View Full Version : Bracket #1: Carrie (1974)
Carrie, 1974
http://www.thedarktower.org/gallery/data/510/medium/Carrie_face.jpg
Please vote for Carrie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_(novel)) using the following scale:
5: I loved it
4: It was good
3: Average
2: Only so-so
1: I didn't like it
If you haven't read this book yet, please vote Never Read. Feel free to discuss your votes in this thread.
Gave it an Average. It's a good book, but only when not put up against King's other work. When put up against King's other work, it's only average.
Hannah
03-01-2010, 12:44 PM
I gave it a 5 - but that might be because it was the first non short story book of King's I've read and I kind of fell in love with it.
vacant lot
03-01-2010, 04:59 PM
Gave it a 5. Read it when first published, so it was my first SK book.
BROWNINGS CHILDE
03-01-2010, 05:38 PM
3. Honestly, if I had read this book first, it probably would have taken me much longer to develop my SK fixation. This story was WAYYYY to predictable for one thing, and quite cliche.
Brice
03-02-2010, 04:21 AM
3. Honestly, if I had read this book first, it probably would have taken me much longer to develop my SK fixation. This story was WAYYYY to predictable for one thing, and quite cliche.
Maybe now, maybe not then.
BROWNINGS CHILDE
03-02-2010, 05:56 PM
The overbearing, religious fanatic mother demonizing her daughter's sexual maturation has never been a unique idea.
I think this novel is often viewed unfairly. It's short but I personally liked it a lot, I think I should re-read it some day. A 4 for me.
pathoftheturtle
03-04-2010, 02:43 PM
The overbearing, religious fanatic mother demonizing her daughter's sexual maturation has never been a unique idea.And if the daughter had the idea of taking revenge with super-powers, that would certainly not be unique, either. However, such a plot could hardly be called a literary cliché, before 1974.
But King has never been famous for uniqueness or novelty of the ideas lying at the core of the plots. What's so unique about an apocalypse, or a small town with vampires, or a mind-reader, or a haunted place? It's how he does it and how the sidelines and characters are developed that is priceless. I love Carrie, I really think it's a masterpiece, with everything about it done to perfection.
BROWNINGS CHILDE
03-05-2010, 10:30 AM
But King has never been famous for uniqueness or novelty of the ideas lying at the core of the plots. What's so unique about an apocalypse, or a small town with vampires, or a mind-reader, or a haunted place? It's how he does it and how the sidelines and characters are developed that is priceless. I love Carrie, I really think it's a masterpiece, with everything about it done to perfection.
Good points.
candy
03-06-2010, 12:22 AM
The overbearing, religious fanatic mother demonizing her daughter's sexual maturation has never been a unique idea.And if the daughter had the idea of taking revenge with super-powers, that would certainly not be unique, either. However, such a plot could hardly be called a literary cliché, before 1974.
i agree completley path, this was really quite a unique idea way back when and could have been considered quite shocking at the time with some of the elements of the book.
I know that i first read this as an adolecent teen and loved the book so much it has remained a favourite of mine to this day.
Brice
03-06-2010, 05:26 AM
But King has never been famous for uniqueness or novelty of the ideas lying at the core of the plots. What's so unique about an apocalypse, or a small town with vampires, or a mind-reader, or a haunted place? It's how he does it and how the sidelines and characters are developed that is priceless. I love Carrie, I really think it's a masterpiece, with everything about it done to perfection.
Actually, (though it's been said before me) I think there are a rather small number of archetypes commonly used in literature (more so even in horror). It is usually about what is done in the details ...not just with King, but with most authors. It's pretty unusual to run across a completely original idea, imo. I too thought Carrie was phenomenal. :thumbsup:
this is absolutely true, of course, but still there's a difference between trendsetters, like Lovecraft, and developers, like King. I usually prefer the latter, Lovecraft being a glorious exception. I'd prefer 'Salem's Lot to Stoker's Dracula in any weather, although I realize, of course, that Stoker was the first to give a vampire story the form of a published novel. Another example is the great difference between the similar (as Cyber once pointed out, but, unlike what I am going to do, to the disadvantage of King) scenes of riddling - and cheating - in LotR and DT3-4. The former comes directly from the lore, and is therefore "original"; the other is not original, but is so magnificently developed, so rich in unforgettable details, the best Roland's monologue, the mortal combat of wills, the behavior of all the participants, Susannah signalling to Roland, "lie to him!" when Jake asks if there still is hope, Eddie finally proving to Roland what he's worth, and all. It's one of the best in the world's literature - to bears' mind - while in LotR it's only an archetypal guessing contest and necessary plot device.
Brice
03-06-2010, 03:05 PM
True, but it can reasonably be argued that neither Stoker nor Lovecraft were originators, but developers too. Before Dracula there was Polidori's Vampire, Rymer's Feast Of Blood, and LeFanu's Carmilla and before Lovecraft there were many others who dealt in similar themes, but on a much smaller scale usually. The unknown "thing" or unspeakable evil goes back at least as far as Meyrink's Golem and probably furthur. I agree with your general premise though.
pathoftheturtle
03-07-2010, 11:34 AM
:unsure: Seems to me that the premise Jean is advancing generally is just that Stephen King is a great writer. If so, then I agree, too.
...I'd prefer 'Salem's Lot to Stoker's Dracula in any weather...And I agree with this, as well, though it doesn't change what I recently said @ the 'Salem's Lot poll. Simply put, I'd even more prefer It.
...I think there are a rather small number of archetypes commonly used in literature (more so even in horror). It is usually about what is done in the details ...not just with King, but with most authors. It's pretty unusual to run across a completely original idea, imo. ...I also agree with this, since you avoided absolutes.
I would disagree with any statement that there are no original ideas... but, anyway, this thread is probably not the right place to hold that argument.
The poll has closed. Carrie has earned a FAS (final average score) of 3.975609756 or 79.51%, placing 5th (last) in this bracket. It will not be moving on to Round 2. In 2009, Carrie placed 4th with a FAS of 3.690909091, so it gained 0.284700665 (+7.71%) this time.
Brice
03-10-2010, 05:34 AM
:unsure: Seems to me that the premise Jean is advancing generally is just that Stephen King is a great writer. If so, then I agree, too.
...I'd prefer 'Salem's Lot to Stoker's Dracula in any weather...And I agree with this, as well, though it doesn't change what I recently said @ the 'Salem's Lot poll. Simply put, I'd even more prefer It.
...I think there are a rather small number of archetypes commonly used in literature (more so even in horror). It is usually about what is done in the details ...not just with King, but with most authors. It's pretty unusual to run across a completely original idea, imo. ...I also agree with this, since you avoided absolutes.
I would disagree with any statement that there are no original ideas... but, anyway, this thread is probably not the right place to hold that argument.
Oh, I totally agree. The only absolute statement I'd make on that is that original...I mean totally original ideas are rather rare.
And I agree King is a great writer. In fact I'm of the opinion that he deserves a nobel.The point of my statements was basically that King is in the same class as Lovecraft or any of the other greats.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.