Check out James Smythe's most recent update to his rereading Stephen King adventure. Week 11, Smythe takes us back to the world of Cujo at www.guardian.co.uk.
I love Smythe's note that Cujo doesn't pause to bother with chapters and things like that. It's "a constant rush of words, darting between characters and with reminiscing periods of backstory, but always pushing forward."
Smythe notes King's increased abuse of addictive substances is reflected in his books, and ultmatly Cujo is a metaphor for addiction. Though King admits that he was in the throws of serious drug abuse when he wrote Cujo -- so serious he does not remember writing it! -- I have trouble with the rabid dog being a symbol of drug use or addiction. He further sees Tad's death as a metaphor for drug addiction.
Smythe writes, "As I say, it's all one giant metaphor for King's addiction. Metaphor is there in all fiction if you look for it, of course, but this book aches with symbolism."
So how is Cujo a metaphor for drug addiction? Because he is a great pet -- until bitten. Once he is rabid, the dog ravages terror on innocent people. Smythe offers,
He – Cujo, King – is trapped inside whatever's driving his body for him. He hurts those he loves. He is brutal and remorseless, because he is not himself. Those who would stop him are cut down or trapped. They can only look at him through windows and pray he leaves them alone, or that they get a chance to stop him.And how is Tad a symbol of addiction?
"Even when the demon is dead, it still kills them. Well, no. Actually, what kills Tad is his desperate need for a drink."Even the structure of the book is a symbol to Smythe of King's addiction. The book is a rush toward the end because King is "unrelenting" in his addiction.
Smythe likes the book a lot, and says it is even more "tremendous" when you know the back story.
Now, here's what I find myself wondering: Do we really think Stephen King meant for the dog to be a symbol of drug addiction? Or the boy a symbol of alcoholism? Symbolism and metaphor don't work unless there is intent on the authors part. Did King mean to show a boy trapped in a car as a symbol of his own entrapment? I'm not sure at all King intended that. I think King meant to write a novel about a dog. That seems shallow after all the work Smythe did to get us to see the book at a deeper level -- but I just can't help the surface reading here!
Look, I'm glad to go deep and see metaphors. I'm a preacher! The Bible is full of symbolism, metaphor and typology. Even with Scripture (especially with Scripture) you have to have some sense that there was either intent on the authors part to make the metaphor or on God's part to include it in the text. Reading metaphor back into a text long after its composition is simply spinning your own application. Or, more bluntly: It's making stuff up to portray yourself as deep.
This stuff about metaphor presses me a little because I see it abused so often. It leads to bad exegesis and blurs the authors real intents. Ever been in a Bible study where every word symbolized something else ? "So when Jesus is born -- what does the manger represent?" A MANGER! If you make the manger something other than a feeding trough a baby was laid in, you lose focus on what the account is really about. Same for novels! To get too focused on your own interpretation of a metaphor the author never intended will cause you to miss the authors true intent.
So what is Cujo? As far as writing goes, it is King working to limit himself. He restricts the story to a woman and a boy trapped by a dog. He would press his skills further with Gerald's Game, binding a woman to the bed. How do I know this? Because King said so! He did tell us that The Shining is a picture of addiction.
Often you wouldn't get a writers symbolism unless he told you. Needful Things, which I loved, is a satire of the greed of the 1980's. How do I know that? King said so! (source: Time) Having the authors interpretation helps, right? Otherwise you can read anything into anything!
Is Huck Finn about slavery? You bet! The message isn't even hidden. But what if I said Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles is a commentary on the dangers of space exploration. Is there a problem with that? Yes! Bradbury never said that was the message of the book. It seems much more that the Martian Chronicles is about stewardship and kindness. We are to stewards of whatever we are given (Earth or Mars) and resist the need to fight and beat down everything we encounter. The book can serve as a warning against atomic warfare, because Bradbury was actually concerned about those things. But you can't make it about anything, or in the end the book itself loses meaning in the commentary. The same is true of Cujo.
Symbolism has no weight without authors intent.
I always thought that the Tommyknockers represented addiction better than anything else King did. The alchoholic Gardener is unable to do anything but go along for the ride which he knows is going to end badly for his friend who has an addiction of her own.
ReplyDeleteYou mention the Martian Chronicles. I always saw it as a metaphor for European settlement of the American continent. But that's just me. Each reader takes from a body of work what he takes and we should not argue over what someone gets from reading something.
In a few weeks, I'll be posting a review of Christine and what I got out of that book as a metaphor. I don't know if it's a unique point of view, but it was one I just discovered on my fourth reading of the novel.
The Tommyknockers is indeed a great addiction tale; that same year, King also published Misery and The Drawing of the Three, which also fit the bill nicely.
DeleteI have to disagree with the statement that symbolism and metaphor require conscious intention. I believe symbolism can make it's way into a story without the author ever knowing it. Case in point, dreams. Our dreams contain psychological meanings, however, often in order to find them, we have to work our way past symbols that contain the meaning.
ReplyDeleteI should explain I come at this from a sort of Jungian Archetype perspective, so, yeah I believe that a lot of books can contain symbolism it’s author doesn’t know about.
Here’s the thing Carl Jung basically theorized that imagination is in fact a collective instinct, like the fight or flight response, that could sometimes automatically send fantasy images into our minds. I
t does that, according to Jung, because imagination is an INSTINCT. That means it operates and exerts and influence on the conscious mind.
Jung didn’t deny free will, in fact, he pointed out we can often rebel against our instincts, often at our own peril, for instincts are, in essence, the Natural Law in operation in our mind. Jung used those words in their philosophical as well as scientific sense.
ChrisC
So yes, if imagination is a collective instinct, then it is possible for stories to be symbolic “fossils or found things” as King says. I have more to say, however I want to here others opinions first.
I’m adding this now because I have to take care of some things and I want to get this set down while I still have time. As it turns out, what I have to say goes back to a conversation I had with Bryant. In fact, this could be picking up where things left off.
DeleteThe basic idea here is that stories are conscious inventions on the part of the writer, that “the writer is God to his characters” who are the puppets on his imaginative string. I hold the opposite opinion, the same one as King, that stories are “found things like fossils…that pretty much make themselves.”
Most would say it was King’s conscious intention to set down the words he does. King has continually argued against this, and not just by himself. C.S. Lewis had this to say, in words identical to Kings, on the nature of stories.
Lewis: I don’t think that conscious invention plays a very great part in it. For example, I find that in many respects I can’t “direct” my imagination; I can only follow the lead it gives me.
When asked if he believed Jung’s theory of the Archetypes (theory of imagination) had anything to do with it, Lewis said the following:
Lewis: Jung’s Archetypes do seem to explain it…And anyway, isn’t (Tolkien) saying the same thing in another way when he says that Man is merely the “sub-creator” and that all stories originate with…” Well, there’s a part of that statement each has to make his or her own mind up about, but you get the idea.
The point is both Lewis and Tolkien were familiar with Jung’s Literary Archetype theory and believed it. Lewis in fact went so far as to say of one of his books that the villain was:
Lewis: “The same Archetype we find in so many fairy tales. No good asking where any author got “that”. We’re all born knowing the witch aren’t we?
Anyone can write their own response to this. I just hope I can get back in time.
ChrisC
Like Chris, I totally disagree that symbolism cannot have weight without authorial intent. That implies that anauthor's subconscious can never play into things, and I just don't think that's true at all.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think Smythe's review is totally off-base in terms of what Cujo is about. I don't see it as being about addiction at all; I think it makes for a nice metaphor for the wasting away of a relationship, though, and for the way that divorce and marital discord can affect children.
I've really enjoyed that Rereading Stephen King series in the Guardian, but I thought this particular entry was a complete bust.
The interestof the reader should be: What is the author choosing to communicate . . . not what do I want to make it.
ReplyDeleteAn author is not God, and cannot control 100% of everything that goes into a piece of writing. Saying that there is no room for accident, and no room for interpretation, seems like entirely too restrictive a notion to me.
DeleteDoes this mean that your own personality NEVER enters into things when you are reading a book? I find that hard to give any credit to.
If you're looking for accidental symbolism, go at it. But Smythe saw the entire book as a symbol of something the author never said it was. Accident?
ReplyDeleteI can virtually guarantee you that King would be one of the first to tell you that an author's subconscious can, and does, write meaning into books that he may not have intended, but which is nevertheless entirely valid.
DeleteI do agree that Smythe's conclusions are the wrong ones. But there's nothing wrong with his method of analysis.
From Danse Macabre (p. 43 in my edition):
Delete"Begin by assuming that the tale of horror, no matter how primitive, is allegorical by its very nature; that it is symbolic. Assume that it is talking to us, like a patient on a psychoanalyst's couch, about one thing while it means another. I am not saying that horror is CONSCIOUSLY allegorial or symbolic; that is to suggest an artfulness that few writers of horror fiction or directors of horror films aspire to." A few sentences later, he says: "To suggest that Roger Corman was unconsciously creating art while on a twelve-day shooting schedule and a budget of $80,000 is to suggest the absurd. The element of allegory is there only because it is built-in, a given, impossible to escape."
I'd mostly agree with King here, although I suppose I might be the fellow suggesting the absurd when I say that whereas I totally believe that art probably doesn't result from Corman-like situations very often, it certainly CAN result, theoretically.
It's also worth pointing out that when King refers to "art" here, what he really means is "good art." There is such a thing as "bad art," and even that is subject to one's subconscious bubbling up and injecting things the artist is not necessarily aware of.
I think the notion of authorial intent is important, but it is definitely not the be-all-end-all of critical analysis, just as symbolism and the subconscious is not the be-all-end-all (which some misguided critics would be all too happy to tell you is the case).
The trick is to find the happy medium. There's no formula for it; it varies from book to book, and from author to author, and from (yes) critic to critic.
You could also say that Cujo and Jack Torrence are parallel characters. But I think King probly wrote a 'what if' story more than a purposeful metaphor.
ReplyDeleteYou could also say that Cujo and Jack Torrence are parallel characters. But I think King probly wrote a 'what if' story more than a purposeful metaphor.
ReplyDeleteYou could also say that Cujo and Jack Torrence are parallel characters. But I think King probly wrote a 'what if' story more than a purposeful metaphor.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. I read the Guardian article when it came out and thought the exact same things. I see what he is getting at, but I don't think there is much more to Cujo than what is at the surface.
ReplyDeleteI thought Cujo was a metaphor for the destruction of the family no matter what is causing it. The story opens with the destruction of two families. One from adultery and the other from alcoholism. Just as both families unravel Cujo starts his destruction and rage. And he is finally overcome as the protagonist family is reunited.
ReplyDelete