I have also found, in reverse, if you read a book AFTER you see a movie, you'll almost certainly find yourself disappointed in the movie.
Such is the case with 'Carrie'.
I'd never actually sat down and read the book 'Carrie' before. Of course, everyone has at least a passing cultural reference point to the 1976 movie starring Sissy Spacek. I'd also recently sat down with the wife to watch the re-boot starring Chloe Moretz. The 2013 remake was slightly closer to the original in that they could CGI special effects to achieve a bigger wrath of destruction in the third act, but the social updates to bring it to present day changed the feel to me. Although, in a way, Carrie's isolation is heightened in a world where everyone is constantly connected with Facebook and text messages and the internet, and Carrie is still locked in a closet with her bible thanks to Momma.
In the interest of this project/self-challenge, I purchased the book through iTunes and sat down to it. In trying to figure out how I was going to address the book for this entry, I realized a couple of things, so I'm going off on a side note here/adding to those ground rules.
If I'm reading a book for the first time, I typically don't have any historical or personal reference points. As always, there are exceptions to that. (I actively resisted reading any 'Harry Potter' books until the fifth book came out, but I was certainly aware of them.) What I mean to say is that, even though this is supposed to be about King's books, it's inevitable that there will be comparisons to the films made from those books. Those films shaped my impression and awareness of SK even if I hadn't read the source material. 'Carrie' is a prime example of that.
Released in 1974, 'Carrie' was King's first published novel. The popular story, told by King himself, is that he began writing the book as a young struggling author, found himself displeased with it, crumpled it up and threw it in the trash. His wife Tabitha rescued the crumpled pages from the wastebasket, read them, and demanded that he continue. Continue he did, and all the stars aligned etc.
The book is set in small town Chamberlain Maine, in the 'near future' of Spring 1979. Young awkward outcast protagonist Carrie White is bullied by her female classmates, overwhelmed emotionally and physically by her religiously fervent mother, and unable to explain her sudden ability to make objects move with only her will.
Bullying and the ideal of a social hierarchy and preying on the weak is a concept as old as the Earth itself. King's opening scene, with uneducated Carrie (who is a SENIOR in High School), getting her first menstrual period in the gym shower, and the subsequent gang harassment by the other students, set the tone and introduced the characters. Characters I was already familiar with, in a way, but my familiarity with the movie gave me the opportunity to look for differences in the characters or more in-depth development than what I knew from the screen.
Impossibly stuck with the faces and mannerisms of the actors who played them in the movie, my mind made it's own movie starring Amy Irving, Sissy Spacek, William Katt, and P.J. Soles as I continued reading.
(Sidebar: Did P.J. wear the same red hat in more than one movie? I'm obviously aware of her presence in Halloween and Stripes, but for some reason, that goofy red ballcap is the look I will always associate with her.)
I'm ashamed, at myself more than anything, to admit that it took me until reading the book to understand the book-end symbolism of Carrie, covered in blood, mocked by her classmates. Until now, I'd never consciously connected the Prom blood catalyst with the opening menstrual blood catalyst. Was that because I simply treated the movie as a horror movie, and I wasn't actively looking for symbolism? Or, is it testament to the power of King's words, and his ability to craft a story? Blood is the trigger to her ridicule, the representation of her naivety and her social separation from the crowd. She doesn't understand her own menstrual blood in the beginning and she is mocked for it. She is covered in blood by a prank, and she becomes the laughing stock of the prom. The ultimate joke at her expense. The book highlights her mental processing of what's happening to her as the blood falls and the crowd turns on her. It's marvelous writing, and it made me see the whole story differently.
There are certainly things about this book that I didn't like. The book shifts narrative style by dropping in the occasional excerpt from Congressional hearings by The White Commission, Sue Snell's autobiography, and another book investigating Telekinesis in the aftermath of the destruction of Chamberlain. While I thought it gave too much away, I realized that it was kind of a 'Rashomon'-esque device. You knew that Carrie would get her revenge and that the wicked would be punished. From the start, that was always laid bare. The suspense was in getting to that point. Just because you know it's coming doesn't make it any less anxious.
The most interesting part of my experience with the book is being acutely aware of the differences in how the climax played out in the original story vs. the movie.
The bloody buckets prank was pulled off by two people, yet the majority of the school laughed and mocked in the immediate aftermath, sealing their fate. The book details Carrie's exit from the prom, her destruction of downtown, and her ultimate showdown with her mother in much greater detail than the movie.
The scene I found most important, and critically missing from the film, is Carrie's visit to the church as she's covered in blood. King does a wonderful job of laying out her internal struggle for divine forgiveness against embracing her power and capability to exact vengeance against 'the wicked', the 'Angel with the Sword'. Carrie wrestles with good vs evil in a religious sense, and in a naive-teenage sense. King writes in a way that the mind's eye can visualize the two parallel debates raging. A young girl who wants to be accepted, yet left alone, and a woman who ultimately fulfills her mother's prophecy while being rejected by that mother as evil incarnate.
I can understand why the film changed the showdown with Carrie and her mother from the book version. The book ends in a way that is easy to describe in words and provide satisfaction to the reader, but has no effective visual translation. Besides, with 'Carrie' being a horror movie, having Margaret White, the ultimate antagonist, impaled with knives and implements by Carrie's telekinesis makes for a more intense ending.
In the book, Carrie dies after sparing Sue Snell from joining the long list of dead at the end of 'Prom Night'. Carrie reads Sue's mind and accepts her regret, her shame, and her genuine concern for Carrie. This happens in a parking lot by the freeway. Carrie doesn't die in the self-inflicted apocryphal hell-fire and brimstone destruction of her home as in the movie. There is no last-twist hand rising from the ashes for shock value. Instead, King included summations from The White Commission, arguing that Carrie's circumstances were the result of an isolated scenario, and that a person with psychic powers of that magnitude was unlikely to be born again. Dry science talk about the TK 'gene', and how it's rare and recessive and through a freak set of circumstances, it became dominant in Carrie, but the chain of genealogical events that would have to happen to replicate it in someone else were astronomically unlikely...and then text from a letter from one cousin to another in the Southeast US, written in 1988 (almost 10 years after Carrie's wrath) that hints at a two-year old that could move marbles without touching them. The author of the letter couldn't make sense of it, but that's King's version of the wink and nod to us that, despite all the jargon and evidence laid out on how rare Carrie's circumstances were and were never to be seen again, there are clouds for humanity way out on the horizon.
I liked the book for the most part. I made my peace with the narrative style, and in the historical and chronological context of King's career, I can sense the popularity in this book. It's scary, but it's relatable. In a way, we all find ourselves identifying with Sue Snell. How guilty are we, personally, when it comes to bullying and dealing with social outcasts? I'm honest enough to admit that I've been a bully to some, even as I'd been bullied by others. I'm not proud of it, but I think it's an aspect of human nature that's common. It's a mechanism for us, almost like a default. The separation lies in the lengths at which we go to shame others, and the regret, or lack of, we feel for what we've done. There are so many things that play into bullying in this day and age, and it has subcategories: Cyberbullying, Fat-shaming, Slut-shaming, Racism, etc. I know that I've treated people in a manner below what I should've in the past. I know that I continue to do it on occasion. I'd like to think that I'm better than that, but I'm not. It is a poor tendency of my personality that sometimes happens. I think a lot of people do it, and I'm not alone. That doesn't excuse it, but it's an opinion I have. We all judge each other and ourselves. Some people manifest it better than others, but to paraphrase Margaret White, 'no one is without sin'.
Bullying is a theme that repeats itself throughout King's bibliography. We'll certainly address the topic again, and I'm extremely excited to get overly verbose about a particular subject and novel in the future. However, I must exercise patience and not get ahead of myself. There's a reason I'm doing this in chronological order.
As a footnote: A name popped out to me during the reading. Reference is made to Teddy Duchamp's gas station. It's been a long time since I've read 'Different Seasons', so I'm unable to confirm if King is referencing THE Teddy Duchamp from 'The Body' (made into the movie Stand By Me) or if it's simply a case of name recycling. A mental note is made to check that out. However, it'll be a while before I get to it.
Next up: 'Salem's Lot. A book I read as a young man and failed to find interest in, only to return to it later once it factored into my obsession with 'The Dark Tower'.
No comments:
Post a Comment