Here's a review I decided would be fairly relevant here, the sequel to the 1989 adaptation of Pet Sematary., with a fair amount on the book. I also put in a little on the degree to which King has pushed genre boundaries. I personally think even Pet Sematary was "dark fantasy" as much as horror. In the late 1980s-mid 1990s, he did do quite a bit that was more in the fantasy direction, which was probably a high point for his writing. I'm curious if anyone else noticed or agrees with this, especially from reading King at the time.

https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/08/featured-creature-one-where-deader-is.html
David N. Brown
Mesa, Arizona

On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 15:40:10 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
<davidnbrown80@gmail.com> wrote:

>Here's a review I decided would be fairly relevant here, the sequel to the 1989 adaptation of Pet Sematary., with a fair amount on the book. I also put in a little on the degree to which King has pushed genre boundaries. I personally think even Pet Sematary was "dark fantasy" as much as horror. In the late 1980s-mid 1990s, he did do quite a bit that was more in the fantasy direction, which was probably a high point for his writing. I'm curious if anyone else noticed or agrees with this, especially from reading King at the time.

I found the book ... disappointing.

For a novel sold with the assertion the King himself was frightened by
it, it was awfully ... tame.

IIRC, I stopped reading King shortly after that.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 9:01:45 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 15:40:10 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Here's a review I decided would be fairly relevant here, the sequel to the 1989 adaptation of Pet Sematary., with a fair amount on the book. I also put in a little on the degree to which King has pushed genre boundaries. I personally think even Pet Sematary was "dark fantasy" as much as horror. In the late 1980s-mid 1990s, he did do quite a bit that was more in the fantasy direction, which was probably a high point for his writing. I'm curious if anyone else noticed or agrees with this, especially from reading King at the time.
> I found the book ... disappointing.
>
> For a novel sold with the assertion the King himself was frightened by
> it, it was awfully ... tame.
>
> IIRC, I stopped reading King shortly after that.
> --
> "In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
> development was the disintegration, under Christian
> influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
> of family right."
I've seen it commented, King's "backstory" really left people expecting something that never existed. What the book really did was explore grief and the degree to which stereotypes of masculinity suppress the expression of emotion. The result was very hard-hitting, but not that "scary" in a conventional a conventional sense. Personally, I go for horror/ dark fantasy that's disturbing on an intellectual level, and that's something King did more of in the 1970s and early 1980s.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 09:06:00 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
<davidnbrown80@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 9:01:45 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 15:40:10 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Here's a review I decided would be fairly relevant here, the sequel to the 1989 adaptation of Pet Sematary., with a fair amount on the book. I also put in a little on the degree to which King has pushed genre boundaries. I personally think even Pet Sematary was "dark fantasy" as much as horror. In the late 1980s-mid 1990s, he did do quite a bit that was more in the fantasy direction, which was probably a high point for his writing. I'm curious if anyone else noticed or agrees with this, especially from reading King at the time.
>> I found the book ... disappointing.
>>
>> For a novel sold with the assertion the King himself was frightened by
>> it, it was awfully ... tame.
>>
>> IIRC, I stopped reading King shortly after that.
>> --
>> "In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
>> development was the disintegration, under Christian
>> influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
>> of family right."
>I've seen it commented, King's "backstory" really left people expecting something that never existed. What the book really did was explore grief and the degree to which stereotypes of masculinity suppress the expression of emotion. The result was very hard-hitting, but not that "scary" in a conventional a conventional sense. Personally, I go for horror/ dark fantasy that's disturbing on an intellectual level, and that's something King did more of in the 1970s and early 1980s.

So why was it sold based on it having scared King?

But thanks for explaining why I found it so ... disappointing: it was
about psychobabble.

They should have advertised it as such. Some people /enjoy/
psychobabble.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 9:10:17 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 09:06:00 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 9:01:45 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 15:40:10 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
> >> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Here's a review I decided would be fairly relevant here, the sequel to the 1989 adaptation of Pet Sematary., with a fair amount on the book. I also put in a little on the degree to which King has pushed genre boundaries.. I personally think even Pet Sematary was "dark fantasy" as much as horror.. In the late 1980s-mid 1990s, he did do quite a bit that was more in the fantasy direction, which was probably a high point for his writing. I'm curious if anyone else noticed or agrees with this, especially from reading King at the time.
> >> I found the book ... disappointing.
> >>
> >> For a novel sold with the assertion the King himself was frightened by
> >> it, it was awfully ... tame.
> >>
> >> IIRC, I stopped reading King shortly after that.
> >> --
> >> "In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
> >> development was the disintegration, under Christian
> >> influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
> >> of family right."
> >I've seen it commented, King's "backstory" really left people expecting something that never existed. What the book really did was explore grief and the degree to which stereotypes of masculinity suppress the expression of emotion. The result was very hard-hitting, but not that "scary" in a conventional a conventional sense. Personally, I go for horror/ dark fantasy that's disturbing on an intellectual level, and that's something King did more of in the 1970s and early 1980s.
> So why was it sold based on it having scared King?
>
> But thanks for explaining why I found it so ... disappointing: it was
> about psychobabble.
>
> They should have advertised it as such. Some people /enjoy/
> psychobabble.
> --
> "In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
> development was the disintegration, under Christian
> influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
> of family right."
Per King, the novel was inspired by an incident where one of his children almost wandered onto a busy road. It's been commented that the community as portrayed in the novel seems indifferent to animal casualties that might be prevented with better fencing, but nobody seems to have checked the facts with the community where King was living at the time. Also, he didn't exactly state the stereotype angle, but then in the actual 1980s, toxic masculinity needed as much explanation as gravity.