[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
. New York Times Book Review6 Dec.1987: 7.  .Four Past Midnight.New York: Signet, 1990.  .Misery.New York: Viking, 1987.  .Night Shift.New York: Signet, 1978.  . On Becoming a Brand Name. Foreword to Fear Itself: The Horror Fiction ofStephen King.Eds.Tim Underwood and Chuck Miller.San Francisco: Underwood-Miller, 1982.15 42.  .Skeleton Crew.New York: Putnam s, 1985.  .Stephen King s Danse Macabre.1979.New York: Berkley, 1982.Kipps, Charles. King s Tale of Mystery & Intrigue And That s Just His Contract.Variety 29 Nov.1989: 3.Lehmann-Haupt.Christopher. Books of the Times. Rev.of Misery by Stephen King.New York Times 8 June 1987: C17.MacDonald, John D.Introduction.Night Shift: Excursions into Horror.By Stephen King.New York: Signet, 1978.vii x. 166 Kathleen Margaret Lant Man Threatens to Blow Up Stephen King s Home. San Francisco Chronicle 23 Apr.1991,three star ed.: A3.Mulvey, Laura. Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Screen 16 (1975): 6 18.Newman, Kim. Horror: Body Snatcher. Rev.of Misery, by Stephen King.New Statesman18 Sept.1987: 30 1.Panek, Richard. King s Ransom. M.Inc 8.5 (1991): 29 32. Personals. San Francisco Chronicle 29 June 1992, three star ed.: D3.Schweitzer, Darrel, ed.Discovering Stephen King.Mercer Island, WA: Starmont, 1985.Slung, Michelle. In the Matter of Stephen King. Armchair Detective 14 (1981): 147 49.Spignesi, Steven.The Complete Stephen King Encyclopedia: The Definitive Guide to the Worksof America s Master of Horror.Chicago: Contemporary, 1991.Stabiner, Karen. The Misery of Stephen King. Rev.of Misery, by Stephen King.LosAngeles Times Book Review 10 May 1987: 8.Straub, Peter. Meeting Stevie. Introduction to Fear Itself.Eds.Tim Underwood andChuck Miller.San Francisco: Underwood-Miller, 1982.7 13.Suleiman, Susan Rubin.Introduction.The Female Body in Western Culture: ContemporaryPerspectives.Ed.Susan Rubin Suleiman.Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1986.1 4.Underwood, Tim and Chuck Miller, eds.Bare Bones: Conversations on Terror with StephenKing.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988.  .Fear Itself: The Horror Fiction of Stephen King.San Francisco: Underwood-Miller,1982. Upfront: Advance Review. Rev.of Misery, by Stephen King.Booklist 1 Apr.1987: 1153.Vance, Carol S. Pleasure and Danger: Toward a Politics of Sexuality. Pleasure andDanger: Exploring Female Sexuality.Ed.Carol S.Vance.Boston: Routledge & KeganPaul, 1984.1 27. What Stephen King Does for Love. Seventeen Apr.1990: 240 1.Winter, Douglas E.Stephen King: The Art of Darkness.New York: NAL, 1984.Young, Elizabeth J. Best of Horror: Printers Devils. New Statesman and Society 3.130(1990): 34 5. J ESSE W.NASHPostmodern Gothic:Stephen King s Pet SemataryAlthough sympathetic critics have given it an impressive literary lineage,Stephen King s novel Pet Sematary has resisted easy categorization.MaryFerguson Pharr detects the influence of Mary Shelley s Frankenstein, but shenotes that King s work is the least self-conscious of many such variations(120).Tony Magistrale, in  Stephen King s Pet Sematary: Hawthorne sWoods Revisited and in his book Landscape of Fear: Stephen King s AmericanGothic, finds a strong affinity in theme and purpose with NathanielHawthorne, among other New England and/or transcendentalist writers.Slavoj Zizek relates Pet Sematary to the tragedies of Sophocles (25 26).One need not, however, give King such a distinguished pedigree toappreciate Pet Sematary s complexity or recognize its importance incontemporary popular culture.To do so, one might suggest, runs counter tothe very spirit of King s works.As he himself informs us in Douglas Winter sStephen King: The Art of Darkness, King s primary sources for his novel are hisown life experiences and fantasies, popular culture, and his reading of archaicburial lore (145 146, 150).In other words, the key to understanding PetSematary does not lie in the  classical literary tradition so much as inpopular culture itself and how popular culture appropriates, reworks, and re-presents more classical literary artifacts.Pet Sematary s connection to Shelley s Frankenstein in particular mustbe seen within the dynamics of a contemporary popular culture matrix.InFrom Journal of Popular Culture 30 (Spring 1997), pp.151 160. 1997 by Blackwell Publishing.167 168 Jesse W.NashDanse Macabre, King refers to Frankenstein as  caught in a kind of culturalecho chamber (65).People are often less familiar with Shelley s actual textthan they are re-presentations of the figure of Frankenstein in popularculture.It is helpful to think of the echoes Frankenstein sets in motion interms of Clifford Geertz notion of  webs of significance (5).The webs inwhich King is enmeshed are not entirely those of Shelley; even when heshares webs of significance with Shelley, such as the problematic nature andpopular fear of science and technology, his attitude in regard to those websis entirely different.For example, in her introduction to the 1831 edition ofFrankenstein, Shelley credits the ultimate origin of her novel to her husband sand Lord Byron s rather tabloid, sensationalistic discussions of  Dr.Darwin,but she distances herself from those discussions, confessing that she does notknow if they are accurate depictions of what Darwin had actually written ordone (xxiv).In Pet Sematary, on the other hand, King revels in the tabloid and thesensational, using at one point in the novel the supposed authenticity of theShroud of Turin as an argument against scientific rationalism and itsdebunking of the possibility of miracles (200).Along with  penis envy andthe  oedipal conflict, the Shroud is one of those strange truths that ArnieCunningham in Christine recognizes and to which he subscribes (24) [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

Archiwum