Talk:Carrie (novel)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Bmhasset.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maricarmen garciaramos, Rummens97, Jmirto95. Peer reviewers: Msalgueiro, Mzanders135, Grichmond96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

COMMENT

^^ If you mean it's a scary book, yeah I guess so. Anyway...regarding "false documents", I have a rough idea what this means, but how is it demonstrated in Carrie (I haven't read it for about 8 years)..? pomegranate 23:59, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

Untitled

Carrie, the movie, is definately one of the better film adaptations of King's work. Directed by Brian De Palma and starring Sissy Spacek, it is a truly terrifying movie.

I expanded the plot synopsis a little — it barely described what happens in the story line. Leroi henri christophe 20:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The plot summary was in depth and very detailed even though there were some grammatical errors. The language used to describe the novel does not reflect the raw and gruesome language used in the book by King. The plot summary could have done a better job of reflecting the tone of the novel and could have described Carrie in a more unpleasing way. The description of the novel, the first paragraph of the wiki page, could demonstrate Carrie's physical appearance better and her life in more detailed. The organization of the article is a good way for the reader to understand what is happening in the same sequence as in the novel.Maricarmen garciaramos (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Should this be in the Fantasy film category?

should this (and Carrie 2) really come in the Fantasy category, otherwise every Horror film that involves the supernatural would (which is a lot) and I wouldn't think of a lot of those as my idea of a Fantasy movie? Arnie587 00:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Remake

So where is the section on the remake of the film? There are obvious differences here. Alyeska 19:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Necessary?

I don't know if anyone's noticed, but there is an article called Carrie (1976 film), which basically includes all of the info in this plus a bit more. The silly thing is that, if you search for "Carrie", it comes to this one. I would recommend this page for deletion.

moved this page to Carrie (novel) with the original disambiguation moved to Carrie. Hbdragon88 04:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

King's attitude to adaptions of his work

The statement in the opening paragraph of this article, describing how the film version of Carrie is one of the few adaptions of King's work that he appreciates, is in direct conflict with the following quote from the main article on Stephen King:

Unlike some authors, King is not at all troubled when a movie based on his work differs from the derivative work itself, and is often pleased with film adaptations of his work. He has contrasted his books and its film adaptations as "apples and oranges; both delicious, but very different."

I'm not sure which of these concepts is accurate, since neither of them are backed up by relevant sources.

According to Harlan Ellison in Harlan Ellison's Watching, it's a lot more complicated than that; King has apparently not approved at all of a lot of the changes when film versions are made, but at least at first (Carrie, The Shining, Cujo) would say nothing, or try to keep things positive. I'll look up the exact quotes. --Bluejay Young (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Miss Desjardin

Does it ever specify if Miss Desjardin made it out of the prom alive? JackOfHearts 10:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Miss Desjardin does survive; I added this information. Miss Tabitha (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Similarity to Cho's Plays?

Is there any similarity between the VA Tech shooter's plays and this story? --Zeckalpha 12:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No. You can see Cho's plays at thesmokinggun.com; as far as I can remember they are mostly family dramas where sons stand up to or kill abusive fathers. Much more like Abel Harlingen in The Tommyknockers. However, the ambience of Carrie foreshadows Westboro, Columbine, VTech and all the rest. Some of the most famous school arsons may have had similar origins. --Bluejay Young (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Carrienovel.jpg

Image:Carrienovel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Carrienovel.jpg

Image:Carrienovel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sue's Miscarriage?

I don't think that the book says that Sue miscarries as the synopsis in this article does. That seems to be taking it a step beyond what is actually said in the book. In fact, Tabitha King's introduction in the Collector's Edition seems to insinuate that Sue was not actually pregnant. I think that should be changed in this article. (75.14.218.208 (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

I have taken it out several times, and someone always puts it back in. They want for there to be an abortion there where there wasn't one, I guess. There is no indication that Carrie had anything to do with Sue getting her period that night, and Sue only fantasizes that she might be pregnant because her period is a few days late. --Bluejay Young (talk)

Marital rape

"Revealing that Carrie's conception was a result of what may have been marital rape (although she admits she enjoyed the sex) ..."

This just sounds ridiculous. (I didn't read the book. But the concept is weird. ) --Zslevi (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps try reading the book before saying it's "weird." That is what is described in the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.11.205 (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've heard this before in regards to Margaret White. "How was it rape if she liked it? Lol" The concept that feeling physical pleasure during a rape, nullifies the fact that it's rape, is astounding to me. Physical pleasure is a physiological reaction that you can't control. Let's put it another way: Shoving food into someone's mouth is assault. (It is. I looked it up. Lol) Well what if someone shoves into another person's mouth something that tastes good, so that it's technically pleasurable going down their throat? That doesn't nullify the fact that it was still assault. It might have technically tasted good but that's a physiological reaction that a person can't control. The fact is that the person did not consent to having food shoved in their mouth - thus, it's assault. Likewise, even if a person's body reacts in such a way that pleasurable sensations are felt, that doesn't nullify the fact that it was rape (if the person didn't consent). - Jenna

Linked Review

The link to the "review" should be removed--the review is dreadful, amateurish, not-even-high-school-level writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.218.4 (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Carrie doesn't forgive Sue?

It's been a lifetime since I read this book, but don't Carrie and Sue connect mentally, and doesn't Carrie make Sue get her period? I got from that that Sue was pregnant, and Carrie ended the pregnancy because Sue didn't want it. Either that, or when the entire hellish episode was all over, Sue just menstruated as a bookend to the beginning of the story with Carrie's nightmare intro to womanhood.

Seriously, am I hallucinating that part of the story? Haven't been able to get ahold of this book for YEARS. Helenabucket (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Reception

After reading that the paperback rights sold for 400,000, as compared to 2,500 for the first edition hardcover, I became curious as to how much of a blockbuster this book was, and when exactly it became a blockbuster, because if, as the article states, the first edition only sold 13,000 copies, why would the paperback be bought for so much? A reception section should be in order. Thank you. Renfield (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary

The plot summary is written terribly. I mean it is just awful. It gives me a headache to read it. Someone has to write it again, for example, "Carrie is at first real nervous, but soon she realizes that everyone is starting to like her because of getting treated so well", and, "She makes it to the roadhouse the Cavalier and then decides that nothing matters anymore". Now I may be mistaken but these are written just terribly. These are just a few extracts from this wall of just plain awful writing and someone needs to sort it. Zolstijers, innit brah!? —Preceding undated comment added 15:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC).

In the Plot Summary I added that Sue Snell convinces her boyfriend, Tommy, to take Carrie to the dance and how her mother forbids it in fear for Carri's chastity. Carrie uses her powers against her mother and attends the dance anyway. Originally it said that Sue wanted to become friends with Carrie but that's speculation, so I just added how she wanted to make the situation better by not going to the dance and having Tommy take her instead. I also added information on how King structured his novel. Maricarmen garciaramos (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The plot summary was far too long before your additions. If you add, please trim other parts as much or more than you add. Sundayclose (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

American dad

Theres an American Dad episode where Stan gets pigs dumped on him at prom. When someone asks why it wasnt pigs blood someone else reveals they didnt actually finish the book. Someone else can add it if they want, I just didnt really know how to word it.--68.60.16.174 (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Something similiar in Ugly Betty, where she dreams she gets covered in pigs blood...should that be referenced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.148.64 (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Carrie reference for IT

Hey, can anyone tell me what chapter Carrie Whites grave is mentioned? I just want to check to see if its the real deal Titan30 (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Plot Summary

Although the facts surrounding the book and publication are in depth and worth mentioning, I find the actual summary doesn't do the book much justice. The summary is detailed, but the dictation and language being utilized fails to capture the very grunge and real language used in the book. That sort of diction and grime needs to be brought to the summary. Jmirto95 (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A plot summary doesn't need to recreate the style that the author used in writing the novel, nor is that the case for the vast majority of plot summaries on Wikipedia. It simply needs to succinctly and accurately summarize the plot. See WP:PLOTSUM for more details about an acceptable plot summary. Sundayclose (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The summary of the book is thorough, but it could've been made easier to understand with stating exact details of what actually occurred in the novel. The book was very gruesome and acute, and the summary could be made the same way.Rummens97 (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)BriannaRummens

The plot summary DOES summarize "what actually occurred in the novel." There are limits to the length of plot summaries, per Wikipedia guidelines. And please cite the policy or guideline stating that plot summaries must recreate the style of the novel such as "gruesome and acute". Few, if any, Wikipedia plot summaries do so. Sundayclose (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Themes

Added a section for themes and briefly discussed the idea of gender and revenge, without going into too much detail to take away from free though. Jmirto95 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You added your own interpretations to those of the source you cite. All interpretations must be sourced. Sundayclose (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Improvements

There were only a few grammatical errors that we could find, but the changes that we made to improve the article had to deal with the punctuation, word choice, finishing incomplete sentences. The issues that we found, and fixed, in the plot summary had to deal with punctuation, tenses, and incomplete sentences. In the publication section the issues had to deal with punctuation and word choice. Lastly, in the adaptations section, the issues we found had to deal with usage of the wrong tense, and incomplete sentences. These were all the language and grammatical issues that we could find in this article. Rummens97Maricarmen garciaramos (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC) (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)BriannaRummens

I originally added to the article's publication history but received feedback that should relate to the article more and have it not be a random fact. I added more to it in hopes of having it relate to the previous statements in the section.Maricarmen garciaramos (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Response to sundaydance

I assume that this is how I make a post here.

Anyway, sundaydance. I understand what you mean by the last paragraph having been my own interpretation. So we can scrap that. But the paragraph starting with "Although what Carrie did was violence..." was a summary of the *quote* that I cited afterward. Wait, I'll walk you through this.

Quote from Stephen King showing that Carrie is an allegory for feminism, which is what I quoted in the page: "Carrie is largely about how women find their own channels of power and what men fear about women and women’s sexuality…which is only to say that, writing the book in 1973, I was fully aware of what Women’s Liberation implied for me and others of my sex. The book is, in its more adult implications, an uneasy masculine shrinking from a future of female equality… Carrie is Woman, feeling her powers for the first time, and, like Samson, pulling down the temple on everyone in sight… and using her “wild talent” to pull down the whole rotten society…at the end of the book." Source: Danse Macabre

Then I said: "Although what Carrie does at the end of the book - when viewed on a literal level - is violence" <------ A summary of the novel

Then I said: "Stephen King did not intend for the novel to be anti-feminist. On a symbolic level, Stephen King viewed Carrie’s destruction of her school as a positive thing." Which I sourced in the quote I posted afterward: "I never viewed Carrie as evil, I saw her as good. When she pulls the house down at the end, she is not responsible." (Stephen King: The Art of Darkness)

Essentially my paragraphs weren't so much my interpretations of the novel but rather paraphrasing Stephen King's quotes about his own thoughts on the novel.

And yes, I did look at the links you posted. & I still don't understand what I did wrong. Yes, the other administrator removed my info, but what she asked (very politely, by the way) was for me to provide sources. Which I then did (by sourcing Stephen King's quote from Danse Macabre and the quote from Stephen King: The Art of Darkness).

Also I request that you do not end this conversation now because I'm genuinely curious about how to improve my posts so that I can Wiki better in the future. Also I think that the part about Carrie having been an allegory for feminism is actually pretty important to be on this page, because Stephen King said that it was his intent for the book (see the aforementioned quote). He dedicated several paragraphs to it in his book Danse Macabre. Why wouldn't it be relevant to post on Wikipedia?

(First of all, my username is Sundayclose.) For editors just joining this discussion, it began on my talk page if you want to read it. As for your interpretations, you wrote: "Although what Carrie does at the end of the book - when viewed on a literal level - is violence, Stephen King did not intend for the novel to be anti-feminist. On a symbolic level, Stephen King viewed Carrie’s destruction of her school as a positive thing, as can be seen in his description in the aforementioned quote as the society having been “rotten”". That is neither a summary of the novel nor a summary of King's quotation. It is your interpretation based on your understanding of the novel and the quotation. Similarly, you also wrote: "The novel ends with an implication that Carrie has been reincarnated, powers intact, into a new family which embraces her for her powers rather than alienating and demonizing her for them. This can be seen as symbolic for the destruction of a society which had been oppressive to women, in order to make room for a society that treated women well." Again, that is not a summary of the novel, King's quotation, or Winter's quotation. I don't know why you have so much trouble understanding the difference between a summary and your own interpretation. But if you can't, then Wikipedia is not the place for you to write. I have asked you repeatedly to read WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, but it's quite obvious that you haven't done so, or that you don't understand what you read. I have explained this as simply as I can. If someone else can help you understand here, I welcome other comments. But this is my final comment. You need to either source the unsourced paragraphs, or you need to get a clear consensus here. Sundayclose (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I already agreed that the part about reincarnation symbolism was my own interpretation and could be scrapped. I quote myself: "I understand what you mean by the last paragraph having been my own interpretation. So we can scrap that." "Stephen King viewed Carrie’s destruction of her school as a positive thing" is a paraphrasing of when King said "I never viewed Carrie as evil, I saw her as good. When she pulls the house down at the end, she is not responsible." Edit: Hmmm I guess it sort of is a leap to go from "she's not responsible" to being "a positive thing."

@47.20.65.222: As I said, the unsourced parts are much more than summary. There's a lot of your own interpretation. But thanks for discussing here. By the way, if you can use the quotations with a bit of non-interpretive description to create a section about theme(s), that might work. But I strongly suggest presenting it here and waiting for others to react first. That avoids a lot of disagreement in the article and reverting. You might look around at other articles about King's works or other novels to find examples of how it's done. A superb example for a film rather than a novel is Pulp Fiction#Critical analysis. It's not that I entirely disagree with your conclusions, just that you mix your interpretations with the quotations without proper sourcing. Sundayclose (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carrie (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080817090636/http://blogcritics.org:80/archives/2006/05/01/070208.php to http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/01/070208.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Page Evaluation

after reading the article I have felt very informed when it came to the summary and the character analysis. If I had not read this article I would have felt underinformed when starting to read the novel, Carrie. the subtitles are accurate headings with clear and concise information provided to the reader.

After reading the article I would use it to further describe the novel to a friend! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RylanOConnor (talk • contribs) 15:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carrie (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160414030429/http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/carriepetition to http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/carriepetition

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm Not Okay With This adaptation

There is a Netflix series which is an adaptation of Carrie.

It's got the pigs blood, the telekinesis, the prom. The story had been fleshed out with more characters, and updated a bit. But it's pretty clearly based on Carrie. 103.12.191.101 (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Carrie (novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk · contribs) 07:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's see...

Lede

• Feeling guilt toward harassing Carrie, Sue Snell invites Carrie to the prom with Tommy Ross, but a humiliating prank during the prom by Christ Hargensen leads to Carrie destroying the town with her powers. -> Remorseful for picking on Carrie, Sue Snell insists that she go to prom with Sue's boyfriend Tommy Ross, though a revenge prank pulled by one of Carrie's bullies, Chris Hargensen, leaves Carrie humiliated and uses her powers to destroy the town on prom night.
• The narrative contains fictional documents in approximately chronological order that present multiple perspectives on the prom incident and its perpetrator. Carrie deals with themes of ostracization and revenge, with the opening shower scene and the destruction of Chamberlain being pivotal scenes. -> An epistolary novel, Carrie deals with themes of ostracization and revenge, with the opening shower scene and the destruction of Chamberlain being pivotal scenes.
• King started writing Carrie, intended to be a short story for the men's magazine Cavalier, after a friend's suggestion about writing a story of a female character. -> King wrote Carrie at the suggestion of a friend that he write a story about a female character, with the intention of submitting it to be published originally as a short story for the men's magazine Cavalier.
• Being a debut novel, Carrie launched King's career and helped achieve him mainstream success. => Carrie, King's debut novel, helped launch his career and achieve him mainstream success.
• Carrie received generally positive reviews The book
• It has also been credit for -> with
• Four film adaptations have been released, with one getting a sequel, and a musical adaptation was released in 1988. -> The book has been adapted into four films—with one getting a sequel—as well as a musical.

Plot

• Don't precede "instilled by her despotic mother" with a comma
• The sight of Carrie drenched in blood invokes laughter from the audience. evokes
• a few lucky staff and students escape - "a few staff and students narrowly escape"
• that the carnage was caused by her - I think "mayhem" is the appropriate word
• "killing both Billy and Chris" -> him

Styles and themes

• Carrie is a horror novel and is an example of supernatural and gothic fiction. as well as
• This results in Carrie committing a massacre among the school and Chamberlain of
• Carrie also deals with themes of vengeance. -> Preference to Another theme found in the novel is vengeance. to vary sentence structure

Legacy

• While review aggregation websites Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are reliable sources, they cannot be cited as sources to support overall critical consensus to a film. Review aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus; sections about critical reception should benefit from other reliable sources, such as books and periodicals reporting in retrospect how a film was received by critics.

Conclusion

In light of these concerns, mostly at the prose level, I feel like this article needs more work before it can pass GA. I've only gone through the first three sections and already noticed some sentences to be a little too unwieldy that I couldn't help but suggest revisions. Please put in a request for a copy edit at the Guild of Copy Editors before you renominate. Make no mistake, the article is GA worthy; it's just not quite there yet. Good luck, and happy holidays. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Miscatgeorized

It's showing up in a list of fantasy books. It should not be part of this list.

Category:1974 fantasy novels Geraldpriddle (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)