(The Shining Journal, #3)
Mr. Van Hise likes The Shining, but complains that it has "too much characterization." While Salem’s Lot was a big novel with lots of characters, The Shining is a big novel with just a few characters.
In van Hise’s words:
"The complaint I’m making is that when writer has a finely conceived story, there is no reason to detour from it into subplots and extraneous discourses which have nothing to do with that plot. Characterization is fine, but let’s not overdo it, and this book certainly does overdo it, mostly with Jack Torrance. The book is about the Overlook Hotel and what it does to these people one winter. When the story stays here it’s great. What happened to Jack Torrance when he lsot his job is just a big rap which he wasn’t able to roll with. Drumming that fact into our heads time after time isn’t necessary. Certainly it was important to describe Jack Torrance ine nough back ground detail so that we can understand why his mental collapse is believable, but too much of this reached the point hwere it came across to me as just padding. I’m well aware that this is a terrible thing to say about a writer, and I’m not saying that this is what King did, but rather that this is the effect it achieved. Fortunately, the book’s strong points far overshadow its weak ones."The reason Jack’s firing was so important to the book is that it was one of the catalyst for his drinking. Or return to drinking. I find all the background information does slow the story – but I can press on because I actually enjoy all these asides. If this was my first time reading The Shining, I think I too would be annoyed! "Where’s this going?" I would ask. But I already know where this is going, so I can take time to enjoy the greater depth King gives these characters.
Now, for an early commentary on the Kubrick film! Remember, please, Van Hise hasn’t had years of King and others griping about the film. It was met with generally good reviews, so it takes some perception.
"The film is also an abortion from the standpoint of the fact that the movie ends before it even reaches the point in the book where the climax really gets rolling. Yes, the movie cuts out the climax of the book, which is the very facet of the story which insured its popularity, because unlike the film, the book is not anti-climactic. The book builds to such a wild, ever pritch that it remains a classic of the genre no matter how many other horror stories you’ve ever rad. Whereas Salem’s Lot is a better book on the whole, The Shining contains his finest climax from every standpoint, and especially for sheer power and imagination.
Whatever else may be disappointing in the book, the climax is not! It delivers a one-two punch which carries the reader straight through to the conclusion with pile-driver intensity and in an extremely satisfying manner. This book cried out fo a powerful screen translation, rather than the commonplace treatment it received at the hands of Stanley Kubrick. Because of this, there are a lot of people out there who don’t understand why The Shining was a bestseller, or why it was even made into a film at all, and that’s criminal. Kubric has made King seem like an ordinary writer, and all because Kubric took excellent material and made an ordinary film. If there is anything The Shining is not, it’s ordinary."I can hear the "experts" on Room 237 shouting, screaming, crying at this! "The Shining" a "ordinary" film? I love the way van Hise gives such credit to the book.
The introduction to this set of reviews is at talkstephenking.blogspot.com
Van Hise seems both on and off target in his criticism of the Shining and Kubrick's film, a paradox but not an unexplainable one.
ReplyDeleteHe seems to have problems with stories being character driven and the idea that sometimes characters stories are the best stories.
Granted their a great books out their where the event takes precedent over the characters, yet those stories seem to work because of what they bring out of the characters.
Also, I'm sorry but Salem's lot has to be placed second to The Shining, not because it's bad, but becasue there's just something classical about Shining that sets it above the Lot.
That said, I do think he's right about Kubrick taking a story so much more and turning into a generic stalker on the loose plot.
ChrisC
I enjoy his reviews a lot. I think he captures more of a "at the time" view, than those of us who know the stories and review them. Movies, tradition, interviews and other reviews have all built up by now. But here we get some comments closer to the original publication -- a little more raw. He doesn't approach various stories (like The Stand) with an attitude of "I have to respect this holy site!" Instead, he just digs through the book and says what he likes and what he doesn't.
ReplyDelete