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

The Gunslinger (Song) Cycle

We must rival Job, rival Jude. 

Parul Sehgal, “The Case Against the Trauma Plot,” The New Yorker, December 27, 2021

“Really? Kinging? Kinging is a precarious business!”

The King’s Speech, 2010

…the gunslinger saying that ka was like a wheel, always rolling around to the same place again.

Stephen King. Wizard and Glass. 1997.

In a foreword to The Gunslinger (1982), the first book of Stephen King’s Dark Tower series, King describes conceiving of the sprawling premise around 1967 when he–surprise surprise–finished JRR Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, which by this point in my reading of the King canon seems to be the single most influential fictional work on his fictional work. Even before I read the foreword (after the book itself) I could feel macro and micro levels of Tolkien influence in this specific novel, especially (micro) via the phrase “ever onward” (once voiced by the unlikely character of The Stand‘s Rita Blakemoor):

There are quests and roads that lead ever onward, and all of them end in the same place—upon the killing ground.

Stephen King. The Gunslinger. 1982.

Upon his completion of Tolkien’s tome, King was of the age of nineteen, a number of import in The Gunslinger and likely the series as a whole, a series that King was sure would prove to be his “masterpiece.” That he depicts this conception as youthful ignorance is ironically playful, since in large part at this point it’s pretty much a fulfilled prophecy–seven books published starting with The Gunslinger in 1982 and concluding with The Wind in the Keyhole in 2012, though this is apparently a “bonus novel” and the series purportedly concluded with The Dark Tower in 2004. There are numerous other references and links to the universe depicted in the series in King’s other technically non-Dark-Tower books as well, which brings me to an interesting point in my “chronological” reading and writing about King’s canon…the wheel of ka comes back around. More on that…after this.

Summary

We start with the titular gunslinger pursuing the “man in black” across a desert that is the “apotheosis of all deserts.” He’s leading a mule and stops at an isolated dwelling whose dweller, Brown, has a talking raven named Zoltan and who tells the gunslinger, whose name is Roland Deschain, about his encounter with the man in black when he passed through before the gunslinger, who’s paranoid Brown might be part of some kind of trap set for him by the man in black. He tells Brown (who believes they’re in an “afterlife”) about when he passed through the town of Tull (which we get in scene-rendered flashback): Roland goes to a saloon and speaks to the bartender, Allie, who has a curious scar on her forehead, about when the man in black–aka Walter–passed through, and she tells him about when he raised one of the men in the saloon, Nort, from the dead, and how the man in black told her the key to knowing about death was the number “nineteen.”  The gunslinger must have sex with Allie repeatedly for this information, and at one point they’re attacked in her room by a man (Sheb the piano player) she used to sleep with but who’s subdued easily. 

The gunslinger attends a church service in Tull where a 300-pound woman, Sylvia Pittston, preaches that there will be an “Interloper.” He visits Sylvia who informs him she was impregnated by the man in black and he kills her unborn child of the “Crimson King,” saying it’s a demon. He’s then taken for The Interloper by the townspeople and when they attack him he kills all of them, including Allie, with his gun, a completely unfamiliar weapon to the people of Tull.   

When Roland wakes the next day after telling this story to Brown, his mule is dead and he continues his pursuit of the man in black on foot. Eventually he comes to a way station where there is a young boy, Jake Chambers, who came from a land that is clearly New York City though Jake’s descriptions of it are completely unfamiliar to Roland. Jake, the son of a wealthy television network executive, was killed by the man in black, who, apparently dressed like a priest, shoved Jake into traffic when he was walking to school. Roland goes down into the cellar of the way station and a demon talks to him (“’While you travel with the boy, the man in black travels with your soul in his pocket.’”) and when Roland thrusts his arm in the hole the voice was coming from, he pulls out a jawbone. 

Jake accompanies Roland on his quest to pursue the man in black, which Roland reveals is part of a larger quest for the Dark Tower, and he tells Jake a bit about when he was a boy in Gilead being trained by a man named Cort to be a gunslinger with his friend Cuthbert, and a time they overheard a cook they were friends with plotting to poison some of the court and had him hung. Roland starts to love Jake and thinks this is the trap set for him by the man in black.  

One night Roland wakes to find Jake gone and tracks him to a stone altar with the spirit of an oracle he uses the jawbone from the way station to ward off, saving Jake. Roland takes some mescaline and visits the oracle, who forces him to have sex with her repeatedly on the stone altar and basically outlines at least the next couple of books in the series when she tells him the number three will be important for him on his journey: 

The boy is your gate to the man in black. The man in black is your gate to the three. The three are your way to the Dark Tower.

Stephen King. The Gunslinger. 1982.

They discuss Jake’s being the “gate,” meaning that he’ll have to be sacrificed. 

Jake and Roland follow the man in black into the mountains and seem to be getting closer based on a footprint and his smell. As they’re about to round an elbow curve on the mountain Jake wants to turn back and seems to know the gunslinger intends to sacrifice him, but the gunslinger presses on and they see the man in black close on a ridge above them, who says the two of them–him and Roland–will palaver on the other side of mountain before he vanishes into a cavern. Roland tells Jake to come or stay and Jake comes. Roland mentions a memory of seeing his mother dancing with the man, Marten, who will kill his father. In the mountain they find an old railroad with a handcar they use to travel faster. One night Roland tells Jake, who asks for it, the story of his “coming of age” when he passes his test to become a gunslinger, which he does right after Marten calls him in to see his mother in a defiant way to let him know Marten, who’s supposed to be his father’s counselor, is the real one in power. Roland passes his test, which he demands to take two years before Cort thinks he’s ready to, by using his falcon David as his chosen weapon. He doesn’t quite tell Jake everything about it because he feels shame over using David as a trick that amounts to the first of many of his betrayals. In the mountain, they encounter the “slow mutants,” who attack them and try to block the track but they manage to crash through them in the handcar and leave them behind. When they see light at the end of the tunnel they get out of the handcar and walk on ground that seems increasingly rotten, and when they emerge the man in black is there and Jake falls, clinging to a trestle over a pit; Roland lets him fall in order to continue to follow the man in black, who takes him to “an ancient killing ground to make palaver.” The man in black gives him a version of a tarot reading with seven cards with cryptic clues about the future of his journey (the Prisoner, the Lady of the Shadows) and sends Roland a vision of the infinitude of the universe (a term Roland has never heard before) and explains the nature of the Tower: 

“Suppose that all worlds, all universes, met in a single nexus, a single pylon, a Tower. And within it, a stairway, perhaps rising to the Godhead itself. Would you dare climb to the top, gunslinger? Could it be that somewhere above all of endless reality, there exists a Room?” 

Stephen King. The Gunslinger. 1982.

The man in black also explains that he was sent by his “king and master” whom he’s only seen in dreams, and that Roland is the man in black’s “apotheosis” or “climax,” and that before Roland meets this king, he must slay the “Ageless Stranger” who is named “Legion.” The man in black reveals that he was actually Marten, and tells Roland he’s at the end of the beginning and must go to the nearby sea to wait for what’s next, the drawing of the three. When Roland next wakes, ten years have passed and the remains of the man in black are there as a skeleton that Roland takes the jawbone of. He proceeds to the nearby beach and waits. The End.  

The Song Remains the Same

While the Dark Tower series is considered King’s “magnum opus” (according to his website according to Wikipedia), it has also been considered “niche,” with a lot of readers of the rest of King’s work–such as my mother–unable to “get into it.” After reading The Gunslinger myself, I can certainly understand why. The prose is often almost opaque, and listening to the audiobook, I often found myself zoning out for lengthy passages.

That said, the themes, structure, and cosmology of this multiverse/universe are still compelling in ways that resonate with my reading of the King canon in general. In his foreword/note preceding the novella “Secret Window, Secret Garden” in Four Past Midnight (1990), King says:

I’m one of those people who believe that life is a series of cycles—wheels within wheels, some meshing with others, some spinning alone, but all of them performing some finite, repeating function. I like that abstract image of life as something like an efficient factory machine, probably because actual life, up close and personal, seems so messy and strange. It’s nice to be able to pull away every once in awhile and say, “There’s a pattern there after all! I’m not sure what it means, but by God, I see it!”

Stephen King, Four Past Midnight. 1990.

In reading King’s canon chronologically–the order it was published, if not actually written–but also trying to write about it chronologically, I always have to go back and reread (or primarily listen to) a book before I blog about it. I’m now two years into this project, and at one point I was trying to not let my reading get too far ahead of my writing, and so would read other non-King books in the meantime. About a year ago, I basically just let myself keep going and going in my King reading, so I’m cycling back for the re-reads with more of the canon under my belt. Currently, as I write about this 1982 publication, I’ve made it in my chronological reading up to a 1997 publication, which happens to be book four of the Dark Tower series, Wizard and Glass (which happens to be almost four times as long as The Gunslinger).

Listening to The Gunslinger again, I was better able to follow things due to enhanced insight from having made it through book 2, The Drawing of the Three (1987), and book 3, The Waste Lands (1991), but I still found myself zoning out to the point that reading the summary of the events in The Gunslinger provided at the beginning of Wizard and Glass, I was like–what? Apparently I’d missed some critical causal connections, primarily in Roland’s backstory about Marten/Walter somehow causing Roland to have to take his coming-of-age test early. (I also initially missed what I heard described on a podcast as Roland using his gun to “perform an abortion.”)

Something that I’ve started to notice in King’s work that The Dark Tower takes to another…dimension is references to other texts, both in classic literature and in pop culture:

The [Dark Tower] series was chiefly inspired by the poem “Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came” by Robert Browning, whose full text was included in the final volume’s appendix. In the preface to the revised 2003 edition of The Gunslinger, King also identifies The Lord of the RingsArthurian legend, and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly as inspirations. He identifies Clint Eastwood’s “Man with No Name” character as one of the major inspirations for the protagonist, Roland Deschain.

From here.

I’m primed to notice both the lit and pop culture references as an English teacher who specifically uses popular culture as a theme in my rhetoric and composition classes. (I was recently talking with a group of high-school freshmen and sophomores about what they read in their English classes and, like I was also assigned at their age over two decades ago now, they were reading Arthurian legend.) It’s starting to seem like King’s brain is more comprehensive than Wikipedia when it comes to books, movies, and music and dramatizing the influence these texts have over how people see the world. As a case in point for how The Gunslinger is Ground Zero for this, we can look at an early passage in the novel:

He’d bought the mule in Pricetown, and when he reached Tull, it was still fresh. The sun had set an hour earlier, but the gunslinger had continued traveling, guided by the town glow in the sky, then by the uncannily clear notes of a honky-tonk piano playing “Hey Jude.”

Stephen King. The Gunslinger. 1982.

In this western setting that’s the “apotheosis” of all western settings, someone is playing a Beatles song from the 1960s. The Beatles are not name-dropped, just the song title, but lest there’s any doubt the “Hey Jude” in question is in fact the Beatles’ song, it is clarified thus:

A fool’s chorus of half-stoned voices was rising in the final protracted lyric of “Hey Jude”—“Naa-naa-naa naa-na-na-na . . . hey, Jude . . .”—as he entered the town proper.

Stephen King. The Gunslinger. 1982.

This is an “old” song even to Roland…

The boy was looking down at him from a window high above the funeral pyre, the same window where Susan, who had taught him to be a man, had once sat and sung the old songs: “Hey Jude” and “Ease on Down the Road” and “Careless Love.

Stephen King. The Gunslinger. 1982.

Those also being songs from the same era, it seems a clue to the cosmology voiced by Jake as he falls to his death (for now)–“‘There are other worlds than these,'” and yet these worlds are somehow overlapping or linked. In the summary of the first book before Wizard and Glass, it says:

“We discover that the gunslinger’s world is related to our own in some fundamental and terrible way. This link is first revealed when Roland meets Jake, a boy from the New York of 1977, at a desert way station.”

Stephen King. Wizard and Glass. 1997.

But the “Hey Jude” reference lets us know this link exists way before Jake materializes from New York. The music is the real link. And probably also the movies/television; another big “link” between the world of pop culture visual texts and the world of the Dark Tower is via Jake’s father’s job:

“Got to catch up with that Tower, am I right? Got to keep a-ridin’, just like the cowboys on my Dad’s Network.”

Stephen King. The Gunslinger. 1982.

It’s also thus not insignificant that a not-insignificant part of this world’s infrastructure, so to speak, “the beam,” is first mentioned in connection with visual texts/television:

“Where did you come from, Jake?” he asked finally.

“I don’t know.” The boy frowned. “I did know. I knew when I came here, but it’s all fuzzy now, like a bad dream when you wake up. I have lots of bad dreams. Mrs. Shaw used to say it was because I watched too many horror movies on Channel Eleven.”

“What’s a channel?” A wild idea occurred to him. “Is it like a beam?”

“No—it’s TV.”

“What’s teevee?”

“I—” The boy touched his forehead. “Pictures.”

Stephen King. The Gunslinger. 1982.

We have no idea at this point what this “wild idea” of Roland’s is, but ultimately the analogy of a television with different channels feels fitting for this world encompassing different worlds…

This combination of literary and pop culture reference manifests the apotheosis of the intersection of high and low culture’s influence on King–the intersection that is, I believe I have discovered, the “secret sauce” I was looking for when I started…

Under the influence of this intersection, I have approached King’s work from both angles–from the literary, reading (and writing) academic articles on it through the lens of (often opaque) literary theory, and I believe one King reference that appears in The Regulators holds the key to The Gunslinger‘s prosaic opacity (to put it pretentiously):

The floor is tacky with spilled food and soda; there is an underlying sour smell of clabbered milk; the walls have been scribbled over with crayon drawings that are frightening in their primitive preoccupation with bloodshed and death. They remind him of a novel he read not so long ago, a book called Blood Meridian.

Stephen King/Richard Bachman. The Regulators. 1996. 

If Jane Campion’s recent film The Power of the Dog is an “anti-western,” then Blood Meridian might be an anti-anti-western, or like a western on steroids, in its horrific depictions of cowboy-vs.-Native American violence, and it also does the nameless character thing that King plays with via a figure designated “the judge.” But it’s the prose that’s the main resemblance, and if you need evidence for this we can just look at the Blood Meridian passage King picks himself in On Writing, which he prefaces with “this is a good one, you’ll like it”:

Someone snatched the old woman’s blindfold from her and she and the juggler were clouted away and when the company turned in to sleep and the low fire was roaring in the blast like a thing alive these four yet crouched at the edge of the firelight among their strange chattels and watched how the ragged flames fled down the wind as if sucked by some maelstrom out there in the void, some vortex in that waste apposite to which man’s transit and his reckonings alike lay abrogate.

Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian. 1985.

Sorry, Steve, I don’t like it that much… also Blood Meridian was published three years after The Gunslinger, so either King was influenced by McCarthy’s earlier novels or was independently influenced by the western mythos and its attendant macho prose.

That, or King really can time travel….

At the opposite pole, I’ve also been listening to podcasts about King’s work from the POV of Hollywood industry people, predominantly “The Kingcast,” which the hosts Eric Vespe and Scott Wampler actually started after I started this project (do I want these guys’ job? Yes plz). Each episode, they have a guest who picks their favorite King “property” to discuss. These guests are usually actors and/or producers/directors/screenwriters etc., but for an early episode on The Gunslinger, their guest was Damien Echols, one of the “West Memphis Three,” who spent twenty years in prison after being sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit, and as the promo copy for the episode states, his “love of Stephen King was actually used against him in a court of law.” Hearing Echols describe how both The Gunslinger and the Dark Tower series as a whole got him through his imprisonment, much of which was spent in brain-damage-inducing solitary confinement, has undoubtedly been the most powerful thing I’ve heard on the show. Interestingly, they discuss the prose style being markedly different in The Gunslinger than the rest of the series; Echols refers to the former as “machine-like, Terminator,” and when the hosts say they’re glad that style changed after book 1, Echols counters that it’s his favorite and he wishes King had maintained it longer.

I’m getting ahead of myself, but by book 3 the prose and content often feels like straight-up YA–a far, far cry from McCarthyesque killing fields; one of the Kingcast hosts posits that each book in the Dark Tower series embodies a different genre, a point they return to in a more recent episode:

“I think that’s one of the biggest selling points of the [Dark Tower series], is that it runs through all these different kinds of genres, and each different book is a different flavor, I really appreciate that about it. I’m not sure if it were western all the way through if I would like it as much.” 

From here.

This reminds me of the Harry Potter series; after reading these books I gave up on watching the movies pretty early on due to feeling like I already knew everything that happened, but it was interesting to see on the recent Potter reunion special the different tones and styles the different directors brought to each film and to hear their explanations of what made that particular book’s tone different from the rest.

I also thought of Harry Potter when I got to this part in The Gunslinger:

The boy looked up at him, his body trembling. For a moment the gunslinger saw the face of Allie, the girl from Tull, superimposed over Jake’s, the scar standing out on her forehead like a mute accusation, and felt brute loathing for them both (it wouldn’t occur to him until much later that both the scar on Alice’s forehead and the nail he saw spiked through Jake’s forehead in his dreams were in the same place).

Stephen King. The Gunslinger. 1982.

It feels like ka that I’m revisiting this text as I start an elective on world-building at the arts high school where I teach; our foundational text for this class is David Mitchell’s “Start with the Map,” in which Mitchell describes, among other things, layering his own maps for his made-up worlds onto maps of real-life locations. This made me think that in genre fiction, tropes are often layered on tropes…

…as in Harry Potter:

Part of the secret of Rowling’s success is her utter traditionalism. The Potter story is a fairy tale, plus a bildungsroman, plus a murder mystery, plus a cosmic war of good and evil, and there’s almost no classic in any of those genres that doesn’t reverberate between the lines of Harry’s saga. The Arthurian legend, the Superman comics, “Star Wars,” “Cinderella,” “The Lord of the Rings,” the “Chronicles of Narnia,” “The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes,” Genesis, Exodus, the Divine Comedy, “Paradise Lost”—they’re all there. The Gothic paraphernalia, too: turreted castles, purloined letters, surprise visitors arriving in the dark of night, backed by forked lightning. If you take a look at Vladimir Propp’s 1928 book “Morphology of the Folk Tale,” which lists just about every convention ever used in fairy tales, you can check off, one by one, the devices that Rowling has unabashedly picked up. 

From here.

and The Matrix….

In “The Matrix,” from 1999, Keanu Reeves plays Thomas Anderson, who pops a mysterious red pill proffered by an equally mysterious stranger and promptly discovers that his so-called life as an alienated nineteen-nineties hacker with a cubicle-farm day job has, in fact, been a computer-generated dream, designed—I swear I’m going to get all this into a single sentence—to keep Anderson from realizing that he’s actually Neo, a kung-fu messiah destined to save a post-apocalyptic earth’s last living humans from a race of sentient machines who’ve hunted mankind to near-extinction. Neo spends the rest of the film and its two sequels bouncing back and forth between the simulated world, where he’s a leather-clad superhero increasingly unbound by physical laws, and the bleak real world, laid to waste by humanity’s long war with artificial intelligence. Like “Star Wars” before it, “The Matrix” was fundamentally recombinant, unprecedented in its joyful derivativeness. Practically every cool visual or narrative thing about it came from some other mythic or pop-cultural source, from scripture to anime. And, like “Star Wars,” it quickly became a pop-cultural myth unto itself, and a primary source to be stolen from.

From here.

(Side note: I don’t know how many times “like a vampire” has come up in a King novel by way of a character trying to explain the essence of the monstrous entity stalking the ensemble…)

In The Gunslinger Kingcast episode, Echols says that he’s read The Gunslinger 33 times, an interesting number in the context of this particular tome as its climax heralds the second book, The Drawing of the Three; Echols also says his favorite character in the series is probably Eddie, one of the book two titular Three who is described in The Gunslinger though not yet named:

The third card was turned. A baboon stood grinningly astride a young man’s shoulder. The young man’s face was turned up, a grimace of stylized dread and horror on his features. Looking more closely, the gunslinger saw the baboon held a whip.

“The Prisoner,” the man in black said.

Stephen King. The Gunslinger. 1982.

We’ll learn that Eddie is a “prisoner” of heroin, and the addiction themes surrounding him connect to the other most salient tidbit from the Kingcast for me personally. I have not approached listening to the Kingcast episodes in any particular order; the first episode I selected to listen to was one on Cujo, and I selected that one primarily because of the guest host who had chosen it–Devon Sawa, who triggers flashbacks to my adolescence. (The hosts like to start with the guest’s King “origin story,” and one of the host’s own origin stories is striking similar to my own regarding Cujo.) As Sawa described getting into King’s work, at one point he phrased it that he became “addicted” to reading it.

This is, in no uncertain terms, exactly what’s happened to me. In my addictive compulsion to press ahead, the wheel of ka in my reading of the King canon landing on ’96-’97 as I revisit The Gunslinger feels fitting. 1996 is the year of The Green Mile, Desperation, and The Regulators. The Green Mile is significant as a publication for its experimentation with the serial model, a novel released in six separate parts, hearkening back to when novels were released serially in Victorian England. Desperation and The Regulators are significant as publications for being “mirror” novels: the same characters and concept–an ancient evil entity named “Tak” emerging from imprisonment deep in the Nevada desert to stalk an ensemble cast via occupation of a human host.

Desperation and The Regulators obliquely embody Dark Tower cosmology by taking place in parallel universes, though there didn’t seem to be too many direct overlapping references in what I’ve read of the Dark Tower so far, except:

“He had heard rumor of other lands beyond this, green lands in a place called Mid-World, but it was hard to believe. Out here, green lands seemed like a child’s fantasy.

Tak-tak-tak.

“But the desert was next. And the desert would be hell.

Tak-tak-tak . . .”

Stephen King. The Gunslinger. 1982.

King’s use of the Nevada desert as embodying the landscape of Hell is echoed in Desperation and also The Stand, which has a more direct Dark Tower tie-in with Randall Flagg appearing near the end of the Dark Tower III, and technically before that since I think it’s hinted by this point he’s actually Marten and, I believe, the “Ageless Stranger” the man in black tells Roland about during their “palaver” that constitutes The Gunslinger‘s climax.

The Green Mile (’96) is the first novel of King’s I read around the time of its release. I ended up rereading this one in the house where I read it in the first place, the house where I grew up. I have written about what my father has done to a room in this house before:

He loved movies, but when my wife had asked what his favorite was, I couldn’t come up with an undisputed victor out of the many that seemed to run on intermittent loops throughout my childhood.

My tentative answer was McClintock! (1963), starring John Wayne. My father had converted my brother’s old bedroom into the “John Wayne Room,” including such accents as light-switch plates bordered with tiny rifles. (If my default present for my mother is the latest Stephen King book, my default for my father was John Wayne paraphernalia.) 

From here.

In this house, my father, now dead almost five years, remodeled my brother’s childhood bedroom as a sort of shrine to Hollywood’s glorification of the American West:

You can see the resemblance between Clint Eastwood’s “man with no name” character and Michael Whelan’s illustration of the gunslinger:

This is also the room where my mother keeps her Stephen King hardbacks that are the reason I started this project in the first place..

I suppose it would have been creepier to have been reading The Regulators in this room, since the premise of that novel is essentially characters from such westerns terrorizing a suburban Ohio neighborhood. In the novel The Regulators, The Regulators is the name of a made-up western movie in the vein of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly that the ancient evil Tak entity loves so much it invokes it as a model for its own terrorizing. (Commentary on the potential insidious influence of violence-glorifying visual texts?) Somewhat weirdly, an actor in this fictional movie is named “John Payne” as an obvious stand-in for the real actor with the stage name John Wayne, while another actor in this fictional movie is referred to as “Clint Eastwood.” Also weirdly, these “regulators” are explicitly likened to “outlaws” when the basic term itself seems to imply the exact opposite, and a version of such outlaw-regulators also appears in the Dark Tower. (Weirdly in a different vein, when I was still listening to the audiobook of The Regulators, I went to an estate sale for the first time and found a hardback copy of The Regulators on the shelf.)

At any rate, I have not forgotten the face of my father…

…but this particular piece of paraphernalia I gave him explaining the ethos of his pseudo-father’s disdain for explanation found its place in a box rather than displayed on his room’s wall.

Another poster might serve as evidence of my father’s influence on me–one for Led Zeppelin‘s “Stairway to Heaven” in my college dorm room.

I’ll use this as a segue to Get Back to the narrative function of music in The Gunslinger/Dark Tower, in which “forgotten the face of [his] father” functions as a particularly Kingian device, that of a refrain–in a song, that which it always cycles back to. When I’m tweaking on any given King narrative (aka tweaKING), I often will have a phrase from it on a loop in my head, which happens because it’s on a loop in the narrative itself. This particular refrain seems to support/reinforce the patriarchy in a way not so dissimilar from those old westerns that seem to embody the spirit of the principle of Manifest Destiny and that King’s use of might in certain ways purport to critique but probably perpetuates

“Stairway to Heaven” was strongly recalled to me by a Gunslinger passage that seems to sum up the Dark Tower cosmology so succinctly that I included it in the summary, and I’ll repeat it, refrain-like, here:

“Suppose that all worlds, all universes, met in a single nexus, a single pylon, a Tower. And within it, a stairway, perhaps rising to the Godhead itself. Would you dare climb to the top, gunslinger? Could it be that somewhere above all of endless reality, there exists a Room?” 

Stephen King. The Gunslinger. 1982.

There probably isn’t a poster for what was actually my favorite Led Zeppelin song, “The Battle of Evermore,” a song that seems like a Lord of the Rings tribute (or ripoff), though that could be because I listened to it on a loop during the era of Peter Jackson’s LOTR trilogy adaptation back in the early aughts. Peter Jackson also directed the Paradise Lost documentary about the West Memphis Three, and, more recently, the Get Back documentary on The Beatles. It was not long after watching the latter that I started King’s Desperation, which opens with the characters Mary and Peter Jackson driving through the Nevada desert. The menacing cop Collie Entragian jokes about their names in the context of music:

“You’re Peter,” he said.

“Yes, Peter Jackson.” He wet his lips.

The cop shifted his eyes. “And you’re Mary.”

“That’s right.”

“So where’s Paul?” the cop asked, looking at them pleasantly while the rusty leprechaun squeaked and spun on the roof of the bar behind them.

“What?” Peter asked. “I don’t understand.”

“How can you sing ‘Five Hundred Miles’ or ‘Leavin’ on a Jet Plane’ without Paul?” the cop asked, and opened the righthand door. ”

Stephen King. Desperation. 1996.

Since Jackson had not yet made the LOTR trilogy at the time of Desperation‘s publication in ’96, this did not seem like a case of King making some kind of intertextual/dimensional joke, but King took the opportunity to rectify this (and make another adjustment to the original musical-reference joke) when he wrote the teleplay for the adaptation released a decade later:

You’re Peter. You’re Mary. So where’s Paul? I mean, how can you sing “Puff the Magic Dragon” without Paul?

Wait a minute. Peter Jackson. I LOVE Lord of the Rings!

From here.
“I LOVE Lord of the Rings!”

You can see two other Kingverse staples in this shot–the “sam brown belt” on the cop and the chambray shirt on Peter Jackson. The latter makes its cameo in The Gunslinger in subtler reference:

Steven Deschain was dressed in black jeans and a blue work shirt. His cloak, dusty and streaked, torn to the lining in one place, was slung carelessly over his shoulder with no regard for the way it and he clashed with the elegance of the room.

Stephen King. The Gunslinger. 1982. (Emphasis mine.)

This critical Kingverse garment is appropriately enough donned by Roland’s father, which brings us back to the patriarchal father-son relationships that permeate the King canon, making “Hey Jude” a fitting selection as the piece that links the worlds, with its narrative that’s a triangle of father/father-figure-enemy/sons:

The ballad evolved from “Hey Jules”, a song McCartney wrote to comfort John Lennon‘s young son Julian, after Lennon had left his wife for the Japanese artist Yoko Ono

From here.

Were John Lennon not one of the most intensely photographed celebrities of the twentieth century, Julian might well have “forgotten the face of [his] father” who was murdered so long ago in part because of JD Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye, which gets us back to King’s first Bachman novel, Rage. Rage and writers are integral threads in the fabric of the King-canon cosmos, manifest, again, in Desperation‘s protagonist and “literary lion” John Marinville. It might have been Devon Sawa’s insight about addiction to King’s work that opened me up to the insightfulness of another iteration of addiction that I suffer from, the same one that probably facilitated my addiction to King’s work in spite of my awareness of (or because of my awareness of?) its problematic aspects:

He realized that the anger was creeping up on him again, threatening to take him over. Oh shit, of course it was. Anger had always been his primary addiction, not whiskey or coke or ’ludes. Plain old rage.

Stephen King. Desperation. 1996. 

That Peter Jackson elected to title his recent Beatles doc “Get Back” after that particular song of theirs seems to point to the power of music to get us back to a particular time and place–or a particular “world,” the same power King taps into with his use of “Hey Jude.”

“Why am I here?” Jake asked. “Why did I forget everything from before?”

“Because the man in black has drawn you here,” the gunslinger said. “And because of the Tower. The Tower stands at a kind of . . . power-nexus. In time.”

Stephen King. The Gunslinger. 1982.

It’s further testament to the power of visual texts that watching shows like Seinfeld also brings back the face of my father in a way that might iterate such a “power-nexus [i]n time” … and ka-incidece that it’s episode 9.19 that manifests this aspect of Dark Tower cosmology:

Cosmo Kramer in Seinfeld 9.19, “The Maid,” April 30, 1998

-SCR

The Running Man for President

It was a vast stage without scenery, inviting him to run across, easily seen in the blazing illumination, easily caught, easily shot down.

The Seashell hummed in his ear.

“. . . watch for a man running . . . watch for the running man . . . watch for a man alone, on foot . . . watch . . .”

RAY BRADBURY, FAHRENHEIT 451. 1953.

Published in 1982, The Running Man is Stephen King’s fourth novel written under his pseudonym Richard Bachman; it will be the next Bachman novel, Thinner in 1985, that will enable the reading public to identify Bachman as King.

Summary

In the year 2025, Ben and Sheila Richards are living in a Development apartment in Co-Op City, and their infant daughter Cathy is sick. Recently, Ben has been watching the game shows on the “Free-Vee” obsessively, and now he leaves to go to the network building to apply to be on one of these shows to get some money to treat Cathy. At the Games Building, he’s put through a lot of tests and is chosen for a show called The Running Man; we learn he’s chosen for this for the same reason he hasn’t been able to get steady work in recent years and has been living in poverty: he’s “‘regarded as antiauthoritarian and antisocial’” based on insubordinate interactions with previous work superiors. An executive named Killian explains the show’s rules: Richards will be on the run and if the show’s “hunters” don’t capture him in thirty days, he’ll get a billion dollars. Richards has to mail in regular recordings of himself to air on the show; Killian claims they won’t use these to trace his whereabouts while also noting Richards is generally being set up to fail (no one has ever won the billion dollars). 

Richards is brought on the show and sees that both his own and his wife’s photos that the show airs have been doctored to make them look worse than they are. Then he’s let loose from the building and goes to a connection from his neighborhood who can get him some fake identification papers; he makes it to NYC and then Boston, where he stays in a YMCA. After he sends his first tape recording to the network, he suspects hunters are trailing him and narrowly escapes through a tunnel after blowing up an oil tank in the YMCA’s basement. When Richards emerges from a manhole after this close call, he’s seen by a 7-year-old whom he pays to go get his older brother, who’s connected to a gang who can help him. The brother, Bradley, brings Richards home (while there he’s able to watch an installment of The Running Man and Richards sees they’re also doctoring the recordings he’s sending in); Bradley gets him out of Boston by hiding him in the trunk of his car and he–again narrowly–escapes being discovered during a road-block traffic stop. Bradley procures Richards a car and Richards poses as a priest in the town of Manchester, then goes to find a connection of Bradley’s named Elton Parrakis; the pair bonded over researching the true damage of the rampant pollution and how deaths from cancer are being covered up. Elton’s mother ends up calling the police after recognizing Richards as the Running Man, and when Elton tries to help him escape they end up in a car chase with the police. A police cruiser bumper breaks Richards’ ankle and he gets shot in the arm, but he shoots at the cruiser and it crashes and they escape with Elton, fatally injured, driving the car off and leaving Richards at an abandoned construction site. 

The next day Richards crutches to a town and convinces a boy to mail in his tape clips for him. Then, at a Stop sign, he hijacks a car driven by a lone woman named Amelia Williams, and directs her to drive to a jetport in Derry 150 miles away. After the police shoot at them without any concern about potentially killing Amelia, Richards calls the media to ensure there are cameras broadcasting from there by the time they arrive at the jetport. Having convinced Amelia that the Network has manipulated things and that he’s not really the bad guy, he tells her when she leaves the car that she needs to tell the police he has dynamite on him, when really he’s just got her clutch purse in his pocket and is bluffing. She claims she can’t do it, but when she’s gone and the cops don’t shoot him he figures she did lie to them about the dynamite. The cops honor his demand for a plane with a crew, which he boards, demanding Amelia’s presence on the plane as well. He meets the show’s head hunter Evan McCone, who also gets on the plane and who notes that Richards has broken the record for the contestant who’s lasted the longest on the show. Once they’re in the air, flying low over populated areas so cops won’t blow up the plane, Killian the Network executive speaks to Richards on a monitor and tells him that Sheila and Cathy were stabbed to death days ago by intruders, and that they want to fake his death and have him join their side as a hunter (an offer that enrages McCone). Richards agrees, but then knocks out one of his guards with a coffeepot and shoots the pilots, and he and McCone end up shooting each other. Dying with his intestines hanging out, Richards flies the plane into the Network’s Games Building. 

The End.

Different Races

As for plot and pacing, each chapter being headed with a countdown “…Minus [x] and Counting…” might seem hackneyed (the starting at “100” for the countdown is technically arbitrary) but is actually a fairly simple and effective trick to create tension, like the timer ticking down on a bomb, which is appropriate here since the arc in fact culminates in an explosion. The basic framework of the structure, the arc of Richards’ “running,” is provided by the characters who move him through three primary phases of his journey that entail a literal geographic transfer, and these would be 1) Bradley, 2) Parrakis, and 3) Amelia.

Probably three factors the most worthy of discussion here are: the similarities to the previous Bachman novels, particularly The Long Walk and Roadwork, the dystopic treatment of the year 2025 including creepy foreshadowing of 9/11, and the text’s blatant racism.

Of course these factors are all interrelated to different degrees. The main Roadwork connection to me is that the alienation and fate of Ben Richards is the same as Roadwork’s Barton Dawes but on a larger scale; Dawes’ suffering is more localized and private, and we end with him blowing up his own house. Richards gets to run all over the place–and in general his victimization by the system is probably more sympathetic than Dawes–and he also will die in an explosion at the end, but one that will take a lot more people out (house v. building). Since Richards is competing in a contest for spectator/consumer pleasure, this effectively makes this novel a hybrid of The Long Walk and Roadwork.

Roadwork is explicitly tagged a novel of the Energy Crisis and is set during that period in the 1970s; The Running Man purports to be set in 2025 but is equally obsessed with this 70s Energy Crisis period, though not in a way that really dates it per se since climate change, obviously, has only gotten worse. (We don’t seem to be at the advent of “air cars” even if that’s exactly where we should be.) The novel is freakishly prescient in some ways, the state coverup of pollution’s link to cancer and the general extremity of the environmental situation reminiscent of Exxon covering up direct evidence of climate change back in the 80s…

The primary freakishly prescient element is probably how the narrative heralds the era of reality television, and more than that, the connection between 9/11 as a staged production and this era, as the terrorists’ awareness of the power of the televised images of the disaster influenced their planning:

It is not a hidden truth that some violent and self-destructive people crave an audience. Broadcast television birthed the theatre of media-age terrorism half a century ago. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed imagined the September 11th attacks as a reality-television producer would—their political power was inseparable in his thinking from the fact that the images would be shown over and over on television. Since then, digital technology has democratized broadcast production—lowered the barriers to entry, as economists would put it. Even the Taliban, which banned cameras and music in its initial phase, now produces and distributes snuff videos of its guerrilla and suicide attacks. If it weren’t for digital production and its potential for worldwide distribution on social media, the Islamic State might be of marginal concern outside of the Arab world.

From here.

(I’m so behind on writing about my King reading that I actually started my re-read of this novel to start writing about it on…9/11/21.) This Bachman novel also reminds me of the first one, Rage, and that novel’s influence on gun violence in schools, so direct in that case that King had it pulled from publication because school shooters had copies of it in their locker…one wonders if certain terrorists might have had copies of The Running Man in their knapsacks…though I will say about this plot development that while it is, on the surface, extremely satisfying for Richards to take out these network assholes with him, the feasibility of his managing to execute this feat is more than a little hard to buy–the plane having been on autopilot for most of the flight, it’s unclear how Richards would really be able to direct it toward such a specific target. Yet it “works” because we’re satisfied by Richards weaponizing that which was weaponized against him to take out the ones who weaponized it. (What doesn’t really work is that it seems we’re ultimately to believe it’s true that Richards’ wife and daughter, whom he is doing the game (and thus the entire book) for in the first place, were killed by excessive stabbing in a random break-in that is apparently unconnected to his being a contestant on the famous show, when it seems like their connection to him from the show is exactly what should have been the reason for their murder: thus the effort to save them would be responsible for killing them.)

It also seems important to note that in this scenario, you the reader are rooting for the figure who is plowing the plane into the building! The network honchos are depicted as essentially selling an image to the public of Richards-as-terrorist (they do this even more blatantly in the 1987 film adaptation). This reminded me of narrative themes related to my experience of going to see the musical Wicked (pre-Covid):

For me, having to shove through the morass of Times Square on a December Saturday afternoon in order to get to the theater where Wicked was playing provided another layer of thematic development. Being stuck in a horde of people when one is running late to get somewhere does not make one think the best of one’s fellow woman. I can’t even remember now if it was me or the friend I was with who joked about understanding why someone (i.e. terrorists) would want to blow up all of this shit-show sea of people being blasted by the seizure-inducing flashing lights of gigantic advertisements. We conceded it was probably not a good idea to make that joke too loudly. It all made me think of the good v. evil narrative that the Bush administration propagated after 9/11. It was easy to think of the terrorists as evil, harder to try to understand that perhaps there could have been reasons they did what they did other than just being pure evil, reasons that had to do with things America had done. A whole other post could be written about how Elphaba’s trajectory in Wicked dovetails with America’s surrounding 9/11, if you consider her character arc of becoming as bad as those she was fighting against (going to the “dark side” as exemplified in Abu Ghraib). It’s interesting that the musical version (the novel having been published pre-9/11) was launched in ’03, when the good-v-evil narrative was being propagated so intensely in the buildup to the invasion of Iraq.

From here.

Per the outcome of The Running Man, Richards, by flying the plane into the Games building, patently avoids becoming as bad as those he was fighting against when his doing so is figured as a blatant rejection of the offer to join the Games team as a hunter.

The reality-television era is marked by 9/11 but also the advent of Trump, who many argue would never have become President without the platform of The Apprentice. The creepiness of this connection is only accentuated by a promotional tag line that initiates the text:

In the year 2025, the best men don’t run for president, they run for their lives….

It’s the president of the television network who’s the one with power (and thus evil) in The Running Man, but both the Trump connection and the fact that actor-turned-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger plays Richards in the 1987 film adaptation AND that pro-wrestler-turned-actor-turned governor Jesse “The Body” Ventura plays Captain Freedom (a character that’s not in the book) lends seemingly unintended–despite the tag line–resonance to the descriptor “running”: politicians, or political candidates, “run,” and do so in a way that’s explicitly produced for media imagery and consumption. Not that the text doesn’t point out the connection between politics, media, and manipulation at the center of this game show:

“It’ll work. I think. There will be a dozen free-lance cameramen around in no time, hoping to get some Games money or even the Zapruder Award itself. With that kind of publicity, they’ll have to play it straight.”

Richard Bachman. The Running Man. 1982.

This implicitly highlights the irony of the infamous footage of the JFK assassination (footage…shot by Matthew Zapruder), with JFK’s success as a politician often attributed to the advent and prominence of televised imagery.

If you’re running, you’re in a “race,” connecting the political themes to the novel’s appalling racism, made more appalling by the fact that the novel purports to be set in 2025, rendering the regular use of the term “Negro” (in a non-slur context) that much more grating. Grating as well is the use of slurs intended to depict that the era (but not the author!) is still racist (“darkie,” “pickaninnies”). This novel definitely has more black characters than previous Bachmans and possibly any King novel up to this point between Bradley and Killian the executive, but possibly the most appalling (I will keep using this word) is a nameless boy with a grievance:

When Richards walked into the lobby, the desk clerk was arguing with a tiny, scruffly black boy in a killball jersey so big that it reached down over his blue jeans to midshin. The disputed territory seemed to be a gum machine that stood inside the lobby door.

“I loss my nickel, honky. I loss my muh-fuhn nickel!”

The boy kicked the plaxteel post of the gum machine, then ran. “Muh-fuhn white honky sum bitch!”

Richard Bachman. The Running Man. 1982.

“Scruffly”? “Honky”?? (I am wondering if “scruffly” here is a typo in my e-book since “scruffy” is used elsewhere.) Here is evidence that the text is racist rather than the times the text is trying to depict; in typical King fashion, you can sense the author trying to depict the times as racist at certain…times, while at others it’s just confusing, as when Richards is being tested for the games with ink blots and responds to one by designating it not “Negro,” but the N-word–the text is fairly opaque about whether Richards might be messing with his ostensible captors…he also does use the word “Negro” to describe one of the ink blots–“‘Two Negro women. Kissing.'”–offering a conflation of my two favorite problematic threads through King’s work, racism and homophobia. The latter takes a backseat to the former in general in this novel, but the treatment of both work together to reinforce the utter failure of the text to transcend 1975 in what’s supposed to be a depiction of 2025:

“I didn’t mean to mouth off,” he said unwillingly. Richards thought he could peg him. Well-off young men with a lot of free time often spent much of it roaming the shabby pleasure areas of the big cities, roaming in well-heeled packs, sometimes on foot, more often on choppers. They were queer-stompers. Queers, of course, had to be eradicated. Save our bathrooms for democracy. They rarely ventured beyond the twilight pleasure areas into the full darkness of the ghettos. When they did, they got the shit kicked out of them.

Richard Bachman. The Running Man. 1982.

You can see the authorial effort to depict the times rather than the text/Richards as racist and homophobic when the “bad guys” at the network who function as our protagonist-Richards’ captors and tormentors voice a parallel between our protagonist’s defining heroic-protagonist trait and racism and homophobia:

“In short, you are regarded as antiauthoritarian and antisocial. You’re a deviate who has been intelligent enough to stay out of prison and serious trouble with the government, and you’re not hooked on anything. A staff psychologist reports you saw lesbians, excrement, and a pollutive gas vehicle in various inkblots.”

Richard Bachman. The Running Man. 1982.

I’m confused by the use of the verb “deviate” for what seems intended to mean the noun “deviant” in this context, and this confusion is an apt representation of that generated by the racism King-Bachman exhibits specifically via his efforts to not be racist: I can see that you meant “deviant” (i.e., to not be racist) but that’s not what you’ve put in the version of your actual text…and not not being racist means…

For more context on/evidence of The Running Man‘s inadvertent racism–or potentially the racism masquerading, or attempting to masquerade, as its opposite–we can look at the depictions of the two primary black characters, Bradley and Killian. Bradley represents a more general problem with the characterization of Richards in that we see he exists only to characterize Richards rather than as a character in his own right. My bigger problem with this use of Bradley is that through it Richards is characterized as what might be designated “Black in spirit” (kind of like the “first Black president” designation for Bill Clinton)–Bradley and Bradley’s family are moved to help Richards because he is an impoverished, alienated, marginalized specimen in this society, as are they. Richards is in a sense sociopolitically Black, and if a version of this game show did exist, it seems very possible that targeted demographics might be more likely to root for a black man to be hunted down and killed rather than a white one–probably this is the real horror of this dystopian futuristic premise for King, the prospect of mainstream America cheering for the white man’s death.

So Bradley is willing to put himself at risk, to essentially sacrifice himself for Richards (it is he who delivers Richards a priest costume, no less), to fight for the greater cause against their shared oppressors. This characterization becomes more revealing juxtaposed with the next party willing to help Richards, Bradley’s white friend via correspondence, Parrakis (who is overweight and evoked with some fairly fat-phobic descriptions). The rising-action escalation in this stage of Richards’ journey, requiring a complication to up the stakes, necessarily implicates race: the police are called because someone is not willing to sacrifice herself to help Richards, and that would be Parrakis’ white mother–she is patently unwilling to help the pseudo-Black Richards–not just unwilling to help/sacrifice, but attempting to actively deter him.

Killian has somewhat similar but different or possibly inverted versions of this problem in that he’s a Black character with status and power–a network executive–but, he’s evil, so this creates and undertone–or really overtone–of horror in the Black man in a position of power using that power against the white man, even if that man is pseudo-black.

Killian is introduced in the text thus:

The man behind the desk was of middle height and very black. So black, in fact, that for a moment Richards was struck with unreality. He might have stepped out of a minstrel show.

Richard Bachman. The Running Man. 1982.

Last semester, when I was teaching an elective on horror at an arts high school in which we read Carrie, one student asked how similar Carrie was to the rest of King’s work, if you’d be able to tell it was him writing it if you didn’t know–a question equally pertinent to King’s work as his alter ego Richard Bachman. To my mind, though some say Carrie is different than King’s other books, the primary giveaway/marker of King’s touch in his debut novel would be the parenthetical references to intruding/subconscious thoughts. But there’s actually another giveaway in connection with the above Running Man passage, and that is invoking comparisons to “minstrel” shows, which Carrie does twice. I was appalled to see this comparison appear in a King book as late as 1999–appearing in the point of view of the nine-year-old girl protagonist of The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon–and probably to later works I haven’t gotten to yet…

To me, The Running Man reinforces that the connective tissue of the Bachman novels is that of a white male protagonist rendered pseudo-Other in his victimization by a larger system, underwritten by the horror of the idea that a white male could be the victim. As much as the original film adaptation diverged from its source material, it retained this fundamental core, and I don’t mean to sound too cynical when I don’t hold out much hope that the latest reboot will represent much progress on this front…

-SCR

Cujo: Eat the Rich

But there’s one good thing that happens
When you toss your pearls to swine
Their attitudes may taste like shit
But go real good with wine

Aerosmith, “Eat the Rich,” 1993.

In Cujo, the materialism of the 1980s American family tears itself apart from the inside, as represented by the family dog gone mad.

Sarah Langan, “Killing Our Monsters: On Stephen King’s Magic,” LA Review of Books, July 17, 2012.

Cujo and his mindless disease-induced/rabid rage represent the materialism eating away at American families–with materialism being a form of consumption, if you will. The novel reinforces this theme in various ways, not least of which is Vic’s job at Ad Worx, which plays a central role in the plot by way of his having to leave town for work, an absence that is essential for the novel’s conceit to work, for Donna to drive out to the Cambers at all. So you–or I–could argue that if Vic hadn’t made this work trip, Tad would not have died. Which means what necessitates Vic’s work trip would also be implicated in Tad’s death, and that would be, broadly, advertising, and more specifically, an unfortunate misinterpretation of red food dye. The whole backstory necessitated by this plot device/necessity provides some interesting insights into the nature of advertising and human psychology–or more specifically the connection between these–by way of the Sharp Cereal Professor spokesperson. The importance of this figure is highlighted by the classic King tic of using a line from his own novel as an epigraph (which in the case of Cujo stands out even more since the novel only has three at the very beginning and most King novels have a lot more than that). This would be the Sharp Cereal Professor’s iconic (in the book’s world) line:

“Nope, nothing wrong here.”

One of my favorite non-King novels is Jonathan Franzen’s The Corrections (2001), which has a sequence I’ve taught across the contexts of both creative-writing and composition classes. In it, an English professor named Chip Lambert is teaching the final class of a college course he calls “Consuming Narratives”:

To test his students’ mastery of the critical perspectives to which he’d introduced them, Chip was showing a video of a six-part ad campaign called “You Go, Girl.” The campaign was the work of an agency, Beat Psychology, that had also created “Howl with Rage” for G—— Electric, “Do Me Dirty” for C—— Jeans, “Total F***ing Anarchy!” for the W—— Network, “Radical Psychedelic Underground” for E——.com, and “Love & Work” for M—— Pharmaceuticals. “You Go, Girl” had had its first airing the previous fall, one episode per week, on a prime-time hospital drama. The style was black-and-white cinema verité; the content, according to analyses in the Times and the Wall Street Journal, was “revolutionary.”

Jonathan Franzen, The Corrections. 2001.

And “revolution,” in another context, usually involves bloodshed.

Franzen highlights the irony of the shifting meanings of “revolution” when the sequence then describes as “revolutionary” and then in detail the content of this campaign, which is “revolutionary” by way of being narrative–that is, presenting a story, in scenes, one that centers on an office employee’s fight against breast cancer with the help of a particular corporation’s software (and with the especially “revolutionary” twist that the employee dies). It’s the narrative nature that makes it more seductive: to Chip’s chagrin, the students drink its Kool-Aid in its entirety. As we discuss in my composition classes, humans are generally more vulnerable to emotional rather than logical appeals, and while narratives are expected to have “logic” in terms of their plot, what they are really vehicles for is emotion. Advertisers seem to have figured this out. Chip wants his students to see the larger narrative at hand, that of the company who has produced the ad campaign’s narrative:

“Well, consider,” [Chip] said, “that ‘You Go, Girl’ would not have been produced if W—— had not had a product to sell. And consider that the goal of the people who work at W—— is to exercise their stock options and retire at thirty-two, and that the goal of the people who own W—— stock” (Chip’s brother and sister-in-law, Gary and Caroline, owned a great deal of W—— stock) “is to build bigger houses and buy bigger SUVs and consume even more of the world’s finite resources.”

Jonathan Franzen, The Corrections. 2001.

This conspicuously unnamed corporation plays a larger role in Franzen’s novel, further underscoring the theme of corporate bloodshed. But it’s advertising specifically that’s implicated in the above “Consuming Narratives” sequence, and how we consume the narratives it frames to make us feel better about our consumption.

“Consumption” is also a term for tuberculosis, which perhaps most famously reveals itself when the afflicted coughs up blood. So it’s probably not a coincidence that Chip’s brother Gary, the owner of the “W—— stock” who defines himself as a “strict materialist,” suffers from what the novel presents as another disease–clinical depression.

King’s Cujo links these and other iterations of “consuming narratives,” revealing the symbolism latent in the monster figures that “consume,” like vampires and zombies. Almost all of the various editions of the novel sport cover imagery emphasizing Cujo’s teeth in a way that evokes these classic monsters: a bite from Cujo is deadly in an even more terrifying way, since it is from the real-life disease of rabies. In a word, consumption is deadly. In more words, it’s deadly in all of these connected forms: getting literally bitten, getting consumed by disease, getting consumed by the desire to consume capitalist goods as well as consuming the narratives that distract you from processing that it’s your own consumption that’s eating you alive….

…like the ouroboros.

The Zingers’ red dye’s replication of blood freaking people out enough to cause a PR crisis (while doing no actual harm in and of itself other than frightening people via the illusion of having caused harm) could highlight the blood on the hands of the advertising industry at large, which you–or I–could also argue is the grease on the wheels of capitalism, that which it could not run without. This reading highlights the parallel between consuming in the capitalist sense and…some other senses.

“Tad? You want to eat?”

“I want to take a nap,” he said around his thumb, not opening his eyes.

“You gotta feed the machine, chum,” [Donna] said.

Donna uses this “feed the machine” expression earlier in the novel in an exchange that’s explicitly connected to an advertisement for food–or an approximation thereof, which is an important distinction since the quoted slogan itself seems to reference its own lack of substance as such:

“What does the ad say? There’s Always Room for Jell-O.”

“Are you trying to make me mad, Donna? Or what?”

“No. Go on and eat. You got to feed the machine.”

When Donna says this to Tad later, her appending the “chum” label to her son after it might then be read less as a term of endearment and more as a figurative invocation of shark bait. Workers have to feed the machine of capitalism and as such function as chum–and the plot basically shows this to be true for the white-collar family of the Trentons and the blue-collar family of the Cambers.

It seems not a coincidence, then, that of the many conspiring factors that might be implicated as ultimately responsible for the death of this innocent child, a major one is a product that can be consumed via eating–specifically a sugary breakfast cereal, more specifically Red Raspberry Zingers.

The prevalence of the color red in the novel as predominantly but not exclusively connected to blood offers another potential Carrie connection….

“The first time I looked in one of those [cereal] boxes, I thought it was full of blood.”

So what does this thematic treatment of materialism eating the family alive say about the representation and role of advertising in Cujo? If advertising frequently offers us unattainable approximations of what life is supposed to be, it’s interesting that this food product offers this approximation of the literal essence of life in a way that thematically reinforces advertising as the lifeblood of our economy–despite in many ways lacking any more substance than smoke and mirrors.

King uses the food-as-blood comparison again to both reinforce this theme and create suspense via mood when a bottle of ketchup breaks in the backseat of the Pinto:

Half a bottle of Heinz had puddled out on the powder-blue pile carpeting of the hatchback. It looked as if someone had committed hara-kiri back there.

King implicitly reinforces the power of advertising in the above passage by having a brand stand in for the general name of the item. He also inverts the food-as-body matter comparison, effectively carrying through the theme:

And . . . a man like Joe Camber surely kept a gun. Maybe a whole rack of them. What pleasure it would give her to blow that fucking dog’s head to so much oatmeal and strawberry jam!

This thought of Donna’s as she debates whether it’s “worth the risk” to make a run for the Cambers’ front door could be read as reflective of the financial risks one must take to get ahead in a capitalist system. In this thematic context, Tad’s death could be read as an indictment of this system when Donna’s taking the risk does not pay off, does not save him.

Vic’s AdWorx partner Roger comes very close to articulating Cujo’s symbolic connection to the book’s consuming themes:

“Sometimes I wonder if you understand what advertising really is. It’s holding a wolf by the tail. Well, we lost our grip on this particular wolf and he’s just about to come back on us and eat us whole.”

Essayist Eula Biss has explored the layered meanings of “consumption”:

“A metaphor is all this really is,” David Graeber writes. He means consumption, which was once the name for a wasting disease, and is now the word anthropologists use for almost everything we do outside of work—eating, shopping, reading, listening to music. Consume, he notes, is from the Latin consumere, meaning “to seize or take over completely.” A person might consume food or be consumed by rage. In its earliest usage, consumption always implied destruction.

Eula Biss. Having and Being Had. 2020.

Biss gets at the contradictory dichotomy that constitutes capitalism’s dark heart in an analysis of an IKEA slogan:

But what I like, what makes me laugh a little about “for people, not consumers,” is the implication that consumers are not people.

Eula Biss. Having and Being Had. 2020.

Which brings us to one of those classic iterations of “Consuming Narratives”: zombies. If this monster is the ultimate symbol of braindead consumers pacified by mass-produced crap, as reinforced by King bestie George Romero setting his zombie-horror classic Night of the Living Dead in a shopping mall, then the advertisers might be vampires. And now the mall itself is a version of the living dead, as played upon in the 2018 South Park episode “Do You Need Puppies?” and last year’s music video for Billie Eilish’s “Therefore I Am“…

Another device in Cujo that can be read through the lens of the novel’s advertising themes is another that is directly connected to Vic’s advertising-related absence: the “Monster Words” he writes down for Tad because he won’t be there to say them to Tad before he goes to bed. Tad has the paper with him and refers to it when they’re trapped in the car. At one point, Vic has a nightmare of Tad yelling at him that the “Monster Words don’t work,” which Tad’s death at the end essentially confirms. And why should they work–Vic made them up just to give Tad peace of mind; they have no reality beyond whatever material effects Tad’s own faith in them can generate. In this sense they illuminate the overlap of the hollow and specifically narrative-based rhetoric at the heart of religion, advertising, and politics. They–or rather, their failure–also complicate a pattern established in previous King plots, the defeat of the monster requiring a head-on/face-to-face confrontation with a verbal articulation of the monster’s evil, which Donna in essence achieves with her climactic confrontation with Cujo, but which via Tad’s death is shown to be not enough. The monster has technically been defeated, but not in time.

So in class ad-man fashion, Vic has essentially sold his own son a form of narrative snake oil via these Monster Words, which really amount to the opposite of the verbal articulation element shown to be required in previous King plots (Danny Torrance’s “false face” call out)–the critical element of this articulation is defining the monster’s true nature. The Monster Words are really the opposite of the true nature, existing to convince Tad there’s not a monster in his closet when actually, the novel seems to show, there is:

And then something happened which Vic never spoke of to anyone in the rest of his life. Instead of hearing Tad’s voice in his mind he was actually hearing it, high and lonely and terrified, a going-away voice that was coming from inside the closet.”

This happens near the end of the novel as Vic is repeating some of the Monster Words to himself, and it precipitates his putting the pieces together to drive out to Joe Camber’s. In conjunction with some of the omniscient narration and the supernatural gloss on Cujo manifesting The Dead Zone‘s Frand Dodd etc. I discussed in my last post, the Monster Words seem to demonstrate that just saying something–and even believing it–is not enough to make it true.

(The horror trope of a monster coming out of the closet also hearkens back to King’s short story “The Boogeyman” from Night Shift, which points to the general problematic treatment of queerness in King’s work.)

That Vic and Roger get to keep the Sharp account seems to validate the sincerity of their advertising rhetoric, which is troublesome. This brings us to the politics connection and thus to the novel’s requisite Nixon reference:

“But isn’t that why we’ve got our asses in a crack? They wanted to believe the Sharp Cereal Professor and he let them down. Just like they wanted to believe in Nixon, and he—”

“Nixon, Nixon, Nixon!” Vic said, surprised by his own angry vehemence. “You’re getting blinded by that particular comparison, I’ve heard you make it two hundred times since this thing blew, and it doesn’t fit!”

Roger was looking at him, stunned.

“Nixon was a crook, he knew he was a crook, and he said he wasn’t a crook. The Sharp Cereal Professor said there was nothing wrong with Red Razberry Zingers and there was something wrong, but he didn’t know it.”

The “something wrong” would be that it looks like blood, or put another way, the problem is the impression it gives of causing harm even though it’s not actually causing harm other than the stress over the impression of harm… When the SC Professor apologizes, it’s not for causing any actual harm, but “because people were frightened.”

Vic highlights an epistemological crux to constitute a moral problem–Nixon knew–making the coverup conscious, not accidental, thus more malignant/amoral. This epistemological framework is reminiscent of another Biblical narrative, the origin, or Genesis narrative, which I’ve described in the past in a way that also shows it to be a “Consuming Narrative” of sorts:

…the narrative in the first book of the Bible, the aptly titled “Genesis,” when Adam and Eve are in the Garden of Eden and everything is perfect except for that one darn tree they’re not allowed to eat the fruit from. Then yada yada yada, the serpent tempts Eve and she eats the fruit from it and gets Adam to too, and bam, they both gain *knowledge*—illustrating how the concrete object of the fruit shows the abstract concept of a transfer of knowledge. The first way this knowledge manifests is that they become aware of their nakedness, and connected to this awareness is an immediate need to cover that nakedness, which would seem to imply that knowledge is inherently connected to shame…and of course the general suffering known as the human condition.

From here.

(Side note: A post on ‘Salem’s Lot gets at another biblical “Consuming Narrative” and its potential religious/political/advertising overlaps:

Official Catholic doctrine holds that after transubstantiation, the bread and wine have actually become Jesus’s body and blood, while my understanding is that other Christian denominations (Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian and the like) maintain that the bread and wine are merely symbols of Jesus’s body and blood. This distinction is where there seems to be the most potential for commentary via the vampiric narrative: the vampire literally drinks blood, as Catholics believe themselves to be doing during what constitutes one of their most sacred sacraments (a sacrament that demands suspension of belief in the physical senses). So it’s almost like the Catholics are using the vampire narrative as a means to figure themselves in the exact opposite role of what they really are to distract from their true nature, in a spin move reminiscent to me at the moment of (Trumpian) politics–accuse someone else of doing what you yourself have done to get the heat off you.

From here.

This would be in line with the Bernaysian rhetoric first discussed in my post on The Shining here…)

In King’s Richard Bachman novel Roadwork, set when Nixon is still President, the protagonist Barton Dawes is depicted as seeing the world through the lens of advertising and how this is also an indictment of consumption in the era of the Energy Crisis. In that novel, Dawes advances a theory that treats television and its attendant advertising as well as the unnecessary things being advertised as a version of Marx’s idea of religion being the opiate of the masses, as well as the Pavlovian dog, which might offer another way to read the figure of Cujo here….

Another iconic horror narrative that embodies our consumption-centric cultural anxieties–and one that probably largely contributes to my interpretation of the larger thematic capitalist commentary latent in Donna’s “You gotta feed the machine, chum” line–is Steven Spielberg’s Jaws. This film is also of interest to me for being part of my personal genesis narrative–this is the movie my parents saw on their first date. Except it wasn’t exactly their first date in the sense that my father did not consider it a date. They worked together and had agreed to go to another co-worker’s wedding; when this turned out to entail only a ten-minute ceremony, my father, so the story goes, felt bad and offered to take my mother to dinner and a movie. The clincher for how un-date-like my father considered this outing is marked by the story’s one surviving line of dialog, my father’s to my mother as they were eating at a Mexican restaurant before going to watch people get eaten by a shark: “You got beans in your hair, bozo.”

Of course, Spielberg’s film doesn’t really show people getting eaten in as much graphic detail as we might expect today, and it doesn’t show the shark that much either, which is considered elemental to the film’s effective development of suspense but, according to the Wikipedia page, originated from a very young and inexperienced Spielberg’s hubristic insistence on filming scenes on the actual ocean instead of a simulation of it.

I brought this up last year in a creative-writing class as an example of how obstacles can create happy accidents (the Chinese character for “crisis” and “opportunity” are the same!). Some of the students had just watched Jaws in a different class. One of these was moved to comment: “I think we can all agree, the shark looks terrible.” I had also just (re)watched the film, and was taken aback: I’d thought the shark looked pretty scary when it finally popped up up on the ship’s deck. But as it was apparently such a consensus, I didn’t even say so. That same night, my cousin-in-law who’s a few years older than me was visiting, and I mentioned that we’d been talking about Jaws in class that day. When she brought up the shark looking scary before I even told her the students thought it wasn’t, I realized the difference was generational: (elder/geriatric) millennials grew up on movies with animatronics for special effects. Kids high-school age now grew up watching Marvel movies with CGI special effects instead. I cite the Jaws example as evidence that they literally see things differently than my generation does. It’s a matter of what your neural pathways were exposed to when they were still developing, how they were, in essence trained: if you grew up on animatronics the CGI stuff looks ridiculous, and vice versa. What looks fake to one generation looks real to another….

Per Lisa Cron’s Wired for Story, narratives similarly condition our brains, which is relevant to film critic Ann Hornaday’s argument that it matters that the overwhelming majority of those in charge of the stories propagated through Hollywood movies are white males (covered in a post on King’s first published Richard Bachman novel Rage). As Matthew Salesses puts it, “The way we tell stories has real consequences on the way we interpret meaning in our everyday lives.” Put another way, the narratives we consume matter.

I essentially cover this in my college rhetoric and composition courses when we take popular culture as our theme and examine how its texts both “reflect” and “shape” our culture. One clip I use to express the principle of how “pop culture inherently normalizes things” is from the show BoJack Horseman, which mentions Ellen: “dancing Ellen makes middle America less afraid of gay people,” listed as an example of the ways this power of pop culture can be used for “good.” Ellen’s a good example of how narratives in pop culture can shift; when she used the mainstream platform of her prime-time sit-com to come out, she alienated a lot of her fan base and didn’t work for years before the culture shifted enough for her to get her daytime TV show. The narrative around how “good” Ellen is has shifted again recently in light of accusations of a toxic workplace environment on the set of this show.

But before that happened, a former student of mine at the University of Houston named Jevh made an appearance on this show, relevant through the lens of “Consuming Narratives” specifically, summed up by the show’s staff thus:

Being a big fan of pranks, Ellen had Jevh and Christian on the show to talk about their creative, epic prank!

After noticing a blank wall in a local McDonald’s, Jevh and Christian decided that something needed to fill the empty space. Seeing a lack of Asian representation in pictures on other walls, Jevh and Christian figured why not them? Using their creative minds and skills, the pranksters took a photo of themselves casually enjoying burgers, put it on a poster similar to the ones in the building, and installed the creation in the empty space! After nearly two months, the poster was noticed by McDonald’s.

McDonald’s is committed to diversity and wants to reflect all of their customers, and they appreciate Jevh and Christian! Ellen delivered the amazing news that McDonald’s wants to hire the two for a marketing campaign! To pay them for the job, McDonald’s gave them each $25,000!

From here.

Maybe you can tell that by the end of this it sounds like an ad for McDonald’s… The comp class I had Jevh in happens to be the only semester I used the rhetoric of advertising as our course theme (as opposed to the broader theme of popular culture I’ve mostly used since then, which still encompasses advertising). Here we see McDonald’s turn a potential PR crisis into an opportunity, a critique into their own ad…and we’re consuming the narrative of how great and generous McDonald’s (and Ellen) is. And most of my students would eat this up, would drink this narrative Kool-Aid, and I would sound a lot like The Corrections‘ Chip teaching his class: Consider that Jevh and Christian would not be getting this money if McDonald’s did not have a product to sell, a product that is unhealthy to consume, thanks, among other things, to an infusion of high-fructose corn syrup, which also looks like blood…

The fake blood amounts to a climactic reveal of the killer’s identity in Scream (1996).

This could offer a metaphor for the more insidious nature of this segment, that it’s an advertisement in disguise: the narrative provides a cover so the viewer doesn’t realize what they’re consuming. That is, we’re consuming narratives that cover up the true nature of what we’re consuming, as well as the larger costs of that consumption.

Consider that if you are what you eat, and you eat meat, you’re dead.

In another iteration of a “Consuming Narrative” in Franzen’s The Corrections, one character, a professional chef, reflects:

She told herself a story about a daughter in a family so hungry for a daughter that it would have eaten her alive if she hadn’t run away. …

And now the time had come, according to the story that Denise told herself about herself, for the chef to carve herself up and feed the pieces to her hungry parents.

Lacking a better story, she almost bought this one. The only trouble was she didn’t recognize herself in it.

Jonathan Franzen. The Corrections. 2001.

This is reminiscent of the story Donna tells herself in coping with her husband’s career choice to peddle consuming narratives to the culture at large. Readers were upset by it, but Tad was essentially fed to his hungry parents, not consumed by Cujo.

-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

The Stand 2020: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (Part II): Larry Underwood’s “Brand New Key” to the Kingdom

Buy it, use it, break it, fix it, trash it, change it, mail, upgrade it
Charge it, point it, zoom it, press it, snap it, work it, quick erase it

Daft Punk, “Technologic,” (2005)

Partner, let me upgrade you
Flip a new page
Introduce you to some new things, and upgrade you
I can (up), can I? (Up), let me, upgrade you
Partner, let me upgrade you, upgrade you

Beyoncé, “Upgrade U,” (2006)

Well, I’ve got a brand new pair of roller skates
You’ve got a brand new key
I think that we should get together
And try them on to see

Melanie, “Brand New Key,” (1971)

Though I’m not the first king of controversy
I am the worst thing since Elvis Presley
To do black music so selfishly
And use it to get myself wealthy
Hey, there’s a concept that works

Eminem, “Without Me,” (2002)

Nelson said, “The analysis of what a reasonable police officer would know in this circumstance is that a business is requesting its help. The suspect [George Floyd] is still there, he’s large and possibly under the influence of alcohol or something else.”

From here.

Will any figure in American history ever as fully embody the figurative resonance of systemic-racism-as-respiratory-plague as George Floyd’s dying refrain of “I can’t breathe“–a refrain that currently reverberates through Stu Redman’s final designation in The Stand of this novel’s narrative-driving superflu as a “black, choking plague“?

In yet another disorienting example of time’s often more cyclical than chronological nature, Derek Chauvin’s trial for Floyd’s murder has unfolded as I’ve drafted this post, while the grand jury indictment of one of the multiple officers involved in Breonna Taylor’s death was issued while I was drafting another post about The Stand and its treatment of the cultural appropriation of music (which is a direct tie-in to this one).

George Floyd memorial in Houston’s Third Ward.

George Floyd’s murder occurred as I was drafting what then turned into a longer series of posts on The Shining whose titular invocation of a “shadow self” derives from Toni Morrison’s usage of the term in Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination (1992), a landmark survey of American literary history re-examining how the white writers who constitute the Western canon have used Blackness in their work exclusively as a means to prop up white identity. Morrison’s touchstone text is conspicuously absent from the discussion in a more recent study co-written by pre-eminent King scholar Tony Magistrale, the definitively titled Stephen King and American History, which happened to be published on July 16, 2020. This study thus appeared, unbeknownst to me at the time, between Part II and Part III of my “Shining History” posts, which cover some remarkably similar/overlapping terrain, if in language perhaps at a different level/threshold of what academics call discourse in the Ivory Tower. (I’ve also discussed an academic essay by this new study’s other co-author, Michael J. Blouin, in the first “Shining History” post.) In their introduction, Magistrale and Blouin echo an idea about King’s work that King himself has articulated:

All this suggested to me that violence as a solution is woven through human nature like a damning red thread. That became the theme of The Stand, and I wrote the second draft with it fixed firmly in my mind.

Stephen King, On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft, 2000. p205.

In King’s multiverse, the gears of History seem to be greased always by violence.

Tony Magistrale and Michael J. Blouin. Stephen King and American History (New York: Routledge, 2020). Emphasis authors’.

This study’s omission of Morrison’s analysis of the “Africanist presence” in American literature exists in its larger omission of any discussion of King’s treatment of race, which, given the scope of the study’s title, seems a little surprising. (It’s even more so given that the study dedicates a full chapter to the other “twin emergent thread” of major problematic-ness I’ve been tracking in my own reading of King’s work–queerness.)

According to an academic take by King scholar Patrick McAleer I mentioned in a post about Roadwork, King “focuses his writing on failure to criticize his peers … to remind the Boomers of what they abandoned and that their infamy remains alive and as a mark of shame…”. I’ve extrapolated from my own reading King’s failures “to provide more equitable representations…of gay people and black people.” A post of mine on Firestarter also sums up a failure in how “King is basically contributing to a larger cultural narrative Trump was able to use as a critical springboard, and might have had more spring for it,” this particular narrative being distrust in the “deep state” intelligence branches of the American government. This, it turns out, basically echoes Magistrale and Blouin’s overarching argument:

As our book illustrates, 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.

Tony Magistrale and Michael J. Blouin. Stephen King and American History (New York: Routledge, 2020). Emphasis authors’.

By their reading, King does this by “tacitly aligning himself with the new historicists…” and treating history as a lower-case h, in a “narrative” manner, history as a composite of many histories or braided narratives, instead of one single dominant master narrative that deserves to be…capitalized (so to speak): History. So by this take, King fails at the critique of what by McAleer’s analysis amounts to Boomer failures. One might argue that Magistrale and Blouin fail in their commentary on this failure by way of overlooking (or Overlooking) Toni Morrison and the entire function of race in American H/history. Which seems worth examining amid the current Texan political climate that’s spread like a contagion to other states via legislation to ban the teaching of “critical race theory,” which seems to amount to banning the teaching that the legacy of slavery has any significant impact on the goings on of right now.

What’s in a Name

In their introduction, Magistrale and Blouin set up a framework facilitated by what amounts to a close reading of names as symbolic of a particular trajectory they’re tracking through King’s oeuvre:

If History (with a capital “H”) provides a finished product to be imposed upon hapless dupes like Jack in The Shining, history (with a lower-case “h”) invites an impish, open-ended work in progress to be enjoyed by unrepressed writers, such as Jake in 11/22/63

Tony Magistrale and Michael J. Blouin. Stephen King and American History (New York: Routledge, 2020).

This is an arc they designate, somewhat ironically from a certain perspective, “’emancipatory,'” which they seem to have come to by way of an analysis of names:

Etymologically, although both names appear to stem from the Latin Jacobus, the name Jack derives from ordinariness, from the status of men as tools, while the more contemporary name Jake is slang for satisfaction. 

Tony Magistrale and Michael J. Blouin. Stephen King and American History (New York: Routledge, 2020).

In an older study of this text, Joseph Reino invokes the significance of names when he notes:

…those two abominations, Flagg and Cross, whose names with their perverted patriotic and religious connotations have by no means been randomly selected. 

Reino, Joseph. Stephen King: The First Decade. NY: Twayne, 1988, p. 64, emphasis mine.

This particularly American thematic axis that “Flagg” and “Cross” constitute offers a relevant framework to dissect the significance of Larry Underwood and Abagail Freemantle’s characters through some critical connections they share:

Larry Underwood, helped along by his 2020 iteration and New York Times’ music critic Wesley Morris, offers a specific point of access for a reading of the text’s “Africanist presence” particularly focused on the treatment of music in The Stand.

In episode 3 of the The New York Times Magazine’s 1619 podcast, “The Birth of American Music,” Morris traces the history of blackface minstrel performances and offers an analysis of their overwhelming popularity with white audiences as a means to alleviate cultural anxiety over the institution of slavery by offering a performance of “an imagined blackness” that functioned to dehumanize black people and thus implicitly justify their enslavement and subjugation. By this analysis, the cultural appropriation of music–specifically white appropriation of Black music–underwrites all of American music and pop culture. Morris unpacks how the ensuing popularity (and dominance) of the blackface minstrel act perpetuated the performance of a Blackness completely imagined, fabricated by white performers who had never met or interacted with Black people, in what amounts to a veritable pandemic of stereotype-spreading. White audiences went so crazy for blackface that, after slavery ended, “black people blacked up and performed as black people who weren’t actually black.” He then discusses the advent of Motown Records as “the antidote to American minstrelsy.”

If American music has descended from what was at its inception a white performance of imagined Blackness, Morris postulates that this performance enabled white people to feel better than black people in a way that made white people feel better about their dependence on the institution of slavery in general: if they were “better” than black people, then it couldn’t be (as) wrong to enslave them. (Especially through his depictions of Magical Negro figures, King often seems to be performing a version of this same “imagined blackness” that Morris traces back through the history of blackface–more on this and Abagail’s character in Part III.) Connecting back to the white “yacht rock” Morris opened with the introduction of, in which he recognized so many (appropriated) elements of Black music, Morris concludes:

…all that history is just very silently coursing through this music. It might not even be aware that it’s even there. It’s so thoroughly atomized into American culture. It’s going to show up in a way that even people making the art can’t quite put their finger on. What you’re hearing in black music that’s so appealing to so many people of all races across time is possibility, struggle. It is strife. It is humor. It is sex. It is confidence. And that’s ironic. Because this is the sound of a people who, for decades and centuries, have been denied freedom. And yet what you respond to in black music is the ultimate expression of a belief in that freedom, the belief that the struggle is worth it, that the pain begets joy, and that that joy you’re experiencing is not only contagious, it’s necessary and urgent and irresistible. Black music is American music. Because as Americans, we say we believe in freedom. And that’s what we tell the world. And the power of black music is that it’s the ultimate expression of that belief in American freedom.

From here.

Larry’s name offers a jumping-off point for how his character embodies this symbolic “underwriting” of history–“Underwood” being a brand of typewriter.

That the typewriter is quite significant in King’s work, a sort of “key” in and of itself, might heighten the general importance of Larry’s character in King’s canon…

That lyrics from “Baby, Can You Dig Your Man?”, credited to Larry Underwood, provide one of the epigraphs for Book 1 further supports the idea that Larry Underwood’s underwriting of history played out via his cultural appropriation of music underwrites the text itself:

The title page for Book 1 seen here attains further resonance in light of the current political debate about the teaching of American history and its connection to the concept of “erasure.” New Yorker writer Jelani Cobb noted last month the introduction of

…bills to ban anti-racism training and to penalize public schools for teaching the 1619 Project were introduced in Republican-controlled state legislatures.

Jelani Cobb, “The Republican Party, Racial Hypocrisy, and the 1619 Project,” The New Yorker, May 29, 2021

The 1619 Project is a challenge to that master narrative of History, aiming to reestablish the significance of slavery to the country’s origins, and 1619 is the year the first slave ships arrived here. Focalizing this date would bring our shadow history out of the shadows. The Stand is, probably, more explicitly about American identity than any of King’s other works, manifest in such things as his use of July 4 as a structural backbone, as can be seen on the title page that this date ends Book 1, inherently meaning it’s a turning point or new beginning in the text, which Larry’s character reinforces when his singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” on July 4 becomes the impetus for him to discover the corpse of Rita Blakemoor.

I didn’t notice the significance of another date linked to Larry until I was watching the ’94 miniseries. Book 1 starts on June 16, but Larry’s character is not introduced until June 19.

June 19 is also known as “Juneteenth” and amounts to another version of an American “Independence Day” and has JUST this month been officially designated as a federal holiday. The significance of the Juneteenth date extends beyond the official federal designation of slavery’s abolition, which actually occurred two and a half years earlier. The Juneteenth date designates when the final enslaved people actually learned that they were technically, legally free. It’s not the date they gained their freedom technically/officially, but the date they gained knowledge of their freedom, which basically illustrates that the freedom can’t exist without the knowledge of it.

It’s not terribly surprising that The Stand repeatedly foregrounds July 4 without any acknowledgment of the significance of June 19. In hindsight it seems like one way to acknowledge the latter would be to have Book 1 range from June 19-July 4 instead of starting June 16. (Though perhaps there is something numerologically interesting about 16 v 19, or 1619…) The more I looked at the Book 1 title page, the more it seemed those sword-fighting figures at its top right were an unwitting representation of that shadowy Africanist presence, of our fight with our own history–or rather, what knowledge we take from it.

With his hit pre-superflu single “Baby, Can You Dig Your Man?,” Larry hasn’t just taken from Black culture by taking the genre of soul–which itself is demonstrated (unwittingly?) to constitute an erasure of Black identity with the text’s summation that “No one seemed to know Larry Underwood was white.” The song constitutes layers of taking, including the language in its title: some googling turned up this history of the phrase originating in AAVE, African American Vernacular English. King uses the word “dig” all the time in his fiction because the phrase entered into (or was appropriated by) mainstream culture in the 70s; his frequent use of the phrase (in addition to his use of “jive”) indelibly mark him as a product of this specific decade/period. The fact that the phrase has a possible connotation meaning “to understand” (as opposed to just “like” or “appreciate”) seems ironic in the light of historical erasures, in keeping with critic Greg Tate’s articulation that:

Africans became African Americans when the language they sang, worshipped, fucked, and dreamed in became–after time, distance, and duress–not Bantu, Swahili, Yoruba, Ga, Ashanti, Wolof, Arabic, or Dogon but English. The African in them, though, was not so easily eradicated by lashing their tongues to Latinate syntax.

Greg Tate, Midnight Lightning: Jimi Hendrix and the Black Experience (2003), p37.

The cultural appropriation or mainstreaming of Black slang like “dig” and “jive” seems almost achieving the same thing in reverse: not switching from African to Latinate syntax, but almost elevating that African language to Latinate–but in so doing, erasing its African-ness and thus its means to assert an independent identity. Interestingly, the text of The Stand even seems to actively obscure the origins of “dig” via Frannie’s account in her journal:

“Digs,” an old British expression, was just replacing “pad” or “crashpad” as an expression for the place you were living in before the superflu hit. It was very cool to say “I dig your digs.” Stupid, huh? But that was life.

Stephen King. The Stand.

Frannie has attributed ownership of this term to an empire; her phrasing “I dig your digs” actually points to two different terms; the imperial ownership of one is credited, while absolutely no mention of the origin of the other meaning is even considered. This becomes even more interesting in the context in which it’s appearing, with Frannie’s journal functioning (in her mind at least) as an account for future generations. A Historical account.

Larry’s character arc becomes a parallel for America’s, demonstrating a need to go from self-serving to community-serving, fully realized once the staging ground of his public execution facilitates the destruction of Flagg:

[Larry] ends up being the explicitly designated “sacrifice” in this pseudo-Biblical narrative. Larry’s pre-pandemic chapters provide two refrains, both initially voiced by women, that sum up his pre-pandemic character that seems reflective of a largely American selfishness/self-interestedness: “‘You ain’t no nice guy,’” from a one-night stand, and “‘You’re a taker, Larry,’” from his mother.

From here.

Which brings us to another connotation of Larry’s last name the text itself points out:

In the shade of this monument Nick Andros and Tom Cullen sat, eating Underwood Deviled Ham and Underwood Deviled Chicken on potato chips.

Stephen King. The Stand.

Though perhaps it’s not insignificant that this iteration is doubly linked to “Deviled”…

This also provides another link between Larry and Mother Abagail’s characters–Mother Abagail encounters Flagg in the form of weasels who take the live chickens she made a long and arduous journey to obtain for the sake of the first arrivals (Nick, Tom, Ralph, et al), and then once they get there, Abagail slaughters a pig for everyone to eat when Ralph is too squeamish to:

Neither of the men ate very well, but Abagail put away two chops all by herself, relishing the way the crisp fat crackled between her dentures. There was nothing like fresh meat you’d seen to yourself.

Stephen King. The Stand.

This becomes a metaphor/objective correlative in the form of food: the sacrifice of a body is required, replicating the religious symbolism in food, the eating (or consumption) of the body in the sacrament of the Eucharist (which Catholics somehow take literally even though they don’t take the Garden of Eden Genesis story literally). Larry is that sacrifice (as is the inexplicably undeveloped Ralph, somewhat undermining Larry’s importance in this role somewhat).

This other Underwood brand also happens to be juxtaposed in the above passage with a monument, more specifically, one of the other aforementioned links between Larry and Mother Abagail:

…a statue of a Marine tricked out in World War II kit and weaponry. The plaque beneath announced that this monument was dedicated to the boys from Harper County who had made the ULTIMATE SACRIFICE FOR THEIR COUNTRY.

Stephen King. The Stand.

The Underwood Typewriter Company’s Wikipedia page notes that they produced carbines during WWII.

The Student Has Become…

My time at Rice was bookended by English classes with a (white) professor named Wesley Morris, modernism my very first semester and postmodernism my very last. In the former we read (among other things) Ernest Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises and William Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury (both of which I’d just read the previous year as a high-school senior); in the latter we read Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49 and listened to The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. (My second-to-last semester I took a class on magical realism with Toni Morrison scholar Lucille Fultz (though I did not know she was a Morrison scholar at the time I did my presentation on Beloved) and also a class on Religion and Hip Hop by Anthony Pinn.)

Rice as an institution is currently reckoning with its own history, its namesake William Marsh Rice having owned fifteen slaves, and thus the university’s foundational wealth derives from slave labor. There is a statue of Rice at the center of the university’s main quad–the geometry and design of the buildings are laid out around it as their architectural focal point. A coalition of black students is demanding–as part of a longer list of demands–that this statue be taken down.

But as we’re learning, white people are fond of their monuments and the narratives associated with them.

Fran Goldsmith in The Stand 2020 Episode 3, “Blank Page,” December 31, 2020 (more on Stand 2020 costumes and sets here).

Blouin was apparently a student of Magistrale’s at the University of Vermont, and on January 1 of this very year, published his own book-length study of King on a topic implied by the title to be nearly as broad as the one they co-wrote: Stephen King and American Politics. (Ironically, this book was published by a British press.) This study’s final chapter focuses on The Stand as a “representative” text that ties together the book’s whole argument:

As characters rush to restore recognisable patterns of behaviour, The Stand lambasts organisational politics as a core deficiency in human nature, a misguided attempt that invariably ends in the horrific abuse of power. At the same time, King’s text cannot exorcise its political shadow (that is, the imminent reformation of a social order under endless revision). This representative work thus ties together threads discussed throughout the preceding chapters.

Blouin, Michael J.. Stephen King and American Politics (Horror Studies) (p. 195). University of Wales Press. Kindle Edition.

When Blouin argues that:

…because The Stand cannot disavow the constitutive clash between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ that serves as its crux, the novel presents political wrangling as the bedrock of American life.

Blouin, Michael J.. Stephen King and American Politics (Horror Studies) (p. 195). University of Wales Press. Kindle Edition.

I feel like he’s echoing in different terms what I’ve discussed about the work of the (shunned) scholar Antony Sutton on the Hegelian dialectic rhetoric of “contrived conflict”…

Blouin refers to a “political shadow,” but he, too, omits mention of Toni Morrison or the nature of the “shadow” as she invokes it as the basis of American race relations hearkening back to the foundational institution of slavery. Yet Blouin argues that The Stand embodies/enacts the culture’s shift to neo-liberalism (which we may or may not now be shifting away from), and this shift to neo-liberalism amounts to a shift from an emphasis on politics proper to an emphasis on economic imperatives:

Over the last fifty years, this unique rationality spread as the United States curtailed homo politicus and idealised homo economicus.

Blouin, Michael J.. Stephen King and American Politics (Horror Studies) (p. 11). University of Wales Press. Kindle Edition.

I’d say this shift has only increased inequality because the shadow that is our economic foundation trickles down from inequality–from income generated by slavery.

John Sears’ academic study Stephen King’s Gothic (2011) provides another potential interesting framework:

Sears is concerned with examining how encounters with otherness are confronted, worked through, and recurrently left unresolved in King’s work. His primary argument is that such encounters are frequently interrogated through King’s preoccupations with the figure of the writer and the acts and products of writing. These concerns, Sears suggests, are detectable throughout King’s oeuvre and are structural to his Gothic vision, which locates texts and their production and consumption “at the moral and political centres of the universes [King] constructs,” establishing writing as crucial to his construction of social relations (3). Via close-reading, Sears demonstrates how key words and ideas are embedded throughout King’s work, sometimes revealing themselves to the reader in unexpected ways.

Natasha Rebry, “Reviews,” Ilha do Desterro nº 62, p. 359-360, Florianópolis, jan/jun 2012 (emphasis mine)

This framework is connected to Magistrale and Blouin’s New Historicist reading of King’s failed critique of the master narrative of History–which is constructed from the evidence of documentation, of texts. Consider how this functions in the case of George Floyd’s murder, as summed up (again) by Jelani Cobb reading it in juxtaposition with the systematic erasure of the documentation of the Tulsa Massacre:

The immediate aftermath was marked by a different kind of campaign—one of erasure. Official documents disappeared, some victims were buried in unmarked graves, and accounts of the violence were excised from newspaper archives. 

…Ninety-nine years separate the tragedy that took place in Tulsa from the one that occurred last May in Minneapolis, two very different incidents in very different times. Yet they share commonalities. The violence in Tulsa was orchestrated by mobs but also overseen by law enforcement and deputized civilians. The erasure in Floyd’s case began immediately after he died, with a police report stating that he had expired as the result of a “medical incident during police interaction,” while making no mention of the fact that an officer had held his knee on Floyd’s neck. But for a cell-phone video shot by a seventeen-year-old, Darnella Frazier, the official—and false—account of Floyd’s death might have held.

Jelani Cobb, “George Floyd, The Tulsa Massacre, and Memorial Days,” The New Yorker, May 25, 2021.

In Carrie, King added bits of various (fictional) historical documentation that purported to offer an account of what happened with Carrie White (what’s in that name?), which, juxtaposed with the sections of traditional narration showing the reader what “really” happened, are shown to get things flat-out wrong. The message: Don’t trust History. One of these explicating texts in Carrie is called “The Shadow Exploded.”

Two musical “texts” play pivotal and not unrelated roles in The Stand; one is more connected to an individual, Larry Underwood’s “Baby, Can You Dig Your Man,” while the other, “The Star-Spangled Banner,” credited to Francis Scott Key, is connected to the country as a collective. These texts, or rather their “production and consumption,” carry out a similar function to Carrie‘s “The Shadow Exploded“–to obscure and erase, a function carried out with varying degrees of intention.

Which makes the cover of Blouin’s book a little…richer:

“And to the republic, for which it STANDS…”

A Race to Remember

In 2020, Larry Underwood’s race has changed from white to Black. Updating or “upgrading” Larry from white to this particular race is significant in light of how this character’s arc in the novel revolves around the cultural appropriation of music in potentially problematic ways that connect him to the novel’s only original Black character, Mother Abagail, and in ways that it seems like changing his character to Black would, in theory, nullify: Larry can’t be “stealing” from Black culture if he’s Black himself. I’m not the only one who made this assumption:

A subtle, yet important change to the story comes in the form of Larry Underwood, who’s played by Jovan Adepo (Watchmen) here. Stephen King’s original iteration of Underwood was that of a white man co-opting Black music for his own fame. The character was brought to life in the original mini-series almost verbatim to the way he was written, but in the upcoming CBS All Access iteration, Underwood is a Black man, which takes that antiquated race plotline out of the mix entirely.

From here.

If only. It seems a little presumptuous to refer to the “co-opting” of “Black music” as antiquated.

Asked if changing the characters’ backgrounds (rock star Larry Underwood is white in the book for example, and Black in the new series) was simply a matter of refreshing the characters for a more diverse era, showrunner Benjamin Cavell tells Den of Geek, “That was certainly part of it, in terms of making the main set of characters, however many there are, not all white guys and Frannie.”

Cavell adds, “It was important and felt like it made our story feel both more universal and also, frankly, more rooted in 2019 or 2020. Our cast felt like it just had to look more like the America of 2019 and 2020. King had said that if he were doing it himself, and writing it now, that he would have done that too. It was just a clear upgrade to do that.”

From here.

This statement seems to reflect a (white-man) mindset that changing characters’ race and/or gender is as simple as flipping a switch–boom: representation. But per Matthew Salesses’s Le Guin Test (my name for his concept), it’s a tad more complicated, and more so for Larry than for other characters, I would argue, because of the specifics of his original character’s story arc, and because his race is changed to the same race whose treatment via Mother Abagail in the original has been noted as one of the most prominent examples of the (recurring) “magical negro” figure in King’s oeuvre.

In one such critique, Nigerian-American sci-fi writer Nnedi Okorafor (who even wrote a short story called “The Magical Negro”) invokes Le Guin in a different way, using the concept of Le Guin’s classic story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” as a metaphor for the way the “magical negro” trope operates:

Le Guin weaves a tale whose center is a utopian society called Omelas where everyone is content. There are no crimes, no enemies, no wars; all is good. Then, well into the story, a child is introduced. This child was forced to dwell in a basement under one of the beautiful public buildings of Omelas where he or she (it is not disclosed if the child is a boy or a girl) is tortured.

It is the existence of the child, and their knowledge of its existence, that makes possible the nobility of their architecture, the poignancy of their music, the profundity of their science.

In the case of the Magical Negro, like the child in Le Guin’s story, it is he or she who must make the sacrifice so that everything in the story can be possible.

From here.

Larry Underwood is not literally magical as Mother Abagail is, but we’ve established that the concept of “sacrifice” is critical to his character and to Mother Abagail’s. That Larry Underwood is so significantly linked to Mother Abagail is one facet of what makes Larry’s “upgrade” to Black in the 2020 series problematic. King appears to be (overly) fond of Black Jesus figures, pointing out in On Writing his own cheekiness in the naming of The Green Mile‘s John Coffey how the character’s initials highlight this function (alongside Mother Abagail, John Coffey is one of the most prominent magical negro figures in King’s oeuvre). The title of Larry’s album, Pocket Savior, further underscores this aspect of his character’s function, though in the book the album cover itself doesn’t seem to:

The album cover was a photo of Larry in an old-fashioned clawfoot tub full of suds.

Stephen King. The Stand.

But the 2020 series goes further via the album cover’s imagery, which is visible behind Larry as he prepares to perform in episode 2, “Pocket Savior”:

The Stand 2020 Episode 2, “Pocket Savior,” December 24, 2020

In the book Larry is also ready to abandon his rock-star identity quite quickly, not revealing it to anyone he meets post-superflu, but in this same episode where he meets Rita Blakemoor, he takes her to see the evidence of his identity/success:

The Stand 2020 Episode 2, “Pocket Savior,” December 24, 2020

(When Heather Graham’s Rita Blakemoor says that Larry could be “up there forever” on this “Pocket Savior” billboard featuring him in explicitly crucified imagery…is she referring to the inevitable permanence/effects of foundational conflicts enacted by musical cultural appropriation…?)

The linkage between Mother Abagail and Larry Underwood is heightened by the addition of Mother Abagail singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” in her backstory scene in the Uncut version; in the 1978 original, she still sings in the white talent show (and not the “minstrel show”), but the scene ends after she sings her “medley of Civil War songs.” With the addition of the Banner, King also adds the prefacing erasure-narrative of Abagail’s thanking President Lincoln for what he “did for me and mine,” i.e., the abolition of slavery.

The figure designated the “monster shouter” is linked to Larry’s arc and the music industry in a way that depicts this industry as exploitative and monstrous, offering the possibility that in so doing it’s critiquing Larry’s cultural appropriation for this industry as monstrous, except that mainly at the end of the day it seemed more like the text was critiquing the industry for exploiting Larry in a way that made him more of a cog/victim in a way that offers a stronger contrast/counterpoint for his shift to an active leader in the Boulder Free Zone. In the process, the text never fully acknowledges Larry’s active participation in exploitation–instead seeming to figure his use/appropriation as actually the opposite of racist, via the counterpoint of his racist mother’s reaction to his song. Larry’s appropriation can thus be defended as “respecting” or “honoring” or “appreciating” Black culture; if he was racist, by a certain “logic,” he would not want to be (mis)taken for Black himself. But per Wesley Morris, Larry is taking a cultural expression, essentially obscuring the soul genre’s origin in marginalization, which is to obscure the marginalization itself, to obscure the history, erase it.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar plays the “monster shouter” in the ’94 version; in 2020, we hear the monster shouter but never see him. Another figure we see in ’94 and who’s been changed to a woman (and in keeping with my previous analysis, correspondingly downplayed) is one of the most offensive characters in King’s canon, the “Rat-Man,” which the text uses primarily in conjunction with Larry, and which the ’94 miniseries gives even more prominence to (in partial juxtaposition with Abdul-Jabbar’s monster-shouter). This character, Black in both the novel and ’94 miniseries, encapsulates in large part a lot of King’s general problems in his treatment of Blackness: in the (uncut) novel, he acts weirdly like a pirate for some reason and highlights his own racial difference by referring to Larry as “Wonder Bread,” and by referring to himself by name as the “Rat-Man.” That this character gets played up even more in the ’94 miniseries was more than a little disturbing. The 2020 character billed as the “Rat Woman” (shifted if not “upgraded” from black man to white woman) never even interacts with Larry that I saw, and mainly seems to function as decoration for the New Vegas cell-block-like hotel balconies.

When Larry is introduced in episode 2, he is trying to play a poorly attended show to promote his new album Pocket Savior without his sick-with-superflu bandmates. He sits solo with his acoustic guitar and introduces, by name, the song “Baby, Can You Dig Your Man?” It was several rewatches of this scene before I understood what Larry mumbles after naming the song here: “Here’s what ‘Baby, Can You Dig Your Man?’ sounded like…before it was used to sell fucking cologne.” But before Larry can start to play it, in stumbles (white) Wayne Stukey, inebriated, sick, and hollering that he bets Larry “made a nice chunk of change off that…put you right on the map, huh?” Larry shoots back that Wayne must be “getting high off his own supply,” which we understand at this point, less than seven minutes into the episode, is highly hypocritical of Larry, whom we have already seen snorting a supply he presumably got…from someone, which then implies Larry is being disingenuous in this scene in a way that validates Wayne’s accusations: by way of a bit too much expositional detail, Wayne announces that when they were roommates, he and Larry used to listen to “my records” and that when Larry moved out he “stole stuff, too,” and that that’s “not all” Larry “stole.” Wayne then flies into a rage as he ascends the stage declaring that Larry “stole my hook and chorus,” and a clumsy fist-fight ensues.

The Stand 2020 Episode 2, “Pocket Savior,” December 24, 2020

A bit later, Larry has managed to extract his superflu-sickened mother from the overrun hospital, and is lugging her in a wheelchair up the steps in front of her apartment building (in a thunderstorm, no less) when Wayne pulls up and gets out of his car. “Fucking thief!” he screams, brandishing a pistol, his tube neck very swollen. “I’ll kill you, bitch!” When Wayne says “I’ll end you,” Larry, incredulous, replies, “Over a fucking song?” Wayne is apparently too weak to fire his pistol, and Larry gets his mother upstairs. Later, after she’s died, he comes down and sees Wayne sitting on the ground in the rain; Larry goes out not to help him but to get the drugs he knows Wayne must have in his car (he indeed turns out to have a lot). Larry initially tries to frame his request for the drugs as being for Wayne’s sake, claiming they’ll “take the edge off, that’s the least I could do.” As Larry keeps asking for the stash, Wayne’s only reply, in a tone that’s a bit too pleased for a dying man uttering his last words, is: “You’ll never be famous now.” Larry gets the drugs, declaring the now-dead Wayne a “piece of shit,” which the viewer is likely to read in this moment as a more accurate descriptor for Larry himself.

So in the original (Uncut) text (and ’94 miniseries), we have a white Larry engaging in a form of broader cultural “stealing” in the genre of his song and sound of his voice; in 2020 we have a Black Larry engaging in a different (if not unrelated) form of stealing, directly plagiarizing the (same) song in a way that, with “cultural appropriation” and its ethics/acceptability remaining a hotly debated topic, is more likely to read as unequivocally “wrong” to a mainstream white normative audience. From the degree to which 2020 Wayne is incensed over the wrong done, the extent to which he feels the need to avenge it on his deathbed, you’d think Larry had murdered his mother rather than stolen a “hook and chorus.”) Larry had to be upgraded to Black which meant he couldn’t steal Black music, but he had to steal something, since he is the “Pocket Savior,” after all, and in order for Larry’s redemption arc to work he has to start out as a “piece of shit,” someone who takes more than he gives. Larry’s stealing from a roommate is a tidbit in the Uncut to further characterize his pattern as a “taker,” but with the character’s racial update, per Salesses, the implications of Larry’s “taking” necessarily change.

Culture lag, [Larry] thought distractedly, what fun it all is.

Excerpt From: Stephen King. The Stand. iBooks.

Also, if the text of the 2020 show validates/legitimizes Wayne’s claim that Larry stole his “hook and chorus,” that means that in 2020, a white man still wrote the Black essence parts of “Baby, Can You Dig Your Man?” and by way of Larry’s necessary redemption arc, designates Larry’s plagiarizing-taking as a problem larger/more significant than Wayne’s appropriating-taking. It reinforces the idea that Wayne “owns” this song (or at least its essence).

Part of the issue with cultural appropriation, in a dominant culture taking from a marginalized one, is that it obscures/erases the meaning of the material being appropriated in a way that threatens to obscure/erase the identity of the group being taken from. Musical forms created by marginalized groups are often specifically created as a means to cope with that marginalization. When the dominant culture appropriates, it is taking the marginalized group’s means of coping. It is perpetuating/continuing the pattern that necessitated the creation of that form in the first place, further marginalizing and disempowering.

The “Blues Hammer” clip from the 2001 movie Ghost World showcases a white bro band singing about picking cotton, demonstrating simultaneously white awareness of and obliviousness to the fact that blues as a form originates from slavery.

For Jones, “the idea of a white blues singer” was a “violent contradiction of terms.”

Jackson, Lauren Michele. White Negroes (p. 12). Beacon Press. Kindle Edition.

At this point, the dominant culture has obscured these roots to such an extent that the appropriation is basically constant and unconscious.

…If appropriation is everywhere and everyone appropriates all the time, why does any of this matter?

The answer, in a word: power.

Jackson, Lauren Michele. White Negroes (p. 3). Beacon Press. Kindle Edition.

When Mother Abagail performs the Banner in the Uncut, she demonstrates the “power” of music on multiple levels: King seems to be using it consciously as an example of music’s power to overcome racism (in a naive and oversimplified way), while unconsciously it demonstrates music’s power to perpetuate a revisionist historical narrative in which Black people should not be angry at white people for slavery but rather grateful to them for abolishing it.

Both of these pieces, among the oldest in the collection, help to establish jazz and hip-hop as part of the same continuum of expression—and they help ground [Greg] Tate’s contention that black art is a centuries-long strategy for “erasing the erasure.” 

Hua Hsu, “The Critic Who Convinced Me That Criticism Could Be Art,” The New Yorker, September 21, 2016.

King’s work, and love of rock music/infusion of rock music into his work…is a “record” (if an implicit one) of Michele Jackson’s summation (which seems synonymous with Morris’s): 

American music, whether it wants to or not, evinces the whoop, the whisper, the whole existence of black America.

Jackson, Lauren Michele. White Negroes (p. 12). Beacon Press. Kindle Edition.

Performance Anxiety

Larry and Mother Abagail both have musical performance anxiety dreams linked to Flagg, which could be read as symbolic of anxiety of their manifestations as performances of Morris’s “imagined blackness.” The general sensitivity to cultural appropriation as a topic in the culture seems related to the attendant shame, or anxiety, of our nation’s origins and current capitalist economy being rooted in the institution of slavery. There is a history “very silently coursing through” a more specific piece of music, this Anthem. 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. Which means the Anthem encodes the very covert rhetoric King codes as evil, the type of evil that destroys itself.

The drama of Larry’s drug addiction was definitely amped up for 2020, but to no real payoff; no real struggle is dramatized beyond a flash of a montage shot of Larry dumping a bottle of pills down the drain once in Boulder. The increased focus on it before this point recalls the black heroin addict in the Uncut’s “No Great Loss” chapter in a way that threatens to tip the black-man-as-drug-addict into a stereotype, though I suppose white Wayne’s representation as a parallel addict (in this vein) helps undercut this. But the fact that Larry’s insistence on carrying a duffel bag of drugs around with him–the one he takes from Wayne–for much of the initial part of the series ends up having no narrative impact means all it’s doing is reinforcing the stereotype of black-man-as-addict.

Another change for Larry is that in 2020, Rita Blakemoor is reinstated. Penning the ’94 miniseries, King merged her character with Nadine’s; it seems the main narrative distinction of having them be two different women is that Larry gets to have sex with Rita Blakemoor, while he it’s very important to the plot that he not have sex with Nadine, per the Dark Man’s orders and Nadine’s character arc.

The use of rats comes into play via what might seem like one of the major changes in Larry’s 2020 storyline but ultimately isn’t really: instead of the iconic Lincoln Tunnel sequence, Larry (and, for a bit, Rita) pass through the underground tunnels of the NYC sewer system. This change could be a product of the film medium: the horror derives in the novel from taking place in pitch blackness, which in prose can be rendered from Larry’s internal perspective, while on screen it can pretty much only be shown externally; the ’94 miniseries faithfully executes this sequence minus the detail of the tunnel being inexplicably bright enough to see the actors. (The Lincoln-to-sewer-tunnel conversion seems like it also might be another nod to It.) In the sewers we get what for me was probably the biggest gross-out moment of the whole 2020 series: the corpse of Larry’s mother appears floating in the sewage, speaking to him in between rats crawling out of her mouth. (Before that, Rita being driven to abandon the sewer tunnel by rats engulfing her shoulders and hair channels a sequence in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.)

As one article notes, in 2020 we don’t see Rita’s death, or rather, Larry’s discovery of it, which “feels like it’s missing” (it’s in the Uncut novel) and seems to me to undercut a lot of the purpose Rita is supposed to serve in developing Larry’s character arc. And, as noted earlier, in the Uncut Rita’s death also provides a key connection between Larry and “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

Another moment the National Anthem appears in the Uncut is during the first meeting of the entirety of the Boulder Free Zone. The Anthem has become a bit more controversial since 1990 for reasons specifically related to racial injustice–and more specifically about the government’s, more specifically, the police’s, role in that so that it might no longer provide the “vision of national unity” it once did…

So I had a feeling the 2020 adaptation would not give us the saccharine-sweet communal singing of it to signify unity that we get in the book. In the novel, Larry watches Stu MC the meeting from the crowd for this scene, but in 2020, Larry is up on stage and actually spells Stu when Stu gets nervous, taking the mic and warming up the crowd, a moment where we see him putting his questionable past to more productive use (though it should be noted he takes the initiative to do so at Frannie’s suggestion). And no one sings anything. Good.

What we get in lieu of the Banner-singing at the big meeting scene comes a bit later: in episode 4, “The House of the Dead,” when the electricity in Boulder is finally being turned back on, the crowd starts cheering as we hear the licks of an electric guitar, the camera panning over to reveal its source: above the crowd from a rooftop Larry is playing what I initially thought was “The Star-Spangled Banner” but then realized was “America the Beautiful.” Which seems like a way to have Larry play the Banner without really playing it, a nod to Jimi Hendrix’s rendition of the national anthem at Woodstock.

The Stand 2020 Episode 4: “The House of the Dead,” January 7, 2021
From here.

Some prefer “America the Beautiful” over “The Star-Spangled Banner” due to the latter’s war-oriented imagery; others prefer “The Star-Spangled Banner” for the same reason. 

From here.

Are the writers offering an implicit/unconscious argument that “America the Beautiful” should be the new anthem? Perhaps Melanie’s “Brand New Key” being the credits song for the “Pocket Savior” episode would further support this–get rid of the old Francis Scott Key, and everything he stands for…

The 2020 reference to Hendrix might further illuminate another function of reinstating Rita Blakemoor: to show Black Larry have sex with her. When Rita first appears in the book, she’s “dressed in expensive-looking gray-green slacks and a silk off-the-shoulder peasant blouse,” but in 2020, Rita’s inaugural outfit has been upgraded to a pristine white skirt suit, and when we (and Larry) first see her in this getup sitting straight-backed on a bench beneath an umbrella, the shot seems intended to invoke an impressionist painting. And the white suit seems designed to…heighten her whiteness?

The Stand 2020 Episode 2, “Pocket Savior,” December 24, 2020

Her sex scene with Larry is by far the most graphic in the series, seemingly lingered on to highlight the contrast in the couple’s respective skin tones. (I’ll skip the screen shot of that.)

What does this have to do with Jimi Hendrix? Per the critic Greg Tate, author of Midnight Lightning: Jimi Hendrix and the Black Experience (2003), Hendrix’s status encompasses “color-blind savior”/”Racial Paradigm Shifter” (8), “a Black artist who stepped way on the other side of America’s racial/musical/political divide…glaringly beloved by The Devilish White Man” (12), “consciously (and some might say unconscionably) marketed to the world as if he were not Black” (29), “a supersignifier of Post-Liberated Black Consciousness … who tried to show by example what life as a Black Man without fear of a white planet might look like, feel like, taste like” (30). It might be this last especially that means that:

Hendrix was not the first Black American male to take loads of white women to his bed, but he was the first one for whom that was read as a positive attribute by his white male fandom.

…Hendrix overturned the most tragedy-laden of American taboos by showing up with a blaring phallic symbol and baring it longer, louder, and lustier than his paler counterparts.

Greg Tate, Midnight Lightning: Jimi Hendrix and the Black Experience (2003), pp27-28.

Notably, the (near-)exception to this rule involves the Banner:

(Note, however, that in 1969 Hendrix was threatened by five hooligans who promised some Texas justice if he performed the National Anthem one night in Dallas. Says Rorry Terry, “The leader … said ‘Well you tell that fuckin’ n* if he plays the Star-Spangled Banner in this hall tonight he won’t live to get out of the building.’ Hendrix pshawed, went on to Oh Say Can You See it in his own inimitable style, and nothing went down. …)

Greg Tate, Midnight Lightning: Jimi Hendrix and the Black Experience (2003), p28.

That Larry is first shown attempting to play an acoustic version of “Baby” seems an intentional counterpoint setup for the moment in Episode 4 when electricity–or “power”–is regained that invokes both Jimi Hendrix but also Bob Dylan, whom Tate notes Hendrix idolized. By Tate’s analysis, Hendrix generally seems to be iterating what Wesley Morris described as black people donning blackface:

There’s no way, though, that Hendrix was naive about how the race game was played in the world. Life in segregated Seattle in the ’40s and ’50s and in Kentucky where he was stationed while an Army man in the ’60s surely left plenty of scars under the skin. The chitlin circuit’s separate and unequal constellation of ghetto bars, roadside joints, swank theatres, and fancy-dan nightclubs, those places where Black artists had no choice but to make their stand … would have quickly seen to that.

But Hendrix had sky-high musical ambitions, not least being to play a kind of high-volume phantasmagorical guitar music that required white patronage and demanded he not be read as racially threatening or intimidating.

Greg Tate, Midnight Lightning: Jimi Hendrix and the Black Experience (2003), p18.

Turns out Hendrix has something in common with King per Magistrale and Blouin’s analysis of King’s “Vietnamization”: “Hendrix seems to have rethought allegiance to the American flag in Southeast Asia and the protest movement thereof” (Tate 21). (He also “read science fiction incessantly” (Tate 19)).

And but so…”Hendrix came along at a time in world history when only white boys were supposed to be handed rock star badges” (Tate 14) and yet, rock and roll is a form appropriated from Black culture in the first place, via Chuck Berry, who sang “Nadine“…

Durand Jones performs the 2020 version of “Baby, Can You Dig Your Man?”

But actor Jovan Adepo has said that he was channeling/inspired by Gary Clark, Jr., an artist “best known for his fusion of bluesrock and soul music with elements of hip hop” and who in 2020 won a Grammy for not only “Best Rock Song” but also “Best Rock Performance” for the flag-imagery- and Hendrix-invoking “This Land”:

The flag imagery here provides a powerful demonstration of how flags specifically connote and contain history…and in connection how music (in some cases directly about them…) does. King uses lyrics from Woody Guthrie’s “This Land”–the source material Clark Jr is twisting on its head here–as one of the epigraphs for The Stand‘s Book 3.

Repetitive Refrains

Larry’s character gains new agency in at least two ways in 2020. The climax of his arc is in Episode 8, the penultimate episode itself titled “The Stand.” One good dramatic change is that in 2020 Nadine does not kill herself before the three Standers arrive in Vegas from the Free Zone; instead, Larry is able to reveal to her the truth of what she’s really turned into and that Flagg is just using her, which then causes her to take the leap that kills both her and Flagg’s unborn child. Not great for Nadine’s agency but good for (Black) Larry’s. Then Flagg sends Larry part of Nadine’s head as an intimidation tactic, but Larry turns the meaning of this…on its head, able to read it as a sign that Flagg is weakening rather than strengthening as Flagg intends him to read it. Larry’s arc is strengthened alongside Lloyd’s as Lloyd’s refusing to kill Larry is the occasion for him to take his own stand against Flagg, which Lloyd never does in the book. Flagg wants Lloyd to kill Larry because Larry also does something he doesn’t in the book: he starts chanting “‘I will fear no evil.'” This is shown to inspire others present to rebel, which in the book happens for a less concrete reason that Larry is only indirectly rather than directly responsible for.

But there’s a problem with this particular aspect of Larry’s agency–where he got it from.

The Stand 2020 Episode 7, “The Walk,” January 28, 2021.

Larry got the refrain from Stu, which effectively means Black Larry must use white man’s language–in the form of Stu, who effectively represents its patriarchal biblical origins–to save the day. My wife recently referred to the idea of proper or “white” language being presented like it’s “the key to the kingdom” in academia and elsewhere (an idea explored at some length in the book Heavy: An American Memoir by Kiese Laymon, who has just joined the Rice English faculty: “always speak the king’s English in the presence of white folk”). In this scene from “The Walk” we see that it’s really Stu pulling the strings on the climactic Vegas action in “The Stand” all the way from his desert culvert, just like it’s really the white showrunner paying lip service to progress while pulling the strings on the updated/”upgraded” characters of color behind the scenes.

-SCR

The Stand 2020: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (Part I)

On the audio commentary of his own adaptation for television of The Shining (1997), King comments that “the network giveth and the network taketh away.”


Brown, Simon. Screening Stephen King : Adaptation and the Horror Genre in Film and Television, University of Texas Press, 2018. p151.

Adapt It

It’s hard to isolate the most culturally significant element of the 2020 adaptation of what’s arguably one of Stephen King’s most important works: The Stand. Is it that the series adapting the narrative of a superflu killing off almost all of humanity wrapped production in early March of 2020, just as a global pandemic was declared? Is it that restaging this “epic” narrative of good v. evil that’s been reiterated (reincarnated?) several times gives us a chance to rectify past mistakes? Is it that “King’s eyes and prolific hands are all over this adaptation,” including episodes penned by King’s own son, Owen? Is it that King himself penned a “new” ending for the ninth and final “coda” episode?

A further point of interest for me is how the 2020 adaptation connects the gaps between where I am in my (attempted) chronological reading of King’s work and where I am in writing about it. Finishing the novel IT (1986) not long after watching the new Stand series is an almost cosmically charged experience, or at the least an illuminating one. Both of these novels of King’s play with and question the very concept of “chronology,” and could compete for King’s most ambitious work. (Elements of their cosmos will be further threaded together via The Dark Tower series.) Other connections between these texts (and their various iterations) include:

-The phrase “‘Be true. Stand,'” is used in the 2020 series but does not appear in the novel version of The Stand. The phrase appears repeatedly in IT.

-One of IT’s main characters, Ben Hanscom, is from Hemingford Home, Nebraska, the same place as The Stand‘s Mother Abagail. Hemingford Home becomes an actual nursing home in Colorado in the 2020 Stand adaptation, with King’s cameo reduced to an appearance in an advertisement for this home on a bus stop.

-Actor Owen Teague plays Patrick Hockstetter in It (2017) and It Chapter Two (2019), and Harold Lauder in the 2020 The Stand.

-For this year’s “Stephen King Area” of the 2021 Virtual PCA/ACA Conference, both of these novels have their own individual panels with multiple talks scheduled around them (“IT Lives!” and “Standing in a Pandemic,” respectively).

-A chapter in IT is called “The Circle Closes,” which is the title of the new epilogue King appended in the ’90 Uncut iteration of The Stand, which means this phrase (slash expression of one of King’s favorite metaphysical concepts) originates with IT. (“The Circle Closes” is also the title of the highly anticipated King-penned 2020 Stand coda episode, which Part III will…circle back to.).

I discussed in a previous post how King’s first Bachman novel, Rage, explores a link between Hollywood movies and gun violence not necessarily by depicting that violence itself, but by setting certain standards of masculinity which that violence becomes an expression of. Film critic Ann Hornaday has argued that this expression of toxic masculinity is a product of the fact that the vast majority of major studio films continue to be written and directed by white men. It has now been almost seven years since Hornaday posed this somehow controversial argument. I could read the 2020 adaptation of The Stand as evidence of the entertainment industry’s general response to this problem of representation in the interim, which would be to (attempt to) treat (some of) the symptoms of the disease rather than the disease itself.

To wit, a white man is still in charge of the latest iteration of the narrative, in this case via the showrunner Benjamin Cavell, apparently in fairly constant consultation with King himself both via email and by having Owen in the writers’ room. To alleviate if not necessarily the most grotesque but perhaps the most immediately obvious symptoms of this patriarchal disease (so as to limit comment on it and thus perpetuate its continued existence), the original white-man status of several characters is updated or “upgraded” (as Cavell puts it here) to represent more minorities than were in the source material. But in 2020’s iteration of The Stand, the attempts of the white-men-in-charge to make certain minority “upgrades” ultimately represent/express something less than progress.

Cavell’s description of another IT connection in a Vanity Fair interview exchange displays the general (white) bro culture that surrounds the new adaptation and how this ultimately amounts to an extension of the culture surrounding the source material:

We also get a little shot of a turtle statue in the window of the house, and I was trying to explain to my wife what the turtle signifies. I found myself unable to explain it. It’s a cosmic power mentioned in It, it’s a presence in The Dark Tower series … 

I was going to say, how did you approach that? Yeah. I tried to explain it to my wife. Well, you know, the world kind of rides on the back of a turtle. She’s like, “What?”

From here.

Wives just don’t get IT

Networking

King obviously has a long history of adaptations, which associate professor of film and television at Kingston University, Simon Brown, positions both as successful often as a product of other trends, but also a prevalent influence on media and visual narrative consumption trends in its own right. Which brings us to another connection between The Stand and IT–the format of their initial adaptations as (wildly successful) miniseries for primetime network television, specifically for ABC. What struck me about Brown’s analysis of the adaptation in this format was how IT airing in November of 1990 meant it was benefitting from the same network having aired the first season of Twin Peaks a few months earlier, which affected not so much its appeal to viewers as the network’s own “Standards and Practices”:

However, one of the long-standing taboos of Standards and Practices, raised in 1979 when CBS adapted Salem’s Lot, was the issue of placing children in danger.

Brown, Simon. Screening Stephen King : Adaptation and the Horror Genre in Film and Television, University of Texas Press, 2018. p158.

Child endangerment being a defining component of the IT narrative meant this “taboo” had to be “relaxed” for ABC to even consider the project (Brown 159). King’s influence on and through shifting standards like these is kind of stunning when you consider the scope of the viewership and populace it reaches, even if a lot of the “explicit detail” was still removed for these television versions (Brown 162). (Of course, if it hadn’t been King the networks were willing to show increasingly graphic violence and sex for, it would have been somebody else.) Brown proceeds to outline how the success of IT beget the success of The Stand, and how King miniseries adaptations thus became as integral to 90s network television as, per my own comparison, Seinfeld.

(On a peripheral note, my favorite part of Brown’s history is how when King “was offered by ABC the chance to do whatever he wanted,” he chose to retell The Shining in miniseries form, but Stanley Kubrick would only sell him the rights back if King agreed to stop complaining about Kubrick’s adaptation (168).)

As the passage excerpted above indirectly points out, the other major network King has an extended history with is CBS. Which brings us to the 2020 Stand‘s format, appropriately updated to not just “television miniseries” but “streaming television miniseries,” for a streaming service owned by CBS (which currently the Republicans would like you to boycott). This basically means King can have his cake and eat it too (or the best of both worlds, whichever cliche you prefer) in terms of maintaining network backing and getting to show graphic violence and sex. (I don’t advise watching 2020’s version while eating.) Simon Brown notes the “‘major reduction in snot'” in 1994’s version (162); in 2020 the snot and the tube neck are back with a vengeance. (It’s too bad Brown couldn’t wait a couple more years to publish his adaptation study, since it means his discussion is missing both the new The Stand and It Chapter Two (2019).)

A major company like CBS wields increasing influence with its attendant corporate mergers, which King apparently enjoys working with because of the access it provides to the maximum number of viewers:

[King’s] argument was that to work with a cable channel “would be like publishing a major novel with a small press. I have nothing at all against either small presses or cable TV, but if I work hard over a long period of time, I’d like a shot at the largest possible audience” (1999b, xii).

Brown, Simon. Screening Stephen King : Adaptation and the Horror Genre in Film and Television, University of Texas Press, 2018. p151.

Yet King’s working with these bastions of corporate power is probably enabling the continued growth and influence of the same corporations whose corruption of the culture he often seems to be attempting to critique, The Stand serving as a primary example of such narratives. So I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that a) CBS installed a white man at the helm of this latest adaptation and that b) this white man’s adaptation fails to escape the patriarchy’s problematic permeation of the narrative on a number of explicit and implicit levels.

The Le Guin Test

One can learn a lot about dramatic efficiency by watching King adaptations. The changes they make to their source material may reflect changes in the culture at large, and, per the network discussion above, may also support a reading/message that supports the propagation of a culture that in turn propagates/perpetuates the network model of corporate power. The changes may also reflect the pitfalls of working as a lone novelist (one whose editors appear to be afraid of him).

Narratively, one of the first things I felt watching 2020’s version was the pacing: for the superflu part, they really clip right along, and present a generally scrambled chronology. (I definitely thought I would have been confused if I hadn’t read the book.) A potentially more significant narrative and thematic adjustment is how the series minimizes the government’s role in the apocalypse–most egregiously by 1) Flagg’s boot blocking the door that lets Campion out, and 2) Stu’s friendship with his captor Doctor Dietz and his added interaction with the somehow nobly depicted General Starkey. I could probably go with #1 (oversimplifying though it may be) if it hadn’t been in conjunction with #2, which was frankly gross. There’s a shadowy element at work in the form of some rando military guy who kills Dietz and tries to kill Stu but who Stu kills instead (in lieu of killing Dietz in the original) but the show itself intimates Starkey doesn’t know who this guy is working for, letting him off the hook.

Many of the adjustments to the original storylines are “good” in intensifying dramatic/narrative conflict, but in so doing these changes often (further) exacerbate the “bad” in creating (further) problems with the adaptation’s attempts at political correctness.

Matthew Salesses discusses an example of a similar issue in his recent book on the craft of fiction (which I discussed in a post on Firestarter):

Le Guin has great intentions with [A Wizard of Earthsea], not only to take power away from the idea that violent confrontation should provide the solution to conflict, but also to center characters of color. Ged is one of the first protagonists of color in white fantasy. On the other hand, Le Guin avoids the experience of being a person of color. She puts him in a world where his race causes him zero trouble. This is a moral stance. In fact, his main problem is himself, or perhaps a darker version of himself, and his main solution to his problem is himself. This is a moral stance. The novel, intentionally or not, puts forward the idea that everything is up to free will, even for people of color, and that what stands in a person’s way is his own darkness.

This isn’t Le Guin’s intention. Her intention was to upset traditional frameworks. She says so in her afterword. But conflict has consequences for meaning. It’s not just something you put in fiction to make a story compelling. Conflict presents a worldview.

Matthew Salesses, Craft in the Real World: Rethinking Fiction Writing and Workshopping. 2021.

In other words, if the character’s race changes and nothing else changes, that reflects a white supremacist text, one that is blind to systemic injustice in its failure to recognize the material impacts of same.

In The Stand, King’s conflict expresses a similar idea about “everything is up to free will,” at least per (preeminent) King scholar Tony Magistrale’s analysis:

In The Stand, more than any other King novel, free will and moral choice are solidly within the individual’s purview; all of the major characters in this book participate directly in determining their fates.


Tony Magistrale, “Free Will and Sexual Choice in The Stand,” Extrapolation, Vol. 34, No. 1, 1993. p30.

Magistrale’s phrasing implies race has no impact on such agency, when “the individual” whose “purview” free will is in would probably more accurately be designated “the white individual.” Which means, per Salesses, the narrative inherently fails what I’ll call the Le Guin Test (even if maybe it should be called the “Salesses Test”), if, as Magistrale points out, the very principle of this agency is essentially the backbone of the entire narrative:

The shape free will takes in this book directs the narrative itself: characters are tempted by Flagg’s promise of power and pleasure and join him in the west, or choose to align themselves with the Mother Abagail’s Free Zone society at Boulder.

Tony Magistrale, “Free Will and Sexual Choice in The Stand,” Extrapolation, Vol. 34, No. 1, 1993. p31.

If what counts as “society” has effectively collapsed then its “systemic” injustice must necessarily have collapsed along with it, yet one can’t help but think that for people of color, navigating a landscape essentially reconfigured into the Wild West might still be more fraught than for white people.

Perhaps it’s the very premise’s failure of the Le Guin Test that begets more failures on this front; for instance: that the titular “stand” is taken by four white men (Stu, Glen, Larry and Ralph), five if you count Nick Andros. In 2020, these five white men become two white men (Stu and Glen), a black man (Larry), a Native American woman (Ralph turned into Ray), and a Latino man (Nick). Sounds almost diverse enough, except that white men continue to maintain the majority, and also, what turn out to be mostly the most influential/substantive character roles.

Let’s start with Nick, a character who is deaf and mute. In an instance of upping the dramatic ante, Nick’s inadvertent barroom brawl from the original narrative leads him to also become blind in one eye, while in the book his eye injury heals. Yet this partial blindness doesn’t really lead to anything else of consequence dramatically, except maybe some thematic resonance with the upping of the drama/tension of the committee’s choice to send spies to New Vegas explicitly without Mother Abagail’s permission, which she then berates Nick alone for (repeating, as she is ironically wont to, that he is her “voice”). The eye loss is intimated to be part of the cost of Nick’s refusing Flagg, which is a new sequence this character gets that to me is emblematic of a pattern that repeats itself (looping like a circle…): this is supposed to be something that strengthens the representation of a now-minority character: now-Latino Nick is shown to be virtuous when he turns down Flagg’s offer to “fix him.” (Free will!) It’s like the writers think as long as they establish the minority character as “good” they’ve done enough work, but “good” is not the same thing as “human.” (This same near-angelic transcendence plays out when Nick gently sponges the face of the now-sick man who literally punched his eye out.)

In lieu of the backstory that does a lot of humanizing work for Nick in the novel about his bonding with the father-figure who taught him to read, we get some new information about the circumstances Nick grew up in. But, problematically, everything we learn about Nick’s past is uttered from Flagg’s mouth:

“Seems to me you got dealt a real shit hand, my friend. Mom came up from where, El Salvador? Crossed the border in the trunk of a car, to give her child the life she never had, and instead you end up deaf, and broke, pounding the pavement looking for day work. …”

I’d say that yes, Nick–or rather, his 2020 update–gets dealt perhaps the biggest “shit hand” in the form of his shallow one-dimensional representation. (What amounts to Frannie’s parallel individual “stand” against Flagg in the coda episode gets a bit more of a buildup by comparison.) We see no real character struggle on Nick’s part represented, only hear it told from the white man’s mouth. It’s like we’re supposed to extrapolate Nick’s struggle from his disabilities and immigrant status–which means, in essence, that those define his identity exclusively. Nick’s character also reminds us that some of the nuance Whoopi is claiming the new version adds to Mother Abagail’s character was already in the original–Mother Abagail was always mistaken in believing Nick was the one to lead the stand. And Nick has gotten the shaft/shit hand since the beginning, the least normative of the original five white men via his disabilities, and the only one to be killed off so abruptly.

In a sprawling narrative comprised of an ensemble cast like this one, you’re not going to be able to do equal justice to all in terms of development. But in picking the backstories to condense and sacrifice, the writers seem to have axed those mostly belonging to the characters whose updates include a shift to minority/non-white-man status. One of these, the minor character of the judge, is an example of this across-the-board issue. The narrative thread for this character, who’s become a (white) woman in 2020, is cut down to bare bones: we don’t see her (or at least notice her presence) until she is agreeing to be one of the three Vegas spies, see a flash of her on the road, and don’t see the original shootout scene from the novel in which the judge is killed, just Flagg seeing the bullet hole in her head after the fact. Plot-wise, this might arguably be all you “need” to see, but the condensing means the character’s overall importance is de-emphasized, linking the shift to a woman to a decrease in importance/status.

Next, Ray as Ralph, who gets an update in gender and race. Ralph as a character reflects the ensemble cast problem as King encountered it in the novel: despite being one of the four “good” guys to go to Vegas, he is never developed. Which makes choosing his role as one of the ones to update from white man problematic in the vein of the judge’s update–by picking the least important white-man character to update, you link the updated status to a certain lack of comparative importance. And the 2020 version doesn’t seem to develop Ray’s character any more than the original Ralph was. The character’s defining minority status is treated as a stereotype, evidencing another issue that recurs in the adaptation: its writers seem to think that naming the problem is akin to solving/addressing it, as in this exchange in episode 7 when the four have started their walk to Vegas and Larry wants to know how they’re going to find safe water. The men then all look at Ray:

Ray: What, you figured the Injun girl must know the ways of the earth, at least enough to find you water you won’t shit yourselves to death?

Others [overlapping]: Can you? Yeah.

Ray [pause, grins]: Of course.

Of course? Of course? This is basically saying of course she can because she’s Native American, which is another way of saying, of course the stereotype is true.

White Hand Man

The problems of narratively managing an ensemble cast are not strictly limited to those cast members (now) repped by minorities. By all appearances, Trashcan Man is still white in 2020, and he is probably shafted second most after Nick via the slashing of his backstory and consequent flattening of his character, and he arguably plays an even larger role in the outcome of the overall action. (I was definitely getting Gollum vibes from the couple of scenes his character did get.) He’s probably the only really shafted white man, though, unless you count the Kid, who was–thank God–excised entirely, his excision part of Trash’s excised backstory.

Then there’s Flagg’s right-hand man Lloyd, still a white man in 2020. Lloyd is hardly “shafted” by way of lack of screen time, but the opposite: his conflict is amped up, and he even gets to be redeemed this time around by actively standing up to Flagg. But some of his (mostly new?) characterization baffled me: Lloyd gazes rapturously at Flagg during their initial encounter, declaring Flagg “a beautiful fella” (an assessment many would probably agree with in this version). But then once in New Vegas, Lloyd apparently gets sexually involved with Julie Lawry (who is even more nymphomatically evil than in the original), but then is unable to perform with her–but only at the impetus of her mentioning Flagg’s name. Then there’s Lloyd’s flashy wardrobe, which includes animal-print ensembles that escalate into even more flamboyant color prints. When Lloyd pops out of the car that pulls up to apprehend the three remaining good guys in the desert, his “Hi, fellas” greeting felt like he was welcoming them to the set of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. The idea of the “performance” of masculinity for this character is also emphasized by a new sequence in which Glen Bateman, instead of challenging Lloyd from the privacy of a prison cell, does so in front of a gallery of New Vegas citizens, prompting one to yell at Lloyd to shoot Glen–though after he does, the woman who yelled at him to do it laments that it was supposed to be a “show trial, not a snuff film.” At the end of the day it’s unclear if the writers know Lloyd’s gay or not…

King has shown resistance to the idea embodied by the Le Guin Test, the idea that “diversity” needs to be considered inasmuch as it actually has a material impact; as I’ve mentioned, Sarah E. Turner notes an interview exchange in which King accuses Tony Magistrale of an “imaginative failing” for suggesting a black character might have “wounds that are particular to his racial history” (144), and I posit that the accusation evidences King’s own “imaginative failing,” the blind spots that constitute an (unconscious) white supremacist worldview. The treatment of Larry Underwood’s character in his “upgrade” further evidences the adaptation extending this same problematic worldview, even through its very attempts to “fix” it. More in Part II.

-SCR

Roadwork…Doesn’t Always Work (Part II): The White Man’s Worldview

I’m on the highway to hell.

“Highway to Hell,” AC/DC, 1979.

Roadwork unfolds in a neat three-part structure comprised of November, December, and January, respectively, with narrative momentum established by movement toward a clear deadline–January 20, 1974, the date Barton Dawes is supposed to be out of his house. That the three-month structure straddles the transition from 1973 to 1974 is significant due to the centrality of Watergate in my reading of King’s oeuvre’s depiction of our haunted American history: Nixon resigns in August of ’74. Roadwork‘s resident Nixon reference appears thus:

The house was hot. He had turned the thermostat to seventy-eight degrees and had left it there ever since Mary left. What energy crisis? Fuck you, Dick. Also the horse you rode in on. Fuck Checkers, too.

Is the extravagant consumption Dawes displays here to be taken as a heroic stand for individualism, or, conversely, emblematic of the problematic national penchant to preserve individual rights that led to this period’s “energy crisis” in the first place, or some combination thereof? Here Dawes conceives of the extravagance as a direct flouting of authority in the form of Nixon, still president in the timeline of the narrative, resigned-in-disgrace emblematic-King-villain outside of the text. The latter creates the possibility that opposition to this villainous figure renders Dawes the “good guy,” figuring the extravagant consumption here as more explicitly heroic, and thus condoning it, which would be a problem. This is another one of those instances where it seems like the exact device King-as-Bachman is deploying in order to generate sympathy for Dawes’ character instead makes me hate him.

Train the Dog

My first Roadwork post discussed how this lack of sympathy for Dawes largely manifests by way of the failure of the device of his son Charlie deployed on this front. Part of the reason the Charlie fails to generate sympathy is because his lack of development is highlighted by a stark contrast: there is much more emotional development and detail prevalent in the backstory surrounding the Dawes’ television. In this flashback sequence, both Dawes and his wife get side jobs to be able to buy a color one, which, when they do, leads to sex, creating a counterpoint to Charlie, a byproduct of sex, that might figure television as a hedonistic detriment to society rather than something more conducive to a fruitful continuation of our species….

The structure the television provides for plot, a linking of past and present, occurs when Dawes smashes the television near the height of his self-destructive (or system-inducing self-destruction) spiral, a gesture whose ultimate significance is hard to read in light of Dawes’ almost immediate regret for doing so. Is King-as-Bachman advocating for taking concrete action to escape television’s insidious influence? Is it ultimately figured as a helpful escape from Dawes’ tortured senseless plight of having to move to a new house, or does it play a more insidious role in his paralyzed stasis? It seems ironic that King would indict television on any level seeing the extent of the influence visual media has had on him (not to mention the success he has had in it, though perhaps not quite as much at the time he wrote Roadwork), but… maybe it’s a Freudian form of the father he needs to kill.

We basically see Dawes see the world through the lens of (television) advertisements, and how this impacts/ connects to real-life actions:

“Try one of these,” Harry said, and took a roll of pills from his breast pocket. Written on the outside was:

ROLAIDS

“Thanks,” he said. He took one off the top and popped it into his mouth, never minding the bit of lint on it. Look at me, I’m in a TV commercial. Consumes forty-seven times its own weight in excess stomach acid.

and

They watched the news in silence for a while. A commercial for a cold medicine came on—two men whose heads had been turned into blocks of snot. When one of them took the cold pill, the gray-green cube that had been encasing his head fell off in large lumps.

“Your cold sounds better tonight,” he said.

and

He masturbated instead, in front of the TV, and came to climax while an announcer was showing incontrovertibly that Anacin hit and held the highest pain-relief level of any brand.

It seems like you can track a pattern where we see Dawes increasingly isolated in each of these life-related-to-ad moments; in early ones he’s out interacting with people thinking of ads, then later he’s in front of the TV relating the ads he’s seeing to memories rather than directly experienced life in a reversal of the earlier moments. So when we get a theory Dawes advances to Olivia, it reads ironically in light of his own relationship to television and its attendant advertisements:

“The Trained Dog Ethic, first advanced by Barton George Dawes in late 1973, fully explains such mysteries as the monetary crisis, inflation, the Viet Nam war, and the current energy crisis. Let us take the energy crisis as an example. The American people are the trained dogs, trained in this case to love oil-guzzling toys. Cars, snowmobiles, large boats, dune buggies, motorcycles, minicycles, campers, and many, many more. In the years 1973 to 1980 we will be trained to hate energy toys. The American people love to be trained. Training makes them wag their tails. Use energy. Don’t use energy. Go pee on the newspaper. I don’t object to saving energy, I object to training.”

….

“Like Pavlov’s dogs,” he said. “They were trained to salivate at the sound of a bell. We’ve been trained to salivate when somebody shows us a Bombardier Skidoo with overdrive or a Zenith color TV with a motorized antenna. I have one of those at my house. The TV has a Space Command gadget. You can sit in your chair and change the channels, hike the volume or lower it, turn it on or off. I stuck the gadget in my mouth once and pushed the on button and the TV came right on. The signal went right through my brain and still did the job. Technology is wonderful.”

I’m definitely conditioned to a disturbing degree by the sound of my work email notification…at any rate, Dawes’ constant mental references to advertisements show us he is as trained in the Pavlovian manner by technology in the form of television as the “American people” he so disdainfully describes, which might be especially emphasized in this ad reference:

Before he had a chance to say what, there was a commercial for Gravy Train. The man in the commercial was saying that Gravy Train, when mixed with warm water, made its own gravy. He asked the audience if it didn’t look just like beef stew. To Barton George Dawes it looked just like a loose bowel movement that somebody had done in a red dog dish.

Dawes’ Pavlovian training seems to ultimately reveal itself in a sequence out in the “real world” when he sees a woman in the grocery store drop dead:

He was on his way down a middle aisle toward the checkouts when God perhaps spoke to him. There was a woman in front of him…. She made a funny gobbling, crowing noise in her throat and staggered. The squeeze bottle of mustard she had been holding in her hand fell to the floor and rolled, showing a red pennant and the word FRENCH’S over and over again.

“Ma’am?” he ventured. “Are you okay?”

The woman fell backward and her left hand, which she had put up to steady herself, swept a score of coffee cans onto the floor. Each can said:

MAXWELL HOUSE Good To The Very Last Drop.

After a nearby doctor establishes this woman has died of a brain hemorrhage, the scene ends with:

His calm of the last five days was shattered, and probably for good. Had there ever been a clearer omen? Surely not. But what did it mean? What?

It means Dawes thinks a woman’s death has more significance as a sign for him than it means for her. The brand names prevalent in the surrounding descriptions of this death seem to heighten its horror via juxtaposition/contrast with the ordinary/mundane, but the prevalent presence of objects reinforces the woman’s usage as an object to be read as a sign of relevance for Dawes. Which would seem illustrative of a type of thinking King has a female character explicate in a much later story, “Mr. Harrigan’s Phone,” from his 2020 novella collection If It Bleeds:

“Kids your age have a Ptolemaic view of the universe. I’m young enough to remember.”

“I don’t know what—”

“Ptolemy was a Roman mathematician and astrologer who believed the earth was the center of the universe, a stillpoint everything else revolved around. Children believe their entire worlds revolve around them. That sense of being at the center of everything usually starts to fade by the time you’re twenty or so, but you’re a long way from that.”

It’s telling that in 2020 King is citing children as the most vulnerable to this worldview, when it seems equally applicable to the willful blindness of the white patriarchy, a system designed to revolve around a particular demographic that perpetuates its own worldview (ie that of its own inherent supremacy) as “normal.” When you are inherently supreme, everyone else exists for your benefit, as the woman in the store does for Dawes. The text seems conscious to a degree that Dawes doing this is not exactly the most stable thing to do, that he is a “trained dog” as it were, trained to read all surrounding signs and symbols for their relevance to him. But it seems ironic that, per Matthew Salesses’ ideas I discussed in my first Firestarter post, this is a problem the text itself is perpetuating, training the audience/culture to read all signs for their relevance to…the white man. If Dawes is a “trained dog,” this is another way he is a victim of the systemic injustices of the systems designed to revolve around the white men…a victim of the self-centered conceptual framework that advertising cultivates, even more so when that self is a white man.

(Olivia as a character also amounts to little more than a plot device; sleeping with Dawes for no other apparent reason except his initial refusal to do so, she–or more specifically, his sleeping with her–becomes a pawn the powers that be can blackmail Dawes with. Mary as a female figure doesn’t fare much better.)

Advertising itself ends up affecting the plot more directly when, after Magliore won’t sell him explosives, Dawes hears a PSA about not taking gas home from the gas station because it’s explosive, which then inspires him to use it for homemade molotov-cocktail-style explosives (another Night Shift call back by way of “Trucks”) to vandalize the roadwork site. But this vandalism is ultimately ineffective, foreshadowing the climactic gun-and-car-battery sequence. As this final part unfolds, Dawes’ visual-text trained-dog associations shift from ads to movies:

When the first police car screamed around the corner in a calculated racing drift like something out of The French Connection he was ready.

and

“You know what, fellow? You’ve seen too many movies.”

“I don’t go to the movies much anymore. I did see The Exorcist, thought. I wish I hadn’t. How are your movie guys coming out there?”

and

“You’ll never take me alive!” he yelled, delirious with joy. “You’re the dirty rats who shot my kid brother! I’ll see some of ya in hell before ya get me!”

These passages seem to reveal a pattern of escalation in their own right: internal reference, external interaction that then implicates media in the type of problematic influence we’ve seen the silver screen in Dawes’ living room having, and finally, Dawes literally performing something from a movie as if he is in it. A merging of worlds–but in his head. This is actually creepily starting to seem symbolic of King himself and the extent to which he is a prism of American literary and pop culture…

The treatment of the media here becomes interesting in light of the conclusion of Firestarter, which seems to valorize the freedom of the press pretty unequivocally. Roadwork‘s conclusion is more…equivocal. We’re told people will remember the image of Dawes’ exploding house as filmed by the media, and that the reporting got a Pulitzer for revealing the bad guy/monster is the system itself (in theory making Dawes’ death worthwhile or mean something)…but then people forget again…and nothing changes. It also seems worth noting that the media aspect frames the whole book via the prologue we get of Dawes meeting the reporter who will break his posthumous story–but whom Dawes also won’t remember, a possible symbol of how we don’t realize/recognize how much of what we see/know is “framed” by the media…and yet what the media seems to be revealing in Dawes’ case is how Dawes has in effect been “framed” as the bad guy in this narrative…so, mixed signals.

The Failure

King scholar Patrick McAleer notes a larger pattern that the futility of Dawes’ one-man stand against the larger system can be read into:

…the theory that King’s writing is purposely set up so that the characters fail, suggests that King, at least through his “dark half” Richard Bachman, focuses his writing on failure to criticize his peers: death may be a quite unfavorable climax to anticipate, but the beneficial cost and the moral purpose of, essentially, martyrdom is an ideal that King constantly revisits in order to remind the Boomers of what they abandoned and that their infamy remains alive and as a mark of shame when compared to the foolish and quixotic yet heroic, memorable, and perhaps admirable characters in the Bachman books.

Patrick McAleer, “I Have the Whole World in My Hands … Now What?: Power, Control, Responsibility and the Baby Boomers in Stephen King’s Fiction.” The Journal of Popular Culture, Vol. 44, No. 6, 2011, pp1221-1222

Dawes’ death serves to reveal a larger problem–the highway extension itself being an unnecessary and destructive product of bureaucratic budget acrobatics–but does little to solve it. I suppose this could qualify him as a “martyr,” but that he’s “admirable” would be a stretch for me.

McAleer’s charting of King’s representation of Boomer failures manifests primarily in the figures of Father Callahan from ‘Salem’s Lot, Louis Creed from Pet Sematary, Roland Deschain from The Dark Tower, and (somewhat confusingly since he doesn’t fit the generational profile) Paul Edgecomb in The Green Mile, to support the thesis that:

What King, then, seemingly aims to do through his fiction is to suggest that as many of his characters are placed within positions of power and are given numerous chances to remedy their respective situations, they often fail, and it is through this failure, despite the abundant opportunity to amend any potential wrongs, that King provides a layered discussion focused on a constant lamentation for himself and his generation—the Baby Boomers: a selection of people who were positioned to radically alter their social landscape and who reportedly had the necessary means to do so, yet failed to use the available resources, which were required to accomplish their ends and must now live with and face the constant reminders of their resonating and collective collapse.

Patrick McAleer, “I Have the Whole World in My Hands … Now What?: Power, Control, Responsibility and the Baby Boomers in Stephen King’s Fiction.” The Journal of Popular Culture, Vol. 44, No. 6, 2011, p1210.

Ouch. As a millennial, I can appreciate putting the onus back on the Boomers in a certain reversal…and reading Roadwork in 2020-21, the Boomers’ failures are nothing but amplified on the climate-change front. McAleer’s article as well, now a decade old, has attained new resonance in light of our recent election of yet another Boomer for president:

The real tensions of the new Administration, which began with a twenty-two-year-old old Black poet offering wisdom to a seventy-eight-year-old white President, are generational. Was American liberalism contingent on boomer optimism, and was that contingent on a once-in-human-history sequence of prosperity? There are plenty of ways to define Biden’s agenda, but one is that he is trying to apply a politics built on boomer optimism to an era in which that optimism has faded.

Benjamin Wallace-Wells, “The Conservative Case Against the Boomers,” January 28, 2021.

What McAleer does not seem to directly acknowledge is how King’s “lamentation for himself” included in his generational indictment can be applied to the failure of King’s work–with the “abundant opportunity” inherent in its massive mainstream platform–to provide more equitable representations of marginalized demographics, with two of his more prominent failures on this front being those of gay people and black people. As McAleer himself says, the Bachman books are as relevant as any in King’s oeuvre when it comes to discerning patterns, etc., in his work, and so can offer evidence of King’s problematic treatment of both the Queer presence and the Africanist presence.

In Roadwork, the latter seems more prominent, while the former manifests in Magliore’s use of the term “fruitcake” as a label for Dawes, which is apparently supposed to indicate craziness more than queerness–as in “Nutty as a fruitcake“–though it seems to encode queerness. Queerness also comes up indirectly in references to “coming out of the closet” applied to non-queer contexts, such as:

He had joined the mainstream of lunacy, he had come out of the closet.

This is doing double duty in terms of being offensive to non-“mainstream” demographics, conflating queer people and people with mental-health issues and thus implying there’s some kind of inherent connection between them. The other figurative closet invocation provides a springboard to the appearance of the Africanist presence:

“Are you really going to drink that down-by-de-Swanee-Ribber stuff? I always thought you were a scotch man.”

“I was always a private Comfort-and-ginger-ale man. I’ve come out of the closet.”

Up until this point in the novel, when Dawes doesn’t give a shit anymore because everything’s been taken away from him, he feels the need to hide that this was his drink of choice, as we learn upon its introduction fairly early:

…drinking his private drink, Southern Comfort and Seven-Up. It was his private drink because people laughed when he drank it in public.

It was not until I read the racist fake-dialect-emphasizing exchange where Dawes “come[s] out of the closet” about this drink that I understood the reason people (i.e., white people) would laugh at it has racialized, or more specifically, racist, implications. Dawes is, in effect, aligning and/or associating himself with black people by drinking a drink associated with them, an alignment that is replicated/reiterated through the figure that offered our other platform to the queer presence: Magliore. Magliore invokes the N-word to describe a black person he claims blew up a federal courthouse in an anecdote he presents to Dawes as evidence for why Dawes’ efforts toward vandalism/sabotage (or “action” as McAleer might formulate it) will be futile (or fail). Magliore thus creates a narrative equality/equivalency between Dawes and this nameless black person that underscores how the novel’s entire plot figures Dawes as marginalized by the system in the same way that minorities are. Before he was given his walking papers by the powers that be, Dawes had to hide any potential affinity that would link him to such marginalized groups–he has to stay in the closet when he’s drinking his Southern Comfort. Once he’s been victimized/tossed aside by the system like they’ve been, he can empathize, and, by the text’s formulation, he’s essentially been outed as one of them.

Dawes expresses a similar affinity for blackness/black people elsewhere:

He rode up with a black woman who had a large Afro. She was wearing a jumper and was holding a steno notebook.

“I like your Afro,” he said abruptly, for no reason.

She looked at him coolly and said nothing. Nothing at all.

This seems an attempt on Dawes’ part to declare an allegiance of sorts, one that this black woman doesn’t accept/rebuffs–with silence. But does her silence give her power in this exchange, or is this the text not giving a black woman a voice? Is it some type of progress that this “black woman” is not only given the “Afro” attribute but two other non-racially charged descriptors?

To complicate these questions, we have another nameless avatar of blackness to unpack the stereotypical and sartorial trappings of:

In Norton, blacks stood around on street corners and outside bars. Restaurants advertised different kinds of soul food. Children hopped and danced on chalked sidewalk grids. [Dawes] saw a pimpmobile—a huge pink Eldorado Cadillac—pull up in front of an anonymous brownstone apartment building. The man who got out was a Wilt Chamberlain-size black in a white planter’s hat and a white ice cream suit with pearl buttons and black platform shoes with huge gold buckles on the sides. He carried a malacca stick with a large ivory ball on the top. He walked slowly, majestically, around to the hood of the car, where a set of caribou antlers were mounted. A tiny silver spoon hung on a silver chain around his neck and winked in the thin autumn sun. He watched the man in the rearview mirror as the children ran to him for sweets.

Sweet Jesus…

This figure’s outfit and accessories (inadvertently) reveal how this entire description is a white projection of blackness: the black figure is literally cloaked in whiteness. One might initially be able to conceive of the use of the term “black” as a noun (rather than as an adjective preceding some version of “person”) as Dawes being racist and King just depicting the truth of a white man’s mindset in this particular place and time. But the clothes and car description, in existing in the text as concrete objects, become King’s projection of blackness rather than just Dawes’. There’s also the fact–which I know to be one based on several other references to same appearing in other ’80s King novels–that the figure (who is a “man” by the end of the passage) is unequivocally associated with drug use via the “tiny silver spoon,” and further coded to be a drug dealer corrupting the neighborhood (or perhaps an inherent part of the corruption of a black neighborhood?) via the children running to him for “sweets.”

A version of this sequence recurs in another Magliore-linked section clunky for narrative reasons and even more so for racial reasons: Dawes has a nightmare about a dog from a story Magliore told him, and the pimp from before explicitly appears in this nightmare with all the same markers of car, antlers, suit, hat. And he has candy. All the children run to him but one:

All the children around the pimp were black, but the little boy approaching the dog was white.

Dawes desperately wants the white boy to go to the pimp for candy instead of to the dog, but the boy goes to the dog and gets attacked, at which point he sees it’s Charlie. This would seem to figure the pimp’s candy, formerly symbolically drugs, as some sort of potential saving grace. That or it symbolizes that a white boy will be torn to pieces in a black neighborhood (the dog is “black”)–or rather, the fear that this is what will happen in a black neighborhood. This anecdotal dog of Magliore’s, used several times as a means to highlight Dawes’ rising anxiety and which is here also associated with race, hearkens back to the figurative trained dog of Dawes’ theory, and thus to advertising. This link creates the possibility that the text demonstrates–however inadvertently–how the two-dimensional worlds constructed in the fantasies of advertising become manifest in two-dimensional white projections/fantasies of blackness.

Ultimately the novel engages with interesting political questions, but what would seem to be the defining feature of the Bachman brand up to this point: a literal execution(s) that’s executed poorly, figuratively, which is to say, the text seems to fail largely in its intended aims, at least for an audience that would include myself and people for whom the put-upon white man who has always had everything handed to him while honestly believing what he was being handed was the product of his own hard work having to deal with things no longer being handed to him but even actively taken away from him…

-SCR

Roadwork…Doesn’t Always Work (Part I)

“It might fuck you up worse than you are. But it might help. I’ve heard of it.”

Richard Bachman. Roadwork. 1981.

Roadwork, published in 1981, is the third novel Stephen King published under his pseudonym Richard Bachman, which up to this point in his corpus he seems to have reserved for the use of scenarios more realistic/speculative than the usually explicitly supernatural, if at times psychologically ambiguous. (The 1984 Bachman novel Thinner is a divergence from this distinction, so effectively dissolving it that the novel led to King being outed as the true identity of his pseudonymous alter-ego.)

Stephen King, the real name that sounds like a pen(is) name…

Summary

Prologue

A reporter is interviewing a crowd about a highway extension that’s being constructed, which one interviewee named Dawes cheerfully says he thinks is “a piece of shit.” The reporter will meet this man again months later without either of them remembering having met before. 

Part I: November 1973

On November 20, 1973, Barton Dawes sees a gun shop while out walking and decides to go in. Maintaining an inner dialog between “Fred” and “George,” Dawes makes up a story for the proprietor about needing a rifle as a gift for his cousin who’s a hunter, “Nick Adams,” and buys a huge one. Back at home, Dawes’ wife Mary nags him about finding a new house because they have to move out of theirs in three months. The next day, Dawes is at the industrial laundry where he works and sees messages that a higher-up wants to see him; he calls in an underling, Vinnie Mason, and reams him out for telling this executive, Steve Ordner, that he’s dragging his feet “on that Waterford deal,” aka signing the deal to buy a new property for the laundromat to move to because it’s in the path of the highway extension, just like his house is. Dawes tells Vinnie a long story about the laundromat’s history, the former owner giving him a loan to go to college, and how he worked for the owner for years until the guy died and the large faceless corporation that Ordner works for bought it.

The next morning, Dawes has a dream about building sand castles with his dead son Charlie that get gobbled up by the tide. The day after that, he goes to see Ordner and lies to him about the status of the Waterford deal, claiming he’s letting the option to buy the property run out to somehow then get a cheaper price. On his way home he bemoans the status of their lost neighborhood, all their old friends on the block having already moved for the highway extension, and cries because it’s where they lived with Charlie before Charlie died. That weekend Dawes ponders (via the inner dialog of an argument between Fred and George) about how his lies about the Waterford deal will soon be discovered and he’ll lose his job. He has lunch with his friend Tom in order to ask about a “crook” Tom pointed out recently when they were out having dinner. Dawes calls this so-called crook’s used car lot, but the guy’s out of town. At home, he lies to Mary about being close to finding a new house for them. He recalls back when they were first married and made a deal to get side jobs so they could buy a new TV. He runs into an old neighbor who seems unhappy with his new neighborhood before going to see the car lot crook, Sal Magliore, and requesting to buy “stuff.” Magliore thinks Dawes must be some kind of cop and copies his credit cards to run a check on him while telling him an anecdote about a nice dog that went mean and bit a kid when it got really hot out. That night Dawes dreams this anecdotal dog bit Charlie (who’s been dead three years).

The next day, one of the drivers who works for the laundry is killed in a car accident on the job. Ordner calls Dawes to his downtown office because he found out someone else bought the Waterford property Dawes claimed he was getting for the laundromat to move to. Ordner says Dawes had been earmarked for executive Vice President until this screwup, and Dawes goes on a tirade about how Ordner and the corporation don’t give a shit about the laundromat. Dawes then goes to Magliore’s and tells him he wants explosives to blow up the 784 highway extension, but Magliore won’t do it because he’s convinced it will lead back to him. When Dawes goes home afterward, Mary is crying and upset because people have called to tell her Dawes was fired and ask what’s wrong with him. He tries to claim that his inexplicable actions might have something to do with Charlie. 

Part II: December 1973

Mary’s gone to stay with her parents and Dawes gets drunk while watching TV and pitying himself. He drives around during the day and ends up picking up a young female hitchhiker, Olivia, whom he brings home; they watch TV, and he initially refuses to go to bed with her (he wants to help her by giving her some money and acts like sleeping with her will taint that transaction, prostituting her), but after having a nightmare in the night, he gets up and goes to her and they have sex. She tells him about leaving college after becoming disillusioned with too many drug trips, and gives him some mescaline she says may or may not help him. He calls Mary (sober for once) and convinces her to have lunch with him; at the restaurant Mary surprises him by revealing she had considered not marrying him in the first place when she learned she was pregnant. He lies and tells her he’ll get another job and see a psychiatrist but then ends up getting mad and yelling at her until she flees. 

Out Christmas shopping, Dawes runs into Vinnie Mason and tries to convince him his new position with the corporation that owns the laundry is a dead end, driving Vinnie to punch him. His friend Tom from the laundry calls and tells him the demolition of the laundry is happening ahead of schedule and that the brother of the laundry driver who died in the car accident killed himself. Dawes goes to watch the laundry demolition. Later he makes homemade molotov cocktails/“firebombs” using gasoline and in the wee hours drives to the construction site of the highway extension and successfully uses them on several of the machines and the trailer of the construction company’s portable office. The next morning he hears on the news that the damage he did will only cause a minimal delay in the highway construction. He meets Mary to give her some Christmas presents, lies about a job interview, and she tells him about a New Year’s Eve party. On Christmas, Olivia the hitchhiker calls from Las Vegas telling him it’s not going well, and he tries to encourage her to stay a little longer and offers to send her money. Then Sal Magliore calls to congratulate him for the construction-site vandalism (even though it essentially had no effect on the highway extension’s progress) and complains about the energy crisis hurting his car business. The next night, after getting another letter from the city about relocating, Dawes drinks and recalls finding out about Charlie’s inoperable brain tumor, and how he didn’t cry after Charlie died, but Mary did; now Mary has turned out to be the one who’s healed while he hasn’t.

On his way to the NYE party at a friend of his and Mary’s, Dawes discovers the mescaline that Olivia gave him in his coat pocket, and takes it at the party and starts tripping. He runs into a mysterious man named Drake who tells him about owning a coffeeshop then gives him a ride home. Alone, Dawes busts his television with a hammer at midnight when it turns to 1974. 

Part III: January 1974

When Dawes is at the grocery store a few days later, a random woman drops dead of a brain hemorrhage in front of him. At home, he suddenly wonders what they did with Charlie’s clothes and finds them in the attic. A couple of days later, a lawyer, Fenner, visits to try to get him to submit the form he needs to sell the city his house; when Dawes resists, Fenner attempts to blackmail him re: his tryst with Olivia, and Dawes realizes they’ve been spying on him, though they don’t seem to know about his vandalism of the roadwork site. Later that afternoon Dawes calls Fenner and says he’ll agree to sell for a little extra money. He has lunch with Magliore, who sends some guys to his house under the guise of TV repairmen to sweep his house for bugs, and they find several. He cashes half the payment he’s getting for the house and sends the other half to Mary. He considers driving out to Vegas to get Olivia. Magliore calls and says they can do business and instructs him to meet a couple of guys at a bowling alley, who explain some things about the explosives he’s buying from them before loading them in his car. He finds Drake at the coffeeshop he owns that helps out poor strung-out kids and tries to give him five grand to help with the business. He buys a car battery. He calls Magliore and tells him he wants him to find Olivia in Vegas and set up a trust fund for her with some of Dawes’ money. He calls Mary and they agree they will divorce civilly; he calls Steve Ordner and tries to convince him to let Vinnie out of his dead-end job. He practices firing the guns he bought from the gun shop. 

On January 20, 1974, the day he’s legally supposed to be out of the property, Dawes gets out the car battery and sets the explosives around the house. When the lawyers show up with a couple of cops, he has an internal dialog between Fred and George resolving to go through with his plan but to try not to kill anybody. Then he uses a rifle to shoot out a tire on the cop car and there’s a shootout. A lot more cops come and he hopes he can make it until the TV people show up. When he does see a news van, he yells for Fenner and demands for one of them to come in and talk to him. The reporter from the prologue enters the house and mediates some of Dawes’ demands, making sure the camera crew sets up. He tells the reporter he’s doing it because of the roadwork before the reporter leaves. When Dawes sees everything is set up, and the cops send in tear gas, he detonates the explosives via the car battery, and dies. 

Epilogue

The reporter releases a documentary about Dawes’ last stand and the explosion, interrogating the questionable cause of the 784 extension in the first place; it had no practical utility other than spending enough of the municipality’s budget that they would continue to be allocated that much…people quickly forget about it, though most remember the image of the exploding house. The End. 

In the Name of the Father, Son, and White Man’s Spirit

On the fourth anniversary of my father’s death, The New Yorker published a piece by Tobias Wolff about the short stories of the writer whose advice and reputation has been a bastion of white American masculinity who’s generated reams of bad, terse imitation prose for nearly a century now: Ernest Hemingway. Wolff, a celebrated short-story writer and memoirist whose writing has its own issues with misogyny, is making a point about Hemingway’s stories’ “feeling for human fragility,” and as I scanned the article and found no concrete impetus for the publication of this discussion at this particular time, I grew increasingly disgusted. Why the f*ck are we still publishing random valorizations of this man?

Roadwork invokes Hemingway in its opening chapter, when our protagonist Barton Dawes is purchasing a firearm for mysterious reasons that are meant to pique reader interest further when the gun-shop proprietor prods him into providing a fake name: “Nick Adams.” (The use of a figure that functions as Hemingway’s alter-ego attains another layer of resonance deployed in the context of a Bachman novel.) Its deployment in relation to guns in the text links it to Hemingway’s use of Adams to manifest his own phallic-toxic masculinity, often by exerting dominion over animals; Dawes tells the shop owner that his cousin Nick is going to need it for hunting:

“… It seems that he and about six buddies chipped in together and bought themselves a trip to this place in Mexico, sort of like a free-fire zone—”

“A no-limit hunting preserve?”

“Yeah, that’s it.” He chuckled a little. “You shoot as much as you want. They stock it, you know. Deer, antelope, bear, bison. Everything.”

“Was it Boca Rio?”

The proprietor’s interest in the name recurs later when he calls Dawes to tell him his order is ready; he repeats twice he went himself and it was “‘the best time I ever had in my life.'” The text seems to mock the proprietor’s enthusiasm for shooting a zebra in what amounts to a penned-in area where your ability to do so depends entirely on your ability to pay for it as opposed to any other masculinity-defining traits that are inherent rather than purchased (ie brute strength or cunning), and so to possibly serve to mock the Hemingway ethos.

The context in which the Nick Adams name is invoked might further reinforce a refutation of Hemingway rather than an homage: everything Dawes says regarding “Nick Adams” is a bald-faced lie, both in the near-opening scene and later in an exchange he has with Mary in which the reader is also aware he’s lying:

“The psychiatrist?”

“Yes.”

“I called two. One is booked up until almost June. The other guy is going to be in the Bahamas until the end of March. He said he could take me then.”

“What were their names?”

“Names? Gee, honey, I’d have to look them up again to tell you. Adams, I think the first guy was. Nicholas Adams—”

“Bart,” she said sadly.

“It might have been Aarons,” he said wildly.

Alongside this link to a (patriarchal) literary predecessor, Roadwork offers a notable link to the work that bears King’s “real” name in Dawes running the “Blue Ribbon Laundry,” which is the name of the same laundromat that appears in “The Mangler” from King’s Night Shift story collection. And if that weren’t enough of a King-clue, this seems, in hindsight, like it should have been:

He could hear the washers and the steady thumping hiss of the ironer. The mangler, they called it, on account of what would happen to you if you ever got caught in it.

But perhaps it just seemed an homage…as is the first UK edition’s cover image bears the text (in all caps): “Now they would listen to him–now he had the guns”?

It’s funny the UK cover emphasizes the gun theme slightly more than the attendant text of its American counterpart:

“His life was in the path of the wrecking ball…but he wouldn’t budge”

Both of these covers seem to valorize Dawes and, via the (phallic) images of the gun, his masculinity. The plot that the wrecking-ball invocation so aptly captures reinforces the importance of property to masculine identity, a more specific spin on a common King theme that academics have picked up on:

Douglas Keesey argues that King’s “fictions address the problem of how one can be something other than a football player—say a writer—and still retain respect for oneself as a man” (195). Keesey’s observation that anything short of rugged masculinity may be problematic for King, reflects our larger cultural ideals of masculinity, what Marc Fasteau refers to as the “male machine.” [14] King’s response to this ideal is to people his novels with male figures who are emphatically not football players or any other version of empowered masculinity such as construction workers, Don Juans, captains of industry, etc. Instead, he offers his readers men and boys who possess many feminine characteristics, who are frequently social misfits and suffer as a result of their nature and/or social circumstances. Initially, King invokes this new masculine ideal through his critique of corrupt patriarchal institutions.

from here

A bureaucratic institution is certainly indicted by Roadwork‘s plot, but how cognizant the text is of the patriarchal significance to its corruption is less clear. Dawes is, after all, a white man of not a little privilege, and in that sense a representative of the patriarchy itself. This seems, in fact, to be in large part the aspect from which the novel’s most fundamental horror derives: that the privilege of a white man could fall victim to the system that was engineered to privilege white men, engineered by privileged white men… but does this mean Roadwork‘s plot figures the patriarchy as the enemy? Only if the bureaucracy that mindlessly enacts “progress”–in the form of a highway extension that will only further incentivize a consumption of resources driving us toward our own destruction–is shown to be the product of male pig-headedness. (I would have sworn AC/DC’s “Highway to Hell” inspired this plot concept if the 1979 release of that song didn’t seem a couple years past when King must have first drafted it.) Yet the most pig-headed male here would seem to be Dawes himself…

In our third Bachman novel we have a plot that revolves around a road, as its immediate Bachman predecessor, The Long Walk, did in a more literal way, offering a political commentary of sorts in the depiction of its dystopia. Roadwork is already explicitly political by its subtitle: “a novel of the first energy crisis.” King has been lambasting those insidious SUVs since before it was trendy:

When they went by the roadwork, [Dawes] asked Drake’s opinion.

“They’re building new roads for energy-sucking behemoths while kids in this city are starving,” Drake said shortly. “What do I think? I think it’s a bloody crime.”

King claims in a Bachman Books introduction to have written the book as a way of processing the cancer that had senselessly killed his mother, which effectively identifies the larger metaphor of the highway extension as a cancer that senselessly and undeservedly destroys Barton Dawes’ life, bearing down on him from the two directions that are the foundation of his (and most American men’s) entire existence: home and work. This highway extension is itself an “extension” of the government bureaucracy that incentivized the “senseless” extension in the first place. At the time of the energy crisis, the culture was closer to the interstate system’s origin than our current culture is to that energy crisis, but due to our current…climate of climate-change awareness, the novel’s thematic concerns–both conscious and unconscious–is still relevant.

That King-as-author has connected this climate-change cancer to his parent makes sense in light of the narrative’s use of a parent-child relationship as a focal point to channel the pain of the larger political conflict of the energy crisis. Dawes’ son Charlie died of a brain tumor. Unfortunately, this is one of the major aspects of the narrative that… doesn’t work.

To me, the Charlie backstory thread and its connection to Dawes’ motivations just did not feel well integrated. Good idea, poor execution. In theory, this is our protagonist’s primary element of chronic tension, that which is supposed to provide insight (and thereby sympathy) into the actions that appear inexplicable to those surrounding him. Charlie becomes another piece of property Dawes has lost in a way that exacerbates the conflict between Dawes and his wife:

“Mary, he was our son—”

He was yours!” she screamed at him.

In theory, the impending destruction of the house–aka the property that the property of his son grew up in–should function as an effective acute tension to raise the specter of the unresolved chronic, but the references that were supposed to elucidate his emotional connection to Charlie in a way that created sympathy in me as a reader fell flat; they felt jammed in ham-handedly like the Charlie connection was thought up after everything else was written. As in this clunky transition:

That night, sitting in front of the Zenith TV, he found himself thinking about how he and Mary had found out, almost forty-two months ago now, that God had decided to do a little roadwork on their son Charlie’s brain.

This chronic-tension element is perhaps most significantly expressed through Dawes’ inner dialogue between “Fred” and “George,” names/entities we come to find out explicitly originate with Charlie:

The two of them had fitted so well that names were ridiculous, even pronouns a little obscene. So they became George and Fred, a vaudeville sort of combination, two Mortimer Veeblefeezers against the world.

Another instance of good theory and bad execution: we’re told “names were ridiculous,” “[s]o they became [names]…” in a logical construction that contradicts itself and thus undermines the intended impact. This failure of logic seems to play out on a larger scale as there seems to be no rhyme or reason to the times that “Fred” doesn’t respond to him in his mind when George asks for him, which happens a few times, but then later Fred will just be there again. Perhaps this lack of logic is supposed to be the point, a signifier of Dawes’ mental deterioration. And perhaps that part could work if it weren’t for the other problems, such as the fact that Charlie is supposed to be the original “Fred,” yet the Fred voice in Dawes’ head in no way mimics a child’s in any way I was able to pick up on.

As a corollary, a narrative element that does work by the metrics of its own imparted logic is when Dawes moves beyond the guns he bought in the novel’s opening to another weapon, one that was not designed as such in the traditional sense (embodied by guns), and a car battery becomes instrument/trigger of destruction: 

“If I hook this up to the car battery beside me on the floor, everything goes!”

This works on a few levels: the climate-change one we’re able to feel even more viscerally in 2021, and the reversal of the metaphorical engine of Dawes’ own destruction turned on his destroyers.

Along the way, he throws out the traditional weapon(s), though only after he’s made use of them:

…he scurried back to the overturned chair and threw the rifle out the window. He picked up the Magnum and threw that out after it. Good-bye, Nick Adams.

If only it was goodbye for good…this fake name’s link to lies that might imply a critique of the Hemingway ethos and influence might be undermined by the heroism/martyrdom connected to the “stand” Dawes is ultimately able to make with them, even if he throws them out after the fact in what is, by that point, a fairly meaningless gesture.

The invocation of this fake name so close to his death links some element of Dawes’ craziness (back) to Hemingway, he who famously, as Tobias Wolff describes remembering learning of so vividly in his article, committed suicide by shotgun. Nick Adams is like a version of Hemingway’s alter ego reflecting the Fred/George reflection-of-insanity dichotomy, possibly implicating writers as generally crazy by proxy of living through alter egos (multiple layers of them in this book’s case), or at the least expressing some aspect of their own monstrousness, as academic Jeffrey Jerome Cohen has it in his “Monster Culture” analysis:

When contained by geographic, generic, or epistemic marginalization, the monster can function as an alter ego, as an alluring projection of (an Other) self.

Jeffrey Jerome Cohen, “Monster Culture (Seven Theses),” Monster Theory: Reading Culture, 1996.

The backstory/motivation thread with Charlie-George-Fred is tied up with the novel’s depiction of what might be broadly termed “insanity,” the topic of which is broached directly a few times, as we see when Dawes is firebombing the construction site: 

A semblance of sanity began to return.

The Fred-and-George dialogue reads to some degree as schizophrenic in the stereotypical sense of hearing multiple voices in one’s head, though the text itself never specifically invokes the term, and its link to the external event of Charlie’s death as its onset might not be medically sound…. This possibility as a diagnosis seems reinforced by the section near the climax where we get such an internal dialog in an experimental mode that academics might designate “postmodern”:

…i’m going ahead freddy my boy do you have anything you’d care to say at this auspicious moment at this point in the proceedings yes says fred you’re going to hold out for the newspeople aren’t you i sure am says george the words the pictures the newsreels demolition i know has only the point of visibility but freddy does it strike you how lonely this is how all over this city and the world people are eating and shitting and fucking and scratching their eczema all the things they write books about while we have to do this alone yes i’ve considered that george in fact i tried to tell you something about it if you’ll…

But, at the risk of invoking this concept again in reference to depictions of mental illness, this doesn’t work according to its own code of narrative logic: in one sense it’s written like an unfiltered internal (insane) monologue as if we are getting it directly as the character of Dawes himself is experiencing it: this is the function of the lack of punctuation and capitalization denoting the traditional distinctions between sentences. But then we also get some internal dialog tags: “says george” interspersed to intimate to the reader that Dawes still has the schizophrenic dialog going on between two voices. (This is a tag technically different from something like “freddy my boy” in which one of the voices is saying the name, a device which it seems should be enough to distinguish “fred” and “george” in the run-together dialog but would then feel even more overused if relied on exclusively…..) Dawes’ own direct experience should be able to distinguish between these two voices in a way that seems intruded upon by the “george says” type of tag–these are words that should not be in his internal monologue in the same way the other words are “in” the monologue…

So, Dawes is “driven” insane by the stripping of his property by the same institution that was supposed to uphold his right to pursue same (if we equate property with “happiness”) in conjunction with the unhealed wound of the equally senseless cosmic stripping of the property of his son (aka the propagation of his line), all exacerbated by the surrounding culture’s processing more foods than emotions (more on this final factor in Part II). Ultimately, Dawes is an individual–a white American middle-class male individual–sacrificed to/victimized by the larger system created and perpetuated by white American males. By which reading Dawes’ “stand” is a heroic if futile (more heroic for being futile?) gesture that makes him and his guns the good guys, valorizing a specific strain of masculinity. If Dawes’ emotional attachment to his son might read as more traditionally feminine, his choice that ultimately amounts to dying instead of moving to a new house also reads as more traditionally masculine, a tough-guy refusal to be pushed around. Of course, Dawes’ inability to express his feminine-coded grief (Mary is the one who both cries and grieves after Charlie’s death, and then, not coincidentally, heals) is implicated in leading to his ultimately futile projection of action-hero masculinity….

All of which is to say, while the climate-change and power-structure themes worked for me most of the time, and even if the Charlie backstory motivation thread “worked” narratively in the way it seems intended, this one lets the white guy off the hook too much for my taste, despite its best efforts to isolate the ironies of the destruction rendered in the name of progress.

-SCR

Firestarter: Burn It Down (Part I)

“Burn it down, Charlie. Burn it all down.”

Stephen King. Firestarter. 1980.

The way we tell stories has real consequences on the way we interpret meaning in our everyday lives. 

Matthew Salesses. Craft in the Real World: Rethinking Fiction Writing and Workshopping. 2021.

Published in 1980, Stephen King’s novel Firestarter extends his themes and fictional universe in ways that often feel, like the storyline itself, more repetitive than cumulative.

The Summary

We open with 34-year-old Andy McGee fleeing on foot down a New York City street, carrying his 7-year-old daughter Charlie and closely pursued by two men in a green car. Andy gets them into a cab, using his ability to “push” the cabdriver to convince him the men are after someone else, and that a one-dollar bill Andy gives him is actually a five-hundred-dollar bill to pay for taking them all the way to the Albany airport. En route, Andy dozes and remembers the psychology department experiment run by Dr. Wanless that he participated in twelve years earlier as a senior in college because he needed money; he was given the drug “Lot Six” and met Charlie’s mother Vicky, another participant in the experiment; Vicky is dead, killed by the men now pursuing Andy and Charlie. When they make it to the airport, Andy, suffering a debilitating headache from using the “push,” tells Charlie she needs to get them some money. Charlie uses her abilities to extricate the change from the phones in the phone booths, but some of her power gets away from her, and ends up setting on fire the boots of a nearby serviceman on the phone with–and clearly being a jerk to–his girlfriend. 

As Charlie and Andy leave the airport on foot, Andy recalls the experience of the Lot 6 experiment in more detail. During it he was seated across from Vicky, and they began to communicate with each other telepathically and share intimate things with each other, falling in love. During the experiment Andy also saw a boy claw his own eyes out, though an assistant claimed afterward Andy was just hallucinating. 

As the green car makes it to the Albany airport and Shop agents search it, a van picks up Andy and Charlie as hitchhikers and drops them at a motel fifteen miles away. Andy recalls the year after Charlie was born, when things would catch on fire but he and Vicky wouldn’t speak of why. Eventually Andy had to yell at Charlie for setting her teddy bear on fire, after which point he called his old college roommate Quincey, who knew about the Lot 6 experiment and who told him that the Shop would be very interested in Charlie if they were to learn about her powers.  

At the Shop’s headquarters in Longmont, Virginia, Dr. Wanless has come in to see Captain Hollister, aka “Cap,” who first looks over the McGee file and Wanless’s notes on the Lot 6 experiment, most of whose subjects are now dead. Wanless comes in and gives his usual rant to Cap about how dangerous Charlie must be and how her parents must have given her a complex (a la toilet-training) about controlling her power and what could happen if she gets past this complex; Wanless thinks her “potential for destruction” is so high she needs to be killed. Then Cap meets with Rainbird, a half Cherokee Shop agent.

Meanwhile, at the hotel in Hastings Glen, Charlie recalls learning about her pyrokinesis powers and her parents telling her it was bad to use them. She and Andy shower and hit the road to hitch a ride while Shop agents (including Orv Jamieson, or OJ) convene nearby to search motels and restaurants; the pair of agents approaching Charlie and Andy’s motel blow a tire on the way and just miss them. Charlie and Andy are picked up by a farmer, Irv Manders, who takes them home for lunch with his wife. Sixteen Shop agents converge on the farm, and Charlie can tell (psychically) that they intend to kill her father. When agents grab Andy, she unleashes her pyrokinetic powers more than she ever has; in the commotion, Irv Manders is shot, and the Manders’ house burns down, but the Shop agents scatter (some are killed). Andy has to slap Charlie to snap her out of using her powers, at which point she almost inadvertently burns him up, too. Irv lets Andy and Charlie have his off-road Jeep and gives them directions to follow a dirt road that will help them evade the road blocks the cops have set up in the surrounding area to catch them. 

Per the orders he was given in his meeting with Cap, John Rainbird kills Dr. Wanless, but makes Wanless tell him everything Wanless knows about Charlie and her powers first. Charlie and Andy successfully make it to Tashmore, Vermont, to an isolated cottage owned by Andy’s now deceased grandfather. Andy recalls the first time the Shop’s agents abducted Charlie fourteen months prior when she went to spend the night with a friend: after a psychic flash, he left work early and came home to find Vicky dead; the friend’s mother Charlie was staying with told him that some “friends” of his in a van had picked her up. Getting another psychic flash the abductors were escaping via the freeway rather than the airport, he tracked the van to a rest stop and got Charlie back by using his “pushing” abilities on the two agents with her to an extent that they were driven insane (he pushes one of them into believing he’s gone blind). When Charlie learned they killed her mother, she was barely able to keep her power from burning up their hotel bathroom.

Andy and Charlie stay several months over the winter on Tashmore Pond; Charlie turns eight. In the spring Andy decides to mail several letters to different newspapers about what’s happened, thinking that publicizing it might be the only way to save them, but when he doesn’t get a response after a couple of weeks, he assumes, correctly, that his letters have been intercepted and the Shop knows where they are. The Cap enlists Rainbird to assist with their capture, at which point Rainbird reveals he’s been hacking Cap’s computer and has a lot of sensitive info in order to blackmail Cap into letting him have access to Charlie once she’s captured. On the day Andy and Charlie try to leave the cottage, Shop agents, including Rainbird, shoot them with tranquilizer darts and easily capture them. 

Five months later, a storm hits the Shop headquarters compound where Charlie and Andy are being held. The power goes out while Rainbird is in Charlie’s room posing as a janitor, and he uses it as an opportunity to get closer to Charlie by making up a story about being scared of the dark because of his time as a prisoner of the Vietcong. The blackout disrupts Andy’s med schedule, inducing a panic attack that somehow helps him regain his pushing abilities, and he ends up using the push on himself in his sleep.

As time passes after the storm, Rainbird–“John” to Charlie–convinces her to participate in a test and make fire in order to get some things for herself, like eventually seeing her father. Andy starts throwing his pills away and pretending he’s still drugged while using his push ability on his handler Dr. Pynchot to let him stick around for more testing instead of sending him away to another compound. Pynchot turns out to be a mental “deviant” (a transvestite), and so the push has an adverse effect on him that slowly makes him lose his sanity. Charlie does a successful test for the Shop people, demonstrating the startling potential scope of her powers. Afterwards she’s allowed to walk outside with John, who takes her to a stable where she meets a horse named Necromancer; Charlie tells John she was able to control her ability during the test in a way she hadn’t before. Cap and Rainbird decide Charlie ultimately can’t be controlled and that Rainbird will kill her. 

Cap calls Andy into his office to tell him Dr. Pynchot killed himself and that Andy will be going off to the Hawaii compound; Andy uses his push on Cap to find out how Rainbird has been manipulating Charlie and then to arrange that the Cap will take him along to Pynchot’s funeral. Charlie has a bad dream about Necromancer and other horses burning. 

Charlie does another test, this time destroying a cinderblock wall. She demands to see her father and threatens to make something happen if she doesn’t; one of the doctors, Hockstetter, thinks the testing has helped her practice her power in a dangerous way. On the way back from Pynchot’s funeral, Andy pushes Cap to arrange for both Cap and Charlie to come with him on the flight to the base in Hawaii (though he plans to get them off before that at a refueling stop), as well as to send Rainbird off to San Diego, and to give a note to Charlie. The Captain gives Charlie the note, which tells her to meet her father in the stables at 1pm the upcoming Wednesday, and not to trust Rainbird, who should be gone by then. This makes Charlie keep her distance the next time Rainbird visits her, which combined with the knowledge that Cap recently visited her, makes Rainbird nervous. He watches a recording of Cap in Charlie’s room and sees him pass the note; then Rainbird uses stolen computer codes to look over some files and deduces Andy does have his pushing ability and used it on Pynchot and Cap. When Cap calls to send him to San Diego, Rainbird agrees but then uses the Cap’s codes on the computer to cancel the order. 

That Wednesday, Charlie asks to go out to the stables, and an agent takes her with orders to leave her there. Rainbird hears about her request to go to the stables and is there waiting in the loft after making everyone else clear out when she gets there. Rainbird calls down to her and she yells at him for betraying her; he says he wants to be straight with her and has almost convinced her to come up the ladder to him to finish their business when her father comes in the with Cap (who came to get him for them to get on the plane to Hawaii). Cap now has a full-blown ricochet effect in his head about golf and snakes from Andy’s pushing. Rainbird has his gun trained on Andy and tells Charlie he can either shoot her father or she can come up the ladder to him and her father can go to Hawaii; she’s about to go to the ladder again with Andy thinking he’ll have to push her not to, but then the Cap freaks out thinking a nearby hose is a snake near the time the agent who escorted Charlie to the stable rings a compound-wide alarm telling everyone to converge on the stables. When Rainbird jerks his gun toward the suddenly moving Cap, Andy uses a massive push against Rainbird to make him jump from the loft. Rainbird breaks a leg but manages to hang on to his gun and shoot Andy (who felt himself already dying from the amount of push he just used anyway). Rainbird wants Charlie to look at him so he can look her in the eye as she dies (this is what he’s wanted from her all along) but as he fires his bullet she uses her power to vaporize both the bullet and then Rainbird.   

The back of the stable blows out, hitting a lot of Shop agents with shrapnel. Charlie goes to her dying father, who tells her to “‘[m]ake them know they were in a war” before he dies. When the horses start running from the barn, the Shop agents are on a hair trigger and shoot at them. Charlie comes up behind the agents and starts sending fire. She destroys the entire compound, including the antebellum houses. Her power almost spirals out of control completely, but she manages to get ahold of herself and send it into the duckpond. From the point of view of Shop agent OJ who was at the Manders farm, we get some of the chaos of Shop employees trying to climb the fences to escape and getting attacked by the Dobermen guard dogs there. Charlie sits by the pond recovering, then climbs the fence herself after a woman calls her a witch and Charlie screams back it’s not her fault. 

The media reports that the destruction at the Shop compound was a terrorist attack and that Rainbird was a double agent. Four weeks later, the new (female!) head of the Shop wants Charlie found and killed after the initial period of confusion following the destruction enabled her to get away. Charlie shows up at the Manders farm, and they take her in uncertainly because they were threatened by the government to keep quiet about what happened with Charlie last time. After some months, word gets back to the Shop about where Charlie is, but the morning agents show up to apprehend her, she’s already left. She makes it to the offices of Rolling Stone and says she wants to tell one of the writers her story. The End.  

The Agency

The titular trope of this novel seems a thematically apt one for the sea change my thoughts on the “craft” of fiction are undergoing as I’m teaching my first advanced fiction workshop in over a year and reading the recently released Craft in the Real World: Rethinking Fiction Writing and Workshopping by Matthew Salesses, who says:

Much of what we learn about craft (about the expectations we are supposed to consider) implies a straight, white, cis, able (etc.) audience.

Matthew Salesses. Craft in the Real World: Rethinking Fiction Writing and Workshopping. 2021.

Like many American institutions, this country’s fiction–popular and literary alike–is largely white supremacist. Nowhere is this more apparent than in King’s oeuvre. Salesses traces our idea of what’s “normal” in fiction back to Aristotle, who dissented with the god-driven plots common in the tragedies of his time to institute the character-driven model that is still the basis of literary fiction to this day. While King has played with both plot-driven and more character-driven models, within either, his white characters enjoy a significant amount of agency.

Take King’s story “Trucks,” for which we have a first-person white male narrator. If character development is knowing anything about this man outside of what he’s doing in immediate response to the sentient semis surrounding him, then we have zero here. But his white (supremacist) gaze is essentially consistent with any of King’s “implied authors,” as Salesses wold have it:

The girl in the booth screamed. Both hands were clamped into her cheeks, dragging the flesh down, turning it into a witch’s mask.

Glass broke. I turned my head and saw that the trucker had squeezed his glass hard enough to break it. I don’t think he knew it yet. Milk and a few drops of blood fell onto the counter.

The black counterman was frozen by the radio, a dishcloth in hand, looking amazed.

Stephen King, “Trucks,” Night Shift. 1977.

When the narrator ends up moored in a truck stop with a bunch of strangers, he sees a “girl,” a “trucker,” and a “black counterman.” The white male narrator is at the mercy of the trucks and essentially ends up enslaved by them at the end, but it is he who is able to lead the stand against them, hence: agency. But the agency of his gaze goes even further in defining a normative standard:

It is easy to forget whom we are writing for if we do not keep it a conscious consideration, and the default is not universal, but privileged. To name the race only of characters of color, for example, because that is how you’ve seen books do it before, is to write to a white audience. It is to write toward the expectations of how white people read the world.

Matthew Salesses. Craft in the Real World: Rethinking Fiction Writing and Workshopping. 2021.

History shows that white people tend to read the world as a hierarchy they’re at the top of, a worldview that keeps us in constant (bloody) conflict. Salesses traces how Aristotle’s character-driven plot model generally promotes the value of individual agency (agency in the sense of having the power ) in a way that certain government Agencies essentially propagated in a specific post-WWII fight:

In other words, the Workshop never meant craft to be neutral. Craft expressed certain artistic and social values that could be weaponized against the threat of Communism.

Matthew Salesses. Craft in the Real World: Rethinking Fiction Writing and Workshopping. 2021.

and

In his book on creative writing programs during the Cold War, Workshops of Empire, Eric Bennett traces the success of the workshop model to its history at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop. He quotes letters from Workshop cofounder Paul Engle to friends and funders, in which Engle sometimes describes his investment in craft as an ideological weapon against the spread of Communism. In one letter, Engle writes that he is convinced, “with a fervor approaching smugness,” that the tradition of Western literature “is precisely what these people [in the East], in their cloudy minds, need most.”

Matthew Salesses. Craft in the Real World: Rethinking Fiction Writing and Workshopping. 2021.

and

If you have been taught to write fiction in America, it is a good bet that you have been taught a style popularized by Ernest Hemingway and later by Raymond Carver, sometimes described as “invisible,” that is committed to limiting the use of modifiers and metaphors, to the concrete over the abstract, to individual agency and action, and to avoiding overt politics (other than the politics of white masculinity). Instead of a political argument, a character might angrily eat a potato. This is supposed to leave conclusions up to readers, though what it really means is that the ideology of craft is to hide its ideology. … If the Workshop is supposed to spread American values without looking like it is spreading American values, what better craft for the job than the craft of hiding meaning behind style? [bold emphasis mine]

I’ve been reading and writing about the “dirty” covert ops of the Central Intelligence Agency for some time, and now come to find out that through the weaponization of creative-writing pedagogy I’ve essentially been spreading their propaganda, an agent whose identity is unbeknownst even to myself…. So, that’s great. Salesses never name-checks the CIA, only this broader “ideological” battle between East and West, but this particular Agency’s enlistment and manipulation of literature is well documented.

In Firestarter, King does name-check the CIA:

“What sort of government agency we talking about? FBI?”

“No. The Shop.”

“What? That CIA outfit?” Irv looked frankly disbelieving.

“They don’t have anything at all to do with the CIA,” Andy said. “The Shop is really the DSI—Department of Scientific Intelligence. I read in an article about three years ago that some wiseacre nicknamed it the Shop in the early sixties, after a science-fiction story called ‘The Weapon Shops of Ishtar.’ By a guy named van Vogt, I think, but that doesn’t matter.”

It doesn’t matter, but it’s a sci-fi reference, so in it will go….and if the Shop didn’t “have anything at all to do with the CIA,” it wouldn’t be necessary for a character to state that categorically. The CIA-Shop likeness goes beyond general(ly questionable) covert tactics to the specificity of this plot: using mind-altering substances on unwitting subjects with the ultimate aim of mind control, which it’s been proven the CIA has attempted.

The CIA did Nixon’s dirty deeds dirt cheap, and Nixon is King’s Necromancer–his favorite whipping horse. This novel piles on the evidence that King was forged in the fires of Watergate and Vietnam.

“I’ve heard things,” Quincey said finally, when he saw that Andy wasn’t going to let him off without something. “But sometimes people listen in on phones, old buddy. It’s the era of Watergate.”

and:

Dr. Joseph Wanless had suffered his stroke on the same day Richard Nixon announced his resignation of the presidency—August 8, 1974. It had been a cerebral accident of moderate severity, and he had never come all the way back physically. Nor mentally, in Cap’s opinion. It was only following the stroke that Wanless’s interest in the Lot Six experiment and follow-up had become constant and obsessive.

As I sit here watching the closing arguments of Trump’s second impeachment trial, I’d say we still have not “come all the way back” from Watergate… the reveal of the potential for political corruption revealed by Nixon and his deployment of “intelligence” agents for a smear campaign is something Boomers could not un-see. After that it seems we entered an emperor-wears-no-clothes situation: we knew the system didn’t work but kept pretending it did anyway. Then Trump raised the specter of that corruption, beating it into a dead horse whose corpse he rode into the White House…

One of Trump’s favorite rhetorical levers is conspiracy theories, which were so effective due to our checkered political history (Watergate all the now known shady shit the CIA has done) opening up the possibility that these theories could be true; there was precedent. Drenched in deep-state government paranoia, Firestarter was published in September of 1980, shortly before John Lennon (RIP) was murdered by Mark David Chapman in December of 1980. There are conspiracy theories that J.D. Salinger’s novel The Catcher in the Rye, which Chapman was reading at the site of Lennon’s murder when police apprehended him, was part of some kind of CIA-related mind-control program, which is noteworthy in light of King’s overlapping interest in the specimen of the male adolescent. (Even if The Catcher in the Rye was not written or utilized as an explicit mind-control device, it’s still a mind-control device.)

Connected to the concept that the human mind might be programmed or controlled, the toilet-training metaphor about Charlie’s relationship to her powers, if leaned on too heavily/repetitively, took on resonance for me as a metaphor for how we’ve been conditioned to define a normative literary and otherwise standard as straight, white, male, etc., individualistic. I’m the perfect audience for some CIA-bashing, but I have been conditioned pretty strongly on the character-driven front to want what is in many ways lacking in this novel. I could do King’s premise-driven pocket-horror short stories for the most part, but in a novel, I struggle. Here, the characters are agents of the plot in that they only exist to advance it, instead of the plot existing to advance them. Not to say the characters should always be advanced, but they could at least be more interesting?

In Firestarter‘s premise, Andy McGee an unwitting victim of the government’s sinister experiment, utterly innocent. He seems to have less agency than a lot of white-male King characters, relentlessly pursued and powerless to stop it–except not entirely powerless. But using the “pushing” power he does have is literally killing him while we come to find the nature of Charlie’s is to feed on itself and grow more powerful, which subverts some of the agency that derives from Andy’s powers. His thorazine-dependent interlude at the Shop compound raises interesting themes about physiological v. psychological addiction and connects the “push” label to “drug pusher” (side note: according to an anecdote in King’s On Writing memoir, “pushing” is also the term King and his brother used for pooping when they were kids). Mind-altering drugs take away one’s personal agency, and I suppose the premise of a white man losing his agency is in large part what King is deriving horror from here. (The horror!)

So the Shop “controls” or is the party whose actions generate most of the plot here, but then they lose control in what turns into a narrative about the dangers of playing god. This happens not because of anything Charlie does–which would mean a more ancient-Greek-type plot of the Shop destroying itself–but because of a random storm, a deus ex machina, God in the form of a not-random storm…evidence for which might be the omniscient point of view in which this pivotal plot point of the electrical power going out is described (an omniscience reminiscent of a will-to-know-all in vein of CIA/NSA surveillance/”intelligence”):

The chain of events that ended in such destruction and loss of life began with a summer storm and the failure of two generators.

As someone who recognizes that the systems of our government consistently and constantly prey on people who have done nothing to “deserve” it, I shouldn’t need Andy to be the victim of his own tragic flaw to make this plot satisfying. Yet it’s my (conditioned) impulse to explore what that would look like, which would trace back to the reason Andy was in the study back in college in the first place: here it’s that he’s poor and needs money as he’s about to go to grad school for English. Surely something else I can sympathize with… but there’s something about him that just feels vanilla and hard to get invested in. (I don’t give a shit about his “Granther,” whose former existence is a paper-thin excuse for the cabin they’re able to hole up in, a convenient property that unwittingly belies this victimized white man’s privilege….) The novel’s alternating presentation of past and present timelines doesn’t help. In theory, opening in the middle of the action as it does should generate more tension/interest, but when it’s presented as Andy actually recalling the past in such detail as they’re in the midst of doing things like climbing down a steep highway embankment, it calls attention to itself as clumsy.

Other notable and in my (conditioned) view detrimental lacking aspects of character development would be Charlie, Vicky, Cap and Rainbird (more on the latter three in Part II). Charlie’s conflict over whether to use her powers is good or bad is pretty generic–ie feels like what any child might feel about this situation without anything to inflect it to express her individual character. Which just says more about my conditioning … the nature of Charlie’s power feeding on itself (the way fire itself does!) and the question of her control over it–her agency–resonates with the Shop’s relationship to its figurative power, but the conclusion of her story doesn’t play this out in much of a satisfying way; we get a Salem reference via the lady calling her a witch as she’s trying to leave and then she makes her way back to the Manders, where she only uses her powers in very tiny helpful ways that I guess are supposed to show us she has internalized the lesson that power corrupts and only seeks more power, a cycle she is then going to stop by going to Rolling Stone, of all places. This conclusion reinforces Charlie’s agency, which would feel more valuable to me for being non-male if she had some character development to pay more than lip service to her empowerment… It’s also a conclusion of King once again reinforcing the power of narrative itself.

Western patriarchal imperialist narrative, of course. This novel takes as its sole epigraph the opening line of Ray Bradbury’s famous novel Fahrenheit 451 about a world in which books aren’t just banned but burned. I mentioned in a previous post how King’s Bradbury homage “I am the Doorway” is “a possible (unconscious) allegory for … a passing of the patriarchal torch from Melville to Hemingway to Bradbury to King,” and it’s ironic that Firestarter takes 451 as its literary antecedent, since 451 seems like a conscious allegory about the dangers of burning down the patriarchal Western canon, while Firestarter feels like an unconscious allegory of the need to burn down the patriarchy itself. As the news breaks that Trump has been acquitted, it would be a pleasure to burn the whole of the Western canon and the political system that’s weaponized it.

Torch the torch…

-SCR