I always thought Stephen King’s most literary novel (I’m aware I’m going to get dissenters) was Carrie. He’s really trying to transcend the genre and even though it has the roughness of a first novel, that ends up being part of its charm. It has the naivete and innocence that he brought to the character. A herald of his books to come.
I loved both The Shining, and The Stand, but they suffered from his success by being bloated by backstory, and overly concerned with symbolism and significance.
That being said, they also show how, when he pulls out into traffic and lets out the gas, he takes you on the thrill-ride of your life. I read The Shining in a day, after getting caught up in the first few pages at a party. I begged the host to borrow it, and tore through it. The Stand I was intrigued by after reading an excerpt in the defunct magazine OMNI, but didn’t get to it until years later, when every one of my friends had recommended it to me.
Going back a little in the thread to the difference between The Shining and Pet Semetary:
In another book of his, Danse Macabre*, King made the point about there being different levels of horror. Paraphrasing, he said that the lowest, basest (but pretty much guaranteed to get a reaction) form of horror is the blood and guts, icky stuff. Pet Semetary falls into this category. It’s his equivalent of the story about the young couple out parking late one night, hearing the story on the radio about the escaped madman with a hook, or whatever.
Not to say it’s not a good read in its way, but it also didn’t keep returning to my mind the way The Shining did. Pet Semetary is pretty much a one-note, one-layer tale; you can see the train wreck coming, you know it ain’t gonna be pretty. You can see trouble coming in The Shining, true enough, but what exactly it’s going to be (yes, the hotel will strike back, but how, and who’ll live through it?). And it’s a far more multi-layered, complex story than Pet Semetary by far.
I don’t often bother rereading Pet Semetary*, but The Shining is another matter.
As far as Cujo goes, in On Writing, King says he barely recalls writing it and he views that with ‘a vague sense of sorrow and loss’. It’s a shame; the bones of a good story are there and, if he’d been on his game, it could have been a ripper. Probably not his best, but certainly better than it is now.
Sampiro, were I you, I’d move The Shining a few books higher in the list of what you’re planning to read. It really is good.
The Shining was a great book, though I lost a little patience with the topiary scene toward the end. My suspension of disbelief was strained, I guess you could say.
King has said the Kubrick film was just that: a Kubrick film. It was only tangentally related to the novel he wrote. (Saw this quote either in the King Biography on Biogaphy Channel or the Kubrick retrospective on HBO…saw them both recently and can’t remember which it was.)
My favorite King novel was probably The Stand, though I thoroughly enjoyed Misery. My favorite King horror movie was Misery. I could be persuaded that Carrie was his most literary work. (Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me were a different genre.)
I agree that Pet Sematery is not the book that The Shining is, but I wouldn’t dismiss it as blithely as you have, tavalla. I’m not sure where I read this, but King has said that Pet Sematery was inspired by an incident in his own life where one of his sons (Joe, I think) was nearly hit by a truck on the highway. Remember the scene were Louis tries to grab Gage and just misses? Well, King just made it.
The novel was King’s meditation on what would have happened to him if he’d missed and lost his son. Again, like The Shining and The Stand, it’s an allegory, this time about what happens to a person’s psyche when they can’t let go of a dead loved one. The Micmac burial ground exists in the mind of the grieving person, whose inability to move on turns the deceased into a zombie that destroys the survivor’s enjoyment living. See what I’m saying? It’s not a one-note story, IMO.
I’m a huge King fan, but I have only been able to read Cujo once, because at the time I read it I had a son about the same age as the boy in the book.
Too hard to take.
For me, Shining was okay, but I liked It (despite the continuity errors) and The Stand better. Christine was eh as well. Tommyknockers was pure sillyness, but I liked the vignettes about how the townspeople used their new powers, just like I liked the vignettes on the aftermath of the superflu in The Stand.
I think his books translate better to movies when it’s a psychological horror, rather than the slavering monster under the bed horror. It as a mini-series was disappointing, but The Stand was good, and we all know how successful Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile, and Stand By Me were.
Not a single one of King’s fantasy/horror stories has ever made a good movie. I was particularly offended by the mini-series adaptation of IT. Man, was that awful. So, so, so bad.
When I read The Shining, I was staying in an old hotel with these round hallways, where you could only ever see so far in front of you or behind you before the wall would curve out of sight. I used to run from the elevator to my room at top speed.
Just watched the Kubrick this weekend; more and more of a masterpiece with every viewing. True it’s not a “faithful” carbon copy of the book, but if I wanted that, I’d read the book again; it’s boring when a movie is exactly the same as the book.
Kubrick took King’s Book (arguably the best book of a mediocre, cynically manipulative author; a good storyteller hampered by a crippling self-loathing) as a starting point, not an ending point. The ideas expressed in the book percolated into ideas that Kubrick felt strongly enough about, as an artist, to make his own work of art out of them.
Frankly, I see that as more of a compliment to King than simply performing the role of a hired hack and throwing the book up onto a screen without any personal involvement or investment.
Am I the only one who didn’t like the Kubrick movie? I thought it sucked. Jack (as played by Jack, ha ha) starts out about one degree away from batshit crazy at the outset, and Wendy is a total doormat who I could NOT WAIT to die. Though of course she didn’t. There is no slow deterioration, and thus no building of suspense. I thought it was a real let-down, even knowing that no S.K. horror novel makes it to the screen intact. I guess my expectations were higher due to the director, but IMHO, he blew it.
I didn’t particularly like the movie either Beadalin
It isn’t that technically it was a bad movie…just that so many of the things I enjoyed from the book were not in the movie and the few that were in the movie differed from the way I imagined them while reading the book
That said maybe because the book was so good I’m more critical and not entirely fair when the director changes mediums from written to visual and puts his own spin on things
Probably partially my own fault for rereading the book just before seeing the movie for the first time so I MAY be just a touch hypercritical
Also while I agree Kubrick certainly had the right to add HIS artistic sensibilities to make the movie other directors have made the translation from book to movie far better i.e. LOTR(though there were some nitpickers who complained there too) or the Godfather movies(love the book…love the movies) spring to mind
I do think that given how much people like the Shining(book) that someday the movie will be remade and maybe well enough to satisfy even the hardcore fans of the book
Cross your fingers
Ah. Gotcha.
Sorry I get defensive about this, but I worked briefly writing movie & book reviews for a horror website, the creator of which refused to read The Shining because he “hates to read”, but wanted to argue with me at great lengths about the fact that I loved the miniseries but don’t care for the movie. My response was “Well read the fucking book and maybe you’ll get it, asshat!”
Anyway, I like Cujo! Hell, I even like Christine! I confess, Stephen King is my oldest and dearest love and very much like a father figure to me, as I began reading his books at about age seven and have ever since. Did a book report in the fifth grade on It that didn’t go over so well. 
Only book of his I’ve ever actively hated was Insomnia, don’t think I’ll ever feel inspired to read that again. I think Cujo just has so many elements that really don’t sit well with folks: marital infidelity, animal violence, death of a child, etc. etc., it’s hard to find something in it that makes you feel like you’re getting something worth getting from it.
beadalin
::raises hand::
Yeah, definitely. All the things you complained about. Kubrick’s version of Shining was not noticeably better than Maximum Overdrive.
I’ve always found it fascinating that Stephen King was able to write such a spot-on description of alcoholism and its effect on a family unit while presumably in denial about it in his own life. The biggest monster in the book is Jack’s alcoholism, which would have probably destroyed the family with or without the help of the Overlook.
I also found the father-son-father dynamic interesting. Danny is named after Jack’s father, if I remember correctly.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me on this …
I’ve read The Shining multiple times, and not once can I remember Danny’s middle name being revealed until very, very late in the book. In fact, if I recall correctly, it’s the scene where Tony begins to walk toward him (for the first time ever) in his vision. King writes that Danny sees himself in Tony, “as the Daniel Anthony Torrance he would one day become,” or something like that.
But the scene with the doctor in Sidewinder, where he says to the Torrances “And of course you realize the significance of Tony’s name” takes place approximately halfway through the book, long before Danny’s vision. And, if memory serves, long before Danny’s middle name is revealed.
Am I wrong about that? I remember reading the book for the first time and thinking “No, I don’t realize the significance of Tony’s name, what the hell is it?” It wasn’t until much later that I made the connection.
If I missed Danny’s middle name being mentioned earlier in the book, someone please tell me where it was. For several years, I’ve just assumed an editorial cut took out an earlier scene that mentioned Danny’s middle name.
In regards to the OP – read the book. Seriously. In my opinion, it’s the best contemporary horror novel around.
No, you’re right Sauron. His middle name is only revealed in the scene you mention near the end of the book.
Oh, good. I’m not alone on the Kubrick-movie thing! Or maybe that’s bad, depending on how you look at it. I’ve always felt a little left out when people rave about how great it is.
You remember correctly-- his full middle name is not revealed until near the end of the book. King just drops that first hint to make you wonder about Tony’s nature, which towards the end is pretty strongly indicating that Danny’s “shine” includes his ability to warn himself of danger, perhaps by means of future-Danny projecting himself into his past to warn the Danny we know. King’s pretty fond of doing that, so that if you pay close attention as you read, you’re rewarded with this moment of “Ohhhhh… so that’s it!” later on.
I like the Kubrick movie. Jack does seem crazy in the begining, but a few scenes later he says to Wendy, “I felt like I’d been there before”. I think the hotel was already getting to him as soon as he stepped into it for the interview. But yeah, Kubrick (or perhaps Jack Nicholson) shouldn’t have made Jack so crazy-looking at first.
On the movies…
God who doesn’t want to be snowed in with Rebecca DeMoreney in that silk nightie? Wootage! I would have nude days and put the kid outside…AHEM! Sorry!
Just having Shelly Duvall in mere prescence would be enough to send me over the edge, much less cooped up with her bony ass all winter.
On the book…I dare ya to read it at night. All night. Then have your mom shout your name at 2 in the morning when Danny is in THAT room. You know which room I am talking about.
I swear to god my mother said I actually was able to leap 4 feet in the air lying flat on my back on a sofa.
I’d agree with the part of AHunter3’s post that says"The book sucks…". I thought it was just an excuse talk dirty and glorify domestic abuse.
Of course If MY hubby had broken my son’s arm no amount of apologizing would have got him out of a child abuse charge and a divorce. And that was just in the first 10 pages.
Well, I thought that the movie was worth seeing once, but I’m unlikely to re-watch it.
The change that bothered me the most about it was probably Danny. As written, he reminds me a lot of my 5-year-old nephew. In the Kubrick movie, he doesn’t come off as poigniantly brilliant, so much as borderline-autistic. Which is fine, but changes a lot about what is happening.
I agree that ‘The Shining’ is the best King novel.
However, I also really liked ‘The Stand’ and really liked ‘It’.
And the Gunslinger series…absolutely fantastic.