Not to nitpick your review or ideas (thanks for posting them!) but this is not that unbelievable at all. Female stuff was not all that talked about back in the 70s. My mother and her friends all believed a host of things about how to not get pregnant after sex and even my own mother didn't realize she was even pregnant at 15 when her period stopped until somebody explained it to her. Things like a period were looked at way differently than now, it wasn't so much a right of passage but a "dirty" thing that a woman needed to take care of and hide. It wasn't unusual then for a girl to not even really understand why she was bleeding until it happened. Eventually a girl's mother or friends who had already started theirs or older sister would explain what was happening and what to do about it. Just a lot different world then.
It's perfectly okay to nitpick my ideas! I'm certainly no expert at 1970s feminine hygiene theories, I can tell you that. The characters in the book reacted with quite a lot of disbelief as well though. None of the other students could believe she didn't know, nor the teacher who got her cleaned up and explained things. But it's possible Stephen King was no expert at 1970s feminine hygiene theories either.
Her crazy mom definitely thought it was a sinful thing though. She appeared to honestly believe that if you were pure of thought and deed you wouldn't ever start getting periods. Or breasts. Puberty as a whole, really. Neat lady, Carrie's mom.
Surprisingly, of all the King books I did read over the years Carrie was not one of them. For some reason I never got around to it, maybe it was because I knew of the movie and what happened. So, I can't speak much to it, but I think it was a different kind of writing and much of his works were/are terrifying in a sense because he is a master at playing with "what-ifs" that we all think of from time to time. I mean, Lovercraft is enjoyable but nobody really ever wonders if something like Cthulhu exists and could be living in his or her childhood town next door. But story after story of King's has an element of believability to it that can play on the darker side of our psyches. Everybody knows that one girl in school is "different" and gets picked on and sneered at, she is usually very Carrie-esque in that she is naive, maybe poorer and thus wears used clothes and hand me downs, maybe has a parent that disallows make-up and other forms of dressing up. What if she gets her day and could take out all the years of everybody's smirks, eye rolling and insults on those people in one moment with the only tool somebody like her could ever hope to have - psychic powers? All of his early works have an element like that. That is what I think makes him work so well, at least early on. His writing changed a lot after he 1) got off the drugs after Misery and 2) got hit by the drunk driver and almost died. I don't care for his writing after it changed and I haven't read anything he has put out in years. But, his stuff before the change is awesome,Salem's of scared the daylights out of me. What's funny is that I don't even remember why, I was only 16 at the time I read it but I remember not sleeping that night. Same goes with The Shining, another sleepless night. Misery was awesome, The Dead Zone was excellent, Thinner, The Bachman Books (again, a story about a school shooting years before they would actually begin occurring) and the list goes on - all very enjoyable books that play around with believable themes. Enjoy the reading!
That's interesting to me that some of his books actually kept you up at night because of how scary they were. Maybe my opinion is an overreaction based on my own experience. But I'm actually easily scared by horror movies or even just thinking too hard about things like monsters or aliens. It's part of why I don't watch them. Hell, some episodes of X-Files are about the most I can easily handle more often than not. But King's books don't provoke that reaction in me for whatever reason.
I agree that he steeps his ideas in believable places and situations and reactions, and it's part of what can make him enjoyable. He's a very imaginative writer.
The only post-van books I've read are Books 5 and 6 of the Dark Tower so far (haven't read the last one yet, but I'll get to it on this project), and I didn't much like them so you could be on to something. But I'm aiming to read them all, even the shitty ones, so hopefully it'll be fun overall. I think it will be, because even when I think the book is crap at least I can make fun of it in my posts.
Thanks for the response! I'll be interested to see what you think about the books you've read.
Warder to starry_nite
Chapterfish — Nate's Writing Blog
http://chapterfish.wordpress.com
Chapterfish — Nate's Writing Blog
http://chapterfish.wordpress.com
Nate reads Stephen King, Part 1: Carrie
05/02/2012 01:07:57 AM
- 1316 Views
Re: Nate reads Stephen King, Part 1: Carrie
05/02/2012 02:05:57 AM
- 1002 Views
Re: Nate reads Stephen King, Part 1: Carrie
05/02/2012 02:48:28 AM
- 746 Views
Your comments about the horror make me wonder if you've read the right books.
05/02/2012 01:00:44 PM
- 572 Views
Maybe I'm the weird one.
05/02/2012 05:34:42 PM
- 567 Views
Re: Maybe I'm the weird one.
05/02/2012 06:40:06 PM
- 744 Views
Re: Your comments about the horror make me wonder if you've read the right books.
05/02/2012 05:36:39 PM
- 577 Views
I'm interested to see what you think of the evolution of his writing.
13/02/2012 01:06:40 AM
- 731 Views