# Why did the pet cemetary turn dead things evil?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187
**Category:** Cafe Society
**Created:** [February 13, 2006, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187 "2006-02-13T00:29:35Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@furryman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furryman)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2006, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/41 "2006-02-13T20:14:25Z")
1. It seems to me that King is merely following literary/ mythological/ legendary precedences. The dead have been placated since ancient Egyptian times and probably before.
2. Doesn’t the story mention one of the Elder Gods being involved? I think that would explain any type of evil. “Elder Gods” being number two on the list of Things To Avoid just after Ancient Indian Burial Grounds.
---
### Author:  [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2006, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/42 "2006-02-13T20:58:40Z")
Off on a slight tangent: I recall in the foreword, Stephen King says that his wife read the manuscript, and told him to throw the book in a drawer – it was too creepy to publish. I think she was on the right track; but I think a parent will have a very different reaction to the book than a non-parent. I read it when my kids were toddlers, and thought it the most disturbing thing of his I’ve ever read.
---
### Author:  [@Trillionaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trillionaire)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2006, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/43 "2006-02-13T21:53:48Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#):
>
> King has said on occassion that he finds it more interesting to make things happen “just because.” That sometimes explanations spoil the story.
Exactly. This discussion is probably more suited to another thread but, since it’s come this far, here’s a quote from King on the subject:
> [@Stephen King](#):
>
> My favorite sort of short story has always been the kind where things happen just because they happen. In novels and movies… you are supposed to explain _why_ things happen. Let me tell you something, friends and neighbors: I _hate_ explaining why things happen, and my efforts in that direction (such as the doctored LSD and resultant DNA changes which create Charlie McGee’s pyrokinetic talents in _Firestarter_) aren’t very good.
---
### Author:  [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2006, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/44 "2006-02-13T22:09:12Z")
> [@Trillionaire](#):
>
> Exactly. This discussion is probably more suited to another thread but, since it’s come this far, here’s a quote from King on the subject:
King may have his faults, but he certainly seems to have some self-awareness. :)He has a similar quote about that short story about FTL travel, where he says that the underlying scientific explanation was less-than-satisfactory. I think he said it was “kinda wonky”.
---
### Author:  [@Snooooopy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snooooopy)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2006, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/45 "2006-02-13T22:18:18Z")
> [@Qadgop the Mercotan](#):
>
> Because if they’d come back all nice and friendly, King wouldn’t have had much of a book now, would he? 😉
You obviously didn’t read King’s gripping novel, _The People Whose Dead Pet Came Back To Life And Everything Was Completely Cool Because It Acted Just Like It Did Before It Died_.
---
### Author:  [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2006, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/46 "2006-02-13T23:00:14Z")
> [@lissener](#):
>
> Except, seriously, it’s _Stephen Fucking King_. Not many people know this, but he got the “King” part of his name because he’s the “King” of just pulling shit out of his, um, imagination for the sole purpose of keeping the plot rolling.
>
> When you’re talking about the creator of a fictional world–especially when fantasy and the supernatural evolved–“because the author says so” is often the only possible answer. Times a gajillion when it’s King.
>
> Sometimes the author pulls some background out of his, um, imagination, by way of setup or justification. But sometimes he doesn’t. Times a gajillion when it’s King.
>
> Even if you trace the “reason” asked for in the OP back, eventually you reach a point where the ONLY answer left is “because King said so.”
Satire.
---
### Author:  [@Corii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corii)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2006, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/47 "2006-02-13T23:08:21Z")
> [@Snooooopy](#):
>
> You obviously didn’t read King’s gripping novel, _The People Whose Dead Pet Came Back To Life And Everything Was Completely Cool Because It Acted Just Like It Did Before It Died_.
King wrote “The 6th Day”? 😉
---
### Author:  [@CateAyo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CateAyo)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2006, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/48 "2006-02-13T23:44:38Z")
> [@cthiax](#):
>
> Second part yes, and I want to address something about that in a moment, first part…maybe. There’s a hint of that, but there’s also a suggestion that death and return simply ‘sours’ the soul beyond all recognition. One point I think is very important is that it’s not the evil that comes from the ground that matters, in the story: it’s that it is evil to bury things there. It’s the sin of the person trying to thwart death that King is focused on.
>
> As for the Indians: it is clear in the book that they bear at least part of the ‘responsibility’ for the souring of the burial ground where victims of famine-based cannibalism were laid to rest. But it’s possible this was caused by the evil in the first place, or just made what already existed more powerful, as the extinction of the Micmac would also do.
The Micmac (more properly Mi’kmaq) are not extinct as a people.
---
### Author:  [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2006, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/49 "2006-02-13T23:56:57Z")
Big ass spoilers for the end of the novel follow:
It’s been years since I read the book, too, but one thing that stuck with me was the protagonists assumption, at the end, that his kid came back evil because he “waited too long” before burying him, and that if he buried his wife fast enough, she’d come back okay. This always struck me as kinda creepy, because I think the events of the story point to just the opposite: the longer you wait to bury the body, the closer to normal the returnee is, although it never gets all the way there. The kid who comes back is entirely malevolent. The cat’s actually pretty evil, too, as I recall, but limited in what it can do because it’s just a cat. Doesn’t it help the kid murder the wife somehow? But there’s the story of the guy whose son died in WWI and somehow got the body shipped back to him - which must have been months later - and buried him in the Semetary. When he came back, he was just “off,” not actually evil. Mean, uncomfortable to be around, generally creepy, but not monstrous. The end of the book was, in many ways, the scariest thing I’d ever read by King. The protagonist’s mind has snapped, he’s sitting in his kitchen with his ruined hands, waiting for his wife to come back, convinced that she’s going to be the same she used to be, but what’s actually going to stumble through his door is going to be the most twisted, depraved thing to claw its way out of that sour ground in the town’s history.
---
### Author:  [@Xploder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xploder)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2006, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/50 "2006-02-14T00:17:12Z")
> [@lissener](#):
>
> Except, seriously, it’s _Stephen Fucking King_. Not many people know this, but he got the “King” part of his name because he’s the “King” of just pulling shit out of his, um, imagination for the sole purpose of keeping the plot rolling.
>
> When you’re talking about the creator of a fictional world–especially when fantasy and the supernatural evolved–“because the author says so” is often the only possible answer. Times a gajillion when it’s King.
>
> Sometimes the author pulls some background out of his, um, imagination, by way of setup or justification. But sometimes he doesn’t. Times a gajillion when it’s King.
>
> Even if you trace the “reason” asked for in the OP back, eventually you reach a point where the ONLY answer left is “because King said so.”
So does that explain why you think that **Showgirls** is such a WONDERFUL movie? Because you said so? Your answer is a non-answer.
---
### Author:  [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2006, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/51 "2006-02-14T02:12:55Z")
> [@Miller](#):
>
> Big ass spoilers for the end of the novel follow:
>
> It’s been years since I read the book, too, but one thing that stuck with me was the protagonists assumption, at the end, that his kid came back evil because he “waited too long” before burying him, and that if he buried his wife fast enough, she’d come back okay. This always struck me as kinda creepy, because I think the events of the story point to just the opposite: the longer you wait to bury the body, the closer to normal the returnee is, although it never gets all the way there. The kid who comes back is entirely malevolent. The cat’s actually pretty evil, too, as I recall, but limited in what it can do because it’s just a cat. Doesn’t it help the kid murder the wife somehow?
If I recall aright, it was ol’ Jud who got double-teamed, not the wife. Gage came at him with the scalpel, and Church got between his ankles and tripped him. When Rachel arrived later, the cat was hanging around outside with blood on its lips. _(“Foreshadowing-- your key to quality literature.”)_
> [@](#):
>
> But there’s the story of the guy whose son died in WWI and somehow got the body shipped back to him - which must have been months later - and buried him in the Semetary. When he came back, he was just “off,” not actually evil. Mean, uncomfortable to be around, generally creepy, but not monstrous.
Unless there’s another version of the book floating around (always a possibility with King), I tend to disagree with this interpretation. The whole point of Jud telling Louis the story of Timmy Baterman was to emphasize just how horribly wrong the resurrection process can turn out. It seemed pretty clear from Jud’s account that whatever returned from the Micmac burial ground wasn’t really “Timmy” at all, but something else entirely. Whereas Timmy Baterman was described as an amiable if none-too-bright boy in life, the thing that came back wearing his body was a sly, cruel entity which somehow knew the darkest secrets of everyone in town. Eventually Timmy’s dad was driven to kill himself along with whatever demon he’d called up. I submit that this is not the best anecdote to share if you’re trying to establish that the Micmac burying ground doesn’t turn you evil.
Both Jud and Victor both cling to the belief that the Pet Sematary’s power only rarely leads to evil, and Victor later convinces himself that he can avoid the worst consequences if he can only resuscitate the dead quickly enough-- as if possession by supernatural evil were somehow comparable to oxygen deprivation. However, there’s actually nothing in the book to support these ideas, and it seems that King is making a point about the lies we tell ourselves in order to cope with truths too monstrous to bear. Even though Church was resurrected almost immediately, it’s fairly obvious that he still came back with an uncharacteristically bloodthirsty streak. Similarly Jud tries to convince Victor that his dog Spot, at least, was still a “good dog” after being resurrected, but the details of his account only serve to underscore how wrong the animal was – weirdly passive, cold to the touch, and reeking of grave dirt-- not to mention the terror the dog inspired in his parents. And this is the most “normal” of the returned animals we ever hear about. Yet, even knowing about the burying ground’s malign influence, Jud still shares the secret with Victor; in fact, he manages to justify his action by claiming that the inherent “wrongness” of the process will subtly teach Victor’s daughter to be more comfortable with the idea of death.
Yes, that sounds like such a \*good \* plan, Jud; teach the neighbor kid that “sometimes, dead is better” by secretly resurrecting her cat using blasphemous pagan magicks. I, for one, can’t imagine how such a scheme could _possibly_ go wrong.
---
### Author:  [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2006, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/52 "2006-02-14T03:02:59Z")
**Terrifel** , you mean LOUIS, not Victor. Victor was the kid who died on the operating table, who came back to warn Louis not to fuck around with the burial ground.
Damn, now I have to read that book again. Dammit, it scared the SHIT out of me and the movie still does. Especially the wife’s older sister, Zelda.
---
### Author:  [@monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monster)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2006, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/53 "2006-02-14T03:09:31Z")
> [@Xploder](#):
>
> So does that explain why you think that **Showgirls** is such a WONDERFUL movie? Because you said so? Your answer is a non-answer.
Please say this is a joke. There is no way anybody could think Showgirls was a WONDERFUL movie.
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2006, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/54 "2006-02-14T03:25:46Z")
King doesn’t specifically say in the book, but there are clues that lead us to beleive that the revived dead are reanimated with evil spirits rather than the souls of the departed.
We hear the story of the kid who was brought back to life and would “say things” about other people that were true, facts that nobody could know, bad things.
Later when Gabe is brought back he tells the old man that his wife had affairs with other people and liked to have anal sex with his friends, and that now she was in hell having anal sex.
Sounds like demons to me.
I once had a bad experience with a demon named “Fuckrot,” but that’s another story.
---
### Author:  [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2006, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/55 "2006-02-14T03:31:14Z")
> [@Snickers](#):
>
> It’s been a while since I read the book as well, but it seems to me (and I doubt this is supported at all by the text; it’s really just my impression) that intelligence mattered. That is, the dog that came back came back as something soulless and empty, but not necessarily evil. It was just more of a lump. The cat that came back was mean, but again, it didn’t seem evilly so - it just seemed to do the things that cats do, with perhaps more malice, but I don’t remember it setting out to do harm. However, when people were buried up there, they came back vastly worse, and my guess is because they had more intelligence when alive than your average household pet. You could call it my “residual intelligence” theory - the more intelligence the creature has to start with, the more chance they’ll come back with the intent to do evil.
In King’s new book, _Cell_ he presents a diametrically opposite theory… mindless malevolence.
In the book there is a “pulse” (origins unknown- some speculation that it was a terrorist act.) broadcast to all cellphones, that in effect wipes the brain clean like a magnet to a harddrive. It is theorized that the zombie-like, mindlessly violent, “phoners” revert to the base, primitive, “kernel” that remains. Revealing our evolutionary success, not as intelligence, but a revelatory fact; that under all of the layers, at our core, we are the most instinctual and unhesitant killers.
However, _Cell_ is an entirely different beast than _Pet Sematary_. It is a much starker, less nuanced, less moralistic, and less supernatural book. This is King in Unabomber mode. Not exactly anti-technology, but a horrific exposition of technology as a double edged sword.
Pretty good book, I recommend it. But in truth, it wasn’t quite as satisfying as I had hoped. As carnivorous as this book is, it left me wanting- it felt like a vegetarian meal… I kept wondering, “Where’s the MEAT!? (and NO DESSERT??)”
---
### Author:  [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2006, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/56 "2006-02-14T03:56:20Z")
::: Moderator coughs for attention :::
First, there’s a very thin line here, and let’s be sure we stay on the correct side of it. It’s perfectly OK to be critical of an author (like King) and his work, that’s what Cafe Society is all about. It is not OK to be critical of another poster because of her/his taste about that work. The fine line is that criticizing an author (in an insulting way) can easily be viewed as insulting posters who like him. It is a fine line, and I want to be sure we stay on the correct side of it: no personal insults allowed in Cafe Society forum.
Second, on the question of “shitting on” a thread, again, I think there’s a fine line between saying, “It’s only fiction, and therefore doesn’t necessarily have an explanation” (acceptable) and saying, “It’s only fiction, why are you losers wasting time trying to think up an explanation” (unacceptable.) The former is a reasonable comment, especially when dealing with an author like Steven King who is on record as saying he doesn’t really care. I think that the line would be drawn at a different point for Tolkien (say) who is known to have spent lots and lots of time and effort at making his universe consistent. At a third level altogether is George Lucas, who obviously doesn’t care but pretends he does. Anyhow, it’s not necessarily shitting on a thread to comment that a particular author has made a statement about his work that implies that internal consistency is not on his agenda.
---
### Author:  [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2006, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/57 "2006-02-14T04:03:50Z")
By the way, as I think about this more, I guess there’s very fuzzy patches. With Sherlock Holmes, for instance, Arthur Conan Doyle (as author) clearly didn’t care about internal consistency; but for Dr Watson (as author), inconsistencies indicate deliberate disguising the reality.
If anyone wants to open a thread in CS to discuss the question of when saying “it’s only fiction” is a fair comment and when it’s shitting on a thread, that’d probably be interesting.
---
### Author:  [@Purd\_Werfect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Purd_Werfect)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2006, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/58 "2006-02-14T05:47:20Z")
I always just assumed it’s because they got woken up unexpectedly. That pisses me off too.
---
### Author:  [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2006, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/59 "2006-02-14T07:54:28Z")
> [@Xploder](#):
>
> So does that explain why you think that **Showgirls** is such a WONDERFUL movie? Because you said so? Your answer is a non-answer.
Sorry for the misapprehension: I didn’t write _Showgirls_, any more than I wrote _Pet Sematary_. The vastness of the differences between King vis-a-vis \*Pet Sematary \*and me vis-a-vis \*Showgirls \*is so, well, _vast_, that your question achieves a surreal level of nonsequitur that almost makes me dizzy. I kind of like it.
You, on the other hand, seem to be hunkered over\* Pet Sematary\* like a mother badger defending her young. Perhaps you think that \*you \*are Stephen King?
---
### Author:  [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2006, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187/60 "2006-02-14T07:58:05Z")
On preview, with CKDH’s posts in mind, I apologize for the tone of my previous post.
But seriously. How nonsequitur and personal and just bizarrely, surreally irrelevant was Xploder’s post?
Wait, don’t answer that. I’ll sleep on it, and see if I can find any sense in it at all. If I can, I’ll respond. If I don’t respond, you’ll know that the boggling continues.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-pet-cemetary-turn-dead-things-evil/344187.md?page=4)