Pet Sematary

Fiction | Novel | Adult | Published in 1983

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Introduction

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Character Analysis

Themes

Symbols & Motifs

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Themes

Dead Is Better

Throughout the novel, King presents the theme that sometimes, dead is better to the alternative. The novel exists at the intersection between life and death, wherein the barrier between these two worlds is something that can be crossed. However, King repeatedly cautions against crossing this threshold, as resurrection only seems to yield unfathomable horror. Although the trauma of grief is something that can be truly terrible, King maintains that the avoidance of grief can be even worse. King asserts this philosophy primarily through the character of Jud, who seems as wise as he is flawed. Jud introduces Louis to this theme, arguing “’Maybe I did it because kids need to know that sometimes dead is better’” (153). This argument seems to be something that must be learned through trial and error, something that is not necessarily inherently known to people. In fact, the audience witnesses how this knowledge does not appear to be innate via Louis’s continued attraction to the MicMac burial ground. Much like a child, Louis does not seem to understand the fundamental concept that grief is a necessary part of life, just as death is. For Jud, it seems important to teach kids about death as a part of life, which the author implies does not represent the end of life but rather the end of pain.

The audience sees that dead is indeed better first within the character of Church. Jud argues that whenever animals were resurrected in the past, they came back a little stupid and slow, and never truly the same. Of course, this concept is something that Louis must find out for himself. We see the aftermath of messing with the balance between life and death in the character of Church, foreshadowing the problems to come when Louis resurrects Gage and thereby further illustrating the idea that dead is better.

This theme is also tied to the idea of inevitability, especially where fate is concerned. When Louis is watching Victor die in his arms, he thinks that Victor “would be just as dead even if their ambulance had been parked out front with the motor idling when the patient was brought in” (59). There is a hopelessness to the nature of death, and death is tied to a person’s fate. King revamps the age-old cliché that when a person dies, it is his/her time to die, and there can be nothing done to prevent this. Indeed, forcing the individual to live through this pain is often crueler than allowing them to die, as witnessed by Rachel’s retelling of the months leading up to her sister’s death. In that retelling, death is illustrated as a palliative to the pain of living, suggesting that not only is death a result of a person’s fate, but it can also be a blessing. Simply, death can end the suffering that is inherent within existence, providing humanity a means of escaping pain.

Evil Occurs When Desire Outweighs Consequence

Throughout the novel, desire is presented as an aspect of human existence that facilitates evil. Much of the events that occur within the novel can be seen to stem from Louis’s desire for a father and his ability to overlook any fallibility in Jud’s actions. Jud is familiar with the evil of the MicMac burial ground, and it often seems as though his character has been waiting to pass along this knowledge. After Louis saves Norma’s life, Jud feels like he has an opening: “‘You saved Norma’s life, and I wanted to do something for you, and that place turned my good wish into its own evil purpose’” (261). Although Jud argues that there is an aspect of reciprocity to Jud’s decision to show Louis the burial ground, the audience cannot help but think that this represents too easy of an excuse. After all, Jud showed Louis and his family the pet cemetery immediately upon their arrival, indicating that Jud’s desire to share the knowledge of this place with Louis runs deeper than his desire to do something to pay Louis back for saving his wife. The burial ground seems to have already gotten a hold of Jud before the novel begins, so that any of his desires or actions seem to be tainted by its evil.

Louis acknowledges the way in which the burial ground worms its way into the consciousness of those who know its secret. When he considers reinterring Gage in the ground, Louis notes:“In spite of everything, the idea had that deadly attraction, that sick luster, that glamour. Yes, that above all else—it had glamour” (241). Consciously, Louis knows that his son will not be the same when he returns, and might even evolve into a monster. And yet the “glamour” of the burial ground seems to outweigh any notion of the consequences; after all, Louis can deal with the consequences simply by killing Gage a second time, or so he assumes. The way in which the author describes the burial ground is reminiscent of something that slips the boundaries between disgusting and beautiful; the characters seem to know that it is evil yet cannot tear themselves away from it. What the burial ground offers people is the ability to play God, which is at once attractive and dangerous. Louis recognizes the danger, but he is more compelled by the fatal attraction that blinds him to consequence. As Louis is readying himself to dig up Gage, he reflects on this desire: “The coldness was on him again, stronger than ever, but there was something beneath it—an ember of eagerness, or passion, or perhaps lust. No matter. It warmed him against the cold and kept him together in the wind” (308).

The author conflates death—specifically, the ability to bring back the dead—with desire here, demonstrating how the two seem to balance each other out. The language used relies on a warmth that becomes nearly sexualized, as if sexuality could explain this compulsion to attempt resurrection. In this way, the author argues that evil comes from our own desires, especially when our actions ignore the potential consequences of those desires.

The Inevitability of Fate

Inevitability arises as a prominent theme throughout the novel, and specifically the inevitability of time’s passage. This theme affects every character, demonstrating the ways in which the passage of their respective lives is beyond their control. As Ellie gets ready to go to kindergarten, Louis sees the uncertainty and hesitation she faces:

Ellie cast a strange, vulnerable glance back over her shoulder, as if to ask them if there might not yet be time to abort this inevitable process, and perhaps what she saw on the faces of her parents convinced her that the time was gone, and everything which would follow this day was simply inevitable—like the progress of Norma Crandall’s arthritis (21).

This sense of inevitability makes the characters vulnerable, as they realize that some aspects of their lives are beyond their control. The author associates this inevitability with both the passing of time and progress in general; however, the author notes that not all progress is good, such as the progression of Norma’s arthritis. Similarly, there are some things that parents cannot protect their children from, some aspects of their fate that leave children vulnerable. Ellie’s vulnerability in this scene foreshadows Gage’s own grisly demise, as Louis is unable to protect his family from the inevitability of fate.

Similarly, much of the novel concerns that which humans cannot control. Even when considering how he buried and resurrected Church, Louis considers Church’s reappearance as something beyond his control although Louis himself is responsible for this happening. He recounts to Jud: “‘When I saw Church this morning, […] it seemed like something that was […] meant’” (149). Louis comes to believe in forces beyond his control, that fate exists and he, as a human, is helpless to stop it. In this way, Louis removes himself from any responsibility; he limits his agency so that he does not have to consider his culpability in the terrible things that happen to his family. King implies that tragedy exists beyond our control but at the same time, readers cannot help but feel as though Louis is responsible for the horrors that befall his family. It is through his actions that Gage becomes a monster because Louis places a higher value on desire than consequence. However, Louis seems to believe that he has little control over his life, despite the fact that his actions are the ones that alter his life’s course.

As a character, Louis becomes something near to obsessed with the idea that he cannot control his own life, in the same manner that Louis’s dreams exist as outside of his control:“This was apparently a dream about being hypnotized, being dominated […] being unable to change things, perhaps, the way he had been unable to change the fact of Pascow’s death” (71). Again, this lack of control lends itself to arguments concerning the inevitability of fate: when one considers their life to be at the whims of fate, one does not have to worry about the consequences of one’s actions, as the consequences are already written in stone and therefore not mutable. The static nature of fate implies that free will does not exist. The characters in the book become mere pawns, in which every action on their parts renders greater horror.