Stephen King's 'Carrie' is 50. I couldn't care less if you hate it

The 50th anniversary of the publication of “Carrie,” Stephen King’s first novel, came and went recently.

Don’t worry. This is not one of those “if you didn’t feel old already” stories. Most of us have plenty of reminders of how old we are anyway just walking down the steps, so who wants to be reminded of it again?

Instead, this is at once an appreciation of King’s work, which I like quite a bit, and an appreciation of the freedom of not really giving a damn what anyone else thinks.

Yes, the two are related.

King famously wrote three pages of what would become “Carrie,” hated it and tossed it in the garbage. His wife, Tabitha, fished it out and encouraged him to continue.

Stephen King has sold more than 350 million books

Good choice. Since then, King has sold more than 350 million books — some estimates put the number at 400 million. While he had published short stories in what can politely be called “gentlemen’s magazines,” "Carrie" was his first novel. If you asked 10 people what kind of writer King is, nine would say “horror,” but that’s not really accurate, certainly not anymore. He’s written plenty of horror, for sure, but also mysteries and crime novels and one of the more entertaining books on writing, called, conveniently enough, “On Writing.”

He’s also had short stories published in the New Yorker and in 2003 was awarded the Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters, putting him in esteemed company (other winners include Philip Roth, Norman Mailer, Joan Didion and Eudora Welty). This enraged just the people you’d think it would — the people who look down their nose at King as nothing more than a genre writer, a hack who sells books by appealing to the lowest common denominator.

So what?

But I’d argue he’s more than that — “Salem’s Lot,” my favorite of his books, is more of a character study of a small town than it is a vampire story, though plenty of people get bitten. “Carrie,” where it all started, has the famous scene in which buckets of blood are dumped on the title character’s head, causing her to go on a murderous telekinetic killing spree, but it’s also a searing examination of bullying, religious zealotry and the excruciating pain of being an outcast. “Pet Semetery” looks at the horrifying lengths people will go to to try to overcome grief, or get rid of its causes. You get the idea.

You may disagree. And you know what? I don’t really care.

I did, for a while. I was an English major, placing me among the biggest snobs in the liberal arts. I mean, I went to James Madison University, which no one has ever called the Harvard of the South (that’s Davidson), so I couldn’t really look down on anyone. But there is a kind of arrogance, a sort of attitude that suggests you think people become history majors because they aren’t good enough readers.

King isn't William Faulkner. So what?

When I was a senior, I took a class called “Gothic Supernatural Literature.” A combination of duties at the college newspaper and procrastination led to my reading “The Exorcist” in one long night. (I’d recommend it, actually.) Then we had an assignment asking us to read a novel and defend it. I chose “Salem’s Lot,” and went in armed with a big defense of why it wasn’t just a crummy, scary paperback. As soon as I started, the professor interrupted me in front of the class and said, “Eh, it’s just a rewrite of ‘Dracula.’ What else you got?” Nothing else is what I got. So, that went well.

His attitude was common. Anyone who sells that many books can’t really be a great writer, right? I don’t know, but that argument seems absurd. I am not going to be the person to tell you that King is a better writer than William Faulkner, because he is not. But I can say that “The Sound and the Fury” wouldn’t have become one of my favorite books if I hadn’t had a knowledgeable professor to help guide me through my first reading of it.

That’s not necessary with King. He writes for a mass audience, no doubt, cherry-picking this or that pop-culture reference so that you don’t need anyone to explain to you. This, along with a conversational style and an understanding of how to hook a reader and never let go, allows you to fly through his books. Any lasting commentary or universal truth is probably more accident than intention.

Which is fine. There’s enough substance that you don’t feel like you’re wasting your time. And who cares if you are? As Richard Feynman wrote, what do you care what other people think?

Is 'Carrie' by Stephen King worth reading?

This is something I had to learn. Certainly in English-major circles you wouldn’t bring up how much you liked King's writing. He’s fun, sure, but he’s not SERIOUS.

What dopes. A thing you learn, or should learn, when you get into journalism and certainly when you become a critic is that you can’t really care what anyone else thinks — and that includes other critics. ESPECIALLY other critics. You have to form your own opinions, and you have to be convinced that they’re the correct ones. You just can’t worry about what anyone else thinks. Otherwise, you’re just a tiny voice in a rather pathetic choir. And where’s the fun in that?

So yeah, here’s to Stephen King on 50 years of publishing novels (and short stories and movie scripts). He’s earned it. He DESERVES it, no matter what anyone thinks.

Macabre memories: Does 'Salem's Lot' hold up?

Reach Goodykoontz at bill.goodykoontz@arizonarepublic.com. Facebook: facebook.com/GoodyOnFilm. X: @goodyk. Subscribe to the weekly movies newsletter.

Subscribe to azcentral.com today. What are you waiting for?

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Stephen King's 'Carrie' is 50. Critics have come around. About time