Carrie is a horror novel and an example of supernatural and gothic fiction.[4][5] It is an epistolary novel:[6] the narrative is organized through a collection of reports and excerpts in approximate chronological order,[7] and is structured around a framing device consisting of multiple narrators. Leigh A. Ehlers, a literary scholar, has argued that this structure is used to indicate that no particular viewpoint, scientific or otherwise, can explain Carrie and the prom night event.[8]
Carrie deals with themes of ostracism, centering around Carrie being ostracized for not conforming to societal norms.[9] A driving force of the novel is her first period in the shower leading to her being pelted with tampons and further scorned.[10][11] Sue is one of the few people to feel genuine remorse for Carrie and arranges a date with Sue's boyfriend, Tommy, for the Spring Ball. However, Chris's need for vengeance against Carrie results in pig blood being dumped on Carrie during the Spring Ball. This results in Carrie committing a massacre among the school and Chamberlain. Following the massacre, Sue is subject to the same exclusion as Carrie, despite her altruistic motives.[12] John Kerrigan, a literary scholar, and Victoria Madden have observed that throughout the novel, Carrie is often associated with pigs, which are considered "disgusting" animals.[9][13]
Carrie also deals with themes of vengeance. Throughout the novel, Carrie is forced through various hardships that she manages to endure for years without using her supernatural powers. However, after being invited to a prom only to have pig blood dumped on her, Carrie "breaks" and annihilates the city.[14] Kerrigan considers Carrie to be an example of a revenge tragedy.[15] Ray B. Browne argues that the novel serves as a "revenge fantasy",[16] while novelist Charles L. Grant has stated that "[Stephen] King uses the evil/victim device for terror".[17] Some scholars have argued that Carrie is a social commentary.[18][19] Linda J. Holland-Toll has stated that "Carrie is about disaffirmation because society makes the human monster, cannot control the monster, yet still denies the possibility of actual monster existence while simultaneously defining humans as monsters".[20]
