Stephen King’s First Book Is 50 Years Old, and Still Horrifyingly Relevant

    Stephen King’s “Carrie” burst upon
an astonished world in 1974. It made King’s
career. It has sold millions, made millions,
inspired four films and passed from generation
[5] to generation. It was, and continues to be, a
phenomenon.
    “Carrie” was King’s first published
novel. Failing to convince himself, King
scrunched up the few pages he’d written and
[10] tossed them into the garbage. But his wife,
Tabitha — a dauntless soul, and evidently of a
curious temperament — fished them out,
uncrinkled them, read them, and famously
convinced King to continue the story. She

[15] wanted to know how it would come out, and
such desires on the part of readers are perhaps
the best motivation a writer can have.
    King proceeded. The novel grew into
a book with many voices. First, of course, there
[20] is Carrie herself: Picked on by her religious
fanatic of a mother, by her fellow high school
students and by the entire town of
Chamberlain, Maine, she is clumsy, yearning,
pimply, ignorant and, by the end, vengefully
[25] telekinetic. But we also hear from the next-

door neighbor who witnessed a violent display
of the toddler Carrie’s telekinetic
manifestations; from various journalistic
pieces, in Esquire and in local papers, about
[30] Carrie’s unusual powers and the destruction of
the town by fire and flood; from Ogilvie’s
Dictionary of Psychic Phenomena and from an
article in a science yearbook (“Telekinesis:
Analysis and Aftermath”); from Susan Snell, the
[35] only one of Carrie’s female classmates to
attempt to atone for the wrongs they did to
her; and from the academic paper “The Shadow
Exploded: Documented Facts and Specific
Conclusions Derived From the Case of Carietta
[40] White.”
    Then there are the inner voices of
various other characters, as overheard by
Carrie, who toward the end of her life becomes
telepathic and can listen in on the silent
[45] thoughts of others, as well as broadcasting her
inner life to them. Together, the many voices
tell the horrifying tale.
    What is it about “Carrie” that has
intrigued me? It’s one of those books that
[50] manage to dip into the collective unconscious
of their own age and society.
    Female figures with quas-

isupernatural powers seem to pop up in
literature at times when the struggle for
[55] women’s rights comes to the fore. H. Rider
Haggard’s “She” appeared toward the end of
the 19th century, when pressure for more
equality was building; its electrically gifted
heroine can kill with a pointed finger and a
[60] thought, and much verbiage is expended on
male anxieties about what might happen —
especially to men — should She-Who-Must-Be-

Obeyed train her sights on world domination.
    “Carrie” was written in the early
[65] 1970s, when the second-wave women’s
movement was at full throttle. There are a
couple of nods to this new form of feminism in
the novel, and King himself has said that he
was nervously aware of its implications for men
[70] of his generation. The male villain of “Carrie,”
Billy Nolan, is a throwback to the swaggering
hair-oiled tough-male posturing of the 1950s,

which is seen as already outmoded, though still
dangerous.
[75]     “Carrie White” is an interesting
combination. “Carrie,” as King takes pains to
point out, is not a nickname for Carol or
Carolina. Carrie’s given name is “Carietta,” an
unusual variant of “Caretta,” itself derived from
[80] “caritas,” or “charity” — loving and forgiving
kindness, the most important virtue in the
Christian triad of faith, hope and charity. This
kind of charity is noteworthily lacking in most
of the townspeople of Chamberlain. (Yes, there
[85] is a real Chamberlain, Maine, and I wonder how
its inhabitants felt when they discovered in
1974 that they’d be obliterated in 1979, the
year in which “Carrie” is set.)
    Most particularly, charitable loving
[90] kindness is entirely absent from Carrie’s
mother, nominally a devoted Christian, who
knows about Carrie’s superpowers, believes
she has inherited them from an eldritch, sugar-

bowl-levitating grandmother, and ascribes
[95] them to demonic energies and witchcraft, thus
viewing it as her pious duty to murder her own
child. Carrie herself wavers between love and
forgiveness and hate and revenge, but it’s the
hatred of the town that channels itself through
[100] her, tips her over the edge and transforms her
into an angel of destruction.
    As for “White,” you might be inclined
to think “white hat, black hat,” as in westerns,
or “white” as in innocent, white-clothed
[105] sacrificial lamb, and yes, Carrie is an innocent
— but also please consider “white trash.” The
white underclass has existed in America from
the beginning, and white trashers going back
generations are thick on the ground in Maine,
[110] Stephen King’s home territory — a territory he
has mined extensively over the course of his
career.
     He based the situation of Carrie on
two girls from that underclass whom he knew
[115] at school, both of them marked by poverty and
decaying clothing, both of them taunted and
despised and destroyed by their fellow
students. Everyone in the town was an
underdog in the carefully calibrated class
[120] structure of America — not for them the fancy
private schools and university educations,
unless they got really, really lucky.
    King is a visceral writer, and a master
of granular detail. As Marianne Moore said, the
[125] literary ideal is “imaginary gardens with real
toads in them,” and boy, are there a lot of
toads in King’s work! He writes “horror,” the
most literary of forms, especially when it
comes to the supernatural, which must 

[130] perforce be inspired by already existing tales
and books.
    But underneath the “horror,” in King,
is always the real horror: the all-too-actual
poverty and neglect and hunger and abuse that
[135] exists in America today. The ultimate horror,
for him as it was for Dickens, is human cruelty,
and especially cruelty to children. It is this that
distorts “charity,” the better side of our nature,
the side that prompts us to take care of others.

Adapted from: www.nytimes.com /2024/03/25

TEXTO - Lung Cancer In Non Smoker

    A group of respiratory medicine and public health experts are calling for lung cancer in never-smokers to be given greater recognition. Writing in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, they say that lung cancer in people who have never smoked is under recognised and presents a diagnostic challenge, particularly for GPs seeking to balance overinvestigation with early diagnosis and high quality care.
    It is estimated that around 6,000 people in the UK who have never smoked die of lung cancer every year, greater than the numbers of people who die of cervical cancer (900), lymphoma (5,200), leukaemia (4,500) and ovarian cancer (4,200).
    Major contributors to lung cancers in never-smokers include second-hand smoke, occupational carcinogen exposure and outdoor pollution. Globally, the use of solid fuels for indoor cooking and second-hand smoke exposure are important contributions to lung cancer in never-smokers and disproportionately affect women
    Lead author, Professor Paul Cosford, Director for Health Protection & Medical Director, Public Health England, said: "This paper demonstrates an estimated 6,000 people who have never smoked die each year from lung cancer in the UK. This makes it, by itself, the eighth most common cause of cancer related death in the UK.
    "For too long having lung cancer has only been thought of as a smoking related disease. This remains an important association but, as this this work shows, the scale of the challenge means there is a need to raise awareness with clinicians and policy makers of the other risk factors including indoor and outdoor air pollution.
    "This is one reason why PHE published its review of the evidence and recommended specific actions local authorities can take to improve their air quality. By delivering on the promise of a clean air generation we can reduce the number of lung cancers among those who have never smoked."
    Co-author Professor Mick Peake, clinical director of the Centre for Cancer Outcomes, University College London Hospitals Cancer Collaborative, said: "Despite advances in our understanding, most people who have never smoked do not believe they are at risk and often experience long delays in diagnosis, reducing their chances of receiving curative treatment."
    Prof Peake added: "The stigma of smoking has been the major factor behind the lack of interest in, knowledge of and research into lung cancer. Therefore, in many ways, neversmokers who develop lung cancer are, as a result, disadvantaged.
    "Drawing attention to the contribution of underlying risk factors to lung cancer in never-smokers presents opportunities to reinforce efforts to tackle other major public health challenges. For example, the impact of passive smoking and air pollution on lung cancers adds weight to the government's ambitions to improve air quality and the public, clinicians and policy makers must all be aware of this relationship

(Adapted from: www.sciencedaily.com)

Text

TEXT

  With the objective of promoting literacy all over the world, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) created, on September 8, the International Literacy Day. Nevertheless, five decades later, estimates point to a worldwide total of 738 million persons who cannot read or write. In Brazil, they were 13 million in 2015, according to data from the National Household Sample Survey (Pnad 2015).

PNAD shows that the illiteracy rate (percentage of illiterate persons by age group in the total number of persons in the same group) fell from 11.5%, in 2004, to 8%, in 2015. Illiteracy is more concentrated in the Northeast Region, where the rate reaches 16.2%, way above the figure in the South, 4.1%. Older groups record higher illiteracy rates: 25.7% among persons aged 65 and over, versus 0.8% in the group aged 15 to 19.

One of the solutions to change this situation is the Youth and Adult Education Program (Peja), attended by 26,230 students in the city of Rio de Janeiro alone, according to the Municipal Secretariat of Education. “Peja has a diversity of students”, says Fatima Valente, director of the Youth and Adult Education Municipal Reference Center (Creja). Due to that diversity, our classes fulfill different needs. “We do not have working students, we have workers who study. That’s why our schedule cannot be the same as in regular education”.

These programs have helped change the lives of many people, like Luciana Muniz, age 35, and Antônio Alves, age 65, both Peja students. Luciana states that having no education has been very humiliating. “At church I could never take part in Bible reading, and that made me sad”. Today she is very active in Church, wishes to keep on studying, to graduate in Gastronomy and dreams of opening up her own company. Antônio, in turn, quit studying to work in crops at the age of 7, and now says he will not stop again. “I study at home too. My wife finds it funny that I’m always holding a book. I can even read the small print on TV.”

(Fragment available on http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article)

[1]    The press is sometimes called the fourth estate. That

is probably too grandiose a concept for most journalists’ tastes

— but it does suggest an important, coherent and independent

[4] force in society. That “apartness” is crucial. The press does not

share the same aims as those of government, the legislature, the

executive, religion or commerce. It is, or should be, an outsider.

[7]    Stanley Baldwin did not intend it as a compliment

when he said of newspapers in 1931 that they had “power

without responsibility”. But, in fact, that lack of responsibility

[10] is one of the important respects in which the press is

different. Of course, the press must be responsible for its own

standards and ethics. But it is not the job of journalists to run

[13] things: they are literally without responsibility. They don’t have

to respond to a party whip, make the compromises necessary in

politics or answer to shareholders. They are not bound by the

[16] confidentiality agreements that bind others. They are careless

of causing inconvenience or embarrassment. They do not have

to win votes. They can write things — about the economy, say,

[19] or the environment — which may need saying but which are

unsayable by politicians. They come from a different place.

Internet: <http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu> (adapted).

Based on text above, judge the item that follow.