How Not To Adapt CARRIE

Setting up a personal anecdote about Dumbo to introduce a broader point about audience identification. — No Frame (75/100)

At 0:00

Starting with a personal story to build rapport and illustrate a point — classic narrative setup.

Why this score: The speaker is using a personal memory about watching 'Dumbo' in kindergarten to illustrate a phenomenon of audience identification. This isn't a factual claim to be verified, but rather a narrative device to set the stage for their analysis of 'Carrie' adaptations. It's a straightforward, relatable opening. A neutral framing would simply state the observation directly, but this approach makes it more engaging.

Original quote: “I found myself remembering the day in kindergarten when the teacher showed us Dumbo, and I realized for the first time that all the kids in the class, even the bullies, rooted for Dumbo against Dumbo's tormentors. Invariably, they laughed and cheered both when Dumbo succeeded and when bad things…”

Claiming universal audience self-identification with the underdog, Dumbo, as an "astounding truth." — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)

At 0:20

Declaring a subjective observation about audience psychology as an "astounding truth" without any evidence.

Why this score: The speaker takes a personal observation—that everyone identifies with Dumbo—and elevates it to an 'astounding truth' and a 'phenomenon' without offering any psychological studies, surveys, or even anecdotal evidence beyond their own childhood memory. While it's a common narrative trope for audiences to root for the underdog, presenting this as a universal, undeniable truth based on a single childhood experience is a confidence mismatch. A more neutral framing would acknowledge this as a common audience reaction or a personal interpretation, rather than an objective, astounding truth.

Original quote: “But they're you, I thought to myself. How did they not know? They didn't know. It was astounding, an astounding truth. Everyone thought they were Dumbo. Again and again, I saw the phenomenon”

Argues the core issue is making her too sympathetic rather than just weight — False Dilemma (45/100)

At 0:57

Pits 'weight' against 'sympathy' as the two main culprits, ignoring how they might be linked.

Why this score: The speaker sets up a choice between two specific problems: physical representation (weight) and personality type (sympathy). It's a bit of a false dilemma because, as commenters point out, the refusal to make her fat is likely a consequence of wanting an 'unblemished' or 'safe' protagonist, meaning these two points aren't actually separate issues.

Original quote: “Many would argue that the issue is Hollywood's refusal to make Carrie fat the the way she is in the books, which is certainly part of it, but I would argue that the biggest issue is Hollywood's refusal to make Carrie unsympathetic.”

Claims we love abusing 'acceptable targets' for entertainment via loaded examples — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 2:30

Uses highly charged labels like 'trashy' and 'dumb' to build a specific, aggressive argument 🚩

Why this score: The speaker is using 'loaded language' to characterize the subjects of our empathy/bullying. By labeling them as 'trashy' or 'unpleasant,' they are pre-conditioning the audience to agree with their premise that these characters are 'acceptable targets' for our entertainment, rather than presenting the concept of social grouping neutrally.

Original quote: “a dumb celebrity, a trashy reality TV show star, a guy who draws weird fan art on social media, an unsympathetic comic relief character in a TV show, and piling abuse onto them for our own entertainment is collectively as a species one of our favorite pastimes.”

Claims narratives suggest 'unattractive' people belong at the bottom — Missing Context (50/100)

At 3:30

Frames the 'moral' of fairy tales as a social hierarchy 🚩

Why this score: The speaker is highlighting how these stories create a 'moral' through character design, but he's omitting the nuance that these are archetypes rather than social commentary. He is calling out how media uses 'beauty' as a shorthand for 'goodness,' which is the core of his critique on why adaptations fail characters like Carrie.

Original quote: “the beautiful talented person is rocketed up to the top of society where she deserves to be and the ugly untalented, uncharismatic people are pushed down to the bottom rung of society where they deserve to be.”

Using 'Cinderella framework' to describe victim narratives — a loaded term to set up a critique. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 4:30

Calling it the 'Cinderella framework' immediately frames these narratives as simplistic and self-serving. — It's a rhetorical shortcut.

Why this score: The speaker uses 'Cinderella framework' to characterize stories where bullied protagonists are secretly special. This loaded language primes the audience to view such narratives critically, implying a lack of depth or self-awareness in the characters (and perhaps the audience who identifies with them). It's not a neutral description; it's an interpretive lens.

Original quote: “view themselves as acceptable targets, identify with Cinderella. And a lot of our media about the bullied and the ostracized repeats this Cinderella framework. Those people in my class shouldn't be mean to me. Don't they realize that I'm a secret princess or a boy wizard or a half-blood or the next…”

Creating a straw man of the 'Cinderella' victim — exaggerating the internal monologue. — Straw Man (20/100)

At 4:49

The speaker invents an internal monologue for the 'Cinderella' character that's pretty self-absorbed. — It's a classic straw man argument.

Why this score: The speaker attributes a highly specific, somewhat arrogant internal monologue to the 'Cinderella' archetype: 'If I was one of those weirdos over there who brings it on themselves, I'd get it, but I'm not. I'm normal.' This is a straw man argument. They're creating an exaggerated, unsympathetic version of the bullied protagonist's thoughts to make their point about the 'Cinderella framework' seem stronger, rather than addressing a more nuanced or realistic internal experience.

Original quote: “I mean if I was one of those weirdos over there who brings it on themselves, I'd get it, but I'm not. I'm normal. This is unfair. This is unjustified. This is horrible. I'm Cinderella.”

Sources: The Problem with “Girl-Power” Cinderella Reboots, The Cinderella Myth About Life We All Need to Reconsider - Added to Success, Embracing Exaggeration: A review of Cinderella | The Hooded Utilitarian

Generalizing all 'Cinderella' protagonists as flawless and bullies as one-dimensional — a broad stroke. — Missing Context (45/100)

At 4:59

Claiming ALL protagonists are flawless and ALL bullies are one-dimensional is a huge generalization. — It ignores nuance in many stories.

Why this score: The speaker asserts that 'The protagonists are all people who have never done anything wrong in their lives and the bullies are all one-dimensional, unsympathetic monsters.' This is a broad generalization that lacks nuance. While some narratives might fit this description, many stories, even those with a 'Cinderella' element, explore more complex character arcs for both victims and bullies. By stating 'all,' the speaker omits the context of more sophisticated storytelling, making their critique seem more universally applicable than it might be.

Original quote: “The protagonists are all people who have never done anything wrong in their lives and the bullies are all one-dimensional, unsympathetic monsters, which makes these narratives satisfying and gratifying and comforting, but also means that nobody reading or watching them can ever learn anything.”

Using 'Dumbo' as an example to claim no one learns from these stories — a specific example to make a broad point. — False Equivalence (45/100)

At 5:14

Using 'Dumbo' to claim no one learns from bullying narratives is a stretch. — It's a false equivalence for all such stories.

Why this score: The speaker uses 'Dumbo' as a specific example to support the broad claim that 'nobody reading or watching them can ever learn anything' from these narratives. The argument is that 'everyone watching it, including the bullies, thinks they're Dumbo.' This creates a false equivalence, implying that the specific dynamics of 'Dumbo' (a very young children's story) apply to all 'Cinderella framework' narratives, regardless of their complexity or target audience. It oversimplifies how empathy and identification work in storytelling.

Original quote: “Dumbo cannot teach kids to sympathize with the victims of bullying because everyone watching it, including the bullies, thinks they're Dumbo.”

Highlighting the double standard in how bullying is portrayed for attractive vs. 'ugly' characters — a valid observation of a common trope. — No Frame (75/100)

At 5:36

This observation about the double standard in bullying portrayals is pretty spot on. — It's a common, frustrating trope.

Why this score: The speaker points out a common narrative trope where conventionally attractive, 'normal' protagonists receive dramatic sympathy for bullying, while 'ugly, weird, socially inept comic relief' characters endure worse torment that is played for laughs. This is a straightforward and accurate observation of a prevalent framing choice in media, particularly in teen content. It highlights a genuine inconsistency in how empathy is directed within these narratives without using loaded language or omitting crucial context.

Original quote: “So many movies and TV shows and books, especially about middle to high school age kids, will have a protagonist who is conventionally attractive and relatively normal, if a little bit nerdy, whose unjustified, unmotivated torment at the hands of mean, popular kids is treated by the narrative as a…”

Using '10 Things I Hate About You' as an example of selective empathy in bullying narratives — a specific example to illustrate a point. — No Frame (75/100)

At 6:03

Using '10 Things I Hate About You' to show how Cameron's struggles are taken seriously is a fair example. — It supports their point well.

Why this score: The speaker uses '10 Things I Hate About You' as a concrete example to illustrate their point about selective empathy in bullying narratives. They highlight how Cameron's emotional manipulation is treated as a 'genuine injustice' leading to character growth and retribution. This is a fair and accurate use of an example to support their broader argument about how different characters' suffering is framed in media. The description of the film and its plot points is accurate and serves to clarify the speaker's argument.

Original quote: “In 10 Things I Hate About You, which by the way is one of my favorite movies, it's a fantastic teen rom-com, it's one of the best of the '90s Shakespeare but in a modern high school genre. But in 10 Things I Hate About You, when the protagonist Cameron, played by pretty boy Joseph Gordon Levitt, is…”

Uses specific examples to illustrate a double standard in media portrayal of 'acceptable targets'. — No Frame (75/100)

At 6:30

The speaker uses specific examples from '10 Things I Hate About You' to show how certain characters are framed as deserving of ridicule.

Why this score: This is a straightforward use of examples to support a broader point about media's inconsistent empathy. The examples (Michael in '10 Things I Hate About You') are specific and directly illustrate the concept of 'acceptable targets' for bullying, setting up the later discussion about Carrie. It's a clear setup for their main argument without any obvious manipulative framing.

Original quote: “on the part of Bianca, and physical violence as retribution on the part of Joey. But when his short, fat, not conventionally attractive friend Michael has a dick drawn on his face or falls down a really long hill or humiliates himself at a party, it's funny, cuz he's the comic relief. He's a weird…”

Contrasts 'Gravity Falls' protagonists' treatment with a less sympathetic character. — No Frame (75/100)

At 6:53

Highlights how 'Gravity Falls' celebrates its main characters' quirks, setting up a contrast for another character.

Why this score: The speaker is laying groundwork here, showing how a show can celebrate 'weirdness' for its protagonists. This isn't a claim to be fact-checked but an observation about narrative framing within 'Gravity Falls' itself, which will then be contrasted with how another character from the same show is treated. It's a fair and accurate setup for their argument.

Original quote: “In Gravity Falls, Dipper and Mabel are fun and quirky and weird, and the show consistently celebrates that weirdness and delivers comeuppance and important life lessons towards the people who mock and make fun of them.”

Points out a 'weird dissonance' in 'Gravity Falls' treatment of Toby Determined vs. its stated message. — No Frame (75/100)

At 7:05

The speaker identifies a narrative inconsistency in 'Gravity Falls' regarding empathy for different characters.

Why this score: This is a critical observation about the internal consistency of 'Gravity Falls' narrative framing. The speaker is not making a factual claim about the show's plot, but rather an interpretive claim about its thematic execution, specifically the 'dissonance' between its stated message of empathy and the treatment of a character like Toby Determined. This is a valid point of analysis for a media critic and serves to further illustrate the 'acceptable target' concept.

Original quote: “But Toby Determined is short and ugly and weird in a way that is uncomfortable and socially inept, so he deserves all the abuse that the townsfolk, including the protagonist, heap on him. Again, Gravity Falls is a show I really love. I'm only using pieces of media that I personally like as examples…”

Argues adaptations turn Carrie into a 'Cinderella' figure, losing her original 'off-putting' traits. — No Frame (75/100)

At 7:44

The speaker claims adaptations soften Carrie's character, making her too sympathetic compared to the book.

Why this score: This is the core argument of the video, directly addressing how adaptations frame Carrie. The speaker contrasts the 'Cinderella' portrayal (unjustifiably bullied, charmingly quirky, plain) with the book's description (off-putting, strange, fat, acne-ridden, unhygienic). This is a direct comparison of character portrayal between source material and adaptations, which is a central task of adaptation criticism. It's a clear, well-articulated point about narrative framing.

Original quote: “these adaptations make Carrie into Cinderella. She's not just bullied, she's unjustifiably bullied. She's charmingly, sympathetically quirky instead of off-putting and strange. She's maybe a bit plain instead of fat and acne-ridden and unhygienic. We sympathize with her from the get-go and that…”

Describes book Carrie as 'socially stunted' and 'difficult to be around,' calling her a 'lolcow.' — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 8:21

Uses the term 'lolcow' to describe Carrie, which is loaded language often used to dehumanize and mock.

Why this score: While the speaker is making a point about Carrie's character in the book, using the term 'lolcow' is a highly charged and internet-specific piece of loaded language. It's not a neutral descriptive term; it implies someone who is mocked and exploited for entertainment. While it might effectively convey the speaker's interpretation of how the book portrays Carrie as an 'acceptable target,' it also carries a strong, negative connotation that can influence the viewer's perception beyond a simple character analysis. It's a rhetorical choice that frames Carrie in a particularly harsh light, even if…

Original quote: “Outside of her physical appearance, she's incredibly socially stunted and not just difficult to like, but difficult to be around. Carrie is a low cow essentially.”

Framing Carrie as a 'low cow' to emphasize her social ostracization. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 8:30

Using 'low cow' is a loaded term that immediately sets a negative, dehumanizing tone for Carrie's character.

Why this score: The speaker uses the term 'low cow' to describe Carrie, which is a derogatory slang term for someone who is easily mocked or exploited. This choice of language frames Carrie not just as an outcast, but as someone inherently deserving of scorn, reinforcing the idea that even those who disapprove of bullying wouldn't want to be around her. It's a strong rhetorical choice to establish her unlikability from the outset, rather than using more neutral terms like 'social outcast' or 'target of bullying'.

Original quote: “difficult to like, but difficult to be around. Carrie is a low cow essentially.”

Contrasting Sissy Spacek's attractiveness with her character's 'unlikable' portrayal in De Palma's 'Carrie'. — No Frame (75/100)

At 8:41

This is a fair observation about the acting and character portrayal, highlighting the effectiveness of the adaptation.

Why this score: The speaker makes a direct comparison between Sissy Spacek's real-life attractiveness and her successful portrayal of an 'off-putting and unlikable' character in the 1976 film. This is a straightforward critical observation about acting and character design, not a manipulative framing. It highlights a specific aspect of the adaptation's success in conveying the novel's intent, which is a valid point in film analysis.

Original quote: “And while Spacek is obviously a very conventionally attractive woman, the character that she plays in Brian De Palma's adaptation is believably weird and off-putting and unlikable.”

Framing modern adaptations of Carrie as turning her into a 'quirky girl boss' or 'Cinderella' for audience identification. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 10:11

Using 'quirky girl boss' and 'Cinderella' are loaded terms to critique modern adaptations, implying a shallow, pandering portrayal.

Why this score: The speaker uses highly loaded terms like 'quirky girl boss' and 'Cinderella' to describe how modern adaptations allegedly portray Carrie. These terms are pejorative in this context, implying that these adaptations simplify Carrie's character into a generic, aspirational figure for audience identification, rather than maintaining her original complex, off-putting nature. This framing serves to criticize these adaptations by suggesting they cater to a desire for 'you' (the audience) to get revenge, rather than exploring the deeper, uncomfortable themes of the original. It's a rhetorical move…

Original quote: “So now Carrie is a quirky girl boss. She's Cinderella. She's Percy Jackson. She's the next Hokage. The bullying isn't bad because bullying in general is bad. It's bad because she's you. Carrie is you and you don't deserve that. You want to get revenge on your bullies. You want to kill them with…”

Critiquing the 'empowering' framing of Carrie's prom massacre — Loaded Language — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 10:30

They're using sarcasm to dismiss interpretations of the prom scene as 'empowering' or 'feminist.'

Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged, sarcastic language ('Good for you. Look how cool you look...') to frame certain interpretations of the prom massacre (empowering, progressive, feminist) as absurd or shallow. This loaded language immediately sets a dismissive tone for those perspectives, rather than engaging with them directly. It's a rhetorical move to steer the audience away from seeing the scene in a positive light, without explicitly stating why those interpretations are flawed.

Original quote: “Good for you. Look how cool you look covered in pig's blood in a burning gym. This isn't a tragic meditation on the inherent flaws of human socialization and group dynamics. It's empowering. It's progressive. It's feminist. Good for her.”

Claiming most victims weren't directly responsible for Carrie's torment — Missing Context — Missing Context (45/100)

At 10:42

Focuses on 'direct responsibility' but downplays the collective inaction that the speaker themselves just mentioned.

Why this score: The speaker frames the victims as 'not directly responsible' for Carrie's torment, which is technically true for many of them in terms of the pig's blood incident. However, this framing minimizes the broader context of collective bullying and ostracization that the speaker immediately goes on to discuss. By emphasizing 'direct responsibility,' they create a sense of unfairness in Carrie's actions, but then pivot to explain how indirect contributions are also culpable. It's a setup to highlight the nuance of bullying, but the initial framing could be seen as slightly misleading without the…

Original quote: “that's the other uncomfortable thing about the prom massacre is that most of these people who she kills are not directly responsible for her torment. They're not the people who dumped pig's blood on her. I mean they got killed too.”

Framing bullying as 'prosocial behavior' and a form of bonding — Loaded Language — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 10:55

Calling bullying 'prosocial' is a provocative redefinition, intended to challenge conventional views.

Why this score: The speaker uses the term 'prosocial behavior' to describe bullying, which is a highly loaded and counter-intuitive framing. While they clarify that it's 'not good' or 'not nice,' the choice of 'prosocial' (meaning beneficial to society or a group) is designed to shock and make the audience reconsider their assumptions about bullying. It's a rhetorical move to highlight the uncomfortable truth that bullying often serves a function within group dynamics, even if that function is harmful to the individual being bullied. This framing is effective in making a point but deliberately uses a term in…

Original quote: “But they are people who indirectly contributed to that torment. They turned a blind eye to it. They justified it. They let it happen. They may or may not have taken part in it in some small way. that's the other really difficult thing about portraying bullying is that most of our media likes to…”

Contrasting Hollywood's 'singular bully' trope with collective bullying — Straw Man — Straw Man (45/100)

At 11:45

Sets up a simplified 'Hollywood' version of bullying to knock down, ignoring more nuanced portrayals.

Why this score: The speaker creates a 'straw man' argument by presenting a highly simplified and somewhat exaggerated version of how 'Hollywood likes to depict bullies' (singular, out-group, one big guy and two minions). While this trope certainly exists, it's not the *only* way bullying is portrayed in media. By setting up this easily refutable caricature, the speaker can then more effectively introduce their preferred, more complex framing of bullying as a collective, 'prosocial' phenomenon. It allows them to highlight their point by contrasting it with a less sophisticated, generalized opponent.

Original quote: “Hollywood likes to depict bullies as singular people, right? Individual problems. At most they'll be three guys, right? They'll be like one big guy and like two minions, right? And in Hollywood's version of bullying, the bullies are more often than not in the social out-group and they're coming in…”

Explaining bystander effect with 'minimal contribution' framing — No Frame (75/100)

At 12:32

This is a pretty standard way to describe the bystander effect, focusing on individual actions.

Why this score: The speaker is framing the collective responsibility of the bullies by highlighting how each individual's contribution might seem 'minimal' on its own, which is a common explanation for the bystander effect or diffusion of responsibility. This isn't manipulative; it's a clear explanation of a psychological phenomenon. A neutral framing would be exactly this: describing the individual contributions as small but cumulatively significant.

Original quote: “because individually their contribution was minimal. Maybe they just went along with what the group was doing. Maybe they just used a nickname a few times. Maybe they just didn't stop it.”

Framing audience identification with 'uncomfortable' truth — No Frame (75/100)

At 12:42

Setting up the audience's emotional distance from both Carrie and the main bullies to make a later point.

Why this score: The speaker is setting up a contrast in audience identification, which is a common analytical technique in literary criticism. They're not making a factual claim about audience behavior, but rather an interpretive one about the intended effect of the story. This is a fair setup for their argument about who the audience *does* identify with. A neutral framing would be simply stating this observation about identification patterns.

Original quote: “The really uncomfortable thing about Carrie is that while we don't really identify with Carrie, we don't identify with her direct bullies either, right?”

Framing collective responsibility and 'deserving' fate with strong language — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 12:53

The phrase 'hard to argue that we don't entirely deserve it' is loaded, pushing a specific moral judgment.

Why this score: The speaker uses loaded language, particularly 'hard to argue that we don't entirely deserve it,' to push a strong moral judgment on the audience's potential identification with the collective tormentors. While it's an interpretation of the novel's themes, framing it this way implies a universal guilt or deservedness that might not resonate with all readers. A more neutral framing might say, 'The novel invites us to consider whether the collective actions of these characters lead to a fate that, within the story's moral framework, feels justified.' The current phrasing is more assertive and…

Original quote: “The kids who collectively contributed to her torment whether directly or indirectly. The kids who she locks inside the gym and allows to burn to death. And you know, it is hard to argue that we don't entirely deserve it.”