CARRIE (1974)
Before we begin this
mammoth undertaking, I thought it might be interesting to list my Top
10 favourite King novels once again – right at the beginning of
proceedings – to see how it might change once my King revisitation
comes to an end.
So, in reverse order...
10 – The Shining
(1977)
09 – Misery (1987)
08 – The
Tommyknockers (1987)
07 – The Long Walk
(1979)
06 – Christine
(1983)
05 – The Dead Zone
(1979)
04 – Pet Semetary
(1983)
03 – It (1986)
02 – The Dark Tower
cycle (1982-2004)
01 – 'Salem's Lot
(1979)
Keen eagle-eyed readers
may have noticed there has already been a change in the Top 10
line-up since I posted it on here last year. Originally The Dark
Tower cycle wasn't at No.2, and
11.22.63 was at No.10.
Well, I've been turning this over in my mind for what seems like an
eternity now, I don't normally like it when Top 10 novel lists
include a 'series of books' as I usually see that as cheating, but
King himself has gone on recording saying that in his mind The
Dark Tower series is actually
one continual book – similar to Tolkein's The Lord of the
Rings (a work, incidentally,
that I always consider as a single novel and it annoys me a little to
see it published in 3 separate volumes) – so I've finally decided
to say “What the hell” and include it in the Top 10 list as a
single book.
Anyway,
on with proceedings.
CARRIE
(1974)
I
remember the moment a Stephen King book came into our house for the
first time. It
was
some time in the summer of 1983 and I was 9 years old, just a
couple of months away from reaching the Big Ten-O. I'd borrowed the
book from the local library, in our house we referred to it as the
container library; it wasn't your common or garden permanent
bricks-and-mortal library, but the converted trailer of a lorry – a
vast, shiny metallic lorry - and it only came around to where we
lived on a Tuesday.
The
book I borrowed was a hardback published by Bounty Books and
contained the first three published King novels: Carrie,
'Salem's Lot and The
Shining.
Despite this, the cover had a montage of photographs representing
only one of the books contained within its covers - actually stills
from Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation of The
Shining.
For some bizarre reason I was unable to fathom then (and now, for
that matter) the novels were presented to the reader out of
publication order. The
Shining was
first, followed by 'Salem's
Lot,
and finally Carrie.
But I didn't read them that way. I noticed on the copyright page
that Carrie came
first and should probably be read first (actually it doesn;t matter
what order you read them in, but I didn't know that at the time).
After that I read Salem's
Lot. And
finally...well, I think you can figure out the rest for yourself.
So
that's how I read them. In reverse order in the book, but in the
correct order in which they were published.Carrie
was
my first exposure to Stephen King. But was it the best way for a King
virgin to begin? No, not really. Should I have just shrugged, opened
up the book to the first page and read them as they were presented in
the book? Yes, as it turns out I probably should have.
Why? I'll let the 9 year old me explain...
Scott (1983):
I'm
really looking forward to reading this book. I've seen the film a
couple of times – it's the one where the girl is covered in blood
and then gets angry and kills everyone. It's scary, but I like that
film. But the book isn't as good as the film. For one thing the story
is set in the future, and there's all these bits from different books
that were published in the future too (well, it's the past for me,
but it was the future when the book first came out) and it's
something I find very intrusive and a little confusing. Why didn't he
set the novel a few years in the past and have the bits from the
other books dated as 1974, when this
book came out? Also the passages from those other books don't tell us
what this horrible thing that Carrie did is. They're keeping it a
secret. But I already know
what's going to happen at the end of the book because I've seen the
film (she gets covered in blood and kills everyone), so this seems a bit silly and unnecessary. Also the cover to the book is wrong. Stephen King describes Carrie as a plain girl who's a little overweight and has spots and greasy hair. The girl on the book cover is slim and pretty and doesn't have spots. I think they're trying to make the girl on the cover look like the actress who plays her in the film. The actress isn't anything like Carrie in the book either. She's pretty too. And slim. It's goo though because the story is a lot like the film, they haven't changed much except for the ending – in the film Susan has a nightmare where Carrie's hand comes out of the grave and grabs here, but that doesn't happen in the novel, there's just more bits from 'future' books. It's not a bad. But he's not as good a writers as my mum says he is. I'm looking forward to the next book, though. It's the one about the vampires in a small American town. I've seen the mini-series and it scared me so much I had awful nightmares. I hope it's as good as that was.
Scott
(2020):
I'll
admit, it took me a hell of a long time before I started to enjoy
this novel. It's probably my second most read Stephen King novel, the first being 'Salem's Lot, but my reasons for reading this one over and over are very different from my reasons for reading 'Salem's Lot again and again. Carrie is a novel that's held in high regard among King fans, so I've always thought I was missing something important. I've been a fan of King's work for almost 40 years now and I've adored almost everything he's released...but for some reason his debut novel has never had the same impact on me as his other books. And we can't put it down to the age I read it. I first re-read the book in the 1990s while I was at university, then again at the turn of the new millennium, then again in 2009, 2012, 2014, and finally once again for this King Re-Read. But I've always remained somewhat indifferent to the novel...until now. Maybe it was the generous mood I was in (I actually read this just before the pandemic hit the UK) or maybe it was because I read this out on the back step, in a nice comfy fold-away chair, the sky blue, the sun warm on my skin, and a nice cold drink at hand. Or maybe I was approaching the book from a different direction than usual, a more analytical direction perhaps, in preparation for this reading marathon that lay ahead? Whatever the reason, this time I found myself appreciating the book much more than usual. It's true that, having seen the film first it had perhaps tainted my young mind back in 1983 (something similar happen with The Shining, but with a totally different result – more about that in a future blog entry) and as a result I was expecting something a little more from the book. It's true that I've never been a big fan of the fictitious book excepts that slice up the main narrative, finding them a tad too intrusive and a bit of a distraction from the main plot. But this time I actually understood their inclusion – or, at least, I appreciated their presence and their original design as a slow and deliberate teasing of the book's denouement, something I couldn't understand as a kid, having already seen the film and knew it's outcome. But that's not something you really consider at that age – that the film wasn't around when the book was first published so no one knew its ending. This time I enjoyed those excerpts, and accepted them for their dramatic intentions that were intended in that 'pre-1976 Brian De Palma film' world.
We
all know by now the story of how Carrie
came
about – or, rather, how it almost didn't
come about. How King was slowly becoming disillusioned with his lack
of success getting a novel published and had actually thrown the
manuscript in the bin, only for his wife, novelist Tabitha King, to
rescue it, read it, and urge her husband to finish it and send it off
to a publisher. To quote a future King novel - “For want of a nail
the kingdom was lost...”
Carrie
is
a good start and a damn fine debut novel, and one I've, perhaps
unfairly, been a little dismissive of over the years. Not the
beginning of Stephen King's Golden Age by any means (that begins with
the next novel), but certainly a powerful, heart-wrenching and interesting start to what
is to become a phenomenal writing career.
Score - 6.5/10
