence for this rebuttal is also telling:

Remember Steinbeck’s Lenny in Of Mice and Men. He’s white and he bears similar scars of suffering.

Tony Magistrale, Hollywood’s Stephen King (2003).

Having recently reread Of Mice and Men (1937) after noting its recurrence in King’s 1999 novel (or linked short fiction) Hearts in Atlantis, I can tell you that it is one of the most misogynist books I have ever read, in which the death of a woman who never gets a name and is only (repeatedly) referred to as “Curley’s wife” is used as a plot device to emphasize not how sad the DEATH OF A WOMAN is (since it’s essentially the plot that she is implicitly to blame for her death herself for being a slut, or in the book’s parlance, a “tart”), but rather how sad it is that her death means the two main male characters will not get to realize their dream of OWNING LAND. The presence of the single Black character, who incidentally does get a name, “Crooks,” serves to underscore the sadness of the white males not getting to own land with the implication that the sadness of this landlessness resides in a likeness to Blackness. The introduction of the Crooks character in the Steinbeck text might also be telling in the context of its influence on King and some…associations foundational to this post’s (or posts’) thesis when it likens and juxtaposes the Black presence with animals:

The door opened quietly and the stable buck put in his head; a lean Negro head, lined with pain, the eyes patient. “Mr. Slim.”

Slim took his eyes from old Candy. “Huh? Oh! Hello, Crooks. What’s’a matter?”

“You told me to warm up tar for that mule’s foot. I got it warm.”

John Steinbeck, Of Mice and Men (1937).

I will eventually get to a more developed analysis of John Coffey (though at this rate, that will be years from now), but King claims his main goal in the creation of this character was to have him be a selfless Christ figure, and that Coffey’s being Black is incidental. But the reason King tries to provide for this incidental-ness–that “he’s black because his color makes certain that he will fry” (14)–undermines the premise that his race is incidental by revealing that it’s actually essential to the plot. According to King’s own logic, he could have given the character any name with the initials “J.C.” to impart the Christ symbolism; yet the last name he ended up choosing, “Coffey,” is a moniker that bears the burden of America’s historical commodification of Black people, the legacy of which is often (unconsciously) visible in a tic King provides an indirect version of here when he says Coffey will “fry”–white writers comparing the skin tones of Black people to food, most often chocolate and coffee:

….never use the words ‘chocolate’ or ‘coffee’ or any other food related word to describe someone’s skin color, especially someone of color. i wrote a whole paper about how referring to darker skin tones as specifically chocolate was about aggression and appropriation and has links to colonialism. think about it, what is the best way to show dominance? by eating someone – like in the animal kingdom. it’s a disgusting practice, so please watch yourself while writing biographies and replying to people, or even in your short stories/novels. (boldface mine)

From here.

I’ve been reading one of Tabitha King’s novels, Pearl (1988), whose title character is biracial.

As such, the name of the character and the novel alike are already implicated in the problem described above (a commodity, if not an edible one), which is reinforced by other descriptions:

When [Pearl] was little, the world was populated by people of nearly every imaginable shade, from blue-black to espresso to bitter chocolate to coffee-and-cream to cinnamon, amber, ivory, and bisque.

Tabitha King, Pearl (1988).

Pearl surely might be a cannibal to see so many people in shades of food, though to be fair, eating is central to Pearl’s story generally, as she will take over the diner in the small Maine town she moves back to in the novel’s main action. The above passage is our introduction to Pearl’s backstory, which shortly leads to the apparent reason eating is central to her identity, that her mother worked in a diner–a reason with an Easter egg, that the Washington Post quote on the cover above might hint toward by claiming the novel “shines”:

In the off season, summer, the night manager was in charge; winters the All-Night was managed by a cook named Dick Halloran. It was Dick Halloran who hired Pearl’s mother.

Tabitha King, Pearl (1988).

If this is in fact the same Dick as King’s first Magical Negro character, which by his cook profession he would very much seem to be, then his name is spelled wrong, because in The Shining his last name is spelled “Hallorann” with two n’s, not one. (I’d suggest it’s a potential copyright issue, but when Pearl references Cujo, the name is spelled the same as it appears in her husband’s text, though notably it’s the text itself that’s referenced, in book and movie form.) So if Dick Halloran(n) from The Shining is central to the reason eating/food is central to Pearl’s identity (underwrites it literally by facilitating the financial foundation, the job that influences the aspect of Pearl’s identity that plays the most direct role in the novel’s present action), does that explain why Pearl conceives of the man who will become her (non-biological) father to the point of taking his last name in terms of food?

It was a summer evening when a tall coffee-colored man with a smooth, naked egg-shaped skull and a deep, rumbling way of laughing came into the diner and introduced himself as Mr. Norris Dickenson, the owner. 

Tabitha King, Pearl (1988).

The “laughing” here is supposed to be a positive trait for a generally positive character, but juxtaposed with the food references, this trait undermines itself, with this King purporting to laugh with the character and not realizing the descriptions objectify and dehumanize to the point that we’re necessarily invited to laugh at and not with.

At one point a character gives Pearl a poem that’s rendered in full:

The Sunday New York Times Newspaper War

“Mine, mine.”
We rip the newspaper to shreds,
tear words letter from letter,
and toss them overhead, to float
and flutter and lastly swoon earthward.
Black and white and read all over,
the newspaper winter falls
upon us
in the shape of a map;
X marks the spot where
something is buried.

Tabitha King, Pearl (1988).

The themes expressed here–of ownership linked to violence facilitated by forms of media that conceal the whole truth (and as we’ll see, iterations of “letters”)–echo through Stephen King’s oeuvre, and that symbolic X marks the nexus of many of its defining (contradictory) traits: good and evil, natural and supernatural, canonical literature and popular culture…

…and not least of all, horror and humor, the nexus which might be the most significant sign of a “spot where / something is buried”–the American blackface minstrel legacy, that which underwrites our current state of systemic racism.

The Writing on the Wall: Critterations

Norma’s reference in Carrie to Disney’s Song of the South might only be a sentence, but its position at the text’s critical moment implies that in a figurative sense, it underwrites Carrie’s destruction, and through that, underwrites King’s entire canon.

With Michael Eisner’s (hostile) takeover of Disney in the 80s, the company leaned on the so-called “’Uncle Walt’ mythology,” as well as the “transmedia dissipation” strategy, to, as Jason Sperb puts it in his 2012 study on Song of the South, “sanitize[] the company’s past.” That is, Disney methodically covered up the most egregiously racist pieces of Disney texts without banishing those texts completely, continuing to use the less egregiously racist/problematic elements, or pieces, of a text in merchandise and other spinoff media, like theme park rides.

Sperb describes how the Disneyworld Splash Mountain amusement park ride manifested but “dissipated” (until very recently) the “theme” of Song of the South, with the strategy of using the iconography of the film’s animated “critters” while eradicating references to the problematic Remus figure–except not quite:

Before setting foot in the hollowed-out log that serves as the vehicle, Uncle Remus’s sayings do selectively appear scattered through the queue line as generic, unattributed axioms (e.g., “The critters, they was closer to the folks, and the folks, they was closer to the critters, and if you’ll excuse me for saying so, ’twas better all around”). These anonymous plaques, however, are the only direct connections remaining to the character himself. This is done in no small part to remove perhaps the most overt signifier of the film’s racism.

JASON SPERB, DISNEY’S MOST NOTORIOUS FILM: RACE, CONVERGENCE, AND THE HIDDEN HISTORIES OF SONG OF THE SOUTH (2012).

But the vestige that remains–the “critter” quote–is a sign of covert racism. This is the sugarcoating, whitewashing rhetoric of what Sperb terms “evasive whiteness,” expressing a nostalgia for the institution of slavery by way of a likening of human to animal–a likening more insidious for seeming innocuous, a trait it shares with the “Magical Negro” stereotype.

If an “iteration” of something is a “version” of it, one “iteration” of the critter–or as I will term it, a “critteration”–is the animated version as it appears in SoS; another iteration is this textual reference to the critters on the Splash Mountain wall, which is positioned so patrons see it while they wait in line for the ride–meaning it’s positioned for maximum exposure, since patrons will spend more time in line than on the ride itself.

When a Slate review of Sperb’s study on Song of the South posits that Sperb isn’t being entirely fair to Disney, it notes:

While his choice of the Remus stories was motivated by profit and popular taste, it’s not hard to see how Disney would be drawn to a story about a beloved storyteller whose gift ultimately saves an impressionable boy’s life. Remus guides Johnny away from stilted real life and into “a laughing place,” an alternate time when “the folks, they was closer to the critters, and the critters, they was closer to the folks.” It is naturally a cartoon world full of eyelash-batting animals. The whole film is like a test run for the immersive theme parks that Disney would eventually destroy acres of forest to build. (boldface mine)

From here.

In the boldface passage, this reviewer sounds like they’ve drunk the sugary Kool-Aid of the covertly racist critter rhetoric, and like they’ve misread the function of the “laughing place,” which in the film explicitly functions as a covert means to enact harm (notably, in response to harm received) not as a lighthearted fun place–despite the tone of the promotional materials.

As King put it in his response to Magistrale: “Is this still funny, or not? This is a totally new place, and it’s not a very comfortable place.”

The Slate passage also implicitly draws a parallel in its description–Disney is drawn to the figure of a “beloved storyteller” because Disney himself is a “beloved storyteller.” Disney is a Remus figure!

And who is King? According to Tony Magistrale’s 2010 study, he is America’s STORYTELLER.

And of course, so is “Uncle Walt,” aka Disney himself. One academic article from 1992 by Peggy A. Russo makes the case that “Uncle Walt’s” version of Uncle Remus is significantly more problematic than the original depiction of this figure by Joel Chandler Harris, that Uncle Walt is the one who constructed Uncle Remus as an Uncle Tom in a version that ultimately eclipsed/displaced Harris’s original. This article is also one of many that will reflect the fluidity of meaning in the concept of the “laughing place,” here presenting it as it exists in Harris’s version as the site of storytelling itself, providing anecdotal accounts of Mark Twain describing being told stories around a fireplace as a child by a “black storyteller” he refers to as “Uncle Dan’l”; Russo concludes her discussion with:

Once Uncle Remus’s fireplace becomes our “laughing place,” we learn to value more fully the magic of folktales that come out of the joy and pain of human experience, and we grow to respect the fundamental dignity of all men no matter what their social or economic status.

Russo, Peggy A. “Uncle Walt’s Uncle Remus: Disney’s Distortion of Harris’s Hero.” The Southern Literary Journal, vol. 25, no. 1, 1992, pp. 19–32.

The fluidity of “the laughing place” is further underscored by the conclusion of an article published two years before Russo’s and that digs deeper into whether Joel Chandler Harris was compiling authentic African folklore or “fakelore”:

Beyond the humor there is a discussion of a lifestyle, a pastoral element, not those about whom the stories are written, rather, about the White Southerner, his convictions and reminiscences of the Old South. Also revealed in these stories is a vivid description of a castle-like system made possible by the addition of characters from the plantation. The stories present a picture of Southern life for those who desire to preserve the attributes of slavery. Harris presented the pastoral element and embroidered tales to the extent that plantation settings and characters are common elements. The plots are filled with degradations and stereotypes, folklore in disguise–all presented as humor and labeled Black Folklore (223).

Evelyn Nash, “Beyond Humor in Joel Chandler Harris’s ‘Nights with Uncle Remus.’” The Western Journal of Black Studies, vol. 14, no. 4, 1990.

Another article calls out Russo’s argument specifically as unsupported while providing the larger context of the debate of how to read both Remus and Harris’s intent in depicting the character, claiming that:

Wayne Mixon has convincingly argued, however, that there is a subtle “racial subversiveness” at work in Harris’s writing and “that sufficient evidence exists both within the Remus tales and in Harris’s other writings to justify the conclusion that a major part of his purpose as a writer was to undermine racism” (Mixon 461) (226) (boldface mine).

M. Thomas Inge, “Walt Disney’s Song of the South and the Politics of Animation.” J Am Cult, vol. 35, no. 3, 2012, pp. 219–230.

Though like King, Harris probably undermined his own attempts to undermine… Despite Harris’s apparent intent for Remus to “undermine racism,” Inge refutes Russo by showing how “[t]he development of Uncle Remus’s identification as an Uncle Tom figure had been well on its way among critics before Disney came along” (227).

Avuncular Stereotypewriters Undermined

Walt Disney peddled plenty of covert racism across the board, disseminating it not just through his movies but through the persona he crafted for himself of “Uncle Walt”:

Genial “Uncle Walt” was also a fierce opponent of labor unions, a strident anti-Communist who named names before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in 1947, and a showman who (despite his genuine commitment to cross-cultural understanding) remained oddly tone-deaf to racial and ethnic stereotypes. 

From here.

So a persona King adopted for himself–one adopted specifically for the sake of commenting on popular culture–seems another vestige of the Disney influence:

It’s the end of an era: After seven years of jotting down his thoughts on pop culture for a back-of-the-book column in Entertainment Weekly, Stephen King has penned his farewell note. “It’s time for Uncle Stevie to grab his walking cane, put on his traveling shoes, and head on down the road,” the horror author wrote, and that was King’s column in a nutshell: Oddly folksy in a way recalling Dan Rather, it was dictated by “Uncle Steve,” who — much like an actual uncle — told interesting stories and made embarrassing revelations in equal measure. (boldface mine)

From here.

But a more academic “take” reveals that the influence of this moniker, King’s casting of himself in this avuncular lineage, extends to the “tone-deaf [] racial and ethnic stereotypes”; in his essay “A Taste for the Public: Uncle Stevie’s Work for Entertainment Weekly,” Scott Ash

discusses how King adeptly utilizes his position as a literary and cultural critic while simultaneously abusing such power often in an attempt to remain seen as “just one of the guys,” or good ol’ “Uncle Stevie.”

Stephen King’s Modern Macabre. eds. Patrick McAleer and Michael A. Perry. McFarland & Company, 
Inc., Publishers. 2014.

Ash’s title for his analysis invoking “taste” resonates with the tagline on the movie poster for Carrie:

And Perry’s essay in the same volume comparing King and Morrison’s fiction places them both in the lineage of Mark Twain (whose pen name deriving from his occupation as a steamboat captain is also reminiscent of the moniker in Disney’s first animated short, “Steamboat Willie”). King’s naming himself “Uncle Steve” shows that he places himself in an avuncular lineage that goes back to that historic national uncle, Uncle Tom (which might be the alter ego of the first national uncle, Uncle Sam?). 

From here.

Karina Longworth’s You Must Remember This podcast series on Song of the South (which I highly recommend) also reveals that the history of the film’s “centerpiece song” “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah” is an intentional throwback phenomenon to minstrel music, evoking the “zip coon” stereotype that Remus himself embodies, and that also enacts a more overt manifestation of the racist strain of likening human to animal. Remus concurrently embodies the Uncle Tom stereotype of being innocuous and subservient to white people, a variation of the “Magical Negro.” The “zip coon” type encodes the problematic “critter” comparison component; as cinema historian Donald Bogle explains in his influential study Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies and Bucks: An Interpretive History of Blacks in American Films (1973), Remus as “an amusement object” embodies this type that is “the most blatantly degrading of all black stereotypes,” depicting them as “subhuman.”

That is, there’s a link between “critterations” and harmful stereotypes. In a recent essay on King’s Cujo (1981), Sarah Nilssen notes:

King sees this rural community and its excessive linkage to the animal world as a bodily threat to middle-class normality and closely linked to the popular perception of nonhuman animals as aggressive and unruly. (boldface mine)

Sarah Nilsen, “Cujo, the Black Man, and the Story of Patty Hearst” in Violence in the Films of Stephen King (ed. Magistrale & Blouin), 2021.

Nilsen has previously written about King’s use of the “Magical Negro” trope in a volume edited by Magistrale (with whom she teaches at the University of Vermont), The Films of Stephen King, from 2008. In her 2021 analysis, she coins a term for this animal linkage–“creatureliness”–that she’s using in a more explicitly negative connotation than the “critter” likeness–a linkage to animals that are explicitly threatening/scary, which would constitute an overtly racist comparison if linked to a human. “Critters” are the opposite of “aggressive and unruly” animals: they are cute, innocuous, harmless–thus a likening of human to this type of animal constitutes/signifies covert racism. In the case of Song of the South, it helps provide the plausible deniability that the film is racist by presenting the film as a vision of an antiracist utopia.

Longworth also notes (in the episode here) that the Splash Mountain ride incorporated “recycled white birds” from a ride where an employee died from being crushed between a moving and stationary wall and other employees heard her screaming, but mistook it for the sounds of the ride itself. If ever an anecdote metaphorically reinforced the potential of walls (and the writing on them) to enact harm, it’s this one.

Remus: Dishyer’s de only home I knows. Was goin’ ter whitewash de walls, too, but not now. Time done run out.

SONG OF THE SOUTH, 1946 (HERE).

But it turns out Remus did whitewash the walls by way of manifesting this nostalgic idea that times were better when his kind were “closer to the critters.” And just like violence rooted in racism, the critter strategy continues/persists…

This is the type of toxic nostalgia manifest in the time of Reagan that cycled back around via Trump, both of whom, it happens, project unique Hollywood/pop-culture related/bolstered personae that helped them into office…(Is it a coincidence that the two Presidents who have most egregiously exploited toxic nostalgia initially entered the popular imagination initially via the silver screen?)

But a more significant influence on King is likely Disney, and the critical Carrie trigger moment implicates Walt Disney’s narrative influence/perpetuation of the racist legacy of toxic nostalgia in the bargain. Around the time I actually published my last post further discussing Disney’s legacy of essentially culturally weaponizing unrealistic happy endings, the Kingcast podcast had King himself on (here), who mentioned that the title of his upcoming book that will be released this September is Fairy Tale. This fits with Heidi Strengell’s equation for what constitutes the King brand:

His brand of horror is the end product of a kind of genre equation: the Gothic + myths and fairy tales + literary naturalism = King’s brand of horror. As I see it, the Gothic provides the background; myths and fairy tales make good stories; and literary naturalism lends the worldview implicit in King’s multiverse. (boldface mine)

Heidi Strengell, Dissecting Stephen King From the Gothic to Literary Naturalism, p22 (2005). 

Disney was apparently quite formative for King…

From here and here.

…as Nilssen notes:

King has often noted the childhood origins for his interest in horror and its link to the violent encounters between humans and nonhuman animals. He has repeatedly singled out Bambi as a primary source. In a 2014 Rolling Stone interview, when asked what drew him to writing about horror or the supernatural, King responded: “It’s built in. That’s all. The first movie I ever saw was a horror movie. It was Bambi. When that little deer gets caught in a forest fire, I was terrified, but I was also exhilarated. I can’t explain it” (Green). In a 1980 essay for TV Guide, written while King was writing his novel Cujo, King again explained that “the movies that terrorized my own nights most thoroughly as a kid were not those through which Frankenstein’s monster or the Wolfman lurched and growled, but the Disney cartoons. I watched Bambi’s mother shot and Bambi running frantically to escape being burned up in a forest fire (King, TV Guide 8). And in his 2006 Paris Review interview, he retells the origin story again: “I loved the movies from the start . . . I can remember my mother taking me to Radio City Music Hall to see Bambi. Whoa, the size of the place, and the forest fire in the movie—it made a big impression. So, when I started to write, I had a tendency to write in images because that was all I knew at the time” (Rich). The fact that Bambi premiered at Radio City Music Hall in 1942 and King was born in 1947 makes it unlikely that his first film going experience was at Radio City Music Hall, but King certainly considers Bambi central to his development as a horror writer.

Cujo, the Black Man, and the Story of Patty Hearst” by Sarah Nilsen, in Violence in the Films of Stephen King, ed. Tony Magistrale and Michael J. Blouin. Lexington Books. Kindle Edition. 2021.

Jason Sperb’s SoS study elucidates Disney’s very deliberate strategy of re-releasing its films in theaters about once a decade, making it plausible that King did see Bambi at Radio City Music Hall. That King derives horror from this animated genre not explicitly designed to express it, a genre with problematic emphasis on happy endings to boot, is further reinforcement of his larger pattern of exploiting the tension between horror and humor.

Splash Mountain’s transmedia-dissipation function in shifting SoS from overt racism to covert racism is manifest in another change the ride made to the source text: instead of a tar baby appearing along the ride, there is a honey pot:

This change and its implications are so significant that Sperb invokes it for the title of his study’s chapter on Splash Mountain: “On Tar Babies and Honey Pots: Splash Mountain, ‘Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah,’ and the Transmedia Dissipation of Song of the South.”

The tarbaby is a signifier of overt racism while, like the critter quote, the honeypot signifies covert racism.

Via this change, I started to think of Carrie’s merging of Black and White as manifesting a sort of fluid duality. As laughter itself encodes the opposing functions of helping and harming, the tar that the tarbaby is constructed from can encode different meanings, as Ta-Nehisi Coates explained after Mitt Romney was criticized for using the term in a nonracial context:

Is tar baby a racist term? Like most elements of language, that depends on context. … Among etymologists, a slur’s validity hangs heavily on history. The concept of tar baby goes way back, according to Words@Random from Random House: “The tar baby is a form of a character widespread in African folklore. In various folktales, gum, wax or other sticky material is used to trap a person.” The term itself was popularized by the 19th-century Uncle Remus stories by Joel Chandler Harris, in which the character Br’er Fox makes a doll out of tar to ensnare his nemesis Br’er Rabbit … “…But the term also has had racial implications. … The Oxford English Dictionary (but not the print version of its American counterpart) says that tar baby is a derogatory term used for ‘a black or a Maori.’” (emphases mine).

From here.

(Coates here parenthetically notes that the term’s racist associations have been erased/obscured in America specifically.)

Toni Morrison herself has written a novel entitled Tar Baby (1981) (which I discuss in detail here) in which she plays with the figurative (and literal) fluidity in iterations of tar, offering a converse of tar’s negative trapping function as it’s displayed in Song of the South. Rather than “trap,” tar can “hold things together” as Morrison put it to one interviewer. Tar can thus be read as a symbolic binding agent demonstrating the essential inextricability between constructions of whiteness and blackness. In Morrison’s hands, the tar baby as a symbol, the “blatant sculpture sitting at the heart of the folktale,” becomes the “bones of the narrative” as it’s enmeshed in a network of consumption and commodification

In Tar Baby’s foreword, Morrison describes conceiving of its characters as “African masks,” thus examining the roots of constructions of blackness that amount to stereotypes in order to get “through a buried history to stinging truth” (boldface and underline mine). So you can bet that when Morrison compares a Black character’s skin tone to an edible commodity, she does so with intent. The character she does it with is Jadine Childs, who, not incidentally, is the character struggling the most with her racial identity as a Black woman with a wealthy white patron who has financed her elite European (i.e., white) education. Jadine’s struggle with Black authenticity manifests in a reference likening skin to tar: “the skin like tar against the canary yellow dress” of a woman Jadine sees in a supermarket, the sight of whom “had run her out of Paris,” indicating that Jadine is fleeing her own Black authenticity, a reading that’s reinforced when Jadine’s skin tone is likened, on two occasions, to honey.

Splash Mountain’s replacement of the tar baby with a honeypot seems to be a reference to the “Laughing Place” in the SoS film, since Brer Rabbit tricks Brer Bear into disturbing a beehive when he points to a hole in some bushes and claims (after noticing some bees emerging from it) that it’s the Laughing Place. Which should mean that this honey is not very sweet…

From Song of the South (1946).

Honey also CARRIEs (or “bears”) its own problematic implications. Morrison plays extensively with iterations of commodification in Tar Baby, often via sugar; Jadine’s wealthy white patron derives his wealth from a (inherited) candy company, and he is known as the Candy King (no joke). He also “owns” the Caribbean island where the bulk of the novel’s action takes place.

There aren’t any bees prevalent in Morrison’s Tar Baby, but one critic has read an extended passage near the novel’s end, which takes up the point of view of an ant, as rewriting, or “signifying on,” Sylvia Plath’s bee sequence from her collection Ariel (1965):

Morrison’s repetition and revision of Plath’s bee queen in Tar Baby uncovers an Africanist presence in Plath’s bee poems, a presence unnoticed by Plath critics. Furthermore, fiction, unlike criticism, allows Morrison a space for a corrective revision to such distorted representations of Africanism, a place in which the truth of African American being can be told. (boldface mine)

Malin Walther Pereira, “Be(e)ing and ‘Truth’: Tar Baby’s Signifying on Sylvia Plath’s Bee Poems,” Twentieth Century Literature, 1996.

This article mentions the origin for Plath’s sequence is procuring a “bee colony” after her separating from her husband, which she then uses “as a metaphor for a female escape from patriarchal colonization,” developing black and white imagery to do so, with the bees associated with blackness:

…the poem ultimately reaffirms white supremacy by insisting on black stupidity in the representation of the bees as “Black asininity” (Collins 218).  

Malin Walther Pereira, “Be(e)ing and ‘Truth’: Tar Baby’s Signifying on Sylvia Plath’s Bee Poems,” Twentieth Century Literature, 1996.

and

Plath’s image of the bees as Africans sold to the slave trade draws on the horrors of the middle passage and ultimately appropriates it as a metaphor for female colonization throughout the bee poems. The imagery, furthermore, seems racially stereotypical in its representation of African hands as “swarmy” and the echoes of shrunken heads, both of which connote savagery. Although Plath appropriates slavery as an emblem of her female speaker’s colonization within patriarchy, the text fails to critique the speaker’s own position as a white colonizer. The speaker, in fact, so fears the bees that she exults in her power over them: “They can be sent back. / They can die, I need feed them nothing, I am the owner” (213). She paints herself a benevolent master in the hope they won’t turn on her, promising “Tomorrow I will be sweet God, I will set them free” (213). That the speaker’s relationship to the bees is represented through the figures of enslavement and ownership reflects the defining racial discourse informing the poems’ epistemology (boldface mine). 

Malin Walther Pereira, “Be(e)ing and ‘Truth’: Tar Baby‘s Signifying on Sylvia Plath’s Bee Poems,” Twentieth Century Literature, 1996.

Yikes. The title of Plath’s sequence, Ariel, appears to derive from the name of a character, more specifically, the that of a gender-fluid fairy in Shakespeare’s play The Tempest (1611). The counterpoint to Ariel’s spritely presence in the play is the figure of Caliban, who you can tell from the basic description of the character on Wikipedia functions as a version of an Africanist presence:

Caliban is half human, half monster. After his island becomes occupied by Prospero and his daughter Miranda, Caliban is forced into slavery.[3] While he is referred to as a calvaluna or mooncalf, a freckled monster, he is the only human inhabitant of the island that is otherwise “not honour’d with a human shape” (Prospero, I.2.283).[4] In some traditions, he is depicted as a wild man, or a deformed man, or a beast man, or sometimes a mix of fish and man, a dwarf or even a tortoise.[5]

From here.

We can see Nilsen’s concept of “creatureliness” at work here, so might start to see a link between creatureliness and Africanist presences. A “beast man,” part animal, part human, embodies the dichotomy of civilized v. savage that provides the rhetorical foundation for moral justifications of the institution of slavery. In The Shining, the figure of the wasp expresses this dichotomy:

When you unwittingly stuck your hand into the wasps’ nest, you hadn’t made a covenant with the devil to give up your civilized self with its trappings of love and respect and honor. (boldface mine)

Stephen King, The Shining (1977).

The figure of the wasp becomes a prominent motif in The Shining, one specifically associated with the ghost(s) of the Overlook Hotel (more on this in Part II). Apparently the possibility also exists that the bees in Song of the South are actually wasps:

One of these tales, based on Harris’s “Brer Rabbit’s Laughing-Place,” deals explicitly with the liberating powers of laughter. In the version in Song of the South, Brer Fox and Brer Bear are about to roast Brer Rabbit. Facing his imminent demise, Brer Rabbit breaks out into laughter and, when asked about why he is laughing so hard, explains that he has been thinking about his secret laughing place. Enticed by the promise of a place that can induce laughter, Brer Fox and Brer Bear demand that Brer Rabbit show them the location of this laughing place. Brer Rabbit then tricks the Fox and Bear into believing that his laughing place is hidden behind a set of bushes—Fox and Bear fall for the trap and stumble into a wasp’s nests, getting stung miserably by the agitated insects. Accused of deception, Brer Rabbit exclaims: “I didn’t say it was your laughin’ place, I said it was my laughin’ place.” (p28, boldface mine)

Daniel Stein, “From Uncle Remus to Song of the South: Adapting American Plantation Fictions,” The Southern Literary Journal, volume xlvii, number 2, spring 2015.

The clause where Stein identifies the insect as a wasp is weirdly phrased/punctuated to the point of seeming incorrect: “a wasp’s nests” indicates that a single wasp is manifesting ownership of multiple nests here, when it seems it should be the opposite, multiple wasps inhabiting a single nest, which would be rendered “a wasps’ nest.” The possessive apostrophe is also relevant in related contexts, with the above passage also emphasizing how possession, or ownership, is baked into the “laughing place” as a concept–its ownership is fluid.

Stein continues:

The story of the laughing place exemplifies Brer Rabbit’s capacity to outsmart his competitors and to do so in a way that amuses Uncle Remus’s young listeners, who share in the rabbit’s laughter. Remus tells Johnny and his girlfriend, Ginny, that “everybody has a laughing place,” and Johnny eventually realizes that his laughing place—the place where all his troubles go away—is Remus’s cabin: “my laughing place is right here.” In Harris’s version of the tale, however, the laughing place is conceived as a psychological disposition rather than an actual place: a disposition that retains the ability to laugh despite the rigid strictures of the slave system. Harris’s laughing animals are thus indicative of the conflicted feelings that many Americans had about what Ralph Ellison called the “hoot-and-cackle” of the slave and the “extravagance of laughter” (653) through which the free black folk confounded their fellow white citizens once slavery had been abolished. Black laughter is the most central sound and activity in Harris’s books, and its ambiguity is never fully resolved. Brer Rabbit enjoys the pain he causes others, and his frequent laughter is as humiliating as it is vicious: “laughter fit to kill,” as Remus calls it many times throughout the books.11

Racially ambiguous laughter is part of what Tara McPherson calls America’s “cultural schizophrenia” about the South as at “once the site of the trauma of slavery and also the mythic location of a vast nostalgia industry,” as a space where the brutalities of slavery and Jim Crow “remain disassociated from . . . representations of the material site of those atrocities, the plantation home” (3). This schizophrenia, McPherson argues, is “fixat[ed] on sameness or difference without allowing productive overlap or connection” (27) despite “more than two and a half centuries of incredible cross-racial intimacy and contact around landscapes and spaces” (29). (p28-29, emphases mine)

Daniel Stein, “From Uncle Remus to Song of the South: Adapting American Plantation Fictions,” The Southern Literary Journal, volume xlvii, number 2, spring 2015.

This might represent a different version of “cabin fever,” which is a concept also at play in The Shining; one essay even mentions, obliquely, that

…legendary activist and polemicist Angela Davis … concludes that slave cabins in American antebellum history were the one and only place that her ancestors were free from the master’s gaze.

Danel Olsen, “‘Cut You Up Into Little Pieces’: Ghosts & Violence in Kubrick’s The Shining,” Violence in the Films of Stephen King (ed. Magistrale and Blouin), 2021.

It seems that it was Joel Chandler Harris and/or Disney’s mission to violate this safe space by giving Remus and his cabin to the little white boy as his Laughing Place….

Harris’s version of “Brother Rabbit’s Laughing-Place” might illuminate the bee v. wasp question as well as some other things–Johnny identifies his own “laughing place” not as Remus’s cabin, but as Remus himself:

“Why, you are my laughing-place,” cried the little lad…

Joel Chandler Harris, Told by Uncle Remus: New Stories of the Old Plantation (1903).

Remus then asks, “’But what make you laugh at me, honey?’” And the “lad” clarifies:

“Why, I never laughed at you!” exclaimed the child, blushing at the very idea. “I laugh at what you say, and at the stories you tell.”

Joel Chandler Harris, Told by Uncle Remus: New Stories of the Old Plantation (1903).

Remus then explains that he’s been able to make people laugh at his stories for a long time, though back when he did it for the boy’s father (or “pa”):

“…dem wuz laughin’ times, an’ it look like dey ain’t never comin’ back. Dat ’uz ’fo’ eve’ybody wuz rushin’ roun’ trying fer ter git money what don’t b’long ter um by good rights.” (boldface mine)

Joel Chandler Harris, Told by Uncle Remus: New Stories of the Old Plantation (1903).

When Remus finally does get to the critter story, it looks a lot different from the Disney version, mainly in that Brer Rabbit doesn’t take Brer Fox to his Laughing Place because he’s been captured by him, but because the critters have been having a contest to see who could laugh the loudest, and when Brer Rabbit refuses to participate because he claims to have his own Laughing Place, they demand to see it, and he explains they can only go one at a time and takes Brer Fox first. When they get to the (rabbit) hole in the thicket, Brer Rabbit explains that it will only work if Brer Fox runs back and forth in and out of the thicket, in the course of which the Fox hits his head on something that is only revealed in the tale’s final line to be not a wasp’s nest or a bee’s nest (or a wasps’ nest or bees’ nest/hive), but a “hornet’s nes!

Apparently a nest that only belongs to a single hornet as well… the change in the Disney version that Brer Rabbit is being “roasted” for a meal calls to mind the connotation of the term “roasting” in insult comedy.

But there is another Harris Remus tale in a different Remus volume that invokes bees, “The End of Mr. Bear” (in this tale, Remus is working on an “axe handle” as he tells it), in which Brer Rabbit pulls a trick on Brer Bear when he tells him:

‘I come ‘cross wunner deze yer ole time bee-trees. Hit start holler at de bottom, en stay holler plum der de top, en de honey’s des natchully oozin’ out…

Leas’ways, dey got dar atter w’ile. Ole Brer B’ar, he ‘low dat he kin smell de honey. Brer Rabbit, he ‘low dat he kin see de honey-koam. Brer B’ar, he ‘low dat he can hear de bees a zoonin’. Dey stan’ ‘roun’ en talk biggity, dey did, twel bimeby Brer Rabbit, he up’n say, sezee:

“‘You do de clim’in’, Brer B’ar, en I’ll do de rushin’ ‘roun’; you clim’ up ter de hole, en I’ll take dis yer pine pole en shove de honey up whar you kin git ‘er,’ sezee.

“Ole Brer B’ar, he spit on his han’s en skint up de tree, en jam his head in de hole, en sho nuff, Brer Rabbit, he grab de pine pole, en de way he stir up dem bees wuz sinful—dat’s w’at it wuz. Hit wuz sinful. En de bees dey swawm’d on Brer B’ar’s head, twel ‘fo’ he could take it out’n de hole hit wuz done swell up bigger dan dat dinner-pot, en dar he swung, en ole Brer Rabbit, he dance ‘roun’ en sing:

“Tree stan’ high, but honey mighty sweet— Watch dem bees wid stingers on der feet.’ (boldface mine)

Joel Chandler Harris, Uncle Remus, His Songs and His Sayings (1886).

Whether hornet, or bee, or wasp, are these stinging winged-insect (civilized) “critters,” or more aggressive (savage) “animals”? In George Orwell’s novella Animal Farm (1945), the animals boil down the “essential principle” of “Animalism” to a simple almost-binary/dichotomy: 

“Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.” 

George Orwell, Animal Farm, 1945.

By this framework, wasps (and hornets) would seem to align with the bees rather than manifest as their adversary. In this case they manifest another “startling contradiction,” which per Toni Morrison, could be a “sign” of the Africanist presence.

Another major racially loaded literary use of bees occurs in Sue Monk Kidd’s 2001 debut novel The Secret Life of Bees, which is set in 1964 and features three Black beekeeper sisters who help the main character of a little white girl find herself. (The 2008 film adaptation, produced by Will and Jada Pinkett Smith, has been designated “too maudlin and sticky-sweet.”) In her article “Teaching Cross-Racial Texts: Cultural Theft in ‘The Secret Life of Bees'” (2008), the critic Laurie Grobman applies Morrison’s Africanist-presence framework to argue that the novel constitutes cultural theft rather than exchange, and in its depiction of mammy stereotypes in particular, constitutes what the artist Coco Fuscol calls “symbolic violence”–a term that describes the harm done by stereotypes, and one that, notably, appears nowhere in the recent Magistrale/Blouin volume Violence in the Films of Stephen King (2021), despite what might appear to be a very prominent depiction of a symbolic Africanist presence on its cover…

Another racially associated invocation of bees (or the commodity they produce)–one that, as we’ll see in Carrie, seems to play with overlapping versions of “labor”–is the 1958-play-turned-1961-British film A Taste of Honey, in which a white working-class seventeen-year-old girl is taken care of by her gay bestie after being impregnated and then left by a Black sailor. Racy…

A Taste of Honey (1961)

What’s in a Name

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose/ By any other name would smell as sweet.” 

Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (1597) (from here).

The idea Juliet expresses above is that names aren’t important, but this is the (Trumpian) covert rhetoric of stating the opposite of what you really mean on Shakespeare’s part. Consider the “Candy King” in Morrison’s Tar Baby (who in the novel has a candy named after him rather than the other way around), or the “Crimson King” in King’s Dark Tower series. Consider Jennifer Egan’s new novel The Candy House (2022), a phrase which Egan says initially appeared in the novel in “a comic context” as a phrase on a billboard that says “Never trust a candy house” as a warning against using Napster (but that one interviewer insisted was a callback to Hansel and Gretel). Consider the name of “Old Candy, the swamper,” from Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, the death of whose dog is more poignant than that of “Curley’s wife” (more later on the racist associations evoked in literature by the swamp as a place). Consider the bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz and the owner of the Candyland plantation Calvin Candie in Tarantino’s Django Unchained (2012). Consider the former name of the country band Lady Antebellum, whose song “American Honey” was taken for the title of a 2016 film, and who changed their name in June of 2020 due to having their eyes opened to the name’s “racist connotations.”

Per Morrison, the Africanist presence manifests in “signs and bodies.” A sign can also be a name, and a name can also be a sign. Last year Jordan Peele, a figure who manifests the productivity of merging humor and horror if ever there was one, rebooted the 1992 classic horror film Candyman, the plot of which he described a decade ago on his sketch show Key & Peele when he identified it as one of his faves:

“That’s the movie where you say ‘Candyman’ five times into a mirror in the bathroom and a black dude from the 19th century with a hook for a hand and bees all over his face comes out and kills you.”

Key & Peele, “Gay Marriage Legalized,” February 28, 2012.
1992 Candyman movie poster

The bees become a prominent sign of the Candyman’s presence, an association linked to the Candyman’s personal history in the movie:

Professor Philip Purcell, an expert on the Candyman legend, [] says that the Candyman, born in the late 1800s as the son of a slave, grew up to become a well-known artist. After he fell in love with and impregnated a white woman, her father sent a lynch mob after him. They cut off his right hand and smeared him with honeycomb stolen from an apiary, attracting bees that stung him to death.

From here.

In the movie, this figure is an explicit Africanist presence, the first Black supernatural slasher figure according to Robin Means Coleman, but while this representation is a milestone of sorts, Coleman also notes some problems:

Candyman is … no charming vampire. Indeed, when Candyman and Helen (who is only partially conscious) finally have a consummating kiss, the moment of miscegenation is punished as “bees stream from his mouth. Thus … horror operates here to undermine the acceptability of interracial romance.” 40

Robin Means Coleman, Horror Noire: Blacks in American Horror Films from the 1890s to Present, 2011.

(Coleman adapted her Horror Noire study into a 2019 documentary with Jordan Peele.)

The ’92 version has made an important change to its source text in making the Candyman a Black man; in the original version, the novella “The Forbidden” by British writer Clive Barker, which appeared in his volume The Books of Blood (1985), the figure is an implicit rather than explicit Africanist presence:

From here.

It’s also worth noting that the British Barker has pretty much fully credited Stephen King for his success in a 2007 speech he gave for (one of?) King’s Lifetime Achievement Award(s):

“When my English publishers put out my first stories, The Books of Blood, they were greeted with a very English silence. Polite and devastating. I don’t know what I was expecting, but it certainly wasn’t this smothering shrug.

“And then, a voice. Not just any voice. The voice of Stephen King, who had made people all around the world fall in love with having the shit scared out of them. He said, God bless him, that I was the future of horror. Me! An unknown author of some books of short stories that nobody was buying. Suddenly, there is a phantom present in that chair.

“Stephen had no reason to say what he said, except pure generosity of spirit. The same generosity he has shown over the years to many authors. A few words from Stephen, and lives are changed forever.

“Mine was. I felt a wonderful burden laid upon my shoulders; I had been seen, and called by name, and my life would never be the same again.

From here.

In both Barker’s text and the ’92 film, the Candyman declares: “I am the writing on the wall.” What does this mean, exactly? You could read it as a commentary on his being a product/construction of white people: they created/engendered this vengeful manifestation by doing something to him that credited revenge–but this reading only holds up for the film version. Yet “Sweets to the sweet” appears as literal writing on the wall in both texts, which is rendered another “sign” of the Candyman’s presence:

Candyman (1992).

That bees and “sweets” are associated with the implicitly Africanist presence in Barker’s ’85 text seems mostly like an arbitrary device to evoke horror, since that text mentions nothing about the Candyman’s backstory–i.e., there’s not an explanation of why bees should be(e) the sign of this particular presence as there very definitively is in the ’92 version (side note: the maniacal laughter of the white professor after his mansplaining of the legend is a highlight of the film for me).

For a broader context of the phrase “the writing on the wall,” according to Wikipedia, it’s “an idiomatic expression that suggests a portent of doom or misfortune, based on the story of Belshazzar’s feast in the book of Daniel.”

This becomes more interesting in light of Barker’s description of his inspiration for the “sweetness” element (which his novella also invokes in the context of “sweetmeats”):

The character of the Candyman draws upon a motif Clive had long been developing since writing his 1973 play, Hunters in the Snow – that of the calmly spoken gentleman-villain – who seduces Helen with the poetry of Shakespeare and the measured rhythms of a lover. …

“I use a quote from Hamlet in the story: Sweets to the sweet,” [Barker] notes. The earlier origin of the quote is Biblical:

Judges 14: 14: “And he said unto them, Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness.”

“In England, we have golden syrup. The makers of this syrup put on their can a picture of the partially rotted corpse of a lion with bees flying around it, and the Biblical quote…”

The makers of the golden syrup were Tate and Lyle. Clive had named his heroine Helen Buchanan (but Bernard Rose later renamed her Helen Lyle) and the bees and the sweetness coalesced into the story elements. (boldface mine)

From here.
Appetizing imagery…

So we’ve potentially finally gotten to the true origin point of the bee imagery: Shakespeare, via the Bible. This description of Shakespearean verse as a weapon of the Candyman’s also implicitly identifies the potential for Shakespearean verse to inflict harm, while purporting to do the opposite.

The biblical passage is from the story of Samson, more specifically, a consumption-based riddle that Samson poses, and riddles are a major element of King’s Dark Tower novels whose significance I’ll return to.

“Samson told it. The strong guy in the Bible? It goes like this—”

“ ‘Out of the eater came forth meat,’ ” said Aaron Deepneau, swinging around again to look at Jake, “ ‘and out of the strong came forth sweetness.’ That the one?”

…He threw his head back and sang in a full, melodious voice:

“ ‘Samson and a lion got in attack,
And Samson climbed up on the lion’s back.
Well, you’ve read about lion killin men with their paws,
But Samson put his hands round the lion’s jaws!
He rode that lion ’til the beast fell dead,
And the bees made honey in the lion’s head
.’”

“So the answer is a lion,” Jake said.

Aaron shook his head. “Only half the answer. Samson’s Riddle is a double, my friend. The other half of the answer is honey. Get it?”

Stephen King, The Waste Lands (1991).

In Hamlet, the “sweets to the sweet” phrase is uttered by Hamlet’s mother, referring to a funereal bouquet she’s placing on Ophelia’s grave, which Barker hints at in “The Forbidden”:

She glanced over her shoulder at the boarded windows, and saw for the first time that one four-word slogan had been sprayed on the wall beneath them. ‘Sweets to the sweet’ it read. … she could not imagine the intended reader of such words ever stepping in here to receive her bouquet. (boldface mine)

Clive Barker, “The Forbidden,” Books of Blood vol. 5, 1985.

This discussion on Barker’s website also notes that the “Bloody Mary” element of saying the Candyman’s name into a mirror was added in the film, not in Barker’s original text…meaning the movie made a sort of Shakespeare-influence mashup, crossing Hamlet’s mother’s quote with Juliet’s about what’s in a name.

Reading King has also led me to unearth more about both of my parents’ surnames: my mother’s, “Dyer,” names an occupation King once held himself:

My job was dyeing swatches of melton cloth purple or navy blue. I imagine there are still folks in New England with jackets in their closets dyed by yours truly. (boldface mine)

Stephen King, On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft (2000).

And my father’s, “Rolater,” I only recently learned the supposed original spelling of in the same conversation I asked my mother if I remembered correctly that she had once named a car of hers “Christine” after King’s novel–or rather, after the car the novel is named for–and she confirmed that she had. My father (who, now deceased, can no longer confirm) apparently once told her that “Rolater” was originally spelled “Rollaughter.” Rol-LAUGHTER.

I shit you not.

The Hamlet influence on Candyman is also resonant in light of that play’s prominent use of the evil uncle figure (which David Foster Wallace takes as the plot of his magnum opus titled with a Hamlet quote, Infinite Jest (1996)) and a quote from it that’s far more prominent/recognizable than “sweets to the sweet”–and that quote would be:

To be, or not to be, that is the question:

Shakespeare, Hamlet (1603).

Which we might rephrase: “To bee or not to bee, that is the question…” or, “A bee, or not a bee, that is the question.”

And resonant in light of another famous Hamlet quote, but not a Hamlet quote:

And if you rearrange the letters in “be(e) true,” you (almost) get a quote connoting the opposite of being true, “Et tu, brute?” A sign of bee-trayal…

Like the twin threads of maternal-paternal genetics, the above research seems to indicate that there are essentially two bee-symbolism threads that can be tracked/traced through folklore histories–a Eurocentric track running through the Bible then Shakespeare, and an Afrocentric track that runs through African folklore imported to America by forcibly imported African people, debatably “transcribed” or “compiled” by Joel Chandler Harris in the original Uncle Remus tales, and then “re-popularized” by Song of the South.

These two threads apparently have “real-life” corollaries via “Africanized Bees vs. European Honeybees”:

The best way to distinguish between the African and European honey bee is by their overall behavior. Almost everything about Africanized honey bees is more aggressive, hence where the term “killer bee” came from. When provoked, instead of sending out 10-20 protection bees, African honey bees will send out 300+ bees to defend the colony. This is an extremely dangerous and effective tactic to not only disorient the person or animal but in actually harming them as well. And more bees means more bee stings. In addition to sending out more bees for protection, they will also chase the victim for a much longer distance from the hive, sometimes up to 40 yards!

Aside from the initial reaction to a disturbance, Africanized honey bees remain agitated and aggressive much longer than their docile cousins. In some cases, they can remain that way for several days after an incident. This is dangerous because an innocent passerby could accidentally stumble upon a disturbed Africanized bee colony and pay for it dearly. Depending on the situation, a disturbance to the hive could mean that they swarm in order to find a new place to call home. Seeing as African colonies are so much more aggressive, this also poses a problem to those who are in the surrounding area.

From here.

I’m sensing a bias against the “Africanized” bees here–and why are they “Africanized” instead of just “African”? It’s almost like an implicit admission they’re a European construction of African rather than actually African…but another article directly explores the question of “What’s in a Name?”:

Box 1. What’s in a name?
In popular literature, “African,” “Africanized,” and “killer” bees are terms that have been used to describe the same honey bee. However, “African bee” or “African honey bee” most correctly refers to Apis mellifera scutellata when it is found outside of its native range. A.m. scutellata is a subspecies or race of honey bee native to sub-Saharan Africa, where it is referred to as “Savannah honey
bee” given that there are many subspecies of African honey bee, making the term “African honey bee” too ambiguous there. The term “Africanized honey bee” refers to hybrids between A.m. scutella and one or more of the European subspecies of honey bees kept in the Americas.

M. K. O’Malley, J. D. Ellis, and C. M. Zettel Nalen, “Differences Between European and African Honey
Bees
,” University of Florida, The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), 2019.

Honeybees are “sweeter,” hence the use of “honey” as an endearment…as Remus repeatedly uses for the little white boy in Harris’s Remus stories.

We might find in Cujo’s name “a buried history of stinging truth” of sorts that Nilsen describes in the same essay she coins “creatureliness”:

…the spirit that attacks Donna is directly linked to Cujo’s namesake, William Wolfe. Wolfe (his name signifying the non-domesticated, unfeeling canine forefather) was a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA), his code name was “Cujo,” and he was involved in the kidnapping of the 19-year-old heiress, Patty Hearst with whom he had a sexual relationship. Wolfe, like Hearst and Donna, were all white, middle to upper middle-class, educated, seemingly average Americans, who appeared on the surface like anybody’s child, but their placid middle-class façade appeared to hide behind it a terrifying and threatening core.

Sarah Nilsen, “Cujo, the Black Man, and the Story of Patty Hearst” in Violence in the Films of Stephen King (ed. Magistrale & Blouin), 2021.

So a name provides a sort of wall between an entity’s “façade” and its “core”…just as a book cover is a sort of wall between its text and the world…

If you were considering going to the mirror to utter a certain name a certain number of times, you might consider the joke Jordan Peele’s description of the Candyman plot culminated in on the aforementioned Key & Peele episode, in which they explain that if you did say his name five times into a mirror after seeing the movie, that meant (or was a sign that) you were white, because Black people don’t fuck around with the supernatural. Why? Because the last time they encountered a presence they didn’t understand, it kidnapped them for enslavement in America….which might provide some insight into the updated Candyman movie poster with the tag line changed from “We dare you to say his name five times” to:

If the Candyman is the writing on the wall, then the above image renders the Candyman himself a wall with writing on it…

In Playing in the Dark, Morrison introduces the Africanist presence concept by way of analyzing its manifestation in an example text: Marie Cardinal’s memoir The Words To Say It (1975), which in large part chronicles Cardinal’s treatment for mental-health issues, or what Cardinal in the text designates “the Thing.” Morrison describes how this Thing becomes racially associated and thus a sign of an Africanist presence when Cardinal locates the scene of her mental breaking point to a panic attack induced by hearing Louis Armstrong play at a club.

It seems to be the change of setting, or place, to Chicago from Liverpool in England that inspires the change in the film Candyman’s race; the writing on the wall in Barker’s original text manifesting as graffiti might also have more racialized associations in the American setting via the hip-hop culture that was becoming prominent at the time.

Candyman (1992).

The bees emanating from the Candyman’s mouth might call attention to their symbolic nature as comprising words (via being a “letter,” B), not to mention have something of a freaky confluence….

The cutting off of the hand in the Candyman legend is similar to the bees in being arbitrary horror in Barker’s version, and more historically loaded in the film version. The reason why the hand symbolism is more historically loaded takes us back to Song of the South by way of cartoon animation. The scholar Nicholas Sammond explains the critical link between blackface minstrelsy and the cartoon industry:

because the figure of the blackface minstrel itself was an appropriative fantasy of the black laboring body, a moment’s consideration of the minstrel’s physiognomy and its gestural economy will also delineate some of the most common visual conventions that animation’s continuing characters shared with live minstrels and will set the stage for considering how those characteristics eventually became vestigial.

One of the most familiar tropes in classical American animation is characters wearing white gloves, which were also quite common in blackface minstrelsy. (boldface mine)

Nicholas Sammond, Birth of an Industry: Blackface Minstrelsy and the Rise of American Animation (2015).

(White gloves are a sign of the blackface minstrel’s presence that we’ll return to.) Bees represent a version of a “laboring body” which in turn makes them an apt symbol to evoke the “laboring bodies” that constitute the institution of slavery–a body that labors that is exploited for that labor because of the product of that labor: the bees are a laboring body that produce: honey. (Sweet, sweet honey.) Sugar is inextricably connected to a commodity that the laboring bodies of live human beings were exploited for during slavery; Morrison’s Tar Baby (1981) showcases the inextricable link between this consumption and slavery/colonialism/imperialism.

Via this historical thread from Sammond, the SoS podcast series from Karina Longworth also taught me something that blew my f*cking mind: the foundational Disney character, Mickey Mouse himself, is a minstrel:

Commercial animation in the United States didn’t borrow from blackface minstrelsy, nor was it simply influenced by it. Rather, American animation is actually in many of its most enduring incarnations an integral part of the ongoing iconographic and performative traditions of blackface. Mickey Mouse isn’t like a minstrel; he is a minstrel.

Nicholas Sammond, Birth of an Industry: Blackface Minstrelsy and the Rise of American Animation (2015).

Which potentially gives us another iteration of something black and white and re(a)d all over…

Peek-a-boo! It’s the minstrel underwriting all of American popular culture, the LYNCHpin of the company that has eaten up every other competing company…

Talk about “a buried history of stinging truth”…Mickey Mouse manifests covert racism in his inverted blackface image–white over black.

This is the figure that underwrites American popular culture in both the traditional financial sense of the term and the more figurative sense I’ve come to use it in providing an inextricable/integral foundation for something (like a novel’s plot).

The covert-racist harm latent in cartoon animation is further evidenced by “animation” being a “critteration” in deriving from animals:

The figure for nature in language, animal, was transformed in cinema to the name for movement in technology, animation. And if animals were denied capacity for language, animals as filmic organisms were themselves turned into languages, or at least, into semiotic facilities.

Laurel Schmuck, “Wild Animation: From the Looney Tunes to Bojack Horseman in Cartoon Los Angeles,” European Journal of American Studies 13.1 (2018). (Special issue: Animals on American Television)

And the language is communicating that “critterations” can’t be trusted… And animated cartoon animals being a prominent “critteration” contain a buried function of animating the same “imagined blackness” on display in blackface minstrel shows. American cartoons have perpetuated the narratives that alongside the consumption of sugary breakfast cereals that they were the “real” vehicle to advertise, have now been consumed to excess by multiple generations, in a sense offering the explanation for the entrenchment of systemic racism as the privileged continue to go about their lives convinced that racism doesn’t exist. 

-SCR

The Running Man’s Dark Tower: A Park of Themes

I’m just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round
I really love to watch them roll
No longer riding on the merry-go-round

John Lennon and Yoko Ono, “Watching the Wheels,” 1980.

I have always tried to live in an ivory tower, but a tide of shit is beating at its walls, threatening to undermine it.

Julian Barnes, Flaubert’s Parrot, 1984.

“—and there was this crazy remake called The Wiz, starring black people—”

“Really?” Susannah asked. She looked bemused. “What a peculiar concept.”

“—but the only one that really matters is the first one, I think,” Jake finished.

Stephen King, Wizard and Glass, 1997.

King’s Verse

The opening credits of the Netflix series Cheer uses the song “Welcome to My World”; this initially aired in January of 2020, around the same time I started this project, for which this would have been an equally appropriate theme song. In a recent post, I discussed how King hints at the cosmology of his sprawling Dark Tower series with the Beatles’ song “Hey Jude”: when this song is part of an environment that feels like it’s supposed to be the 1800s, we realize something is off–this can’t really be the 1800s, and Roland the Gunslinger’s old-west world is actually in a future far ahead of our time: “Hey Jude” welcomes us into what turns out to be a world of worlds. In the film The Dark Tower from 2017, starring Idris Elba as Roland and Matthew McConaughey as Walter, aka the man in black, a different cue is used to hint at this cosmology (possibly due to the difficulty of obtaining Beatles’ rights?):

The Dark Tower (2017)

Jake: You have theme parks here. 

Roland: These ancient structures are from before the world moved on. No one knows what they are. 

Jake: [pause] They’re theme parks.

From The Dark Tower (2017).

I was initially reluctant to watch this movie, thinking it would have spoilers for the rest of the series, but after hearing the Kingcast hosts repeatedly trash it, with one noting that he’d reread the series before seeing the movie and doing so had turned out to be “pointless,” I couldn’t resist. The theme park exchange was of particular interest because I had of late been thinking that my ideal job, a more elaborate version of hosting a podcast on King, would be to work at a King theme park: King World. I had started to think this because of certain passages in a) Carrie, b) The Green Mile, and c) Misery.

a) I’m writing a paper for an academic conference on the invocation of Disney in the critical moment in Carrie (1974) when Carrie is triggered to unleash holy hell after the blood dumps on her, hell she specifically unleashes not because of the blood itself, but because everyone starts laughing at her. The character Norma, whose perspective we initially see this moment in, explains why everyone starts laughing:

When I was a little girl I had a Walt Disney storybook called Song of the South, and it had that Uncle Remus story about the tarbaby in it. There was a picture of the tarbaby sitting in the middle of the road, looking like one of those old-time Negro minstrels with the blackface and great big white eyes. When Carrie opened her eyes it was like that. They were the only part of her that wasn’t completely red. And the light had gotten in them and made them glassy. God help me, but she looked for all the world like Eddie Cantor doing that pop-eyed act of his.

Stephen King. Carrie. 1974.

(If you need further evidence of how important the horrific function of laughter/humor is in this particular text and through it the importance of this function throughout King’s canon, one of the handful of iconic lines of dialog from King film adaptations that the Kingcast opens each episode with is Piper-Laurie-as-Margaret-White’s “They’re all gonna laugh at you!”)

b) The influence of Walt Disney and his worlds is also prominently on display throughout King’s The Green Mile (1996), in which a pet mouse is initially named “Steamboat Willie” (the novel’s primary timeline is set only a couple of years after the initial Disney “Steamboat Willie” cartoon was released in 1928). One character convinces an inmate about to be put to death that they will send his pet mouse to “Mouseville”:

“What dis Mouseville?” Del asked, now frantic to know.

“A tourist attraction, like I told you,” Brutal said. “There’s, oh I dunno, a hundred or so mice there. Wouldn’t you say, Paul?”

“More like a hundred and fifty these days,” I said. “It’s a big success. I understand they’re thinking of opening one out in California and calling it Mouseville West, that’s how much business is booming. Trained mice are the coming thing with the smart set, I guess—I don’t understand it, myself.”

Del sat with the colored spool in his hand, looking at us, his own situation forgotten for the time being.
“They only take the smartest mice,” Brutal cautioned, “the ones that can do tricks.”

Stephen King. The Green Mile: The Complete Serial Novel. 1996.

This mouse is pivotal to the plot the way one could argue Disney has been to American pop culture…and the way the “Mouseville” story is fabricated to make Del feel better replicates Disney’s manipulation of fairy tales to change the grimmer aspects of their life lessons into hollow happy endings.

Further, how this manipulation ends up backfiring when Del finds out the truth then replicates how these hollow happy endings sow seeds of discontent with our own lives when they don’t work out so perfectly that drive us further into the cycle of consumption/destruction…

c) In Misery (1987), the main character, novelist Paul Sheldon, has created a popular romance series around the character of Misery Chastain:

He remembered getting two letters suggesting Misery theme parks, on the order of Disney World or Great Adventure. One of these letters had included a crude blueprint.

Stephen King. Misery. 1987.

As I teach an elective on “world-building” this semester, I am especially attuned to the mechanics of “otherworldly” cosmologies. The Dark Tower movie–which I fully concur with the Kingcast hosts is generally terrible–offers a strange distillation of the series’ cosmology that did help me wrap my mind around it in new ways. Notably, just after Jake and Roland’s “theme park” exchange in the film, their conversation addresses the cosmology of the world of worlds even more directly (some might say, heavy-handedly). Before Jake crosses into Roland’s world through a portal, he has been drawing pictures, one of which he draws again for Roland in the sand:

The Dark Tower, 2017.

Jake: I just don’t know what this is. 

Roland: It’s a map. My father showed me a map like this once. Inside the circle is your world, and my world, and many others. No one knows how many. The Dark Tower stands at the center of all things, and it’s stood there from the beginning of time. And it sends out powerful energy that protects the universe, shields us from what’s outside it. …

Jake: What’s outside the universe?

Roland: Outside is endless darkness full of demons trying to get to us. Forces want to tear down the tower and let them in.

From The Dark Tower, 2017.

For emphasis, Roland picks up a tarantula and drops it outside the circle and they both watch it crawl in.

I know things I shouldn’t if I only knew the content of the first four books of the series that I’ve actually read: that Father Callahan from ‘Salem’s Lot is going to play a role at some point, that there’s going to be some kind of meta-reference to King himself as a character/entity. And of course Randall Flagg has made a brief appearance at the end of Book 3, with the superflu-apocalypse that occurred in The Stand invoked in Book 4, and Flagg makes cameos that are a bit more developed, though still fleeting, in Book 4. These intertextual references in conjunction with the distilled Dark Tower map contributed to a sort of Dark-Tower epiphany: its structure replicates the King canon itself, with the godhead of King-the-author at its epicenter–everything revolves around him, as he necessarily produces it. I was considering this right before reading King’s afterword to Book 4’s Wizard and Glass (1997), in which King notes:

I am coming to understand that Roland’s world (or worlds) actually contains all the others of my making; there is a place in Mid-World for Randall Flagg, Ralph Roberts, the wandering boys from The Eyes of the Dragon, even Father Callahan, the damned priest from ’Salem’s Lot, who rode out of New England on a Greyhound Bus and wound up dwelling on the border of a terrible Mid-World land called Thunderclap. This seems to be where they all finish up, and why not? Mid-World was here first, before all of them, dreaming under the blue gaze of Roland’s bombardier eyes.

Stephen King, Wizard and Glass. 1997.

Every spoke in this wheel is a different world is a different work of King’s, the cyclical nature I suppose in this sense excusing/justifying as cosmically significant the echoes across King’s many, many plots that are essentially the same thing happening over and over.

But these spokes are more than just works King has written himself (and probably far more numerous than on Jake’s rudimentary renderings, to the point where individual spokes might not even be discernible if these were “to scale”…). They’re also the works that influenced him, whose range across the pop-culture-literary-canon spectrum amount to King’s “secret sauce,” as discussed in the initial Dark Tower post on Book 1’s The Gunslinger. This goes back to what could be the most influential text on King, Lord of the Rings, but via Dracula, as King clarifies in his afterword to ‘Salem’s Lot:

When I discovered J. R. R. Tolkien’s Rings trilogy ten years later, I thought, “Shit, this is just a slightly sunnier version of Stoker’s Dracula, with Frodo playing Jonathan Harker, Gandalf playing Abraham Van Helsing, and Sauron playing the Count himself.”

Stephen King. ‘Salem’s Lot. 1975.

So it seems appropriate that a ‘Salem’s Lot character specifically will be returning… The above passage would seem to be a critical insight of King’s about the utility of telling the same story over and over, that the “secret sauce” is taking and using a template that’s worked for generations, specifically the “ka-tet” or “fellowship” narrative, which, with Dark Tower book 4’s Wizard and Glass, King also yokes The Wizard of Oz into the lineage of…

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

The king lives long through the continued passing down of the same narrative… King’s multiverse is a metaverse, I thought. Then I remembered that was what Facebook has renamed itself and/or its conglomerate of companies, and I shuddered.

From here.

Run, Forrest

My comprehension of King’s meta-multiverse was also facilitated by a particular Kingcast episode with guest Marc Bernardin, who chose to discuss The Running Man. Bernardin was one of the Hulu series Castle Rock writers, the show that leans on the “connective tissue” of Kingverse cosmology but introduces original characters and storylines to it; Bernardin articulated the general template of a King plot:

Stephen King is the great unheralded American writer, you know, nobody gives him credit for being the character writer that he is. I mean they always give him credit for the horror stuff, they always give him credit for the boo stuff, but when you look at Stephen King books, for the most part, they’re not mysteries. They are: here’s a bunch of people, and we’re going to introduce you to their lives, and then a bad thing is going to crash into their lives, and what do they do about it. And in order to make stories like that function, you need to build those lives of those characters so that we understand them, we can empathize with them, and know who they are, so when that giant mack truck of supernatural awfulness blindsides their lives, we know who they are and can respond to it.

From here.

Bernardin’s work on Castle Rock prompted the hosts to ask about his thoughts on the Dark Tower series, and I appreciated his response that he “appreciated” it more than he liked it. When they finally got to The Running Man, Bernardin had a reading of it that blew my mind: since its protagonist Ben Richards is essentially from the “projects,” Bernardin likes to think that Ben Richards is Black.

I was initially resistant to this reading, largely because I thought it gave King too much credit. There is much textual evidence to refute the idea that King intended to write a Black protagonist here, mainly through the characters that are identified and described as Black (such as the villainous Killian) in a way that seems to distinguish them from the point of view describing them–Richards’ (and in a way that’s often blatantly racist from Richards’ perspective). It is also Killian, CEO of the network airing The Running Man game show, being explicitly Black that made me resistant to reading Richards as Black–if the narrative were an allegory for the oppression and exploitation of Black Americans, why would a Black character be at the helm of the exploitative vehicle? (Then, of course, there are also the book covers that depict Richards with an illustration of a white man.)

I couldn’t really tell if Bernardin was saying he thought King had intentionally written Richards as Black or if he himself just liked to read it that way, though I guess his calling out King’s “blind spot” when it came to writing race should have been a clue it was the latter:

…maybe it’s because i’m interpreting things in the text that aren’t there, but in my interpretation of Ben Richards as an African American, one of the things I discovered on Castle Rock doing a deep dive there is that one of Stephen King’s big blind spots is writing race–and, and, it’s either magical negro, or magical negro, and that’s kind of it. 

From here.

When I Googled Bernardin and learned that he is Black, his reading made more sense as a reclamation reading, not a literal one. To my mind, a white guy reading Richards as Black would amount to more of a white apologist reading.

As a consequence of the suffering that protagonists experience at the hands of a state-corporate nexus that does not adequately address the rehabilitative needs of citizens, Bachman’s books articulate a politics of pure negation (a modality that plays a vital role in the decades to come) by tracking ‘protagonists who are sociologically so tightly determined and whose free will is so limited that they find violence and self-destruction as their only means to take a stand’ (Strengell 218).

Blouin, Michael J.. Stephen King and American Politics (Horror Studies) (p. 45). University of Wales Press. Kindle Edition.

That quote from Heidi Strengell could be read, via Bernardin, as describing the state of Black people in the American state specifically, as you could define white privilege as not being “sociologically so tightly determined” that your free will is necessarily diminished, and this strikes me as another way of framing my reading of the Bachman novels as deriving their horror from playing out a white male protagonist essentially being treated as a Black person (ultimately in a way that’s condescending toward Black people rather than creating sympathy with their plight).

In the world-building elective I’m teaching, theme parks have become a prominent…theme, since they constitute literal world-building, the construction of an immersive experience. And of course there’s one theme park to rule them all, the one King invokes in all of the above references to Carrie, The Green Mile, and Misery.

The academic Jason Sperb, focusing on Disney’s “most notorious film,” Song of the South (1946)–significantly, the one that Norma invokes in the critical Carrie moment–notes:

One of the main critiques often leveled at the Disney empire for decades has been its distortion of history.45 Disney’s romanticized view of its own past, as the self-appointed king of the golden age of Hollywood, is one thing. Yet more disturbing is its rewriting of American history in general. … Disney’s fondness for rewriting American history, often to the benefit of white, middle-class consumers, came to a head in the 1990s, when cultural critics, historians, and political activists successfully pressured the company to abandon plans for a history-themed amusement park in Virginia, to be called “Disney’s America.” In questionable taste, this endeavor would have awkwardly mixed Disney’s own idealization and whitewashing of history with the uglier history of the surrounding areas, which feature countless institutionalized reminders of the country’s violent colonial and Civil War legacies.

Jason Sperb, Disney’s Most Notorious Film: Race, Convergence, and the Hidden Histories of Song of the South. 2012.

A short story by fiction writer George Saunders, “CivilWarLand in Bad Decline,” helps illuminate this legacy, and in the specific context of “Disney’s America”‘s take on it. The first-person narrator of this story works at a theme park recreating the Civil War, working as a “verisimilitude inspector” with a “Historical Reconstruction Associate.” This would seem like a wacky enough premise on its own (potentially) when a gang of teen vandals starts wreaking havoc and the park becomes a site of violence in its own right rather than just re-enacting it, but then literal ghosts appear in the story to play a pivotal role as well. It’s really the final line of this story that emphasizes the true nature of this Civil-War legacy as the first-person narrator is killed by the ghost of a boy named Sam:

I see the man I could have been, and the man I was, and then everything is bright and new and keen with love and I sweep through Sam’s body, trying to change him, trying so hard, and feeling only hate and hate, solid as stone.

George Saunders. “CivilWarLand in Bad Decline.” 1992. 

Contrast this ending with another one of Saunders’, almost thirty years later:

From across the woods, as if by common accord, birds left their trees and darted upward. I joined them, flew among them, they did not recognize me as something apart from them, and I was happy, so happy, because for the first time in years, and forevermore, I had not killed, and never would.

George Saunders. “Escape from Spiderhead.” 2010. 

In the final lines of both of these stories, the same literal thing is happening: a white-male first-person narrator is dying and in so doing reflecting on his life. But the latter seems to transcend the hate of the (American) human condition, while the former is consumed by it. (I had to wonder if Saunders’ professional success in the intervening decades has softened his worldview, since the earlier story would have been written when he was still essentially an impoverished failure.)

Saunders’ introduction of the fantasy/supernatural element of ghosts in “CivilWarLand” is appropriate for the story’s figurative (and Kingian) theme: that we are haunted by the ghosts of our past. The legacy of America’s collective haunting is a major thematic preoccupation for Saunders, as realized in his long-anticipated first novel Lincoln in the Bardo (2017). Saunders has described his inspiration for this novel (which, also in a classic Kingian vein, revolves around a father-son narrative) essentially being an image of the Lincoln Memorial crossed with Michaelangelo’s La Pietà. This might not be surprising when you consider the final line of “CivilWarLand” with the comparison of hate being “solid as stone” connecting to another major fixture of the Civil War legacy: monuments.

This manifestation of a legacy extends beyond Civil-War-related Confederate monuments; my alma mater Rice University has recently convened “task forces” to address what should be done with a memorial of the school’s founder, William Marsh Rice, a slaveowner. This memorial statue has always been prominently positioned at the center of the main quad on campus, and the decision has been made not to get rid of it entirely, but to move it elsewhere. It’s still a part of our school’s history that should not just be erased, but it should no longer be positioned at the center of our school’s historical narrative.

From here.

This idea of narrative (re)centering reminded me of another running man, one from a classic movie that positioned a particular figure (played by America’s “dad” and/or “everyman” Tom Hanks) at the nexus of several American historical narratives, from Elvis’s signature dance moves (which it should be noted he took from Black people, not a little white boy) to Nixon’s impeachment. I recalled how this other running man got his name:

When I was a baby, Mama named me after the great Civil War hero General Nathan Bedford Forrest. She said we was related to him in some way. What he did was he started up this club called the Ku Klux Klan. They’d all dress up in their robes and their bed sheets and act like a bunch of ghosts or spooks or something. They’d even put bed sheets on their horses and ride around. And anyway, that’s how I got my name, Forrest Gump. Mama said the Forrest part was to remind me that sometimes we all do things that, well, just don’t make no sense.

Forrest Gump, 1994 (here).

This explanation would seem to render this Civil War General’s legacy as excusable, innocuous and justified…and putting this figure named after Forrest at the center of these classic American historical narratives would seem to symbolize the prominence of Forrest and his legacy to our current state–albeit inadvertently.

King’s plots often purport to promote the idea that we can only heal by facing our history, but these narratives seem to reinforce a theme that we’re still running away from it.

Whitewashing

Sperb accuses Disney of “the whitewashing of history,” using a term I had thought of before reading it in his work, specifically when I recently visited a “Walt Disney Archives” exhibit held at the Graceland Exhibition Center in Memphis (Graceland as in Elvis Presley’s Graceland, which now has enough appendages–such as this exhibition center–to qualify as its own theme park). I was visiting these archives specifically for any possible Song of the South materials because of the Carrie reference–but there were none.

If you want to talk about a model for a metaverse–i.e., interconnected narratives within narratives within narratives–then Song of the South is a solid one–“solid as stone,” you might say. Like many (most?) Disney movies, the story for this one is not original but was taken from elsewhere–from the “Uncle Remus” stories by Joel Chandler Harris, a white man who took folklore he overheard enslaved people sharing with one another on a Georgia plantation and then transcribed into books with his own name on them as author.

From here.

Harris tells tales of the “Uncle Remus” character–whose title might recall another infamous racially charged avuncular fictional fixture, Uncle Tom–telling tales. As visible on the title page above, these are not designated as his “stories,” but rather “his songs and his sayings.” The “songs” aspect–emphasized in the Disney adaptation’s appellation SONG of the South–underscores how this narrative replicates the role of the cultural appropriation of music in American history (which I’ve discussed in relation to King’s The Stand here and here), with all of American music tracing back to the white appropriation of Black songs from the plantations, manifest initially in the blackface minstrel performances in which white performers, following the example of Stephen Foster, were performing a version of “imagined blackness.”

Now we put up white draperies and pipe in Stephen Foster and provide at no charge a list of preachers of various denominations.

George Saunders. “CivilWarLand in Bad Decline.” 1992. 

The framing device of the Remus narrator offers another version of a performance of imagined blackness: “Joel Chandler Harris’s jolly slave, the eponymous minstrel-like narrator of several collections of African American folklore…the Remus re-popularized by Disney with Mr. Bluebird on his shoulder” (emphasis mine), as Kurt Mueller puts it in a 2010 issue of Gulf Coast discussing the recasting of this character by Houston-based artist Dawolu Jabari Anderson–specifically, as the “Avenging Uncle Remus”:

The Carrie trigger moment as described by Norma explicitly links Remus to musical minstrel performance by comparing Carrie to the “tarbaby” Remus describes in the Disney story and then by comparing that tarbaby image to “those old-time Negro minstrels with the blackface,” emphasizing this minstrel connection further via the real-life minstrel performer Eddie Cantor (whose Wikipedia page only designates as such implicitly by including him in the “Blackface minstrel performers” category).

This function of Remus is also essentially a figurative iteration of the magical Black man: his magic is to impart wisdom and life lessons in an innocuous way, a depiction of Black man that’s both nonthreatening and subservient–and ultimately dehumanizing. Remus’s tales centering around anthropomorphized animals is another iteration of Remus’s dehumanization, illuminating his function as a figure that purports to be human without being fully so, a facsimile of a human that’s necessarily less than human (and thus justifiably enslavable by actual humans). Disney ends up emphasizing this dehumanizing aspect even more by having the actor who plays Uncle Remus, James Baskett, voice more than one of the cartoon animals in Remus’s tales. Baskett also voiced the “Jim Crow” crow in Dumbo (1941), and he has the distinction of being the first person hired to act live for a Disney film, but this fact that is often presented as a “distinction” turns out to reinforce the film’s dehumanization of Black people through the Remus character–he is literally positioned on screen next to cartoons, a parallel that creates the impression, however subconscious, that this figure is also essentially a cartoon.

Though maybe you could try to argue that this cartoon-rendering of Remus could help us read the dialect of his dialog as cartoonish, i.e., unrealistic:

Remus: Dishyer’s de only home I knows. Was goin’ ter whitewash de walls, too, but not now. Time done run out.

Song of the South, 1946 (here).

In the second room of this Gracleand Walt Disney Archives exhibit, which according to the copy was a replication of the archives kept at the official studios in Burbank, CA, the far wall appeared to be covered by a floor-to-ceiling bookshelf that turned out to only a picture of same:

A picture of a picture of a wall of books…ceci n’est pas une…books.

Via the “‘s” visible on many of these spines, one can see a penchant for a certain framing of the possessive visible on these (faux) book spines, Disney’s assertion of ownership by way of the apostrophe, but the possessive is notably absent in the “Uncle Remus Stories” phrase itself–these aren’t “Remus’s” stories, they’re Disney’s….

Here the Remus stories are positioned next to Fantasia, in which the connection between music and narrative is focalized through the figure of the conductor-narrator, who in being a narrator is in that position similar to Remus:

Now, there are three kinds of music on this Fantasia program. First, there’s the kind that tells a definite story. Then there’s the kind, that while it has no specific plot, does paint a series of more or less definite pictures. Then there’s a third kind, music that exists simply for its own sake. … what we call absolute music. Even the title has no meaning beyond a description of the form of the music. What you will see on the screen is a picture of the various abstract images that might pass through your mind if you sat in a concert hall listening to this music. At first, you’re more or less conscious of the orchestra, so our picture opens with a series of impressions of the conductor and the players. Then the music begins to suggest other things to your imagination. They might be, oh, just masses of color. Or they may be cloud forms or great landscapes or vague shadows or geometrical objects floating in space. 

From Fantasia (here).

These “vague shadows” recall Toni Morrison’s concept of the Africanist presence, which, when I first applied this concept to Carrie, I described as “the white mainstream’s shadow self, implicitly a site of horror that whiteness can define itself in relation to.” One might read this presence into the image that greeted the viewer in the first room of the Archives…

Not from the Disney Archives.

This room also had another iteration of this presence in an image reminiscent of Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness (1899), an imperialist narrative with the implied setting of the “economically important Congo River“:

“Displayed here are examples of concept art for used to [sic] ‘pitch’ the idea of Disneyland to prospective investors, lessees, licensees and sponsors.”

This appears to be a mockup of the “Jungle Cruise” ride that’s recently come under criticism for its problematic native-related imagery, which means it has something in common with the “Splash Mountain” ride that people were calling to be “re-themed” because its theme was from…Song of the South. Though the ride didn’t have imagery directly connected to the Remus character, it had other innocuous-seeming elements from the film (bluebirds, etc.), part of a strategy Jason Sperb articulates as a major part of his project:

This attention to the “paratexts”2—the additional texts and contexts surrounding a primary text—becomes especially acute when focused on a Disney film that has benefited from its parent company’s noted success in exploiting its theatrical properties across numerous forms of cross-media promotion and synergy. Song of the South is another beneficiary of what Christopher Anderson has dubbed Disney’s “centrifugal force . . . one that encouraged the consumption of further Disney texts, further Disney products, further Disney experiences.”3 In the seventy years since its debut, Song of the South footage, stories, music, and characters have reappeared in comic strips, spoken records, children’s books, television shows, toys, board games, musical albums, theme park attractions, VHS and DVD compilations, and even video games (including Xbox 360’s recent Kinect Disneyland Adventures, 2011). By conditioning the reception of the main text, these paratexts are fundamentally intertwined with it, thus problematizing the hierarchical distinction between the two. What I hope to add to this discussion is the powerful and often unconsidered role that paratexts have played historically and generationally in shifting perceptions of the full-length theatrical version. (p5).

Jason Sperb, Disney’s Most Notorious Film: Race, Convergence, and the Hidden Histories of Song of the South, 2012.

This analysis reveals something critical about the critical Carrie trigger moment–Norma doesn’t reference the movie Song of the South as her source for the “tarbaby” image, she references one of its “paratexts”: “I had a Walt Disney storybook called Song of the South…” (Though when one looks up what SoS-related storybooks Disney released, none of them are actually titled the exact same as the film itself.) Norma’s reference to the paratext tracks with the success of the paratext strategy for this particular property–Sperb’s research shows:

In 1972, Song of the South was the highest-grossing reissue from any company that year, ranking it sixteenth among all films.

Jason Sperb, Disney’s Most Notorious Film: Race, Convergence, and the Hidden Histories of Song of the South, 2012.

Norma’s use of the Remus character as a point of reference (in the critical trigger moment!) reveals how the re-release of this 1940s text influenced the perspective of the children of the 1970s.

Disney did relatively recently change the theme of the Splash Mountain ride to eradicate all Song of the South references, but the fact that they released a movie based on the Jungle Cruise ride, called Jungle Cruise, just last year seems an extension of this problematic strategy rather than a rectification of it. I made it through only half of the movie when I tried to watch it, but since it’s the depiction of the jungle “natives” that were the problem, it’s worth noting that every time over-the-top natives appear in the first half, their exaggerated costumes and actions are revealed to be a performance paid for and manipulated by the main character of the cruise skipper.

It’s also worth noting that the jungle is a prominent theme at Graceland itself due to Elvis having a themed “Jungle Room” in his Graceland mansion, showcased further by the “Jungle Room” bar across from the exhibit space in the Exhibition center. The critic Henry Louis Gates, Jr. points to the problematic association between the “jungle” and depictions of Blackness (as epitomized by Uncle Remus and potentially with Heart of Darkness as Ground Zero) by titling his introduction to issue 50.4 (2017) of the African American Review “Criticism in de Jungle,” in which he mentions the concept of the “text-milieu” in relation to the application of academic literary theory:

…what Geoffrey Hartman has perceptively termed their [literary works’] “text-milieu.”4 Theory, like words in a poem, does not “translate” in one-to-one relationship of reference. Indeed, I have found that in the “application” of a mode of reading to black texts, the critic, by definition, transforms the theory, and, I might add, transforms received readings of the text, into something different, a construct neither exactly “like” its antecedents nor entirely new.

Hartman’s definition of “text-milieu” (“how theory depends on a canon, on a limited group of texts, often culture-specific or national”) does not break down in the context of the black traditions; it must, however, be modified since the texts of the black canon occupy a rhetorical space in at least two canons, as does black literary theory. The sharing of texts in common does allow for enhanced dialogue, but the sharing of a more or less compatible critical approach also allows for a dialogue between two critics of two different canons whose knowledge of the other’s texts is less than ideal. The black text-milieu is extra-territorial.

Henry Louis Gates, Jr., “Criticism in de Jungle,” African American Review 50.4, Winter 2017.

Which reminds me of movie-Roland’s map and my idea that the titular concept of the “Dark Tower” is a play or inversion of the “ivory tower” of academia, an institution King has over the years evinced more than a little disdain for (as in Christine‘s invented institution “Horlicks College”).

But of course for Disney, a jungle cruise is where all of this started…

“Steamboat Willie,” 1928 (from here).

Happy Endings

We’d gotten to the happily-ever-after part of the fairy tale, as far as he was concerned; Cinderella comes home from the ball through a cash cloudburst.

Stephen King, Bag of Bones, 1998.

When viewed through the lens of the Civil-War legacy, the idea of “whitewashing” seems to me part and parcel of a cultural lust for fairy-tale “happy endings.” If Disney distorts history, its systematic appropriation–which they like to call “adaptations”–of existing narratives and the manipulation of those narratives’ darker elements into such happy endings is a natural extension of this.

A replica of a painting in the first room of the Graceland exhibit Disney Archives.

I thought of this fairy-tale distortion when watching the misery of Princess Diana’s “real-life” narrative play out in recent fictionalized retellings (The Crown with episode 3.4 about the Royal Wedding titled “Fairy Tale,” and last year’s film Spencer)–the life that everyone thought of as a real-life “fairy tale” turned out to be a living hell. This dynamic plays out again on Cheer via Gabi Butler, a figure whom all in her field emulate and idolize largely due to her omnipresence and image permeated on social media…products of what the show reveals to be an essentially slave-driven exploitation of her by her own parents. Not unlike Diana, Gabi Butler lives in the glass bubble of a pressure cooker.

The prominence of Disney’s fairy-tale narrative of Cinderella specifically can be seen in another intersection of music and narrative: opera. The majority of the Graceland Disney Archives consisted of costumes and props from different films, with several that I hadn’t realized were associated with Disney.

The dress Julia Roberts wears in the opera scene in Pretty Woman.

In Pretty Woman (1990), Edward Lewis (Richard Gere) takes Vivian Ward (Julia Roberts) to an opera where they see “La Traviata” in what amounts to a test of Vivian’s character by Edward, as explained by the latter:

“People’s reactions to opera the first time they see it is very dramatic. They either love it or they hate it. If they love it they will always love it. If they don’t, they may learn to appreciate it – but it will never become part of their soul.”

From here.

Needless to say, she passes this test–if not the Bechdel one.

In Moonstruck (1987), the two primary love interests, played by Cher and Nicolas Cage, go to the opera to see La Boheme, which the narrative of the film itself is a retelling of; Cage’s character doesn’t articulate the visit as an explicit test for Cher’s, but the scene otherwise plays out almost identically. There was another interesting detail connecting these two films:

From Moonstruck.

In Pretty Woman, as with the opera-as-test, the Cinderella connection is explicitly articulated (some have billed it as an “R-rated Cinderella“), by a character named Kit played by none other than the same actress who played Nadine Cross in the ’94 miniseries adaptation of The Stand, Laura San Giacomo:

Kit: It could work, it happens.

Vivian: I just want to know who it works out for. Give me one example of someone that we know that it happened for.

Kit: Name someone, you want me to name someone, you want me to like give you a name or something? … Oh god, the pressure of a name. [Rubs temples in intense concentration before throwing her hands up; she has the answer.]

Cinde-fuckin-rella.

From here.

And the red dress extends to Wizard-of-Oz-like red shoes:

INT. SHOE STORE — DAY
ANOTHER SALESMAN fits Vivian with a pair of red high heel shoes.
Edward sits next to her. He leans over and whispers to her.
EDWARD
Feel like Cinderella yet?
Vivian nods happily.

From here.

Happy endings indeed…

Frank Darabont’s adaptation of The Shawhank Redemption (1994), which, in my opinion, derives a lot of its emotional power from its score, adds a sequence that wasn’t in the original text when Andy Dufresne plays an opera record–Mozart’s “Le Nozze de Figaro”–over the prison loudspeakers in a moment that constitutes an explicit rebellion; this moment also reinforces the power of opera as a quintessential form of musical narrative, communicating something fundamental even without words discernible to the listener, as articulated in voiceover by the character Red:

I have no idea to this day what them two Italian ladies were singin’ about. Truth is, I don’t want to know. Some things are best left unsaid. I like to think they were singin’ about something so beautiful it can’t be expressed in words, and makes your heart ache because of it. I tell you, those voices soared. Higher and farther than anybody in a gray place dares to dream. It was like some beautiful bird flapped into our drab little cage and made these walls dissolve away…and for the briefest of moments — every last man at Shawshank felt free.

From here.

Andy does two weeks in solitary confinement for the stunt; when he emerges he tells his fellow convicts it was the easiest time he ever did because he had Mozart to keep him company. Red thinks Andy is speaking literally and asks if they really let him bring the record player down there. Andy tells him no, the music was in his head and in his heart, and gives a speech about a “place” constituted by music, a figurative rather than a literal place:

Andy: That’s the one thing they can’t confiscate, not ever. That’s the beauty of it. Haven’t you ever felt that way about music, Red?

Red: Played a mean harmonica as a younger man. Lost my taste for it. Didn’t make much sense on the inside.

Andy: Here’s where it makes most sense. We need it so we don’t forget.

Red: Forget?

Andy: That there are things in this world not carved out of gray stone. That there’s a small place inside of us they can never lock away, and that place is called hope.

From here.

What we end up with here is a white man lecturing a Black man on the importance of music as a means to both hope and to not forget, which, via slavery, is the precise origin of American music in the first place–enslaved people came up with music to help them cope with the desolation of enslavement and stay in touch with their humanity, and then white men took that music for the blackface minstrel performances that became the foundation for the rest of American music until Elvis made it palatable for a white man to play it without the blackface but was still essentially doing the same thing. That we tend to forget this makes Andy lecturing a Black man about the importance of remembering a little grating.

This figurative “place” of hope is reminiscent in a sense of “the laughing place”–a place that’s also figurative and that must also originate from slavery since it manifests from the voice of the Remus narrator. In Song of the South, Remus tells three different tales about Br’er Fox’s efforts to catch Br’er Rabbit with Br’er Bear usually inadvertently interfering; the second is the tale with the tar-baby figure entrapment that Norma refers to in the critical Carrie moment, and the third and final involves Br’er Rabbit convincing Br’er Bear that he has a “laughing place”–doing so via musical number and leading him into a thicket with a beehive that the bear stumbles into, leading the bees to attack and sting him.

There is no shortage of King making visual comparisons to white characters looking like they’re in minstrel blackface in his canon:

His cheeks and forehead were smeared with blueberry juice, and he looked like an extra in a minstrel show.

Stephen King, “The Body,” Different Seasons, 1982.

She applied mud for five minutes, finishing with a couple of careful dabs to the eyelids, then bent over to look at her reflection. What she saw in the relatively still water by the bank was a minstrel-show mudgirl by moonlight. Her face was a pasty gray, like a face on a vase pulled out of some archeological dig.

Stephen King, The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, 1999.

(The latter passage is of interest in conjunction to this minstrel-mask-like mud soothing a wasp sting and the function of wasps in relation to King’s first magical black man, Dick Hallorann in The Shining (1977) as I discussed here.)

But in what I’ve read so far of King’s canon, there’s only one other direct invocation of Uncle Remus besides Norma’s in Carrie (1974) (Tom Gordon refers to Little Black Sambo in conjunction with the above passage); the other Remus reference is in Misery (1987):

“I have a place I go when I feel like this. A place in the hills. Did you ever read the Uncle Remus stories, Paul?”

He nodded.

“Do you remember Brer Rabbit telling Brer Fox about his Laughing Place?”

“Yes.”

“That’s what I call my place upcountry. My Laughing Place. Remember how I said I was coming back from Sidewinder when I found you?”

He nodded.

“Well, that was a fib. I fibbed because I didn’t know you well then. I was really coming back from my Laughing Place. It has a sign over the door that says that. ANNIE’S LAUGHING PLACE, it says. Sometimes I do laugh when I go there.

“But mostly I just scream.”

Stephen King, Misery, 1987.

If this association with Annie Wilkes, one of King’s most infamous villains, doesn’t highlight a horrific undertone–or overtone–of the concept of “The Laughing Place” as the nexus of humor and horror, nothing will. An integral association between humor and horror and the Carrie trigger moment underscores via Norma’s explanation about how they had to laugh so they wouldn’t cry.

Annie Wilkes has strong feelings about the function of narrative in a more technical sense as well: when Paul tries to circumnavigate the plot development of Misery’s death to write Annie a new book about Misery, he sees Annie’s rage in full force for the first time as she explains to him, via the “Rocket Man” movies she used to go see as a kid, why he wrote “a cheat”:

“The new episode always started with the ending of the last one. They showed him going down the hill, they showed the cliff, they showed him banging on the car door, trying to open it. Then, just before the car got to the edge, the door banged open and out he flew onto the road! The car went over the cliff, and all the kids in the theater were cheering because Rocket Man got out, but I wasn’t cheering, Paul. I was mad! I started yelling, ‘That isn’t what happened last week! That isn’t what happened last week!’”

Stephen King, Misery, 1987.

This narrative “cheating” strikes me as akin to Disney’s cheating by means of simplifying complex narratives by slapping on their unrealistic happy endings. I realized reading Annie’s Rocket-Man rant that Disney’s The Rocketeer was also appropriating a pre-existing narrative from these Rocket Man stories…

Disney Archives at Graceland.

…before they even did RocketMan.

Apart from the invocation of Remus and his Laughing Place, Song of the South and Misery have another connection via a particular lace visual, in the former, one that induces other boys to laugh at the main character in a way not so dissimilar from the way Carrie’s classmates laugh at her:

“Look at that lace collar!” Song of the South, 1946.
Paul Sheldon’s pain meds in Rob Reiner’s Misery (1990), which he then uses to try to drug Annie during a pseudo-romantic dinner he convinces her to have with him…for which she wears:
…a lace collar.

The wheel of ka could be read as a hamster wheel, keeping us running toward that happy ending that we can never reach and that pretty lace collar more like a leash…

Song of the South, 1946

The Carrie trigger moment shows intersection of horror, humor, AND music, replicating the intersecting function of these in American history, and marking only the beginning of this thematic preoccupation for King. In their mocking laughter, Carrie’s classmates render her an “other” apart from their group that enables her to be read as a manifestation of the Africanist presence herself–in spite of her last name being White. In the trigger moment, Carrie is black and white and re(a)d all over, playing out a revenge cycle. I am in a way reading Carrie as “Black” in a similar but different way than Marc Bernardin reads Ben Richards as Black–but hopefully not in a white apologist way!

The current Running Man reboot in production is evidence of how King’s cyclical wheel cosmology applies to the adaptations of his work (it’s also retroactively fitting that in the 1987 original, the Running Man was played by Mr. Universe on a Day-Glo-limned set that might be considered to have a theme-park aesthetic). Rebooting It in 2017 jump-started another King Renaissance, which is somewhat ironic when The Dark Tower, the apotheosis of the King multiverse, was released the same year and a total bomb. (The cyclical interest in our historical preoccupations might also be underscored by the man playing the man in black who had his own renaissance in the form of the McConnaissance (one like King’s in being similarly unaffected by the badness of this movie), making the white-savior Civil War movie Free State of Jones, which he apparently uses as the basis of a film class he teaches for the University of Texas.)

The way that King takes other texts ranging across the low- and high-culture spectrum (his “secret sauce”) and regurgitates them into his own brand of cyclical repeating narrative actually turns out to be quite similar to the Disney model…similar as well in the way it often reinforces a patriarchal worldview…

…what does the map revolve around?

Salvador Dalí’s The Knight at the Tower (1932).

King’s construction of his metaverse has also inspired me to unveil the scrolaverse, my creative wheel in which Long Live the King is but one spoke. And the spoke of Flatten Them Into A Set is definitely influenced by the range of textual references King shoehorns into every text of his…

-SCR

Cujo Kills, Connects to Carrie

“Y’know, I never thought I’d say this about a movie, but I really hope this dog dies.”

Rachel watching Cujo in Friends 8.12, “The One Where Joey Dates Rachel”

We finally arrive in the ’80s with the publication of Cujo (1981), which has a reputation as one of Stephen King’s self-described “cocaine novels,” aka he claims he was so high on coke in the course of its composition that he can’t remember writing it. This would appear to be something of a myth, though. King biographer Lisa Rogak identifies 1979 as the year King got “hooked on cocaine” and is more specific about what King doesn’t remember:

[King] would later admit that when he did the revisions for Cujo in early 1981, he had no recollection of doing so.

Rogak, Lisa. Haunted Heart (p. 114). St. Martin’s Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Later in the biography Rogak describes aspects of King’s composition of this novel in enough detail that it seems to contradict a summation she makes early on in it that reinforces the myth, that King has “also spoken with regret that he couldn’t remember writing certain books, such as Cujo” (p. 2).

The novel’s omniscient opening tells us that the “monster” serial killer Frank Dodd (of The Dead Zone) returned to the town of Castle Rock in 1980, in what will be one of the hottest summers on record. Four-year-old Tad Trenton encounters this monster in his closet, but when his parents come in, they don’t see anything. The summer before, Tad’s father Vic took the family out to the mechanic Joe Camber’s on the outskirts of town to have the car worked on, and they met the Cambers’ giant but good-natured Saint Bernard, Cujo. Now, Cujo chases a rabbit into a ground cave on the Camber property, disturbing some bats and incurring a bite on his muzzle. Meanwhile, Vic’s small-time ad agency Ad Worx with his partner Roger is on the rocks after a debacle in which their biggest client, Sharp Cereal, suffered a blow to the credibility of their ad spokesman the Sharp Cereal Professor due to some food dye in their product Red Razberry Zingers made it look like kids were vomiting blood. Vic and Roger are planning a ten-day trip to try to remedy the seemingly hopeless situation as Vic entertains suspicions that his wife Donna is cheating on him.

The Cambers’ neighbor, WWII veteran and alcoholic Gary Pervier, encounters Cujo on his porch and is surprised when Cujo uncharacteristically growls at him. Donna has a threatening encounter with her lover Steve Kemp when Steve shows up at the Trenton house and doesn’t take it well when she tries to end things with him; she started the affair following discontent with the sort-of Vic’s-job-dictated move to Maine and fear of getting old (see new M. Night movie…). Meanwhile, Charity Camber, the mechanic Joe’s wife, wins five thousand dollars on a lottery ticket and starts to lay plans for a trip to visit her sister in Connecticut and take their son Brett, which she knows Joe will resist. Steve Kemp, furious at being jilted, jots a note to Vic exposing his affair with Donna. Vic advises Donna to take their Pinto that’s been acting up out to Joe Camber’s while Vic is gone, and writes down the Monster Words he recites nightly to keep the monsters out of the closet for Tad.

Charity buys a new chainfall for Joe with some of the lottery money; Cujo growls at the two men who deliver it and they consider calling Joe Camber to tell him but don’t. Vic receives Steve Kemp’s note at his office. Charity proposes the trip to Joe and wins a standoff with him after promising a trade of letting Brett go on Joe’s next hunting trip. Vic confronts Donna about the affair and she explains her fear of getting old (the confrontation keeps Vic from remembering to call Joe Camber about the Pinto). Joe Camber plans a trip with Gary Pervier while Charity is off on her trip. The morning Charity and Brett are supposed to leave, Brett sees Cujo looking very scary and abnormal, but Charity convinces him not to tell Joe or Joe won’t let them go, and they get on the bus. Cujo attacks and kills Gary Pervier at Gary’s house. Charity considers the significance of the trip for Brett seeing another way of life besides his father’s. Vic leaves with Roger for their work trip.

Joe discovers Gary’s corpse at Gary’s place, then Cujo comes up from Gary’s basement and kills Joe, too. Donna debates what to do when the Pinto starts acting up again; she decides to drive it to Joe Camber’s even though he’s not answering his phone, and she relents when Tad insists on going with her instead of staying with a babysitter. The Pinto stalls out as soon as they pull in the Cambers’ driveway, and when Donna gets out, Cujo emerges and chases her back into the car.

In Boston, Vic proposes that the Sharp Cereal Professor make a final ad appearance in which he apologizes for the Red Razberry Zingers debacle. Donna debates whether the door to the Cambers’ house is locked and if she should try to make a run for it, and she manages to get the Pinto started but it quickly stalls out again. Brett Camber calls the house to no avail, and the sound of the ringing phone agitates Cujo. Donna and Tad eat some of the little food they brought and doze in the car while Cujo stands watch. Steve Kemp enters the unlocked Trenton house and, finding it empty, trashes it.

Charity again calls the Camber house to no avail and Brett comments on Charity’s sister and her husband flaunting their money. Knowing she’s getting weaker after the first night in the car, Donna makes a run for the house after testing to see if Cujo is hiding in front of the car; he tricks her by waiting to make his move and then attacks, driving her back into the car with a bad bite in her stomach before she manages to shut the door. Vic starts to get worried when Donna doesn’t answer the phone at home, eventually calling the police, who discover the trashed house. Charity ponders but rejects the possibility of divorce.

Tad has a convulsion in the overheated car. Vic comes home and tries to piece together what happened with the police. When Sheriff Bannerman goes out to check if the missing Pinto could be at Camber’s place, Cujo attacks and kills him. Vic falls asleep and wakes hours later when Roger calls with the news that Sharp has decided to let them keep the account. Vic has a note from the police that Kemp has been arrested and Donna isn’t with him, and decides to drive out to the Cambers’ as Donna faces the fact that Tad is dying in the heat and gets out of the car. She staves off Cujo with a baseball bat that was lying in the grass, but he keeps coming at her until it splinters, and then she stabs him in the eye with it. She’s bludgeoning the dog’s corpse as Vic pulls into the driveway, and when Vic gets to Tad in the back of the car, Tad’s dead.

Donna eventually recovers and Vic and Roger are able to keep the Sharp account long enough to keep the agency afloat. Charity manages to hang on to the Camber property and they get a new dog.

The End.

In the biography, Lisa Rogak chronicles how this narrative sparked from two incidents in King’s life:

[King] got the idea for Cujo by continuing his habit of connecting two seemingly unrelated subjects. With Carrie, it was “adolescent cruelty and telekinesis.”

With Cujo, it was two incidents a couple of weeks apart. While bringing his motorcycle in for service to a mechanic located on a remote back road, his bike gave out in the yard. He called out, but instead of a human, a mammoth Saint Bernard galloped out of the garage heading straight toward him, growling all the way. The mechanic followed, but the dog continued to charge. When the dog lunged at King, the mechanic hit the dog on the butt with a massive socket wrench.

“He must not like your face,” he said, then asked Steve about the motorcycle.

Even though they were now flush, Steve and Tabby were still driving the Ford Pinto they had bought new with the $2,500 advance from Carrie, even though the car had been plagued with problems from the beginning. A couple of weeks after Steve’s run-in with the Saint Bernard, the car acted up and Steve’s wild imagination thought back to what if Tabby had driven the car to the mechanic and the dog had lunged toward her? And what if there no humans were around? Worse yet, what if the dog was rabid?

Rogak, Lisa. Haunted Heart (p. 112). St. Martin’s Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

This constitutes another Carrie connection by way of King’s own account, in his craft memoir On Writing, of two real-life encounters, or rather two real-life people, converging for the inspiration of that novel: a high-school classmate of his who was so poor she wore the same clothes every day and who was mocked relentlessly when she finally did wear nicer clothes, and another classmate whose mother had situated a “life-sized crucified Jesus, eyes turned up, mouth turned down, blood dribbling from beneath the crown of thorns on his head” in their trailer’s living room.

In relation to Cujo, Rogak provides another illuminative quote about King’s writing process-slash-basic narrative structure/suspense-building:

“Then the game became to see if I could put them in a place where nobody will find them for the length of time that it takes for them to work out their problem.”

Rogak, Lisa. Haunted Heart (p. 113). St. Martin’s Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Or, as Vic considers it in the novel itself:

Why? Why had something like this been allowed to happen? How could so many events have conspired together?

One might notice a variation in King’s typical narrative approach via the lack of chapter divisions:

Cujo was an experiment for King, the first book he had written where the story was told all within the confines of a single chapter. It didn’t start out that way; he had initially envisioned the story in terms of traditional chapters. But as the story developed, along with the sense of horror, he altered his approach: “I love Cujo because it does what I want a book to do. It feels like a brick thrown through somebody’s window, like a really invasive piece of work. It feels anarchic, like a punk-rock record: it’s short and it’s mean.”

Rogak, Lisa. Haunted Heart (p. 113). St. Martin’s Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

But something that’s definitely in keeping with King’s typical thematic patterns is his supernatural gloss on the plot’s premise, a premise that would be every bit as horrifying (if not more so?) if it had been left in the realm of what could “really” happen. The events of the novel require no supernatural element to make them “work,” as most of his other novels up to this point have in that the events necessarily could not have occurred without a supernatural cause–the telekinesis in Carrie, vampires in ‘Salem’s Lot, more telekinesis/telepathy/psychic powers in The Shining, supernatural/divine prophets of sorts in The Stand, psychic powers again in The Dead Zone, and pyrokinesis in Firestarter. Realistic-via-supernatural horror has been one of the primary distinctions between King and his pseudonymous Bachman novels, so publishing this under his own name might have necessitated this element, consciously or unconsciously, for “Brand Stephen King,” as Simon Rich dubs it in his 2018 Screening Stephen King academic study that links this Brand to “a particularly mainstream form of horror.” There’s also the fact that this is the second Castle Rock novel, though the supernatural element doesn’t seem inherently connected to this recurring King setting, or at least not any more so than other settings he uses. The first Castle Rock novel, The Dead Zone, references Carrie not as events that happened in the “real world” of its particular universe, but as a pop-culture text, and Cujo‘s setting is also Castle Rock and via the Frank Dodd/Sheriff Bannerman connections (and Dead Zone protagonist John Smith also referenced) occupies the same “reality,” which then means in the reality/world of Cujo, Carrie White exists only as a fictional figment.

At any rate, given the gaps in King’s memory he attributes to his substance abuse, the breadth of the linked elements in his multiverse is almost staggering, though perhaps less surprising if considered within the context (or confines) of the white male ego and its preference for referencing itself. The most prevalent example of this at the current moment might be this year’s Later; Cujo shares the hallmark element of what Charles Yu identifies in his review of Later, its real-life horrors reigning emotionally if not literally over its supernatural elements:

And the horrors are many. There are hints of evil from another dimension, things from “outside the world” and “outside of time.” But mostly the horrors are familiar ones. Plain old human cruelty. The loss of loved ones to disease or old age. Alzheimer’s. Also, less morbid though no less heavy: the loss of innocence. Growing up too fast. The unexplainable, the incomprehensible in our everyday lives.

From here.

This sentiment seems to echo one previously put forth in this ancient debate of the extent and/or limitations of King’s literary prowess, appearing in the LA Review of Books in 2012 (in direct response to a particular savaging of King’s quality):

But all [King’s] novels, even the stinkers, have resonance. By this I mean, his fiction isn’t just reflective of the current culture, it casts judgment. Innocent Carrie White wakes up with her period and telekinesis at the height of the women’s movement. No wonder everybody craps on her, and no wonder we’re delighted that she slaughters them all. In Cujo, the materialism of the 1980s American family tears itself apart from the inside, as represented by the family dog gone mad.

From here.

Its appearance on Friends ought to be a clear enough marker of Cujo‘s cultural caché, but for a more recent piece of evidence, I offer the personal anecdote of my new landlord greeting my (incessantly) barking chihuahua with “Hey, Cujo!”

In addition to helping the supernatural developments, the novel’s omniscient point of view helps the parallel development of the Trenton and Camber family units; the latter’s absence from the film adaptation might be evidence of the necessarily narrower scope of that media. The novel’s plot registers the interdependence of white-collar and blue-collar, with Steve Kemp a sort of wild card that–forgive me–straddles both worlds, though it’s Kemp who wears the chambray shirt that consistently makes cameos throughout King’s work, and which decidedly has a blue collar. Kemp as a character definitely comes off the worst and most overtly villainous in this narrative. Donna’s affair with him, while a demonstration of her culturally attenuated fears, at first didn’t strike me as affecting the plot materially in the way of playing a direct role in Tad’s death. But one might argue Kemp functions materially as a red herring to mislead the police, that if he hadn’t trashed the house, they might have gone looking at Cambers’ place sooner for lack of other options.

Kemp is an unequivocal douche bag, marked perhaps most overtly by the only detail I recalled from my adolescent reading of the novel–his jacking off on Donna and Vic’s bed after trashing their house–and also in other details like his refusal to shake hands with a tennis opponent if he’s lost the match. That he’s a poet does not speak well for poets, then; his side hustle, or really main one, refinishing furniture under the moniker the “Village Stripper” sexualizes him in a way that also characterizes his relationship to his other work:

…he masturbated a great deal. Masturbation, he believed, was a sign of creativity. Across from the bed was his desk. A big old-fashioned Underwood sat on top of it.

Considering he turns masturbation into a criminal offense in the one scene I remembered, Kemp as a character isn’t doing much for the reputation of the Great White Male writer (and/or connection to the Underwood typewriter), except he identifies more as a poet than a fiction writer–that his fiction-writing exclusively consists of a draft of a novel he’s “attacked badly from six different angles” reads more intensely in light of his attempted rape of Donna. His aforementioned chambray shirt and self-identifying as a poet are strongly reminiscent of Jess Rider’s character from The Stand, a character who also functions as an object of derision and whose chambray shirt becomes a demonstration of his posing as more working-class than he is, thus linking poets to posers. Kemp appears to be a poet in the same posing vein, but taken to the next level of violence and aggression, apparenty largely by virtue of his being older than Jess was; we see the personal agitation Kemp experiences in response to Donna’s jilting him being connected to his age when he discovers the “first threads of gray in his beard”; his irrational/irresponsible actions are thus linked to an almost identical anxiety to what Donna describes to Vic in articulating her reasons for getting with Kemp.

Kemp is more the villain, even, than Cujo himself, who can’t be blamed for his actions. Can King the author be blamed for letting Tad die?

Readers gave him an earful about it, and he received letters by the truck-load that criticized him for letting a child die in a book, albeit one who was innocent and simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, unlike the dozens of teenagers who were killed in Carrie, who seemingly deserved it because of their actions.

Rogak, Lisa. Haunted Heart (p. 113). St. Martin’s Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

This echoes the “main character” Cujo himself as summed up in the novel’s conclusion:

He had never wanted to kill anybody. He had been struck by something, possibly destiny, or fate, or only a degenerative nerve disease called rabies. Free will was not a factor.

Despite one essentially (if still ultimately indirectly) killing the other, both Cujo and Tad as characters are “innocent.” For Cujo, rabies is a scientifically sanctioned form of what amounts to demonic possession–nice touch how he gets it from a bat bite, a la vampires. Tad did not call his own demise upon himself, but the actions of his parents did; readers seem to be reacting to the use of a child as a plot device. On Friends, Rachel wants the dog to die in the movie, and he does, if in a bit more dramatic fashion, but I knew the second Tad’s death was confirmed in the book that he would be resuscitated in the film version.

The way events unfold may implicate white-collar reliance on blue-collar: the ultimate coincidence facilitating the horrific scenario is the blue-collar family uncharacteristically being away on vacation. The lottery ticket that facilitates this coincidence may itself be the novel’s biggest coincidence, but it “works” because it plays on what is definitely not a coincidence, the blue-collar pursuit of the possibility of something better, which is further played out by Charity and Brett’s trip and the larger possibilities it opens up in escaping Joe and what he stands for.

In his Later review, Charles Yu also notes:

In his craft memoir, “On Writing,” Stephen King describes a moment in his process when he asks himself the “Big Questions.” The biggest of which are: “Is this story coherent? And if it is, what will turn coherence into a song?”

From here.

Reading Carrie for Toni Morrison’s Africanist presence, there were no actual black characters, but only descriptions that comparatively invoked Blackness. Black characters are almost entirely absent from Cujo as well but exist in relation to music, and manage to be fairly revealing in the limited time they take the page-stage, which I’m quoting here in full:

The cab driver was black and silent. He had his radio tuned to an FM soul station. The Temptations sang “Power” endlessly as the cab took him toward Logan Airport through streets that were almost completely deserted. Helluva good movie set, he thought. As the Temptations faded out, a jiveass dj came on with the weather forecast. It had been hot yesterday, he reported, but you didn’t see nuthin yesterday, brothers and sisters. Today was going to be the hottest day of the summer so far, maybe a record-breaker. The big G’s weather prognosticator, Altitude Lou McNally, was calling for temperatures of over 100 degrees inland and not much cooler on the coast. A mass of warm, stagnant air had moved up from the south and was being held in place over New England by bands of high pressure. “So if you gas gonna reach, you gotta head for the beach,” the jiveass dj finished. “It ain’t goan be too pretty if you hangin out in the city. And just to prove the point, here’s Michael Jackson. He’s goin ‘Off the Wall.’”

“Black and silent” is pretty much the most succinct and accurate summation one could make concerning the Africanist presence here with this weird combo of a literally silent Black body and a disembodied Black voice (or white projection of one)…despite the foundation of American music discussed in my previous post that this obliquely invokes. It seems a potential unintended coincidence that this silent presence appears behind the wheel of a car, that most critical object in this particular plot’s premise.

Charity Camber’s aspirations for a better life are ultimately futile, but we see how her sister escaped Charity’s circumstances through luck, demonstrating how Charity herself had a parallel chance for upward mobility. The “black and silent” cab driver never gets that chance. The futility Charity confronts seems to demonstrate how the illusion of the American Dream is a dangled carrot that keeps the subservient classes subservient. This tactic may be largely successful, but, as with cars, can backfire. Donna’s invocation of the “greenhouse effect” trapping the heat in the car, that most direct cause of Tad’s death, seems perversely prophetic as climate disasters advance apace and we continue to refuse to curb our emissions. From 2021, Tad’s death could be read as an indictment of consumption and its cost to future generations.

-SCR

Carrie: Reading Monsters

Scary monsters, super creeps
Keep me running, running scared
Scary monsters, super creeps
Keep me running, running scared

Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps)” by David Bowie

Reading for…

To me the world of academia frequently feels cloistered and condescending, conjuring that clichéd image of the Ivory Tower, defined when googled as “a state of privileged seclusion or separation from the facts and practicalities of the real world” and “a metaphorical place—or an atmosphere—where people are happily cut off from the rest of the world in favor of their own pursuits, usually mental and esoteric ones.” So here I’m going to try to apply some of the theory I learned in the Tower and connect the project of analyzing a fictional text to current issues in the real world.

I was an English major at Rice and got my MFA in Creative Writing at UH, the latter requiring several academic literature credits in addition to the creative ones. While I generally hated the academic classes and the impenetrable language in the articles we had to read, in hindsight I do think I got some valuable things out of applying abstract theories to texts. No doubt anyone who’s ever majored in English has been interrogated at some point about the practicality of the degree. We didn’t do it for money. We did it for love.

Literature provides different lenses on our culture. As I frequently discuss in my fiction classes, fiction in particular offers us the opportunity to experience what it’s like to be someone else: studies show that our brains can feel things described in what we’re reading as though we’re experiencing them directly. But along with all the different types of characters and experiences it’s possible to depict are all the different types of readers who will be reading the depictions. That the author does not have full authority over the meaning of the text–that texts are joint constructions between writer and reader–is a contentious idea in the history of literary analyses, and in that vein Roland Barthes’ seminal academic essay “The Death of the Author” will be unpacked in more detail at a later point.

A good illustration of the general idea of applying different readings to texts–of how to “read”–is offered in a recent SNL sketch in which Ru Paul visits a library to read to children.

But instead of reading these classic children’s books in the traditional word-for-word sense one might expect, Ru starts roasting them, saying things like the character Eloise “needs to get a hot-oil treatment for that broom on her head.” This greatly confuses the parents in the audience; one wonders aloud, “What is happening?” Ru explains that he’s “reading these book girls for filth.” As Ru roasts some more, the parents and curators debate how educational the process is, with one parent claiming it’s the most fun she’s had since her kid “blasted” out of her.

For the purposes of our discussion, one of the most symbolically helpful elements of the sketch is the use of glasses for reading:

As everyone in the audience puts them on–note that they are colorful and fancy, each pair unique–Ru says, “Now, I’ll show you how to read. Then, you try.” He dons a different pair of glasses from his previous ones before he starts to “read”:

It is also significant that these are more colorful than the plain black square ones he had on before. These are the lenses through which he will “read for filth,” in essence, reading through the perspective of a drag queen, showing how one can put on these particular symbolic lenses to read any text. By dramatizing the confusion in reaction to Ru’s applying his specific way of reading, the sketch shows how we’re frequently trapped in limited perspectives when consuming content and narratives, and thereby the sketch implicitly highlights the importance of considering other perspectives. Applying theory can help us with this.

Monster Theory

Via the King of the mainstream, I’d like to make theory more accessible. I’ve already used academic theory once in the period post when I applied Toni Morrison’s reading of the Africanist presence to Carrie. Since probably no one’s played in prose with monsters more than King, another academic theory that will be applicable to King’s work in particular is Jeffrey J. Cohen’s Monster Theory: Reading Culture. As this book’s Amazon blurb says, “Monsters provide a key to understanding the culture that spawned them.”

Cohen’s monster theory has seven theses:
1. the monster’s body = the cultural body
2. the monster always escapes
3. the monster is a harbinger of category crisis
4. the monster dwells at Gates of Difference
5. the monster polices the borders of the possible
6. the fear of the monster is really a sort of desire
7. the monster stands at the threshold of becoming

Number 6 speaks to a tenet of fiction in general; the writer Steve Almond points out that plot is pushing your characters up against their deepest fears and/or desires. As I frequently note in my comp classes when explaining how rhetorical techniques work, emotional appeals of the sort perhaps most frequently made in advertisements exploit people’s fears and desires, which often amount to the same thing: sending the message that you should buy this pickup truck so you will appear more masculine and thus more attractive to women is exploiting a desire to be more masculine/attractive and a fear that you are not masculine/attractive enough. Fears and desires, I end up pointing out to my composition and creative-writing classes alike, are the twin engines of human motivation. The ultimate reason we’re doing anything we’re doing can be traced back to being afraid of something, wanting something, or both. (The documentary Century of the Self is a fascinating road map to the history of the marketing industry’s massively successful exploitation of this Freudian principle, spearheaded by Freud’s own nephew.)

Related to this idea is the tenet that humans are not rational creatures but rather primarily emotional ones, something important to grasp for the craft element of character development, among other things. Our fears and desires are emotion-based, hence our motivation is emotion-based. Something I’ve been using lately to illustrate this idea is a study done by the University of Houston Marketing Department showing that people are more likely to not waste food if the food is anthropomorphized, in essence, if it has a face on it:

from here

(This is also a tenet that Steve Jobs’ fundamental understanding of was a key factor in his success, as well as a critical element of Horacio Salinas’s collaged found-object creatures.)

King is essentially putting a human face on horror and vice versa in the construction of his monsters. Carrie is like the spotted banana we’re now willing to eat instead of throwing away because we’ve lived her experience and she is human to us. And she is human to us because King gives us access to her interiority and thus her fears and desires.

Cohen’s reading the culture through its monsters is indicative of how pop culture both reflects and shapes the culture. A particularly fascinating tenet of his theory to me is that zombie narratives are more prevalent in the culture when Republicans are in political control because they represent the “great unwashed masses” being a threat to wealthy, conservative government (the supposed danger to society that things like welfare “handouts” and the like represent from a conservative perspective), while vampire narratives are more prevalent when Democrats are in control, representing the wealthy and aristocratic arising in response to and as a threat toward liberal government.

As Cohen has it, monsters are what we project our cultural fears and desires onto in order to express them as an attempt to rid ourselves of them–though according to Cohen’s second tenet, we can’t. Take the shark in Jaws–a monster hidden and lurking beneath the surface, more likely to rise for the bait of bared flesh. Almost like a zombie-vampire hybrid… And Darth Vader in Star Wars–the monster turns out to be our father.

Monsters in Carrie

With Carrie we’re not quite at the zombie versus vampire dichotomy yet (the whole vampire element will come into play in ‘Salem’s Lot), but Carrie the character offers an interesting look at the narrative and cultural construction of a monster. The thing about monsters generally is that they’re frequently oversimplified manifestations of fear that reflect a cultural unconscious desire to empower ourselves by ostracizing others (Cohen tenet #4): I can only feel good about myself via the relativity of feeling better than somebody else–a posture that potentially highlights an implicit problem with our country’s foundational tenet of all men being created equal. Any politician worth his salt knows how helpful going to war can be in creating an us v. them mentality that unites the country and boosts political approval ratings. Hence a shadow justification of othering can be traced through our cultural narratives–just look at the treatment of terrorists in shows like 24 after the cultural turning point of 9/11.

The privileging of certain narratives over others is indicative of the binary us-v.-them brand of thinking. (Perhaps it makes a certain unconscious eponymous sense that the U.S. might indulge in this brand more than others.) The Ru Paul sketch implicitly demonstrates the primacy of the patriarchal lens: these heteronormative families were initially powerless to process Ru’s way of seeing things, or really even to process the idea that Ru might have a different way of seeing things than their own–indeed, they’re powerless to process the very idea that there even could be a different way of seeing things. And it’s that very feeling of powerlessness that is itself very threatening to the patriarchy. Ru, whose perspective was once on the margin, is now taking control of the narrative.

Who has control of the narrative is an integral element of defining the monster in Carrie. As discussed in my initial analysis, King goes to great lengths to humanize the figure who would be considered a monster from an external perspective, and to dramatize the shortcomings of limited perspectives in knowing the “full story” of “what happened.” Were we to only get others’ perspectives of Carrie, she’d remain a monster. Because we get Carrie’s perspective–occupying her interiority to the extent that we get the experience of feeling like we are her, mirrored in Sue’s feeling what it’s like to be Carrie via Carrie’s telepathy in the novel’s climax–she transcends the monstrous and becomes human, even though notably, she’s not human in the traditional sense due to her telekinetic and telepathic powers. And yet she is. Human.

That does not mean there are not other monsters in the book. The figuring of the monstrous comes into play in tracing the true origins of the destruction that occurs in Chamberlain, Maine. The monstrous figure of Carrie covered in blood and enacting bloody fiery retribution that we eventually build up to is merely a vessel containing a convergence of monstrous factors that can also be parsed from my initial analysis. One of the biggest factors influencing what happens is the extremity of Carrie’s religious upbringing–this is shown to be a critical factor in the alienation that makes her think the pig’s blood was a more elaborate setup than it actually was, finally pushing her over the edge. Hence, religious extremity is figured as part of the monstrous–arguably extremity of religion more than religion itself, since Margaret’s brand of religion is dramatized as a more extreme brand than most in seeming to believe that life itself is a sin. Margaret’s brand manifests an erasure of self that Carrie’s enactment of violence is an attempt to recast in a way that connects to the reading of Carrie as anticipating the age of school shooters enacting violence as a way to make themselves known, and, in their figuring, instantly immortal.

General adolescent cruelty and lack of empathy is also figured as part of the monstrous in being shown to help cause Carrie to become a monster.

But in unpacking the monstrous influences on Carrie, King goes even further in unpacking the monstrous influences on the monstrous influences. Particularly, Margaret. If the extremity of her worldview was so formative for Carrie, what was so formative in influencing that extreme worldview? Fittingly, Margaret being Carrie’s parent, this can be traced back to Margaret’s parents; as I concluded before, “Margaret’s extreme beliefs are twisted projections of Freudian familial fallout,” specifically, Margaret’s psychological inability to deal with her mother having sex with someone who is not Margaret’s father. So the ultimate monster, then, is really our psychological frailties?

Monsters Like Carrie

One can see how the monstrous in Carrie is, in a sense, figured as Frankensteinian, an amalgamation of pieces jammed together to make a monster rather than the monster being a singular creature. In the recent Netflix documentary Killer Inside: The Mind of Aaron Hernandez, a modern amalgamation of the monstrous reared a head full of formative Freudian psychological frailties alongside a serious case of football-induced brain trauma.

As the child of parents born and raised in Dallas, Texas, I once basked in the Roman-arena glories of football, donning an oversized Troy Aikman jersey to cheer for the Cowboys in the Super Bowl appearances whose commemorative posters hang framed and now extremely faded in the garage of the house I grew up in. The Cowboys were a sort of lifeline for our young family, who’d been exiled from Texas to Memphis for my father’s job–a way to remember who we were and where we’d come from. It was in the midst of the Cowboys’ peak years, sandwiched not-so-neatly between their Super Bowl wins in ’93 and ’95, that O.J. happened, and the country got a glimpse of how the violence they loved to cheer for on the field might manifest in more troubling ways. Of course, he was acquitted, and nothing about the system of professional sports seemed to change even as evidence for brain damage incurred by contact-induced concussions of the sort endlessly showcased on ESPN mounted in the intervening decades. But I quit watching, even if I’m still wearing my dead father’s Cowboys slippers as I write this.

(For a deep dive into a lifelong fan’s reckoning with the ethics of the sport he loves, see Steve Almond’s Against Football: One Fan’s Reluctant Manifesto.)

Aaron Hernandez was a more recent professional football player accused of murder. The former New England Patriot was convicted in 2015 of the murder of Odin Loyd (frequently described as his “friend”) and acquitted in 2017 of the murders of Daniel de Abreu and Safiro Furtado just days before he hung himself in prison with an appeal in his 2015 conviction ongoing.

The Netflix doc tackles Hernandez’s life from beginning to end, presenting several factors in the formation of what might look like a monster from a certain surface perspective, if you conclude that he really is a killer (which the comp teacher in me must point out the title “Killer Inside” is implicitly directing you to do).

Hernandez’s Formative Factors:
-sexual abuse by a teenaged boy when he was a child,
-sexual relationships with males and females as a teen,
-his masculinity-centric father dying suddenly when he was sixteen,
-his mother having an affair with his closest relative’s husband,
-his being pulled out of high school early to go play football at a huge faraway state school less than a year after his father died,
-marijuana addiction,
-his being the youngest draft in the NFL at 20 years old
-his brain in autopsy revealing advanced CTE

The portrayal of these factors means the doc goes beyond just painting Hernandez as a monster, indicting along the way several mainstays of our culture: Hernandez’s life becomes a lens through which larger cultural problems are magnified. One monster that emerges with barbed tentacles is the football-industrial complex. There’s always been a narrative that football is a way “out” for some kids who might have remained trapped in untenable impoverished situations for the rest of their lives otherwise, but this comes at a cost. Football players are effectively chattel sacrificed to the whims of our thinly disguised bloodlust, but we’re able to overlook this because generally they’re well compensated; it distinguishes them from the Christians in the lion pits and slaves in general, even though their bodies are still commodities. Hernandez was taking regular beatings on the field from a young age on his path to multimillion-dollar stardom. He was 27 when he died, and the CTE in his brain was more advanced than anything doctors had seen in someone so young to date. CTE affects areas of the brain that deal with decision-making, amplifying rashness and impulsivity. Combined with his professional training and daily practice in literally physically violent confrontation, this seems like a volatile mix.

This fundamental difference borne out in brain biology also bears echoes of the critical differences in Carrie’s brain from her peers, as confirmed in the novel via an autopsy. (Though Hernandez’s brain changed after he was born due to the external factor of football, while Carrie was presumably born with her brain differences based on the pains the novel takes to establish telekinesis as genetic.) And like Carrie’s trigger for channeling her powers into vengeful violence, the triggers for Hernandez’s physically violent confrontations off the football field were not random. Enter another monster: the culture’s construction of the brand of masculinity now frequently dubbed “toxic.”

Hernandez’s sexuality became a matter of much speculation after his death largely because his suicide came on the heels of a sports radio show interview with a journalist who claimed that the police had been investigating his sexuality as a factor in the motive for Lloyd’s murder. The journalist, Michele McPhee, and hosts then engaged in a bunch of crass homophobic wordplay implying Hernandez was gay. This was 2017. The theory that Hernandez’s suicide was somehow related to all of this seemed bolstered by the fact that he’d been acquitted of two murders just days before and still stood a chance to get out of his current life sentence–in theory, he should have been hopeful, not suicidal.

The doc has testimony from a high school teammate of Hernandez’s who claims to have had a sexual relationship with him at the time–more intriguingly, the teammate testifies alongside his own father, who speaks to the utter lack of acceptance the boys would have faced at the time had their relations been exposed, and to the acceptance of his bisexual son he’s come to now. There’s also separate testimony from a former NFL player who I’m not even sure knew Hernandez but who is gay and who spoke to how completely he felt the need to hide who he was, describing how he deliberately gained weight to make himself unattractive so people wouldn’t question why he didn’t have a girlfriend, and who said he had fully intended to kill himself when he reached the point he was no longer able to play football.

According to testimony in the doc, Hernandez blamed his attraction to men on the sexual abuse he’d suffered as a child. One can see how, combined with the rigid and unaccepting culture he grew up in, this would create a perfect cocktail of self-loathing. This combined with the impulsivity spurred on by his CTE is what creates the killer. Hernandez was short-tempered, as he himself acknowledged in recordings, and a major trigger for his temper seemed to be any perceived threat to his masculinity, and, despite being arguably one of the greatest athletes in the world–indeed, it starts to seem, because he was one of the greatest athletes–he perceived threats to it everywhere.

Perhaps one of the most significant similarities between Hernandez’s story and Carrie’s is the formative role of a parent’s sexual relationship outside the parents’ marriage, which in Hernandez’s case seems to be a big crack in the foundation of his masculinity. In Carrie, Margaret turns to religious extremism as a way to conceive of retribution against her widowed mother and mother’s boyfriend, and in that way King seems to show that unresolved emotional trauma can lead to dire unforeseen and extreme consequences later. In Hernandez’s case, not only did his father die when his masculine identity was still in adolescent formation–despite his father’s influence being shown to be toxic in a lot of ways, much was made in the doc of the significance of his loss of a critical male role model at a critical time–but around then Hernandez finds out not only that his mother has been having an affair, but that it’s with the husband of the female cousin he’s become most emotionally dependent upon. And then this guy up and moves into the house with him and his mom.

It’s hard for me to conceive of a more emasculating scenario for somebody growing up in an environment that’s more or less a shrine to traditional conceptions of masculinity. And Hernandez’s emotional inability to cope with such a severe degree of emasculation seems to be a big part of why he consistently scored as emotionally and socially immature on any evaluation of these metrics he ever got. But of course his scoring that way, alongside numerous other red flags including incidents of violence, never stopped his football career from advancing apace–though it looked like it might, for a second, when the Patriots took until the fourth round to draft him in 2010. But draft him they did–at 20, he was the youngest draft pick to enter the NFL–eventually offering him a contract for $40 million.

The discipline necessitated by the Patriots’ dynasty was apparently cancelled out by the convenient proximity of the team’s location to certain unsavory acquaintances Hernandez had grown up with and now continued to see. One of these was a drug dealer that Hernandez apparently shot at one point, and when the guy didn’t die, Hernandez’s paranoia that the guy would seek retribution reached extreme levels. He installed an elaborate surveillance system around his mansion that wound up recording a lot of the most incriminating evidence that he’d murdered Odin Lloyd. Narratively, this is Oedipal, him causing his own downfall directly by trying to avoid it. (Carrie does this in some sense by choosing to attend the prom with the belief that it offers the only possibility of escape from her dreary domestic prospects.) But the point is that the formation of the character who makes self-destructive choices for the sake of self-preservation is reflective of the culture they come from.

The construction of a monster is the construction of a man.

Some have faulted the doc for putting too much emphasis on the sexuality factor–evidence for which remains largely speculative, though according to Hernandez’s brother’s DJ’s memoir, Hernandez came out to him, their mother, and his lawyer–and not enough emphasis on the CTE, but along the lines of Carrie capturing the tragedy of a specific convergence of circumstances, I feel like the doc captured the possible combination of factors at play and did not let the NFL off the hook for treating its players as expendable. I came away with the impression reinforced that the stakes and scale of the capitalist-driven football complex dwarf concerns for individual well-being. But not all of the individuals that this NFL culture and the potential CTE affect become murderers.

I can understand how some might think that the doc leaned on the sexuality angle for the sake of sensationalism (which might echo a larger debate about King’s treatment and the culture’s consumption of dark subject matter), but the people who are unwilling to entertain the notion that Hernandez could have murdered someone simply because they knew he was gay or bi strikes me as naive, as do attempts to apply “logic” to Hernandez’s rationale:

But it’s such a strange path — to murder someone, risking a record-breaking, $40 million annual contract with the most successful football team in recent memory, just to avoid suspicion of being gay. It’s so strange, in fact, that it’s unlikely — and indeed the documentary later thoroughly debunks this idea as purely speculative.

Vox.com

Yes, the doc concedes we still have no actual idea why Hernandez killed Lloyd; it also points out that his motive in the double murder he ended up acquitted of was never stronger than his being angry that one of the guys had spilled a drink on him. We’re at the point where we have to make some educated guesses. And these guesses aren’t primarily important for the light they shed on Hernandez’s case per se, but for what light the existing possibilities shed on the culture. It may still technically be speculative that his CTE was responsible for his impulsivity and aggression. It’s a case that reminds me of sociopaths: not all sociopaths become serial killers, even if serial killers are usually sociopaths; it’s about the other circumstances that shape the sociopath that determine if they’ll become a killer. Similarly, lots of current and former football players probably have CTE by now. Clearly not all of them have ended up killing people. So while the CTE factor is definitely something we need to be aware of–and reason enough to abolish football altogether as far as I’m personally concerned–we have to also be mindful of the factors that might exacerbate it. CTE is an injury more likely to occur in the world of contact sports–boxing and football. Which is to say that the environments in which CTE is more likely to develop come with preconceived ideations of masculinity attached that seem almost especially designed to exacerbate it. This would be how Hernandez enacts Cohen’s seventh tenet–when he says monsters stand at the “threshold of becoming,” he means the monsters turn out to be creatures of our own creation–we did it to ourselves, just like Hernandez recording himself with incriminating evidence.

The Monster’s Body

“…This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood;
The words expressly are ‘a pound of flesh.’”

Merchant of Venice, Act-IV, Scene I

When Cohen posits that the monster’s body is the cultural body in his first thesis, he means our monsters reflect the needs of our time period. Football has been revered in our culture for decades, but the continued reverence in light of the more recent revelations about its pitfalls to the physical body reflects the current trend of plunging ahead with our pleasures in the face of increasingly blatant knowledge of dire consequences (global warming, anyone?), enacting a kind of gulf between cultural brain and cultural body.

And speaking of bodies, even though Hernandez is not figured as the monster by the Netflix doc itself, it does offer a glimpse of how those who prosecuted him for murder attempted to read his body as that of a monster. Hernandez was known for his tattoos as a football player, and his tattoo artist testified at one of his murder trials about inking on him a head-on view of a gun barrel, a bullet chamber with one bullet missing, “God forgives”–backwards. A prosecutor explicates this as a confession. Circumstantial, I’d tell my students, but in conjunction with all the other pieces of evidence, not insignificant.

The factoring of Hernandez’s physical body into the equation harkens back to Carrie’s body and the period, and in particular the Fleabag period speech about men’s psychological need to seek out the blood and pain they weren’t born with like women were:

[Men] have to seek it out, they invent all these gods and demons and things just so they can feel guilty about things, which is something we do very well on our own. And then they create wars so they can feel things and touch each other and when there aren’t any wars they can play rugby.

The show being British, the character cites rugby, but football is the perfect American parallel. Unfortunately, in Hernandez’s case it seems that the sport that’s supposed to serve as our surrogate for bloodlust had the opposite effect and amplified that bloodlust in multiple ways.

If the monster’s an individual creature instead of an amalgamation of factors, it’s easier to kill–so in (monster) theory, it’s the amalgamation that’s more horrifying. But in analyzing this amalgamation, there’s the risk of potentially mitigating individual responsibility: does contextualizing Hernandez’s crimes as products of larger monstrous forces in the culture let him off the hook? Does King let Carrie off the hook (especially if you read her as vengefully dismantling the patriarchy who forged her)? Possibly not, since both of their stories end in their deaths, which is to say, the destruction of the bodies that served as vessels to enact the impulses of their addled brains….

Monsters Continued

The question of whether humanizing potential monsters is itself monstrous is one I’ll return to as King’s work continues to explore different monstrous dimensions, but it’s worth noting that we’re currently in a significant cultural moment with the ongoing trial of Harvey Weinstein. Jia Tolentino demonstrates how revisiting fictional texts refracts insight both on the texts and the current moment by re-reading J.M. Coetze’s novel Disgrace, and x glimpses the trial via the lens of the Oscars ceremony with particularly monstrous undertones:

The night before Salinas’s appearance in court, the Academy Awards had taken place in Los Angeles, and there was something instructive to me in witnessing the two events in such quick succession. Clearly, there was much to distinguish Hollywood’s glitz-fest from the grim proceedings of the People of New York v. Harvey Weinstein, which, by February 10th, had entered its fourth week. But, sitting at the trial, which I had attended intermittently since its opening, I found myself thinking of the beautiful actresses who took the stand, one by one, as the shadow doubles of those posing on the red carpet of a Hollywood awards show. The latter had seemingly bested the system, ascending to its highest point, while the former had fallen victim to it.

If we’re technically in the throes of a conservative political administration, then pop culture should be replete with zombies: and indeed, The Walking Dead is still somehow going strong, and The Passage, a vampire narrative in 2019, was cancelled. But Weinstein strikes me (and others) as a vampire figure, so I’ll save that cultural commentary for the lens of ‘Salem’s Lot, if I ever get there…

-SCR

Carrie: A Period Piece

My first post about Carrie covered how Stephen King is able to derive horror from the real as much as the fantastical–in particular a horror of the domestic and the mundane. But there’s definitely more to say about the horror King derives from a particular plot device. What could better straddle the cross-section between the horrific and the mundane than not just bleeding from your vagina, but bleeding from it on a regular basis?

So let’s talk about the fact that the book that launched the career of the King opens with a scene of a teenaged girl getting her first period.

It’s a birth scene. Or, a scene of a birth of a birth, literal birth not happening here but rather the starting point of the biological process that enables birth, which would make this starting point a metaphorical birth, or possibly birth’s literal birth? Metaphorical birth also being an appropriate metaphor for how narrative/plot works in that the actual event of the birth is big enough to constitute a narrative climax (which is perhaps where all of this really starts–except no, first is the period) and whatever this climactic event is in the novel you are writing (in this novel, Carrie’s destroying most of the town, and/or killing her mother), you the writer have to trace that event back to its starting point, and open the novel there. Hence, we open in the girl’s locker room when Carrie gets her period.

This is where it all starts. King’s career; Carrie’s now inevitable destruction. But neither could have started without…some conducive circumstances.

The Period in Pop Culture

If one need evidence of the period’s destructive power still reigning resonant in pop culture, perhaps one need look no further than a recent SNL sketch with Adam Driver that aired in the first episode of 2020, in which a young girl’s trying to manage her period results in significant plumbing damage:

“Just tell the hot dad that your period broke his whole house.”

And if one wants period commentary that digs a little deeper, a scene from the stunning second season of Fleabag not only directly invokes Carrie:

but offers large-scale insights that deserve to be quoted in full:

“Women are born with pain built in. It’s our physical destiny: period pains, sore boobs, childbirth, you know. We carry it within ourselves throughout our lives, men don’t.

“They have to seek it out, they invent all these gods and demons and things just so they can feel guilty about things, which is something we do very well on our own. And then they create wars so they can feel things and touch each other and when there aren’t any wars they can play rugby.

“We have it all going on in here inside, we have pain on a cycle for years and years and years and then just when you feel you are making peace with it all, what happens? The menopause comes, the f***ing menopause comes, and it is the most wonderful f***ing thing in the world.

“And yes, your entire pelvic floor crumbles and you get f***ing hot and no one cares, but then you’re free, no longer a slave, no longer a machine with parts. You’re just a person.”

I guess we need look no further for the ultimate explanation of why King writes horror fiction filled with “demons and things”…

The Period in Carrie

It seems significant that the onset of Carrie’s menstrual cycle is the onset of the plot of the book on two fronts:

Both medical and psychological writers on the subject are in agreement that Carrie White’s exceptionally late and traumatic commencement of the menstrual cycle might well have provided the trigger for her latent talent.

There’s the period itself as trigger: Carrie is coming into her true powers at this moment because this is the moment at which she becomes a woman. But she might not have come to exercise her powers the way she does had this advent of womanhood not occurred in the traumatic fashion it does, a potential commentary that the onset of womanhood is always inherently traumatic, though this is potentially undermined by Ms. Desjardin’s attitude toward her first period:

A terrible and black foreknowledge grew in Rita Desjardin’s mind. It was incredible, could not be. She herself had begun menstruation shortly after her eleventh birthday and had gone to the head of the stairs to yell down excitedly: “Hey, Mum, I’m on the rag!”

Yet Carrie’s name itself seems to be potential commentary on that burden of womanhood further elaborated on so articulately in the Fleabag speech–she carries the burden of womanhood!

Carrie’s terror at what is happening in the locker room, her belief that she is dying, offers a defamiliarized look at the period that makes its horrific aspects all the more salient. It’s interesting that through the defamiliarized lens of Carrie’s ignorance, the period appears a harbinger of death rather than its opposite. This ties back into the horror of the domestic: the birth of the child = the death of the parent, in terms of personal identity.

The period symbolism potentially comes to a climax in the moments after Carrie’s death, in the final lines of Part Two:

[Sue’s] rapid breathing slowed, slowed, caught suddenly as if on a thorn—

And suddenly vented itself in one howling, cheated scream.

As she felt the slow course of dark menstrual blood down her thighs.

On the surface the description of this coursing blood itself reads as horrific. But if, as discussed previously, Sue’s possible pregnancy up to this point is the true horror, then her period coming here should actually be a relief (unless, now that Tommy’s dead, she wants his baby to remember him by, but this would be pure speculation because there’s no clear reference to indicate she might feel this way). Since King leaves the reader to make this connection, the horrific undertones surrounding the period in this climactic moment remain.

King’s descriptions of menstrual flow in moments like this one (and of Carrie in the opening shower scene) feel a bit off; if you must know and don’t already, blood does not come gushing down your thighs the moment you start your period. But I’m assuming that King’s wife would have told him this, so it seems almost intentional that he would have left these exaggerated descriptions in to serve more as symbolism and set a more ominous tone. When I think of the idea that dictates discussion in the pop-culture composition classes I teach at UH–that pop culture both reflects and shapes our world–Carrie seems to express anxiety over a power women inherently have that men expressly do not–the power to grow life. It’s also probably responsible for amplifying that anxiety through the decades; one way to look at the narrative (that may or may not be oversimplifying things) is that it’s just an exaggerated version of PMS, or PMS taken to its most extreme, “logical” conclusion: Carrie’s just a crazy cartoonish bitch on the rag.

I guess it’s open to debate whether this is an admirable acknowledgment of the true power women hold coiled within them, or just a bad joke. Certainly my analysis up to this point would seem to show the novel is more than just the latter. But I’m still having trouble discerning if the female rage this narrative expresses through the period is feminist or derogatory.

It is not insignificant that the figure who will become monstrous is herself initially the one who is horrified–Carrie thinks that bleeding from her vagina must mean she is dying. Then there are the disgusted reactions of her classmates and teacher; Ms. Desjardin remarks on it:

“I understand how those girls felt. The whole thing just made me want to take the girl and shake her. Maybe there’s some kind of instinct about menstruation that makes women want to snarl, I don’t know.”

That last remark feels a little on the nose, but fine. Part of the horror is simply being a woman, because women are inherently more cruel than men:

“It seemed like . . . oh, a big laugh. Girls can be cat-mean about that sort of thing, and boys don’t really understand. The boys would tease Carrie for a little while and then forget, but the girls . . . it went on and on and on and I can’t even remember where it started any more.”

Of course, a period is a starting point, the starting point of the life cycle. King has effectively written a scene of his own birth as a writer.

Now let’s talk more about the woman who gave birth to Carrie.

Margaret and the Serpent

In the initial background we get on Carrie’s mother, Margaret White, it’s noted that she might not even have known she was pregnant before she gave birth to Carrie:

We have records of at least three letters to a friend in Kenosha, Wisconsin, that seem to prove conclusively that Mrs. White believed, from her fifth month on, that she had “a cancer of the womanly parts” and would soon join her husband in heaven. . . .

As far as Carrie’s mother Margaret is concerned, her pregnancy might as well have been a cancer. Her religious beliefs are so extreme that she believes sex itself is a sin, even if the man and woman are married. By this “logic,” human life itself is an abomination. We see in one of Margaret’s rants that this “logic” seems to have derived from a slightly different interpretation of the biblical Garden of Eden story than most of us might be used to, the usual version being that Adam and Eve were banished from the garden for eating the fruit from the one tree God told them not to after the serpent tempted Eve with it. In this version, it’s generally interpreted to have been the woman’s fault (and not the serpent’s) for eating the fruit and getting Adam to eat it, and thus the woman’s fault that humankind lost paradise (hence gender inequality thence forward). Margaret’s version of the story is similar but slightly different:

“And Eve was weak and loosed the raven on the world,” Momma continued, “and the raven was called Sin, and the first Sin was Intercourse. And the Lord visited Eve with a Curse, and the Curse was the Curse of Blood. And Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden and into the World and Eve found that her belly had grown big with child.”

The first sin is usually interpreted as eating the fruit that was forbidden, not intercourse itself. Margaret recasts Eve’s period and pregnancy as a punishment. In the dozens of times we went over this story in my twelve years of Catholic schooling, this was not an interpretation I was ever presented with. We Catholic students were taught that sex was sacred precisely because it was a gateway to life (and that blocking that gateway with things like birth control was a sin precisely because of its potential interference with life, by which “logic” one might then argue that not having sex at any given point is a sin because it’s interfering with the potential production of life…). At any rate, this is what Margaret tells Carrie when Carrie first comes home with her period saying it’s “not her fault.”

Margaret returns to the topic much later in the book when she and Carrie have their climactic final confrontation, explaining that she became pregnant with Carrie after Carrie’s father raped her:

“At first it was all right. We lived sinlessly. We slept in the same bed, belly to belly sometimes, and o, I could feel the presence of the Serpent, but we. never. did. until.”

This is an intriguing passage to me due to its invocation of the Serpent. From the physical description, there’s no getting around that Margaret is saying she can feel his erection as they sleep facing each other, that that’s what the Serpent physically symbolizes here, but of course it’s still the snake from the Garden of Eden that tempts Eve. In this passage then, the erect penis becomes the temptation, and the source of danger. In a way, then, this is a passage that implicitly places the blame for the fall of man back on…the man.

The book opens with a short article about the time stones rained down on the White house when Carrie was three, and it’s not too long before this incident is elaborated on in more detail in a magazine interview with Carrie’s former next-door neighbor. This neighbor was a teenager at the time and liked to sunbathe in a bathing suit in the yard, which upset Carrie’s mother. One day her bathing suit top slipped off when she was sleeping, leading Carrie to ask about her breasts:

So I fixed it and said, ‘Those are my breasts, Carrie.’

Then she said—very solemnly: ‘I wish I had some.’

I said: ‘You have to wait, Carrie. You won’t start to get them for another . . . oh, eight or nine years.’

‘No, I won’t,’ she said. ‘Momma says good girls don’t.’ She looked strange for a little girl, half sad and half self-righteous.

I could hardly believe it, and the first thing that popped into my mind also popped right out my mouth. I said: ‘Well, I’m a good girl. And doesn’t your mother have breasts?’

She lowered her head and said something so softly I couldn’t hear it. When I asked her to repeat it, she looked at me defiantly and said that her momma had been bad when she made her and that was why she had them. She called them dirtypillows, as if it was all one word.

It’s interesting that this idea of divine punishment that Margaret has conceived (so to speak) will likely register as ridiculous and extreme to the reader, yet the structure of the book itself is in fact a model of retribution–Carrie’s.

Margaret figures that her sin of Intercourse is responsible for the abomination of Carrie’s being a witch–“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” is her justification for attempting to murder her own daughter because that daughter decided to go to a school dance. In Margaret’s estimation, sex is truly what is horrifying, though this is complicated by the fact that she claims to have enjoyed being raped. Through 2020 hindsight lenses, this is a little problematic.

The Historical Period

Moving on to less literal interpretations of the period, we might discuss how the larger historical period of the 1970s is reflected via the text of Carrie. I can’t really pinpoint why King decided to set the book a few years ahead of the time he was actually writing it (the book was published in 1974, but in it Prom Night occurs in 1979). I noted in my first post that the Vietnam references in Carrie pale in comparison to those that will populate Salem’s Lot, and have already unpacked the JFK references. Now I’m interested in the racial references.

One of the seminal academic texts about the treatment of race–particularly of African Americans–in western literature is Toni Morrison’s Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination (1992). In it, Morrison asks:

When does racial “unconsciousness” or awareness of race enrich interpretive language, and when does it impoverish it?

p. xii

Our American literary landscape is rife with texts that treat race “unconsciously,” which is certainly interesting to note in light of King’s recurring themes about the horrors that stem from our unconscious–his treatment of “psychological” horror. Morrison tracks instances of blackness in literature figured as a “dark, abiding, signing Africanist presence” that the “major and championed characteristics of our national literature–individualism, masculinity, social engagement versus historical isolation; acute and ambiguous moral problematics; the thematics of innocence coupled with an obsession with figurations of death and hell” (p. 5) exist in response to. This is a classic example of texts reflecting cultural attitudes in an unconscious (which is to say, unintentional) way. The Africanist presence exists in the marginal shadows of the white mainstream that has dominated literature–the Africanist presence is the white mainstream’s shadow self, implicitly a site of horror that whiteness can define itself in relation to.

So where can we detect the Africanist presence in Carrie?

There are a handful of references in the text that gesture toward this presence. The n-word that would seem to be the most overt signifier of outright racism appears one time, in the passage where Sue projects her domestic horrors most patently:

The word she was avoiding was expressed To Conform, in the infinitive, and it conjured up miserable images of hair in rollers, long afternoons in front of the ironing board in front of the soap operas while hubby was off busting heavies in an anonymous Office; of joining the P.T.A. and then the country club when their income moved into five figures; of pills in circular yellow cases without number to insure against having to move out of the misses’ sizes before it became absolutely necessary and against the intrusion of repulsive little strangers who shat in their pants and screamed for help at two in the morning; of fighting with desperate decorum to keep the n*****s out of Kleen Korners, standing shoulder to shoulder with Terri Smith (Miss Potato Blossom of 1975) and Vicki Jones (Vice President of the Women’s League), armed with signs and petitions and sweet, slightly desperate smiles.

I’ve censored the text here; the actual word does appear in the original. (We can have a debate about literary censorship; this is the only word I personally have been moved to censor in disseminating texts, whether in blog form or to students.) I don’t know what “Kleen Korners” is referring to, but it’s referenced a couple of other times, always in relation to the country club; a questionable google result claims it’s a kind of mop, which would make the reference figurative. This is a passage filtered through Sue’s disdain for the domestic, which makes it more of a commentary on the town’s racism that Sue, and via her King, is making, rather than engaging in herself–she does not want to be subsumed into the town’s values, including its casual racism. The casual racism seems here, in fact, to be part of what’s so horrific about the small-town lifestyle. Here King seems to be potentially acknowledging the marginalizing of the Africanist presence rather than engaging in that marginalizing himself.

But other racial references in the text do not seem to be made with such deliberate commentary, though it might be hard to tell:

When I was a little girl I had a Walt Disney storybook called Song of the South, and it had that Uncle Remus story about the tarbaby in it. There was a picture of the tarbaby sitting in the middle of the road, looking like one of those old-time Negro minstrels with the blackface and great big white eyes. When Carrie opened her eyes it was like that. They were the only part of her that wasn’t completely red.

This passage is from a memoir by Prom Night survivor Norma Watson. What makes the racial aspect more difficult to parse is its placement in an epistolary snippet rather than a direct scene. One could say this is Norma’s casual racism, not King’s, and that King is merely representing it (in a more conscious way than might be delineated by the term “reflecting” it). The passage then also potentially comments on how Norma’s casual racism is a product of the culture’s in a way that shows how pop culture texts can disseminate such problematic attitudes–thanks, Walt Disney! It’s interesting that Norma’s invocation of this Disney text is to explain why everyone was laughing at Carrie in the moments after the blood dumped: the tarbaby is figured as a source of humor, a joke. Its connection to Carrie, then, provides potential further commentary in that the other students’ laughing at Carrie prompts her bloody retribution, is, in a way, responsible for it. And if it’s responsible for it, then it’s potentially being pinpointed as problematic. Hence the humorous positioning of the tarbaby could be figured as more consciously than unconsciously problematic–again meaning that King is deliberately commenting on racism being problematic rather than problematically engaging in that racism himself. And yet, Carrie’s face in the moments after the blood dumps is a defining image in the text, and reaching for an image encapsulating both the humorous and the horrific and finding a “tarbaby” is a problem. The most damning evidence that it’s a problem for the author, and not just the character, would be this subsequent minstrel reference:

They came in pajamas and curlers (Mrs. Dawson, she of the now-deceased son who had been a very funny fellow, came in a mudpack as if dressed for a minstrel show); they came to see what happened to their town, to see if it was indeed lying burned and bleeding. Many of them also came to die.

We get this in a direct scene, and not only in a direct scene but in an omniscient voice in the scene rather than through a specific character’s point of view, which means this can’t be written off as showcasing small-mindedness rather than actively engaging in it. Why does a cosmetic mud mask need to be compared to blackface (even if it’s in parentheses)? The comparison seems to speak to casual cultural prejudices ingrained in King more than anything else, as does this line:

“Would you take me with you?” [Chris] asked. She looked at him from the floor, her lip puffed to negroid size, her eyes pleading.

This passage is also from a direct scene, but in it we’re squarely located in Billy’s point of view rather than in an omniscient description. This potentially means this description could be written off as Billy’s small-mindedness, but that problematic description in the omniscient point of view potentially undermines this, as it does with more charitable readings of the other instances of well, like the Disney one. King’s offhandedly using blackface as a point of reference makes me think he probably wasn’t calling out Disney’s negative influence on the culture, but that King’s description (and not just Norma’s) was rather a symptom of this negative influence.

The description of Chris’s lip is the last reference to an Africanist presence I can find, but while we’re on Chris and Billy, it’s worth noting the dynamic the above passage and its implicit racism is a part of depicting: they’re fighting over whether the buckets with the pigs’ blood can be traced back to them, and Billy has slapped Chris because she’s freaking out. Chris, in turn, is “pleading” for Billy to take her with him to California immediately after he’s used violence on her. Violence being a significant element of their sexual attraction has been well established in their previous interactions, and Billy’s titillation has more than clearly escalated in response to assaulting Carrie:

When this was over he was going to have [Chris] until every other time she’d been had was like two pumps with a fag’s little finger. He was going on her like a raw cob through butter.

(The homophobia in this passage could arguably be attributed to Billy, not King, but we’ll see a more stringent and questionable thread of homophobia emerge in ‘Salem’s Lot.)

The sexual violence between Chris and Billy is an interesting subplot in relation to other aspects of the book, specifically Carrie’s powers and Margaret White’s attitude toward sex. It’s also interesting through the post-MeToo lens of the year 2020, as their relations smear the boundaries of consent:

If she had not given in willingly on Monday, he would have taken her by force.

Chris’s attraction to Billy starts to appear to exist due to his violence toward her rather than existing in spite of it. A scene that depicts the complexities of this attraction while potentially crossing the line into gratuitous titillation for titillation’s sake encapsulates the combination of highbrow and low that’s really quintessential King: while Billy’s driving them in his car the tire blows out and Chris thinks they’re going to die in an accident; when they don’t and she gets mad at him afterward, he orders her around to help him fix the tire, which she initially resists but then gives in to, a dynamic of submission and desire realized in the sex they have immediately afterward that’s exacerbated by her near-death experience and symbolized by the grease that gets smeared all over her expensive clothes. (As it happens, the only specific thing I remember from my first read of the book as a teenager was when Billy “groped greedily.”) Chris’s attraction to Billy is also interesting in light of her father the lawyer, he who tries to bully the principal through nonphysical means. Billy’s delinquency and raw potential for violence is what patently distinguishes him from Chris’s other lovers, another conflation of violence with sex that’s all over the book (and likely King’s work in general).

Some might argue over whether Chris’s attitudes are a reflection of 1970s misogyny ingrained in the author or a more complex expression of female subjectivity. I’d say Chris’s character reflects the shallow attitudes of the time in a way that tries to call attention to their being problematic more than expressing them in an actively problematic way, though King is not above using a character for both meaningful commentary and shock value/the aforementioned gratuitous titillation. It’s the combo that makes him the King, and when he claims his work is the “Big Mac” of the literary landscape, as he did once in a 60 Minutes interview, I like to think it’s this combo element he’s implicitly invoking. But the fact that King has basically positioned Carrie’s subjectivity at the center of the narrative would seem to support more complex readings of his representations of femalehood, and make his Big Mac comment a self-deprecating underestimation of his own work potentially surprising for its being uttered by a white male….

There’s an especially interesting passage where the conflation of sex and violence seems most explicit, describing Sue’s feeling in her climactic confrontation with Carrie when Carrie uses her telepathy to access Sue’s interior:

The feverish feeling of being raped in her most secret corridors began to fade.

While rape has reared its ugly head in not just one but two relationships in the novel (Chris and Billy; Margaret and Ralph), this passage is the only time the word itself appears in the book–in a figurative rather than literal description. This passage is actually describing Carrie retracting her telepathic powers out of Sue’s mind, which she does immediately after she’s gleaned the most relevant information from Sue’s psyche:

But no ill will for Carrie personally, no plan to get her in front of everyone and undo her.

Carrie may or may not realize here that a lot of the destruction she’s wrought this night might have been unwarranted; regardless, the likening of telepathically reading someone to a sexual violation seems a critical link to an allegorical reading of how the horrors of the fantastical express the horrors of the real, and sexual violence is irrevocably linked to the two primary causes of Carrie’s destruction–Carrie’s literal birth and the procurers of the pigs’ blood. Also, the violation of secrecy that telepathy entails as invoked in the rape passage connects back to the period themes:

Someone began to laugh, a solitary, affrighted hyena sound, and she did open her eyes, opened them to see who it was and it was true, the final nightmare, she was red and dripping with it, they had drenched her in the very secretness of blood, in front of all of them and her thought

(oh . . . i . . . COVERED . . . with it)

was colored a ghastly purple with her revulsion and her shame. She could smell herself and it was the stink of blood, the awful wet, coppery smell.

We can connect this back to the first minstrel passage, that defining image looking externally at Carrie opening her eyes–here we’re re-experiencing that moment, but from Carrie’s perspective, returned to her female subjectivity. This return might redeem some potential misogyny, but does nothing to address or mitigate the racism of the tarbaby image. Instead, we’re getting more complex associations with shame and the period figured in the act of pig’s blood being dumped on Carrie, an act that, according to Carrie’s take on it in the wording of this passage, externalizes and advertises something women should be ashamed of. I previously commented on the symmetry of the narrative (which the narrative itself points out) in starting with Carrie getting her period in the shower and ending with showering her in blood; Billy wasn’t able to get buckets full of period blood, but, as he keeps subtly chuckling to himself (“Pig blood for a pig”), he got the next best thing. The pig is woman and woman is pig… But it’s the symmetry of the horror that amplifies and associates that horror specifically with the period (which is to thus symbolically associate it with womanhood itself)–it’s nightmarish enough to start your period in a public place, made more so if you don’t have a clue what this blood between your legs actually is, and the blood shower in front of the entire school is that original nightmare wrought extreme: “drenched…in the very secretness of blood.” The period has symbolically been rendered an on-stage spectacle with associations that don’t seem especially positive. But then: Carrie enacts bloody revenge (blood for blood; Billy ought to like that), with the power she holds in her mind. Described this way, Carrie suddenly sounds like an allegory for righteous female vengeance against the patriarchy that has made women ashamed of the very menstrual cycles that are responsible for the literal existence of every patriarchy member (so to speak).

So, it’s complicated.

To circle back to the setting of the figurative telepathic rape–a roadhouse parking lot–also connects back to the literal idea of rape, since the “roadhouse” is an integral element of Margaret White’s attitude toward sex:

The Something was dangerous, ancient, unutterably evil. It could make you Feeble. Watch, Momma said. It comes at night. It will make you think of the evil that goes on in parking lots and roadhouses.

and Margaret prays:

“—protect us from he with the split foot who waits in the alleys and in the parking lots of roadhouses, O Saviour—”

It’s revealed that Margaret’s parents owned a roadhouse, which, combined with the fact that this is apparently the reason her father died, would seem to be the source of Margaret’s tracing the sinful origin point of sexual desire back to this precise location:

Her parents were fairly well-to-do; they owned a prosperous night spot just outside the Motton town limits called The Jolly Roadhouse. Margaret’s father, John Brigham, was killed in a barroom shooting incident in the summer of 1959.

The roadhouse being the source of her father’s death is also significant because this death leaves Margaret’s mother available to take up with another man. One might postulate/psychoanalyze from the clues King drops that it’s Margaret’s inability to cope with this familial intruder that leads her to channel her complex emotions into a righteous religious indignation that reaches the beyond-fundamentalist extreme level of believing that sex and thus life itself is a sin: Margaret essentially comes to believe her own existence should be cancelled out.

Self-loathing, much?

It is thus not insignificant that Chris and Billy abscond to a roadhouse after dumping the blood on Carrie, or that Carrie dies in the parking lot of a roadhouse that she’s specifically heading toward for the sake of her mother:

It was three miles out to The Cavalier, even cross country, as Carrie was going. …

It was really amazing that she kept going. But of course it was for Momma. Momma wanted her to be the Angel’s Fiery Sword, to destroy—

If we can glean how Margaret’s extreme beliefs are twisted projections of Freudian familial fallout, here we’re definitely seeing the twists and turns tangling Carrie’s maternal influence: here she is still wanting to please the woman who just tried to kill her–the woman who’s essentially been trying to kill her her entire life, and who’s essentially responsible for the carnage Carrie wreaks on the town if we want to play the blame game (which novels/narratives are more or less always playing, to varying degrees of complexity), based on this passage that seems to trace the origin point of Carrie’s alienation to the religious influence of her mother:

She had defied Momma in a hundred little ways, had tried to erase the red-plague circle that had been drawn around her from the first day she had left the controlled environment of the small house on Carlin Street and had walked up to the Barker Street Grammar School with her Bible under her arm. She could still remember that day, the stares, and the sudden, awful silence when she had gotten down on her knees before lunch in the school cafeteria—the laughter had begun on that day and had echoed up through the years.

The red-plague circle was like blood itself—you could scrub and scrub and scrub and still it would be there, not erased, not clean.

This invocation of blood-as-marker–aside from being reminiscent of Lady Macbeth–reads with certain shall-we-say negative connotations that complicate readings of the novel’s treatment of the period. Blood as unclean, blood as signifier of death rather than life. Blood as the trigger of destruction, both in the onset of Carrie’s menstrual cycle heralding the true advent of her powers and in the dumping of pig’s blood being the trigger for her using those powers to consciously enact a massacre. Blood as secret and not-so-secret shame.

As we can see (by my massive segue away from the initial Africanist presence discussion if nothing else), female subjectivity is explored in depth here while the Africanist presence is not just a shadow, but a shadow of a shadow: there are not even actual characters on the margin representing this presence; instead the presence is only invoked in absentia for the sake of (white) comparisons on three separate occasions (one in parentheses), with a fourth reference that still does not invoke a specific individual character.

It will be interesting to see if/how/when the Africanist presence becomes less shadowy in King’s work with time (and to revisit his appearance on The Chappelle Show during which he seems to reveal his general racial cluelessness), though it is worth noting just how shadowy it is at the outset in the work of a white man who came of age in the 1960s. I’m not by any means calling King a racist, but in the vein of Toni Morrison trying to highlight how the text reflects the author’s internalized worldview of this presence–how the author figures this presence unconsciously.

Thinking about representations of marginalized groups in literature is also interesting in light of the publishing industry’s most recent controversy surrounding Jeanine Cummins’ American Dirt published earlier this year, a much-hyped novel that King hailed as “an extraordinary piece of work” (and we all know what an endorsement from Stephen King can do). Here a white writer has represented Latinx characters rather than relegating them to the shadowy margins, and that representation has been called into question by the people represented. (You can read more about the backlash and the backlash against the backlash here.) The main takeaway seems to be that white people are still largely clueless about such issues, and if King’s blurb is any indication, so is he.

-SCR

Here We Go: Carrie

“All right. What happened?”

…. “Nobody knows, not yet.”

Stephen King. “Carrie.” iBooks.

Carrie, Stephen King’s first novel, was published in 1974. The book juxtaposes epistolary snippets from newspapers, books, and even graffiti scrawled about Carrie White on classroom desks with direct scenes of the titular character and those surrounding her who will play pivotal roles in her taking revenge on the small town of Chamberlain, Maine, where Carrie has always been treated as an outcast.

The book is divided into three parts. Part One, “Blood Sport,” opens with a newspaper story about stones raining down on Margaret White’s house when her daughter Carrie was three. We then go into a direct scene of a morning when Carrie, now a high-school senior, is showering in the locker room after gym class when, unbeknownst to her, she gets her period for the first time. Having never been informed about this standard occurrence by her mother, Carrie believes the blood means she is dying and freaks out while her fellow classmates jeer and throw tampons at her. As Carrie is distressed, weird things happen like a light fixture popping and an ashtray flipping off the principal’s desk when he dismisses her for the day. On her walk home, Carrie notes that the muscle in her brain she can use to move things sometimes seems to be getting stronger. When she then confronts her zealously religious mother for never informing her about periods, her mother says that the blood is a mark of sin, and she locks Carrie in the prayer closet for hours.

Meanwhile, one of the girls in the locker room during the incident, Sue Snell, confides to her popular boyfriend Tommy that she feels bad about what happened. The sentiment is not shared by another girl involved, Chris Hargensen, who refuses to participate in the gym teacher Ms. Desjardin’s detentions for the incident and is thus banned from attending the prom (or Spring Ball). Sue asks Tommy to take Carrie to the prom as her own penance, and he agrees; he has some trouble convincing Carrie he really wants to take her, but she eventually agrees. Discovering Tommy and Carrie’s names on the ballots for Ball King and Queen, Chris enlists her delinquent boyfriend Billy to procure some pig’s blood, which he does with his delinquent group of friends.

In Part Two, “Prom Night,” Carrie’s mother of course does not want her to go to the prom and is enraged Carrie’s sewn a sinful red dress for the occasion, but Carrie goes (after enduring some anxiety that Tommy will not actually show up). She enjoys herself at first, until she and Tommy are called up on stage after being voted King and Queen, and Billy and Chris unleash the buckets of pig blood Billy’s rigged above the stage, dousing Carrie and knocking Tommy out with a falling pail. A bit later, Sue, at home, notices that the school she can see through her kitchen window from a distance is on fire. We learn through other accounts that somehow in the gym the doors shut and locked themselves, trapping the majority of the students inside while the fire-sprinkler system starts deploying. Carrie is later seen walking around town starting fires and disabling the fire hydrants that might put them out.

We circle back to Carrie’s point of view of what happened when the blood dropped, seeing that she mentally shut the gym doors and started the sprinklers in response to her classmates’ laughter. After leaving, she stops at a church to pray (but fails to sense God) before heading home to confront her mother, who confesses that when Carrie’s father raped her, she liked it, before stabbing Carrie in the shoulder. Carrie is still able to kill her by using her telekinesis to stop her mother’s heart, then leaves. When Billy and Chris pass by her driving and Billy tries to run her over, Carrie flips their car and kills them, then collapses in a parking lot. Sue is able to find her by tapping into the psychic energy Carrie’s exuding that everyone seems to notice, and when Sue finds her, they communicate telepathically so that Sue is able to feel what it’s like to be teased and tortured like Carrie, and Carrie sees that Sue didn’t plan on Tommy taking her to the prom as a trick. Sue feels Carrie die.

In Part Three, “Wreckage,” we see the mass funerals and debates in the books about the incident and what to make of it, including the official investigative body’s conclusion that there’s “no reason to believe that a recurrence is likely or even possible” before we get a final letter from a woman describing her child clearly exhibiting telekinetic powers. The End.

The narrative of Carrie might be more familiar to people from Brian DePalma’s movie adaptation in 1976 that launched the career of Sissy Spacek (who, to my joy, narrated my audiobook version of the novel), but the film omits some of the critical elements that give the book a lot more depth. The first is the epistolary snippets. These provide more context about the before and after of the novel’s present timeline–things like Carrie having had at least one major telekinetic incident in the past with the raining stones, and, perhaps more importantly, an attempt by others, including those directly involved like Sue but mainly those only made aware of it after the fact, like politicians and scientists, to reckon with what has happened. The movie narrows its focus on the effects of what happened to just Sue, ignoring the possibility of national awareness about the incident. But by threading this larger awareness into the novel, King achieves a few things the film doesn’t. The first is suspense: these snippets provide direct hints very early on that a major incident involving a lot of death is going to happen because of Carrie. The second is a more meaningful cultural commentary than the film manages to make by refusing to look outside the present timeline. And finally, one could also argue that in representing the larger reverberations of this incident and the existence of telekinesis as supposed scientific fact, Carrie is the entry portal into the King extended universe.

Suspense

King actually tells us a few things outright early on. On the second page (of the ebook at least), we’re told:

What none of them knew, of course, was that Carrie White was telekinetic.

And the mere existence of epistolary snippets from books analyzing Carrie and an apparent tragedy she’s related to provides a hook that pulls the reader in. This is a hook that writers deploy frequently but when described seems counterintuitive: you’re basically giving away the end at the beginning. But even if the specifics of a high death toll are revealed, the reader’s interest is piqued by this knowledge rather than coming to the conclusion that the book has become pointless to read if we already know the end. We might know what happens–loosely–but now we want to know how it happens. And now the drama behind potentially low-stakes developments like who is or is not going to be able to go to a high-school dance is intensified, because we implicitly understand that these developments are pivotal to the development of a massacre.

King’s references to the tragedy the arc is building toward are somewhat vague at first but become more pointed in an escalation of their own. Very early on we get from one of the snippets of a book written about the incident:

The great tragedy is that we are now all Monday-morning quarterbacks . . .

Not long after that another one of the book snippet’s mentions:

One of her surviving classmates, Ruth Gogan…

A bit later, when we start getting excerpts from Sue’s memoir, she gives us a more specific estimate of the death toll that’s coming:

In the wake of two hundred deaths and the destruction of an entire town, it is so easy to forget one thing: We were kids.

One thing to note about this final passage is the double duty it’s doing: it reveals a suspenseful scale of upcoming destruction, but that scale is used as a springboard to characterize Sue and her attitude about what happened, not to mention that Sue, via the existence of her memoir, is also revealed to have survived.

Related to suspense is the novel’s structure: we start with a scene of Carrie getting her period in a shower. We build to a climax (or near-climax) of blood being dumped on her, in response to which she thinks (among other things):

They had finally given her the shower they wanted.

Something the pacing starts to do in the second part is circle back to describe the same incident through different points of view, specifically witnesses’ experiences of what happened juxtaposed with Carrie’s experience, a tactic that works to draw out the suspense of this extended action sequence and provide natural breaks that increase the tension. These competing accounts also complicate the dichotomy of monster versus victim.

Essentially there are two threads running through the rising action in the epistolary snippets and the direct scenes, and these build to a nice concurrent climax in the Carrie-Sue exchange when Sue’s contentious interview with the White Commission is juxtaposed with what “really” happened between her and Carrie. The film’s adaptation of the rising action’s penultimate and ultimate events also demonstrates a critical distinction between novels and film in how novels can depict action in the mind in a way films can’t. Hence, we have the climax of the film being when Carrie kills her mother by telekinetically hurling sharp objects at her, something that’s much easier to represent visually on a screen than Carrie’s visualizing her mother’s heart to bring it to a stop (an action that resonates more with themes of parental love and responsibility). Then immediately after Carrie kills her mother in the movie, the house implodes. I wasn’t sure if this was supposed to be a product of Carrie’s own psychic tumult in the wake of her matricide, but I do know that it was not as satisfying to me as the psychic exchange between Sue and Carrie in the novel’s climax, which in a way feels almost sexual as each feels what it’s like to be the other–two become one. This climax is also a potentially implicit commentary on the type of access that fiction-writing itself offers–direct access to someone else’s head, to what it feels like to be somebody else. And the film adaptation’s doing away with this element of the climax altogether seems–to this fiction writer at least–like an implicit admission of films’ inability to do what novels can.

Cultural Commentary

The movie, as mentioned, dispenses almost entirely with any reckoning with the aftermath of the tragedy, but this is in large part where the novel is able to derive its relevant commentary, perhaps most acutely via the primary investigative body dubbed the “White Commission,” an almost too on-the-nose label reminiscent of the real-life Warren Commission that investigated the assassination of JFK. If there was any doubt of the connection, one of the book snippets notes:

Morton Cratzchbarken, in an admittedly sensationalized address to The National Colloquium on Psychic Phenomena last year, said that the two most stunning events of the twentieth century have been the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963 and the destruction that came to Chamberlain, Maine, in May of 1979.

It’s also interesting that Carrie, published in 1974, is set a few years in the future, but in drafting it King himself would have been less than a decade out from JFK’s death. So what commentary is he making, exactly, with this likeness? What we see in snippets from the White Commission’s interviews, most climactically in its interview with Sue, is an unwillingness to listen to what the witnesses have to tell them–they seem to want to ignore the collective testimony serving as evidence for Carrie’s telekinesis and telepathy alike. Sue notes before we actually see her (post-)climactic interview with the Commission that they used her as a “handy scapegoat,” language that might call to mind a possible likeness to JFK-assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. But not long after Sue makes this claim, the passage cited above continues:

Cratzchbarken points out that both events were driven home to the citizenry by mass media, and both events have almost shouted the frightening fact that, while something had ended, something else had been irrevocably set in motion, for good or ill. If the comparison can be made, then Thomas Ross played the part of a Lee Harvey Oswald—trigger man in a catastrophe. The question that still remains is: Did he do so wittingly or unwittingly?

Here we’re seeing another element the epistolary structure introduces (lost in the film translation): the divide between what really happened and what people think happened. If the novel were purely epistolary, we’d have competing accounts that we’d be left on our own to make sense of, meaning we wouldn’t know an objective “truth” about what happened. But by intercutting these accounts with direct scenes of what happened that include access to different characters’ actual thoughts (and not just what they tell others), the reader is provided the objective truth of what “really” happened, which we’re then able to compare to the version of events recounted by others. This means that we do know the answer to the question posed by the passage above of whether Tommy is a witting or unwitting “trigger man”–he is patently unwitting. Anyone looking at the events from outside can’t be sure whether Tommy and Sue set Carrie up as a joke intentionally, but the reader knows definitively that their motives were pure, which heightens the tragedy. But if Tommy (and/or Sue) is an Oswald figure, then there’s potential commentary that our culture’s historical conception of Oswald as “witting” trigger man is fallible. By showing us how potentially off-base the White Commission’s interpretation of events is, King seems to be showing us that such investigatory bodies by their inherent nature not only cannot offer us a full picture of what “really” happened, but will actively obscure it.

And even if isolation could be made successful, would the American people allow a small pretty girl-child to be ripped away from her parents at the first sign of puberty to be locked in a bank vault for the rest of her life? I doubt it. Especially when the White Commission has worked so hard to convince the public that the nightmare in Chamberlain was a complete fluke.

Indeed, we seem to have returned to Square One . . .

If Sue is the Oswald figure, she is left having to reckon with the massively negative fallout that resulted from what she’d intended to be a good deed. This could be potential commentary on our country’s foreign policy–we think we know best, so we go meddle with some other country’s affairs and leadership (in Guatemala, Chile, El Salvador…the list goes on)–but then it turns out to have consequences we were unable to foresee (migrant caravans, anyone?). The CIA, our country’s potential shadow self, orchestrated the assassination of many others’ country’s leaders, so even if they aren’t directly responsible for JFK’s death, they are in many ways responsible indirectly. Even if Lee Harvey Oswald was the trigger man, the larger animosity between nations that the trail of a bullet between two individual men represented is still the product of our government’s actions that make JFK’s shooting much more than a mere “fluke.” King seems to be pointing out the dangers of ignoring such implications:

In conclusion, I would like to point out the grave risk authorities are taking by burying the Carrie White affair under the bureaucratic mat—and I am speaking specifically of the so-called White Commission. The desire among politicians to regard TK as a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon seems very strong, and while this may be understandable it is not acceptable. The possibility of a recurrence, genetically speaking, is 99 per cent. It’s time we planned now for what may be. . . .

The White Commission’s problematic conclusion ends up being the penultimate statement of the novel:

. . . and so we must conclude that, while an autopsy performed on the subject indicates some cellular changes which may indicate the presence of some paranormal power, we find no reason to believe that a recurrence is likely or even possible . . .

The final piece of Carrie‘s epistolary puzzle, snapped into place immediately after this conclusion, is a letter in which a woman describes seeing her young daughter exhibiting telekinetic powers. This juxtaposition would seem to make a fairly clear–and foreboding–statement about the fallibility of the White Commission’s conclusion. The evidence is right in front of their faces, and yet they ignore it. This would seem to be another critical element of how King injects “real-life” horror into his fantastical scenarios.

I’d posit that King’s ability to inject “real-life” horror into such scenarios is potentially one of his defining features and a major element of his success. Carrie’s powers aren’t the truly horrifying thing here, but rather the combination of circumstances that give rise to her deploying them in such a horrifying way. These factors are the religious oppression of her mother and the mockery of her classmates, the latter seeming to stem directly from the former. But it’s definitely worth noting, if risking stating the obvious, that these factors are both things that could occur in the “real” world, and through this lens this narrative seems a harbinger of the modern-day school shooter: a high-school student who is alienated due to relentless mocking uses the potentially destructive powers at her disposal to take revenge on a mass scale (the death toll mentioned at the end is 400+ and counting). In this reading, Carrie’s powers become the equivalent of the modern ease of access to the AK-47, foreshadowing a trend of predominantly teenaged retribution in school hallways that won’t be fully realized in the culture for another two decades.

Related to these themes of alienated teens and the country’s dicey foreign policy in the seventies, Carrie is not pocked by as many references to what was likely the most salient and horrific political flashpoint of the time, the Vietnam War, as its followup Salem’s Lot will be. But Carrie‘s image of the bodies for a collective mass funeral of high school students seems to be commenting on the senseless carnage of youth in Vietnam:

They were buried on June 1 and 2 in three mass ceremonies. A memorial service was held on June 3 in the town square. It was the most moving ceremony that this reporter has ever witnessed. Attendance was in the thousands, and the entire assemblage was still as the school band, stripped from fifty-six to a bare forty, played the school song and taps.

If the horror of Vietnam is a mere trickle of an undercurrent in Carrie, the horror of the potential mundanity of domesticity is closer to a riptide–sneaky and powerful enough to suck you under and carry you away. Take Sue’s consideration of her potential future:

The word she was avoiding was expressed To Conform, in the infinitive, and it conjured up miserable images of hair in rollers, long afternoons in front of the ironing board in front of the soap operas while hubby was off busting heavies in an anonymous Office; of joining the P.T.A. and then the country club when their income moved into five figures; of pills in circular yellow cases without number to insure against having to move out of the misses’ sizes before it became absolutely necessary and against the intrusion of repulsive little strangers who shat in their pants and screamed for help at two in the morning; of fighting with desperate decorum to keep the n*****s out of Kleen Korners, standing shoulder to shoulder with Terri Smith (Miss Potato Blossom of 1975) and Vicki Jones (Vice President of the Women’s League), armed with signs and petitions and sweet, slightly desperate smiles.

After we momentarily marvel at the datedness of an income aspiring to “five figures” (and return to the casual racism in a future post), let’s note Tommy’s teasing response to Sue’s ennui:

“I’ll probably end up working at my dad’s car lot,” he said. “I’ll spend my Friday and Saturday nights down at Uncle Billy’s or out at The Cavalier drinking beer and talking about the Saturday afternoon I got that fat pitch from Saunders and we upset Dorchester. Get married to some nagging broad and always own last year’s model, vote Democrat—”

“Don’t,” she said, her mouth suddenly full of a dark, sweet horror. She pulled him to her. “Love me. My head is so bad tonight. Love me. Love me.”

Interestingly, Sue’s response to these visions of domestic horror is to want Tommy to have sex with her; also interestingly, this will be the first time the sex is actually good for her. Later, the possibility that Sue is pregnant is briefly noted:

Her period was late. Almost a week late. And she had always been as regular as an almanac.

I didn’t notice any followup references to this, but it comes very close to the climactic dumping of the pig’s blood, seeming to underscore its potential horror.

Sue’s horror of domesticity seems to serve as reinforcement for Carrie’s domestic conundrum and how her going to the prom with Tommy comes to represent the one possibility for escape she has:

And if he didn’t come, if she drew back and gave up? High school would be over in a month. Then what? A creeping, subterranean existence in this house, supported by Momma, watching game shows and soap operas all day on television at Mrs. Garrison’s house when she had Carrie In To Visit (Mrs. Garrison was eighty-six), walking down to the Center to get a malted after supper at the Kelly Fruit when it was deserted, getting fatter, losing hope, losing even the power to think?

No. Oh dear God, please no.

(please let it be a happy ending)

This passage complicates how to read the ending that we do get. Carrie’s apparently subconscious–to judge from the parentheses–clinging to the idea of a happy ending shows to an extent how she’s been conditioned by the culture despite the restrictions of her upbringing, and it certainly humanizes someone about to engage in a monstrous spree of destruction–which is more or less the novel’s entire project. It also invites us to consider the alternative to her not engaging in this monstrous spree. Her moment of choice has come, but the real tragedy is not so much the eventual death toll as the fact that she has no good choice. She’ll either attempt to step out of her shell and be pushed over the edge, or she’ll stay stuck in the swamp of a domestic nightmare. (There’s also the interesting detail that Carrie’s mother works at a laundry, and that this is specifically noted more than once to be a source of the brute physical strength she sometimes uses on Carrie.) Is not her escape from this swamp, no matter the means, a version of a happy ending?

Cultural Commentary II: Narrative Stance

In The Art of Perspective, writer Christopher Castellani notes the advent of shows like The Affair, which uses a plot device frequently noted from the Japanese movie Rashomon, according to Wikipedia:

The film is known for a plot device that involves various characters providing subjective, alternative, self-serving, and contradictory versions of the same incident.

With this device, the viewer/reader is never shown the objective, true reality of what “really” happened, but is left with the understanding that in a world where we’re all trapped in our own necessarily limited perspectives, truly there is no objective reality. This development is part of a trend that can be tracked through literary movements: look at 19th-century novels, like Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, and we have omniscient narrators espousing about what becomes through their omniscient perspective official facts about human nature, implying that there is a universal objective reality. Around the time we get to Henry James’ The Portrait of a Lady (1881), narrative focus starts to pivot from the external to the internal–action is based in the internal vagaries of the mind, and narrative climax defined by the James Joycean epiphany. In the wake of the First World War’s apparent evidence of a lack of any all-knowing and -loving deity, the modernists become obsessed with the limitations of the individual subjective experience, and we get Proust mining from his own thoughts and memories enough material for a seven-volume novel. The postmodernists take the conundrum of subjectivity’s limitations to absurdist levels, bringing the backlash of minimalist realism and then something called post-postmodernism. Granted, this is a narrative of literary history distilled from my years of myopic patriarchal western imperialist classical education, but it seems more or less true that we’ve arrived at a point in time where the all-knowing narrator has bitten the dust, due in large part to the now abundantly obvious issues of 1) omniscience/objective reality not actually being a thing that exists, and 2) any all-knowing narrator has to be written by a decidedly not-all-knowing individual human person.

(This issue of a lack of an all-knowing entity who can offer a comprehensive and infallible account of “what happened” permeates not only fiction, but history as well. History is written by the victors, as Winston Churchhill is said to have said, which connects directly to theme raised by JFK.)

Basically, who now has the ego to aspire to godhood, omniscience-wise? The Victorians doing so was a symptom of the hubris that drove their ruthless colonialist expansion. But America was and is also an empire. Enter a young Stephen King. Who could have more hubris than a white American male under the age of 25 (except for maybe one over the age of 25)?

King gives us competing accounts of what happened this night in Chamberlain, but does not limit these to subjectivity. These “direct scenes” often strip psychic distance to the bone to give us direct access to different characters’ thoughts, and King plays with the technique that critics like James Wood have dubbed “free indirect discourse/style” in which characters’ thoughts are given to us directly in their pure unmediated substance by doing this in the traditional sense and seeming to penetrate to an even deeper layer of the mind by depicting some thoughts within parentheses. This reinforces the King tenet of potential horror lurking in the hidden corners of the mind (more on that below) and is a nice setup to allow us to see Carrie’s telepathy at play in other characters’ minds later (also more on that below).

But King frequently give us lines that transcend the subjectivity of individual experience into a broader objectivity, latitude King sets up for himself in the opening lines of the first “direct scene”:

Nobody was really surprised when it happened, not really, not at the subconscious level where savage things grow. On the surface, all the girls in the shower room were shocked, thrilled, ashamed, or simply glad that the White bitch had taken it in the mouth again. Some of them might also have claimed surprise, but of course their claim was untrue.

By incorporating this omniscience into his narrative stance, King seems to imply that fiction is more substantive than official history in being able to provide a full and complete accounting of “what happened.” This omniscience also transcends historical themes to connect to the book’s religious ones about the nature of God. Take this passage:

If someone had been there to watch, he would have been struck by the resemblance between [Carrie and her mother].

It’s interesting that King constructs this hypothetical entity in this passage when, having given himself the latitude of a purely omniscient narrator, King doesn’t really need to position this supposition as being from this hypothetical entity’s perspective but could just tell us that a strong resemblance exists between mother and daughter. But the hypothetical entity King conjures here is of course reminiscent of God, with the construction of the sentence–“If someone had been there…”–calling into question whether God might really be there or not. The existence of God is not something that this omniscient narrator is prepared to take a definitive stance on, apparently. (We’ll put the gendering of this potential omniscient entity aside for a future post.)

The conflict between religion and science is on full display as Carrie’s mother reckons with Carrie’s powers as some kind of divine punishment while the scientific community reckons with the evidence of Carrie’s telekinesis. King takes great pains to establish another critical element the film omits–the scientific basis of telekinesis:

With the TK phenomenon, the male appears to be the carrier; the TK gene may be recessive in the female, but dominates only in the female.

There’s also the fact that Carrie’s autopsy revealed abnormalities in her brain, something the White Commission acknowledges before immediately dismissing as a one-time anomaly. While that dismissal allows for a pointed commentary on the fallibility of human reasoning within the space of this one novel, King’s ending the book with the implication that others do indeed have powers like Carrie’s is a punt outside the confines of this book into future ones.

The King Universe

Carrie seems primarily driven by the concept of telekinesis, but the novel also establishes a link between telekinesis and telepathy that we’ll no doubt see recur in other novels (this link is the main basis for his most recent release, The Institute). In the second half of the book detailing the destruction that occurs on Prom Night, several witnesses are able to identify Carrie White by name despite having never seen her before. Tommy notes hearing her name echoing in his head:

Carrie drew in a startled, smothered gasp, and Tommy again felt (but for only a second) that weird vertigo in his mind

(carrie carrie carrie carrie)

that seemed to blank out all thought but the name and image of this strange girl he was with. For a fleeting second he was literally scared shitless.

Then one witness interviewed later not only recognizes Carrie without ever having seen her, but seems to know what she’s thinking:

And she kept looking at her hands and rubbing them on her dress, trying to get the blood off and thinking she’d never get it off and how she was going to pour blood on the whole town and make them pay. It was awful stuff.

Q. How would you have any idea what she was thinking?

A. I don’t know. I can’t explain.

Q. For the remainder of your testimony, I wish you would stick to what you saw, Mr. Quillan.

and

“Tom Quillan flinched back. “Carrie. Carrie White.”

“Who? How do you know?”

Quillan blinked slowly. “I dunno. It just sort of . . . came to me.”

and

Q. Mrs. Simard, how did you know it was Carrie White?

A. I just knew.

Q. This knowing, Mrs. Simard: was it like a light going on in your head?

A. No, sir.

Q. What was it like?

A. I can’t tell you. It faded away the way a dream does. An hour after you get up you can only remember you had a dream. But I knew.

Q. Was there an emotional feeling that went with this knowledge?

A. Yes. Horror.

Carrie’s “psychic energy” encompassing both telekinesis and telepathy is relevant to another significant tenet of the King universe, one conveyed in the first line of the novel we get that’s a direct scene rather than an epistolary snippet:

Nobody was really surprised when it happened, not really, not at the subconscious level where savage things grow.

The true horror, King implies almost immediately, originates from within the self, rather than from external factors. This would seem to be why so many of King’s books are dubbed “psychological thrillers,” and seems reinforced here in that one of the main books he’s fabricated about the White incident is called “The Shadow Exploded.” This dichotomy of an internal versus external starting point for narrative action is potentially a key to a broader point I’ll return to about the distinction between “genre fiction” and “literature” as plot-based (something happens to characters) and character-based (something happens because of characters).

By its very title, Carrie would seem to be a character-based narrative. Notably, few novels in the King canon are named for characters: there’s Misery (which isn’t the character’s real name), and Dolores Claiborne, and Mr. Mercedes (also not the character’s real name). (Cujo and Christine might in a sense be named for characters, but those characters being a dog and a car, respectively, don’t really count.) This means King’s first three most character-based narratives are female-centric (though Misery might split the difference, being from a man’s perspective; we’ll see).

Carrie‘s being character-based, by the classifying definition I offered above, would put it more in the realm of literary than genre–the action happens because of the character. And yet if Carrie causes the action to happen via her telekinetic powers, she’s exercising them in response to external stimuli–she snaps because of her classmates’ excessive teasing, a narrative thread that can be traced back to her mother’s fundamentalist restrictions marking her as an outcast from day one. These are all things that happen to Carrie, not things that she causes. But the root causes of these external factors also have a basis in human nature that potentially makes them more literary, as the aforementioned referenced line points out, and which connects back to King frequently deriving horror from the real in the midst of the fantastical–in this case, the horror of the human capacity for cruelty. What makes Carrie a complex character is that we understand her motivations; we’ve been granted access to her selfhood and situation, and we sympathize. We might, in her situation, have done the very same thing.

-SCR