Kemper’s review of The Shining > Likes and Comments

Wrong!

Just practicing.

Dan wrote: "Wrong!

Just practicing."

Since your review about this was so wrong, I figure I'll just say the exact opposite of what you did and then I'll be right.

Kemper wrote: "Since your review about this was so wrong, I figure I'll just say the exact opposite of what you did and then I'll be right. "

Your logic is impeccable.

You touched on two really great points that I think many people overlook (ha!) but that have always been an important part of the book for me: the fact that Jack is not a monster but a very troubled man (something Kubrick didn't capture well despite the movie being excellent) and that the human horror is always more important than the ghostly kind in any King novel.

Hmm, somehow you're both right.

Under the Dome officially stinks. The movie of this book is excellent. You make a very good case for on of the biggest reasons this book is so enduringly popular: Mundane concerns feeding bad decisions leading to disaster.

I can’t quite wrap my head around why a genius director creating something new and brilliant based on his story is bad, but anything that a fairly shitty TV show does with the source material is A-OK with King?


Do I have to send you back into the prayer closet? I just think King has tempered over the years. He's not the hot-headed eager novelist of his 20s and 30s anymore where the author's work as source material is sacrosanct.

I also think Kubrick pissed him off anyways by saying to him in oh so many words, "what you wrote young man is the beginning of scary; I'm going to show you completely fucking terrifying" and then made the changes. I can see where as a younger novelist King would have been resentful.

The film is so iconic I find it has colored even the reader's perception of this book all these years later in just how they remember the story. I remember the first time I read it how much it surprised me that Jack really doesn't go crazy at all -- the Hotel basically takes him over like an alien presence. He's not even Jack anymore by the end. And remember when Hallorann goes into the shed at the very end? It almost got to him too, and he started having murderous thoughts. I still have people tell me that the book is about a man who gets cabin fever and goes crazy and tries to murder his family. Um no, it isn't.

Great review.

~Geektastic~ wrote: "You touched on two really great points that I think many people overlook (ha!)"

I see what you did there and I applaud it.

Melissa wrote: "Hmm, somehow you're both right."

No. I'm right. Dan is wrong. There can be only one!

Richard wrote: "Under the Dome officially stinks. The movie of this book is excellent. You make a very good case for on of the biggest reasons this book is so enduringly popular: Mundane concerns feeding bad decis..."

Yes, Under the Dome does suck. I gave up and deleted the last two episodes off the DVR when I realized I was groaning out loud every time I saw them on there.

Trudi wrote: "I can’t quite wrap my head around why a genius director creating something new and brilliant based on his story is bad, but anything that a fairly shitty TV show does with the source material is A-..."

I just don't think that Uncle Steve could ever come to terms that someone took his core idea and did something else with it, and that the new version became iconic by itself.

The book is all about how the Overlook grinds the Torrance family down, especially Jack. But I think Kubrick recognized how internal that was and went with the idea of playing off the spookiness of the isolation because that could be shown better on film.

It's just funny to me that King is so accepting of that kind of stuff in a bad adaptation like Under the Dome while being so vocal about hating a version that's generally recognized as being a classic.

Trudi wrote: "I can’t quite wrap my head around why a genius director creating something new and brilliant based on his story is bad, but anything that a fairly shitty TV show does with the source material is A-..."

Oh, and I had this thought. What if the Overlook had targeted Wendy instead of Jack? With her insecurities and mother issues, I could see another type of book where it's Wendy who goes over the high side and maybe tries to poison them all in the interest of 'saving' Danny from Jack. That would have been an potentially interesting way to play it.

Kemper wrote: "and that the new version became iconic by itself..."

It really is a fantastic film, and the first time I saw it I was traumatized for weeks after. Yet, I still like the film adaptation for Carrie more, which really puts me in the minority. It's not just the Kubrick fans who think The Shining is a superior horror film, but King fans too.

I think King has become very kind and generous in his dotage, and less anal retentive about interpretations of his work. He sells his "Dollar Baby" stories to untried filmmakers to cut their teeth on, and in the face of this UTD debacle seems to want to put the best face on it for the sake of all those involved (because really, what embarrassing dreck).

"What if the Overlook had targeted Wendy instead of Jack?"

I think even King thought this had real possibilities (there is that scene remember where the malevolent presence of the Hotel is communicating with Jack and telling him that they might have had much better luck with Wendy? or something like that anyway)

Fantastic review. One of my favorites and I haven't even seen the movie.

Brandon wrote: "Fantastic review. One of my favorites and I haven't even seen the movie."

You haven't seen this movie either?!? Combine this with your Blade Runner shame and I don't know if we can be friends anymore.

Trudi wrote: "Kemper wrote: "and that the new version became iconic by itself..."

It really is a fantastic film, and the first time I saw it I was traumatized for weeks after. Yet, I still like the film adaptat..."

I've read stuff where King laughs off the many, many horrible adaptations done, but The Shining really seems to have stuck in his craw. He was bitching once about how one scene showed how Kubrick didn't know how to do horror because he opted to show Jack standing behind Wendy for several seconds instead of just going for the scare of the sudden appearance. And I was scratching my head thinking, "Yeah, but that's what's so great about it."

Kemper wrote: "You haven't seen this movie either?!? Combine this with your Blade Runner shame and I don't know if we can be friends anymore."

I take forever to watch things. For example, I only JUST watched The Princess Bride last week.

Brandon wrote: "I take forever to watch things. For example, I only JUST watched The Princess Bride last week.

How is that even possible?

Kemper wrote: "How is that even possible?"

I have no idea. I can make a list of classics I've never seen that would appall people.

Brandon wrote: "Kemper wrote: "How is that even possible?"

I have no idea. I can make a list of classics I've never seen that would appall people."

Probably people have been saying stuff like "Inconceivable!" and "My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die." for years and you never understood why....

....wuv....troo wuv....

Kemper wrote: "Melissa wrote: "Hmm, somehow you're both right."

No. I'm right. Dan is wrong. There can be only one!"

See, ordinarily I'd agree, and it kind of pains my sensible heart to insist that four stars & two stars are both somehow legitimate, but . . . that Shelley Duvall comment. Strangest casting choice ever! Plus, the book is awesome, so of course four stars is an appropriate rating. Sorry, both right!

The idea of being trapped in a hotel with an ill-tempered drunk with a history of violence who is cracking up is downright terrifying.

Adding even more weight to that idea is that Jack Torrance isn’t a monster. He’s a troubled man who does love his wife and son, and he’s self-aware enough to realize that he’s on the brink. He’ll either turn his life around and earn his wife’s trust back, or he’ll give in to his own worst impulses. This would be hard enough under any circumstances, but under the influence of the evil spirits of the Overlook, Jack becomes a tragedy.

SO well-put, yeah.

~Geektastic~ wrote: "You touched on two really great points that I think many people overlook (ha!) but that have always been an important part of the book for me: the fact that Jack is not a monster but a very trouble..."

Oh yes, definitely. That really comes to the fore with the later Misery, which I've always thought is a bit related to the Shining (trapped addicted writer, terrifying environment....).

Excellent review - and I didn't know King bore a grudge against the adaptation. It's one of my favourites.

Mark wrote: "Excellent review - and I didn't know King bore a grudge against the adaptation. It's one of my favourites."

Thanks! I'm interested to see what he does with Danny in Doctor Sleep.

I could never understand King's hatred of the Kubrick movie. I find it a work of art. I know that Kubrick and he would talk on the phone about the movie and he was not ignored on it. The book was excellent as well (except the ending, to me was cheesy and a bit of a cheapening), but movies often don't follow the source material. On the other hand I found Kings movie version of it faithful but also melodramatic, unneeded, and not nearly as good.

Erin wrote: "I could never understand King's hatred of the Kubrick movie. I find it a work of art. I know that Kubrick and he would talk on the phone about the movie and he was not ignored on it. The book was e..."

I think Kubrick's movies is brilliant and got to see in a theater for the first time a few months back. That made me appreciate it even more.

I've never understood King's dislike of it. Yeah, Kubrick made some changes, but he turned it into this creepy masterpiece that stayed fairly true to the core story. I see King's point about thinking that Nicholson was poor casting because he comes across as crazy right off the bat rather than descending into madness, but he's just so damn good that I don't care.

I remember almost nothing about the King mini-series version. I'm not even sure I made it to the end. Which tells me that Kubrick had the right idea when it came to translating this to film.

Leaving aside all other factors, if you're an author and STANLEY KUBRICK wants (okay, wanted since he's dead now) to make a movie of your story, STFU, smile, bend over, and be damn good and grateful that royalty has condescended to notice you. Kind of like the woman who complained Sean Connery was too rough in bed...you were in bed with SEAN CONNERY so belt up.

Richard wrote: "Leaving aside all other factors, if you're an author and STANLEY KUBRICK wants (okay, wanted since he's dead now) to make a movie of your story, STFU, smile, bend over, and be damn good and gratefu..."


That made me laugh and now I feel guilty about it.

To add on to your point about Uncle Steve and Kubrick, I could maybe even see King being grumpy if this would have happened later in his career and Kubrick just blew him off. But this was relatively early on, and having The Shining made into a movie like that certainly helped his book sales over the years. It's one of the key things that happened to make him a household name. You'd think he'd be a little more forgiving just for that alone.

Plus, as you've pointed out, the TV movie was unmemorable where I will never, in all my life and no matter how hard I try, forget "HEEEEEEEEERE'S JOHNNY!" *shivers*

Richard wrote: "Plus, as you've pointed out, the TV movie was unmemorable where I will never, in all my life and no matter how hard I try, forget "HEEEEEEEEERE'S JOHNNY!" *shivers*"

"Wendy? Darling? Light of my life. I'm not gonna hurt ya. You didn't let me finish my sentence. I said, I'm not gonna hurt ya. I'm just going to bash your brains in. "

Now I have to re-watch the movie.

James wrote: "Room 237 is coming to the arthouse here on Friday (yay!), so I'm hoping to squeeze in a re-watch/read before I see it. For those unawares, Rob Ager's analyses of Kubrick's use of 'impossible space'..."

Yeah, I want to check it out. I've already got it on my Netflix list.

Now that's a good film. And great cast back to Jack Nicholson - he might never act again, but what a legacy.

There's actually a really good article at Salon (http://www.salon.com/2013/10/01/what_...) right now about why Stephen King isn't wrong regarding his views of the movie adaptation. Now, the movie is a great piece of work in its own right, but as an interpretation of the book, it does seem to warp the character and the book's entire intent, at least according to what I understand of the story and what the writer of the article suggests--I'm just starting to read this one, so I can't say for sure QUITE yet.

great review thanks,. am reading it now, my 1st king book.

I really enjoyed this review, but I think the reasons King is so upset about the creative liberties Kubrick took, and not the ones on Under the Dome is for a few reasons. 1. He's had 30 or so years more experience seeing his work adapted, 2. The Shining, by all accounts seems to be a very personal book for him. he was writing about his own alcoholism. And if you look at Torrence, it's not hard to see in him an amalgam of King's insecurities/fears. To have a character like that approached as an unforgivable monster, has to hurt a lot. I assume, the changes to the shining were very personal and raw to him.

Do you type just to read yourself? Go get a job instead of playing goodwill critic

Justin wrote: "Do you type just to read yourself? Go get a job instead of playing goodwill critic"

Justin, I have a job but thanks so much for your concern!

And thanks for taking the the time to point out that I stupidly tried to review and discuss a book I like on a website dedicated to letting people review and discuss books. I forgot that the interwebs is meant only to insult strangers for daring to have a different view point.

So in that spirit let me just say go fuck yourself, you gaping anal fissure.

You didn't write a review. You wrote a very long in-depth synopsis followed by uneducated banter

Justin wrote: "You didn't write a review. You wrote a very long in-depth synopsis followed by uneducated banter"

You seem to have confused me with the NY Times Book Review. I'm not a professional book critic. I could patiently explain the concept of what Goodreads does, but instead I will again reply in the spirit of the Amanda Rule and tell you to go fuck yourself, you festering herpes sore.

Like a great many people on Goodreads, my reactions to a book may include anything from review to analysis to satire to how I reacted to a book emotionally to just plain old dicking around. What I did here after rereading this one before diving into Dr. Sleep was highlight how Uncle Steve's well known grudge against the movie version of The Shining was in conflict with what he's been saying lately about a current and much shittier project, the Under The Dome TV series.

Also, if you could count and had any actual reading comprehension, you would see that I did two paragraphs of summary out of nine in order to hit on several points that jumped out at me this time like the economic factor to the Torrance family's situation as well as how the idea of being snow bound with an alcoholic is scarier than ghosts.

If you don't like that.....Well, I'd apologize but instead I'll urge you to go find another review out of the thousands posted on here that better suits your high standards to get away from my 'uneducated banter' rather than wasting your precious intellectual time on telling me how my review didn't meet your own criteria. Or what the hell, try writing your own since you're the self-proclaimed expert on what actually constitutes a post worthy of being read.

Oh, and once again lest you think I forgot about the Amanda Rule: Go fuck yourself you self-righteous bag of pig shit.

I'm going to disagree with the gentleman who called this 'uneducated banter'.
I never considered before the financial aspects about the Torrance family, it adds a different spin to the story
And yes Under the Dome is utter shite. Stopped watching after epi 2.

Brandon wrote: ""

Are you not entertained?!?

Mana (Thrifty Reader) wrote: "I'm going to disagree with the gentleman who called this 'uneducated banter'.
I never considered before the financial aspects about the Torrance family, it adds a different spin to the story
And y..."

Thanks. Glad I could help give you a new angle to consider.

Selwa wrote: "That is possibly the best .gif I've ever seen, ever. Thank you for improving my day, sir! Well, sirs. The whole thread amused me greatly :)"

I'm glad I can turn people trying to shame and berate me for not meeting their personal ideals of what a review should be into someone else's good time.

Selwa wrote: "That is possibly the best .gif I've ever seen, ever. Thank you for improving my day, sir! Well, sirs. The whole thread amused me greatly :)"

You're welcome. I thoroughly enjoy when Kemper takes folks to task for their lack of good sense.

Brandon wrote: "You're welcome. I thoroughly enjoy when Kemper takes folks to task for their lack of good sense."

You may have just provided the first exception to my "I hate gifs with the hate of a hate that is more than a hate" stance. That was well-played, sir.

Amanda Rule Rules!

Amanda wrote: "Amanda Rule Rules! .."

Now you know how the Earl of Sandwich felt when that started catching on.