First and foremost in Stephen King's mind must be this thought: "Psychic powers are terrifying!" Carrie is about a psychic girl who burns down her hometown because nobody likes her. The Shining is about a psychic boy on vacation. The Dead Zone is about a psychic man who enacts an elaborate form of suicide because the woman he loved married some other guy while he was napping. Firestarter is about a psychic girl who hates to set things on fire but still sets a lot of things on fire. Christine is about a psychic car, I think. The Stand is about a psychic cool guy and a psychic old lady who divide up the last people in America for a game of war. 'Salem's Lot might be the only early Stephen King book that isn't about a psychic because it's about a gay vampire couple who just absolutely obliterate real estate values when they move into town. Also vampires are kind of psychic so, you know.
Another thing Stephen King believes must be a key aspect of horror is that the main character should be a writer and/or teacher. Mostly that's because he was a writer and/or a teacher and he probably didn't want to research other jobs. Researching other jobs is almost as boring as actually doing them so I get it. Most of the main characters in my fictions are people in comas.
If it were 1977 and I was at the grocery store standing in front of the books (oh? You didn't know grocery stores sold books at one time? They probably did!), I would never in a million years purchased this book. What was Dave Christiansen thinking?! The original cover is a fucking disaster! Why is there a fucking cow on it?! And is that supposed to be a lion? Maybe it's a Chow Chow but who fucking knows? If I were Dave Christiansen, I would blame the gardener in the book who sculpted the hedges to look like various animals. "I know how to draw a lion or dog! But that gardener sucks at hedge sculptures!"
And what's up with Danny Torrance?! Is he terrifying because he has white eyes or is he terrifying because he's an ugly little snot with a terribly fucked up haircut? Why is Wendy hidden behind the house?! And why don't any of the characters look like they did in the movie?! That's the part that's really fucking with me!
Am I in the minority of people who believe the movie was fifty-bajillion times better than the book? The hedgerow ending is way better than the boiler blowing up even if the heater blowing up is just a metaphor for Jack Torrance's temper. In the book, he's an angry drunk and the way he dies relates to being drunk and angry and too much pressure on him. In the movie, he's drunk and angry but also lost which makes him more sympathetic. Also Danny looks like a way better bad-ass in the movie pulling the backtracking in the snow stunt over Danny in the book who, I don't know, just kind of makes Jack forget about the boiler?
The only part of the book that's better than the movie is that Scatman Crothers gets to live. But then he wasn't Scatman Crothers in the book so why would I care if he lives? Man, I fucking loved Scatman Crothers as a kid. He's one of the main reason I loved Scavenger Hunt so much! Along with every single other aspect of the movie, of course (including Schwarzenegger).
I might be forgetting some of the things I really loved about the book because I read it months ago and forgot to do my review immediately after so now I'm mostly thinking about the movie and Doctor Sleep. I remember appreciating that Jack was going nuts based solely on Jack being kind of an abusive asshole and the hotel not having to do much to influence him. At first I thought, "This is much better than in the movie where the ghosts get him liquored up and he can then blame the drink! This is all on Jack since there is no alcohol in the bar!" But then there's another scene in the lounge and Jack gets drunk from ghost liquor and then I was all, "Well, fuck, that sucks. Whatever."
The topiary animals aren't just terrible on the cover. I fucking hated that aspect of the haunted hotel. Just really fucking stupid. I'm surprised there was never a director's cut of Kubrick's film that was released after computer generated special effects could have enabled the topiary animals and the scene was reinserted. If only Kubrick had filmed the scenes with people in terrible animal hedgerow costumes that could have been replaced by the computer animation later. Like George Lucas did with Jabba in his re-release of Star Wars! Man, that would fucking blown! But in a really hilarious terrible way that I could have appreciated.
The movie can still terrify me when I think about it sometimes in the dead of night. Just like the images of the vampires in the made-for-television 'Salem's Lot movie. But when I think about this book? Nothing. Nada. Zip-o-rooni tunes. Not scary in the slightest. It's about a father that gets drunk in isolation with his family, treats them bad, and then explodes. Good riddance! I suppose in that context, I love the book! Can't get enough of a terrible father getting his comeuppance tale!
Another thing Stephen King believes must be a key aspect of horror is that the main character should be a writer and/or teacher. Mostly that's because he was a writer and/or a teacher and he probably didn't want to research other jobs. Researching other jobs is almost as boring as actually doing them so I get it. Most of the main characters in my fictions are people in comas.
If it were 1977 and I was at the grocery store standing in front of the books (oh? You didn't know grocery stores sold books at one time? They probably did!), I would never in a million years purchased this book. What was Dave Christiansen thinking?! The original cover is a fucking disaster! Why is there a fucking cow on it?! And is that supposed to be a lion? Maybe it's a Chow Chow but who fucking knows? If I were Dave Christiansen, I would blame the gardener in the book who sculpted the hedges to look like various animals. "I know how to draw a lion or dog! But that gardener sucks at hedge sculptures!"
And what's up with Danny Torrance?! Is he terrifying because he has white eyes or is he terrifying because he's an ugly little snot with a terribly fucked up haircut? Why is Wendy hidden behind the house?! And why don't any of the characters look like they did in the movie?! That's the part that's really fucking with me!
Am I in the minority of people who believe the movie was fifty-bajillion times better than the book? The hedgerow ending is way better than the boiler blowing up even if the heater blowing up is just a metaphor for Jack Torrance's temper. In the book, he's an angry drunk and the way he dies relates to being drunk and angry and too much pressure on him. In the movie, he's drunk and angry but also lost which makes him more sympathetic. Also Danny looks like a way better bad-ass in the movie pulling the backtracking in the snow stunt over Danny in the book who, I don't know, just kind of makes Jack forget about the boiler?
The only part of the book that's better than the movie is that Scatman Crothers gets to live. But then he wasn't Scatman Crothers in the book so why would I care if he lives? Man, I fucking loved Scatman Crothers as a kid. He's one of the main reason I loved Scavenger Hunt so much! Along with every single other aspect of the movie, of course (including Schwarzenegger).
I might be forgetting some of the things I really loved about the book because I read it months ago and forgot to do my review immediately after so now I'm mostly thinking about the movie and Doctor Sleep. I remember appreciating that Jack was going nuts based solely on Jack being kind of an abusive asshole and the hotel not having to do much to influence him. At first I thought, "This is much better than in the movie where the ghosts get him liquored up and he can then blame the drink! This is all on Jack since there is no alcohol in the bar!" But then there's another scene in the lounge and Jack gets drunk from ghost liquor and then I was all, "Well, fuck, that sucks. Whatever."
The topiary animals aren't just terrible on the cover. I fucking hated that aspect of the haunted hotel. Just really fucking stupid. I'm surprised there was never a director's cut of Kubrick's film that was released after computer generated special effects could have enabled the topiary animals and the scene was reinserted. If only Kubrick had filmed the scenes with people in terrible animal hedgerow costumes that could have been replaced by the computer animation later. Like George Lucas did with Jabba in his re-release of Star Wars! Man, that would fucking blown! But in a really hilarious terrible way that I could have appreciated.
The movie can still terrify me when I think about it sometimes in the dead of night. Just like the images of the vampires in the made-for-television 'Salem's Lot movie. But when I think about this book? Nothing. Nada. Zip-o-rooni tunes. Not scary in the slightest. It's about a father that gets drunk in isolation with his family, treats them bad, and then explodes. Good riddance! I suppose in that context, I love the book! Can't get enough of a terrible father getting his comeuppance tale!
you're not in the minority. the shining is not a spoopy novel
ReplyDeletei suspect king hated the adaptation because kubrick could see, quite clearly, that the book was king talking about his own deeply wobbly marriage & the fact that he'd broken his kid's arm during a blackout
king got around to admitting that he used himself as a model for jack torrence, decades later, when he decided to write 'dr. sleep'. it took him less time to admit that kubrick didn't do a bad job! but he's never not gonna stick by those dumb damned topiary animals