Pet or Monster?: The Epoché of Animality in Stephen King’s Films

Abstract

This study aims to examine human–animal relations in modern culture through the reified meaning of the monster. Within this framework, three of Stephen King’s film adaptations — Cujo (1983), Cat’s Eye (1985), and Pet Sematary (1989) — are analyzed by interpreting their animal figures as transfer objects. In the Freudian sense, the transfer object is the medium through which repressed drives and anxieties are displaced and expressed in symbolic form; in these films, animals do not represent the primary source of fear but rather function as vessels for its cultural and affective residues. By placing horror not in the supernatural or the extraordinary but in the ordinary and familiar, King generates terror through everyday pets that act as catalysts. At the same time, the locus of fear emerges from interpersonal relations. Such animal figures are discussed as permanently bound entities that bridge the realms of nature and culture, biological production and cultural meaning. The first part of the study will discuss the dual function of fear—species resemblance and cultural exclusion—by drawing on the evolutionary approach and Darwin’s theory of fear, Freud’s theory of the unconscious, and René Girard’s theory of sacrifice, which emphasizes the role of the monster–victim relation in social cohesion. The second part undertakes a phenomenological analysis of how these animal figures trigger fear and return it into the social world. In contrast to dominant representations that externalize fear into the supernatural or the unnatural, the study demonstrates the possibility of a distinctly “human” representation of fear.

Keywords

• Sociology of Culture

Files

Only the metadata of this record is published.

References

1. Agamben, G. (2009). Açıklık: İnsan ve hayvan (M. M. Çilingiroğlu, Çev.). Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
2. Akhtar, S. (2017). Acının kaynakları (E. O. Gezmiş, Çev.). Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
3. Aristoteles. (1975). Politika (M. Tuncay, Çev.). Remzi Kitabevi.
4. Asma, S. T. (2009). On monsters: An unnatural history of our worst fears. Oxford University Press.
5. Barker, J. M. (2009). The tactile eye: Touch and the cinematic experience. University of California Press.
6. Beresford, M. (2014). İfritlerden Drakula’ya: Modern vampir miti (F. Akkaya, Çev.). Doğa Yayınları.
7. Berger, J. (2017). Hayvanlara niçin bakarız? (C. Çapan, Çev.). Delidolu Yayınları.
8. Bloom, H. (Ed.). (2007). Stephen King (Bloom’s Modern Critical Views). Chelsea House.
9. Brinkema, E. (2014). The forms of the affects. Duke University Press.
10. Brown, N. (1996). Ölüme karşı hayat (A. Yılmaz, Çev.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
11. Carroll, N. (1990). The philosophy of horror: Or, paradoxes of the heart. Routledge.
12. Cohen, J. J. (1996). Monster culture (seven theses). J. J. Cohen (Yay. haz.), Monster theory içinde (ss. 3–25). University of Minnesota Press.
13. Cohen, J. J. (Ed.). (1996). Monster theory: Reading culture. University of Minnesota Press.
14. Correoso-Rodenas, J. M. (2016). The “cats” from hell: The long shadow of Poe’s feline in the short fiction of Flannery O’Connor and Stephen King. Anglo Saxonica, 3(12), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.5334/as.70
15. Darwin, C. (2022). İnsanda ve hayvanlarda duyguların ifade edilmesi (B. Kılıç, Çev.). Alfa Yayınları.
16. Derrida, J. (2016). Heidegger’in hayvanı (E. Yıldız & E. Yurt, Çev.). Kutadgu Bilig: Felsefe-Bilim Araştırmaları, 30, 553–571.
17. Descartes, R. (2013). Metot üzerine konuşma (A. Timuçin, Çev.). Paradigma Yayınları.
18. Freud, S. (1993). Psikanalize giriş (G. Koptagel-İnal, Çev.). Murat Yayınları.
19. Gilmore, D. D. (2003). Monsters: Evil beings, mythical beasts, and all manner of imaginary terrors. University of Pennsylvania Press.
20. Girard, R. (2019). Şiddet ve kutsal (N. Alpay, Çev.). Alfa Yayınları.
21. Halberstam, J. (1995). Skin shows: Gothic horror and the technology of monsters. Duke University Press.
22. Harley, J. (2020, April 12). Ordinary fears: Stephen King’s Cat’s Eye and the horror of the everyday. Bloody Disgusting. https://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3622240/ordinary-fears-stephen-kings-horror-anthology-cats-eye-35/
23. Heidegger, M. (2001). The fundamental concepts of metaphysics: World, finitude, solitude (W. McNeill & N. Walker, Çev.). Indiana University Press.
24. Husserl, E. (1983). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy: First book: General introduction to a pure phenomenology (F. Kersten, Çev.). Martinus Nijhoff.
25. Kant, I. (2001). The critique of judgment. R. Kearney & D. Rasmussen (Yay. haz.), Continental aesthetics: Romanticism to postmodernism: An anthology içinde (ss. 5–42). Blackwell.
26. Kearney, R. (2012). Yabancılar, tanrılar, canavarlar: Ötekiliği yorumlamak (B. Özkul, Çev.). Metis Yayınları.
27. Kierkegaard, S. (2013). Kaygı kavramı (T. Armaner, Çev.). İş Bankası Yayınları.
28. King, S. (2007). Yazma sanatı (G. Taşlı, Çev.). Altın Kitaplar.
29. King, S. (2016). Ölüm dansı: Edebiyat ve sinemada korku incelemesi (N. I. Demir, Çev.). Sayfa6 Yayınları.
30. King, S. (2019). Hayvan mezarlığı (M. Harmancı, Çev.). Altın Kitaplar.
31. King, S. (2020, October 30). How did Stephen King come up with the idea for Cujo? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtPstlbB7aY
32. Magistrale, T. (2003). Hollywood’s Stephen King. Palgrave Macmillan.
33. Mannoni, P. (1992). Korku: Hayvanlardan insanlara (I. Gürbüz, Çev.). İletişim Yayınları.
34. Marks, L. U. (2000). The skin of the film: Intercultural cinema, embodiment, and the senses. Duke University Press.
35. McHugh, S. (2011). Animal stories: Narrating across species lines. University of Minnesota Press.
36. Miquel-Baldellou, M. (2015). Pet Sematary, or Stephen King re-appropriating the Frankenstein myth. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283295613
37. Murphy, B. M. (2013). The rural Gothic in American popular culture: Backwoods horror and terror in the wilderness. Palgrave Macmillan.
38. Nietzsche, F. (1964). Böyle buyurdu Zerdüşt (T. Oflazoğlu, Çev.). Bilgi Yayınları.
39. Odell, C., & Le Blanc, M. (2011). Korku sineması (A. Toprak, Çev.). Kalkedon Yayınları.
40. Pick, A. (2011). Creaturely poetics: Animality and vulnerability in literature and film. Columbia University Press.
41. Ryan, M., & Kellner, D. (2000). Politik kamera (E. Özsayar, Çev.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
42. Salecl, R. (2013). Kaygı (B. E. Aksoy, Çev.). Metis Yayınları.
43. Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world (G. Walsh & F. Lehnert, Çev.). Northwestern University Press.
44. Sobchack, V. (1992). The address of the eye: A phenomenology of film experience. Princeton University Press.
45. Strengell, H. (2005). Dissecting Stephen King: From the gothic to literary naturalism. University of Wisconsin Press.
46. Thacker, E. (2011). In the dust of this planet: Horror of philosophy, volume 1. Zero Books.
47. Wilson, E. O. (2000). Doğanın gizli bahçesi (S. Kıvan, Çev.). TÜBİTAK Yayınları.
48. Winter, D. E. (1997). Stephen King: The art of darkness. New American Library.

Cite this publication

@article{balci2025pet,
  author = {Balc{\i}, Mehmet},
  title = {{Pet or Monster?: The Epoch{\'{e}} of Animality in Stephen King's Films}},
  journal = {Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Letters},
  volume = {43},
  number = {1},
  pages = {305--321},
  publisher = {Hacettepe {\"U}niversitesi},
  year = {2025},
  month = {4},
  issn = {1301-5737},
  url = {https://hacettepe.hbtech.com.tr/en/publication/evcil-hayvan-mi-canavar-mi-stephen-king-filmlerinde-askiya-alinan-hayvansallik},
  language = {tr},
  keywords = {Sociology of Culture},
  abstract = {This study aims to examine human--animal relations in modern culture through the reified meaning of the monster. Within this framework, three of Stephen King's film adaptations --- Cujo (1983), Cat's Eye (1985), and Pet Sematary (1989) --- are analyzed by interpreting their animal figures as transfer objects. In the Freudian sense, the transfer object is the medium through which repressed drives and anxieties are displaced and expressed in symbolic form; in these films, animals do not represent the primary source of fear but rather function as vessels for its cultural and affective residues. By placing horror not in the supernatural or the extraordinary but in the ordinary and familiar, King generates terror through everyday pets that act as catalysts. At the same time, the locus of fear emerges from interpersonal relations. Such animal figures are discussed as permanently bound entities that bridge the realms of nature and culture, biological production and cultural meaning. The first part of the study will discuss the dual function of fear---species resemblance and cultural exclusion---by drawing on the evolutionary approach and Darwin's theory of fear, Freud's theory of the unconscious, and Ren{\'{e}} Girard's theory of sacrifice, which emphasizes the role of the monster--victim relation in social cohesion. The second part undertakes a phenomenological analysis of how these animal figures trigger fear and return it into the social world. In contrast to dominant representations that externalize fear into the supernatural or the unnatural, the study demonstrates the possibility of a distinctly ``human'' representation of fear.},
  affiliation = {{\.I}STANBUL {\"U}N{\.I}VERS{\.I}TES{\.I}}
}

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Balcı, Mehmet
TI  - Pet or Monster?: The Epoché of Animality in Stephen King’s Films
T2  - Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Letters
VL  - 43
IS  - 1
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025/04/30/
SP  - 305
EP  - 321
PB  - Hacettepe Üniversitesi
SN  - 1301-5737
UR  - https://hacettepe.hbtech.com.tr/en/publication/evcil-hayvan-mi-canavar-mi-stephen-king-filmlerinde-askiya-alinan-hayvansallik
AB  - This study aims to examine human–animal relations in modern culture through the reified meaning of the monster. Within this framework, three of Stephen King’s film adaptations — Cujo (1983), Cat’s Eye (1985), and Pet Sematary (1989) — are analyzed by interpreting their animal figures as transfer objects. In the Freudian sense, the transfer object is the medium through which repressed drives and anxieties are displaced and expressed in symbolic form; in these films, animals do not represent the primary source of fear but rather function as vessels for its cultural and affective residues. By placing horror not in the supernatural or the extraordinary but in the ordinary and familiar, King generates terror through everyday pets that act as catalysts. At the same time, the locus of fear emerges from interpersonal relations. Such animal figures are discussed as permanently bound entities that bridge the realms of nature and culture, biological production and cultural meaning. The first part of the study will discuss the dual function of fear—species resemblance and cultural exclusion—by drawing on the evolutionary approach and Darwin’s theory of fear, Freud’s theory of the unconscious, and René Girard’s theory of sacrifice, which emphasizes the role of the monster–victim relation in social cohesion. The second part undertakes a phenomenological analysis of how these animal figures trigger fear and return it into the social world. In contrast to dominant representations that externalize fear into the supernatural or the unnatural, the study demonstrates the possibility of a distinctly “human” representation of fear.
KW  - Sociology of Culture
LA  - tr
AD  - İSTANBUL ÜNİVERSİTESİ
ER  -