'CARRIE' (1974) - THE GREAT STEPHEN KING RE-READ

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