Talk:Cujo

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Horror High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Removed:

It is vaguely hinted at that Cujo may be possessed by the ghost of Frank Dodd.

Can someone supply a quote to back this up? This does not square with my knowledge of the text of the story at all.

Well, there's stuff like when Tad sees the monster in the closet, he think's it's Frank Dodd, and when they are in the car, Tad thinks Cujo is the monster. And also, when the cop is being mauled by Cujo, he thinks: "Hello Frank! Hell too hot for you?" or something along those lines. Superior1 02:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is common knowledge about this book. Virtually everyone that has read the novel picked up on the connection between Frank Dodd and Cujo. Really hard to believe anyone who truly read the book would miss that fact.68.204.52.145 (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Tower connections[edit]

Once one Castle Rock story is connected to Dark Tower, they are all by implication connected. It seems to confuse the issue, not clarify it for the casual King fan, to mention Dark Tower at all in the article. In addition, negative facts don't tend to be useful facts (we may note that the book does not have magical African-American characters, though King is fond of them). Unless there are objections, I am removing this "Trivia". Chris Stangl 00:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitten by a bat?[edit]

Is it definitive that Cujo was bitten by a bat in the book? The way I remember it, the sequence was told from Cujo's perspective and it was not made clear what the animal was. -- Steven Fisher 20:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a rabid bat. Chasing after a rabbit, he sticks his head in a hole in the ground, which turns out to be the entrance to a small cave, and gets attacked by a swarm of bats. One bites him on the muzzle: he snaps at it and kills it, but not before being infected with what the author tells us is a particularly virulent strain of rabies. Ellsworth 21:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grey's Anatomy[edit]

Is the reference to Cujo on Grey's Anatomy significant enough to add here? -- Steven Fisher 16:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a separate "references in fiction" section, that one would fit in. I don't know if one should be created. In the game Jagged Alliance 2, a Russian mercenary (Igor) screams "Cujo!" upon seeing a ravenous feline. (That's maybe a joke; another character says "Dog!" when he sees these cats.) Muad 10:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was such a section when I asked this question, but it got struck recently. I think striking it was probably a good idea; there were too many minor references. --Steven Fisher 17:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal[edit]

User:Superior1 proposed splitting this article with the {{split}} template.

OPPOSE: Unless there's an explanation forthcoming, I'm opposed to this. The other Cujos are colloquial and non-encyclopedic nicknames, and the book and movie have too much in common to be separate articles. --Steven Fisher 01:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT: I've changed my mind on this; I think the push to create a good movie article would contradict the push to create a good book article. --Steven Fisher 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT:Because most movies that are based on novels have seperate articles, no matter how similar they may be. The James Bond films for example. Superior1 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A counter example is Needful Things. The problem with the idea of splitting the article that I see is that the book and novel align quite closely. Where would the differences be explain in a split article? I don't think duplication of content is a good thing. --Steven Fisher 06:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, this is a serious question. I'm definitely open to splitting the article if there's a good plan for it. --Steven Fisher 21:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT: I support the suggestion of splitting the novel and film articles. The film version is extremely popular, and IIRC has been remade several times; the novel is also extremely popular. Discussion of filming techniques, actors, background info, etc would go on the film page, while discussion of the writing technique and background behind it would go on the novel page. For example, I recall Stephen King talking about his inspiration for this novel (will try to find that and really hope I didn't make it up), which would go on this page. I feel that there's enough info on both to warrant two articles, and that both the film and the novel are significant, so I'd think that wikipolicy would go with the split. Sorry for the rambling comment, by the way. Elizabennet | talk 19:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon consensus here, I split the article. I trimmed the plot way down in the film article so that editors more knowledgeable about the plots of both can decide what to include (I've seen/read neither). All the plot info is in the article's history and here, of course. Cheers!--Chaser - T 20:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quibble over genre[edit]

The plot summary includes the following sentence:

Except for these vague hints, there are no supernatural elements in the book; it is mainly a thriller.

Someone explain to me why "thriller" and "supernatural" are mutually exclusive. marbeh raglaim 19:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not... perhaps the writer meant to say "it is mainly a mundane thriller"? (although "mundane" has negative connotations, I just couldn't think of a word for "non-magical"). -Elizabennet | talk 19:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now taken out the words "it is mainly a thriller." Whatever the author originally meant, it doesn't really add anything to the sentence. marbeh raglaim 12:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

67.189.233.146's edits[edit]

Someone who is familiar with this subject should examine 67.189.233.146's edits closely ("reffering to them as THE MAN, THE WOMAN, and THE BOY.") 67.189.233.146 has either been woefully misinformed when editing several Twilight Zone episodes, or has been intentionally adding misinformation. See his contributions and talk page. At a minimum, if this edit is found to be accurate, "referring" should be spelled correctly. Travisl 17:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

Is King's bibliograhpy relevant to this article? I can understand it being on his page, but I don't think it needs to be here. Dgen 07:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's needed. It's invaluable if you want to easily navigate through King's writings. Mixmastermind 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cujo.jpg[edit]

Image:Cujo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cujo.jpg[edit]

Image:Cujo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farscape[edit]

Cujo is reference in the 1st episode of the fourth episode of Farscape. Crichton calls the Brindz Hound he is attacked by Cujo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.36.202 (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly Franken Berry[edit]

Was the part about the goofed-up dye in the cereal causing vomiting a reference to the Franken Berry scare of the early seventies, in which people believed they were suffering massive rectal bleeding after their stools turned a reddish color from eating the cereal? --The_Iconoclast (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article Changes[edit]

I thought it would be beneficial to add information about the inspiration behind the novel, which I added to the article's "Background" section. I also added a character list because they are helpful for quick reference. I included information on how Cujo connects with other King novels, because this is a common theme with King-- he often draws connections between his novels, and certain characters show up in more than one book. Cujo is also a part of the Castle Rock novels, and Cujo is often referenced in the other novels that take place in Castle Rock, Maine. Finally, I included information about the critical reception of the novel, both when it was first published and currently. Breebellati (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you add the odd template in the Allusions section, and if so, why? Additionally, I have doubts that Goodreads would be considered a reliable source for review purposes (aren't the reviews user-submitted?). I'd very much like the allusions section to read less as WP:TRIVIA as well. DonIago (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that template was an accident and I have since deleted it. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I can delete the part about Goodreads if you want. I added it because I was attempting to give an overview of how popular it is among readers today/the kind of reception the book receives as of today, given that most official book critics would have reviewed this novel when it first was published. This means that a lot of contemporary reviews of the novel are given by the average reader on websites such as Goodreads. Breebellati (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the template. I'm very dubious that Goodreads meets our definition of a reliable source, and would try checking other book articles to see whether they utilize it at all. My concern is that the reviews there may be unreliable for the same reason we don't include IMDb ratings on film articles. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closet Monster[edit]

I seem to recall the monster in Tad's closet being a major part of the book. At one point, isn't there some kind of dream sequence where the Dad goes into the closet, almost like a Witch and the Warlock kind of thing, finding himself in a forest and the monster chasing his wife and kid into a cave? Anyway, this all should be in the plot summary somehow. I was surprised upon finding this page that it wasn't. -OberRanks (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem relevant to the overall plot? Have third-party sources made note of it? DonIago (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a major point of the book actually, that Dodd's ghost and Cujo are somehow interconnected. Dodd is stated to be "the monster that never dies". There are a few extra sources for this (I added two that I found from "The Guardian" and 'The New York Times"). -O.R.^Comms 15:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! No remaining concerns here! Appreciate your work on this! DonIago (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]