Modern Good Reads discussion

Welcome everyone!

I am excited to open this thread for discussing one of the greatest horror classics of all times... Stephen King's "The Shining."

I know some of you may still be reading or re-reading this book, but feel free to pop in to discuss at any time.

The characters
The plot
The scary parts
Symbolism
Parts you loved
Parts you disliked
Book vs. Movie

Let's discuss it all.

As always, let's enjoy the discussion, enjoy the book, and have fun!!!

I thought one of the scariest things that they left out of the movie was the moving topiary

Terri wrote: "I thought one of the scariest things that they left out of the movie was the moving topiary"

Just you mentioning that is freaking me out. I don't do well with horror. :)

The remake tv version on syfy channel did do it, whew

Terri wrote: "I thought one of the scariest things that they left out of the movie was the moving topiary"

That totally freaked me out when I read the book.

That was a wonderful bit - - - I just watched the movie again the other night. Even without the topiary, I find it to be a wonderful remake of the book. I also enjoyed The Stand quite a bit. I have both on DVD.

The moving topiary in the Mick Garris-directed TV movie version actually doesn't work as well on screen as the idea in print of something moving when you don't look at it (picked up in Dr Who's Weeping Angels).
Re-reading the book really brings home how bloated King's narratives have become in more recent years- here it is still sharp with pace & suspense.
Worth thinking how many King stories that appear to be horror are actually something else- is The Shining (& Cujo) more a tale of domestic tragedy?

Scott wrote: Worth thinking how many King stories that appear to be horror are actually something else- is The Shining (& Cujo) more a tale of domestic tragedy? "

That is a good point... and maybe where the element of terror reaches home. The ability to put yourself and your family in their shoes.

Lots of interesting things about The Shining- I always tend to think of it alongside Salem's Lot as one of several of King's attempts to emulate Shirley Jackson, whose work he admires, in making an inanimate object, in this case a house, possess the moral qualities of its owner. In this he owes a debt to Poe's Usher but also creates a problem for filmmakers who find this concept difficult, either philosophically (Kubrick) or practically (Tobe Hooper). Hooper shifts the focus onto conventional visual evil (vampires) & Kubrick makes his film the story not of a haunted house, but a haunted man.

I think one of the things that makes the story so powerful is the slow disentigration of sanity

Scott wrote: "The moving topiary in the Mick Garris-directed TV movie version actually doesn't work as well on screen as the idea in print of something moving when you don't look at it (picked up in Dr Who's Wee..."

You could easily make an argument for Urban Fantasy or Dark Fantasy in many of Stephen King's novels.

But, The Shining always struck me as a thriller/horror. IMHO.

:)

Interesting points, Scott. I see the TV version as a much more disturbing portrayal of Jack, because he's much more "usual." Nicholson's Jack is a boogeyman, IMHO, big and over the top scary, while Steven Weber seemed to be just an average guy who's slowly disintegrating, hence the definite domestic tragedy. The book Jack could go either way, I suppose. I'm just jealous of all that quiet time to write. :)

I agree with Lyndi in a way about Nicholson's manic performance- on one level, it is easy to reject because it is so extreme (and very funny) but it is also such a portrayal of human monstrosity, it's paradoxically captivating at the same time. I can watch it again & again (something I definitely can't do with the saccahrine TV version- compare the kids here with the Glicks in Salem's Lot) but it still marks the beginning of the 'face-pulling' era for Nicholson.
Nobody's mentioned the recent film 'Room 237' all about various theories about what The Shining (film more than book perhaps) is really about.
Lyndi mentions time to write- perhaps it's a warning about writing retreats. All work & no play...

Which did you prefer more? Book or movie? why?

What was your favorite scene? line? What made it stand out to you?

In the film, the creepiest part, for me, was when she picked up the pages he'd been typing, and all it said, over and over and over, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."

That was the goosebump moment for me. The rest of the film is basically haunted house/psycho horror fest.

I think that I may be the only member here who hasn't read The Shining before. Great suggestion for a book. I haven't read any Stephen King novels in years, and this one has me intrigued.

I did enjoy the bar scenes, when Jack Nicholson was chatting it up with the ghost bar tender. That had a nice weird~creepy~suspenseful feel to it.

Megan wrote: "I think that I may be the only member here who hasn't read The Shining before. Great suggestion for a book. I haven't read any Stephen King novels in years, and this one has me intrigued."

The Shining is a good read. I read all of King's early works. He lost me later on. I'm not sure if he changed or I did.

I think readers changed & King fundamentally didn't. His short stories still have the capacity to surprise but reading a full-length novel often feels to me like those machines in amusement arcades that push coins towards a ledge- they give the illusion that something dramatic will happen but it rarely does & you're just left watching a repeated action over & over.
Put charismatic characters in a seige situation > Misery, ending of Cujo, The Shining
Put an over-large collection of flat characters in a seige > Under the Dome, Maximum Overdrive, Graveyard Shift & even the mid part of The Mist (minus fantastic ending)

Scott wrote: "I think readers changed & King fundamentally didn't. His short stories still have the capacity to surprise but reading a full-length novel often feels to me like those machines in amusement arcades..."

Starting with Gerald's Game, I found many of King's books to have way too much narrative.

So who was your favorite character?
What did you think about the son?

Kirstin wrote: "So who was your favorite character?
What did you think about the son?"

I liked the Bartender. Stick me in that same lodge, the Bartender and I would be fast friends the first night.

Red Rum, Red Rum.

Travis wrote: "Kirstin wrote: "So who was your favorite character?
What did you think about the son?"

I liked the Bartender. Stick me in that same lodge, the Bartender and I would be fast friends the first nigh..."

After a few drinks that's just about any bartender. Isn't it?

Joel wrote: "Travis wrote: "Kirstin wrote: "So who was your favorite character?
What did you think about the son?"

I liked the Bartender. Stick me in that same lodge, the Bartender and I would be fast friends..."

Well maybe. But this bartender had a certain cool-creepy flare. I just really enjoyed those odd conversations with the bartender.

:)

As Lyndi noted, Jack is "an average guy" and that's one thing that makes Stephen King's stories so scary. Life is scary. Normal, everyday life. If we dwell on all of the things in normal, everyday life that are scary, we soon won’t leave our house. And then we won’t leave our room. Before long, we’re hiding under the bed. Stephen King lays a foundation of pedestrian fears: tall ladders, wasps, hurting our kids, failure, betrayal, nightmares, DIVORCE, addiction, humiliation, the unknown, the dark. Then, when we’re good and rattled, he throws us a paranormal curveball or two: “Did Daddy have an accident?” By the time he unleashes the bloated bathtub ghosts and rampaging topiaries, we’ve got no chance.

Terri wrote: "The remake tv version on syfy channel did do it, whew"

Haven't seen it! I've got to check that out.

The scariest thing about the film was jack Nicholson, never seen him as anything else but mad/psychotic in anything since. I've haven't read the book because of seeing the film so many times, perhaps I should. The phrase "here's Johnny" must be one of the best known lines in film history, like "go on punk, make my day" or "you were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!"

Probably worth considering why is The Shining the only Stephen King book, for which he feels compelled to write a sequel? And I think it's the only adaptation to be remade (although Children of the Corn, parts 1-a million do feel like they are).
There are film sequels (Pet Semetary II, Creepshow II, Return to Salem's Lot & Sometimes They Come Back II & III- truly dreadful) but they're not taken from literary sequels, as far as I know.
If Kubrick's version is a film about filmmaking, is the original book, a novel about writing?
Final thought- my vote for best character- the Overlook itself. Sounds a bit 'highfalutin' but I'd say it works much like the moor in Wuthering Heights

Paddy wrote: "The scariest thing about the film was jack Nicholson, never seen him as anything else but mad/psychotic in anything since. I've haven't read the book because of seeing the film so many times, perha..."

Without a doubt, Jack Nicholson carries the film. He carries every film he's ever been in.

Some of my favorites: The Witches of Eastwick, and As Good As It Gets.

But The Shining is probably the most extreme performance he ever did. Some might argue The Joker in the first Batman film was more psychotic, and he did a phenomenal job there too.

I still think The Shining captured the essence of violent insanity.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

Travis wrote: "Paddy wrote: "The scariest thing about the film was jack Nicholson, never seen him as anything else but mad/psychotic in anything since. I've haven't read the book because of seeing the film so man..."

I think Nicholson's great performance came from going from the sane to the insane. He is good at playing the psycho, but it was going from a normal person to a psychotic that set his performance apart from his other ones.

Joel wrote: "Travis wrote: "Paddy wrote: "The scariest thing about the film was jack Nicholson, never seen him as anything else but mad/psychotic in anything since. I've haven't read the book because of seeing ..."

I agree, but since that film I've never been able to see him as an ordinary man. What film came first The Shining or one flew over the cuckoo's nest? He played a good character in that, in fact he's at his best when playing a part that has a "the devil told me to do it" type attitude. That of course is exactly what happened in the shining.

It's been a while since I last watched the movie, but I really loved the book.

One of my favorite parts of the book was Jack's slow loss of sanity and what was behind it. My knee-jerk reaction would be that it was the Overlook controlling him... but how much of that violence was he capable of without the forces of the hotel? His father had been an abusive alcoholic and Jack had anger issues and a violent history. What do you guys think the outcome of the book would have been if the Overlook wasn't haunted? How much of the violence was his own, and how much was the hotel's?

I just picked up Doctor Sleep. Can't wait to get into it and see what the fallout is from that crazy childhood. :)

@ Alex...I'd say he had the definite seeds of that violence within him. Given the situation and the loneliness there, I'd imagine one would start to let one's own negative voices feed one's action after awhile, even without the ghosts there. I think he would have lost it either way. The possession of the hotel by the evil within just kicked it into high gear.

You guys are awesome! I have really enjoyed re-reading and discussing this book. Hopefully I will see you all over at The Help discussion as well. Moving from horror to something far from it! ha

Terri wrote: "I think one of the things that makes the story so powerful is the slow disentigration of sanity"

The sanity disintegrates at an interesting rate.... really. It's gradual to an extent but it clicks at one particular moment, I feel: around 70% through the book. In fact, the whole book finally picks up around then as well. Up until that point the explicit writing doesn't even come close to compensating for the tediousness of the first majority of the story. The background knowledge is important and adds to the climax, but was very pedantic and redundant. I don't understand all the hype.

I disagree with Molly. I think the pacing of the book works a bit like that of the film Alien (from around the same era). If you look at the first half of both narratives, they can seem slow, painfully slow almost by what we're used to now but that gradual building up of claustrophobic detail is what makes the second half effective. The wasps' nest, the alcoholism, the hedge creatures etc may seem like padding until you see what they foreshadow. Reading/watching The Shining the second time is quite a different experience and you may only pick up the value of many of the features that seemed superfluous, second time around.

I adore this book, and think it's a great one to read for scares! I read the novel before watching the movie, and far preferred the original form. I think the movie missed out on some of the best parts!

I read this book forever ago and really enjoyed it. I remember being pretty creeped out by it. I liked the movie as well and was surprised to learn that Stephen King didn't like the adaptation. There are definite differences between the two, so I suppose it's not too shocking.