Is Doctor Sleep going to rock the house -- or might it somehow drain our love and admiration for the classic Stephen King work, The Shining? I'm not sure sequels can' ruin predecessors, but it can color things for new generations who read the sequel first. Mr. King should be very pleased, as early reviews for Doctor Sleep seem to be quite positive.
Bob Minzesheimer at USA Today headlines his review, "After 36 years, King gives 'Shining' a new luster in sequel."
With Doctor Sleep, Stephen King tells us he chose not to accept the Kubrick movie background but instead stay faithful to his own version of the Torrance family history. Minzesheimer says King called Doctor Sleep "sharper" in its characterization and a little more positive.
Quoting Bev Vincent, The USA Today article notes:
Bev Vincent, author of The Stephen King Illustrated Companion, says it's risky for King to write a sequel to The Shining, "which is one of the books that will be read for generations. Can he recapture the magic?"
Vincent's verdict: "King created a different kind of magic" in Doctor Sleep. It's "Danny's history from the perspective of a much more experienced and skilled writer."
Early reviews are good. The New York Times praises it as "a very quick and nimble story." Publishers Weekly calls it "a gripping, taut read."
WAIT A MINUTE -- Me Thinks King Is Toying With us!
In wrapping things up, Minzesheimer has a few words about Under The Done, noting King will write the first episode of season 2. Then he tells us that King will not say if it will "diverge from the novel." I think King was testing to see if Mr. Minzesheimer had even read the book, as Under The Dome is already so far from the novel it would require Big Jim to wake and realize everything since episode 3 was just a big dream.
Oh, you're being too kind; the differences began a few minutes into the first episode and never let up.
ReplyDeleteI love King, but I think he's become thoroughly tiresome on the subject of Kubrick's movie. I don't feel like the claim that the movie is "cold" holds any water. Kubrick simply expects you to bring your own emotions to the movie; he's got no interest in supplying them for you. The only time he ever did much of that was in "Spartacus," which he semi-disowned.
I wouldn't want every movie to be like a Kubrick movie, but I'm fine with someone taking a crack at it every once in a while.
Either way, I think there is still a great movie waiting to be made that adapts the novel more closely. The miniseries certainly ain't it. Might I suggest James Wan for the job? That could be terrifying!
Imagine a Doctor Sleep movie that is so good, it demands a prequel based on the original work.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting thought!
DeleteBryant, I think the Kubrick film is great. It is not the King story -- and he has every right to complain. But we can simply roll our eyes. Truth is, Mr. Kubrick did Mr. King no harm in the long run! Would The Shining hold the level of popularity with the American public if not for the movie?
ReplyDeleteOh, he absolutely has every right to complain. It's just that he's so inconsistent about it, because at other times -- such as the "Under the Dome" situation -- he goes on at length, and very eloquently, about how it really doesn't matter if a movie is different, because it doesn't impact the novel at all. But he always cites the changes as the reason why he hates the Kubrick movie!
DeleteTo answer your question, no, I do not think that the novel would be as highly regarded if not for the movie. Granted, it sold very well on its own before the movie came out; but imagine how many people must have seen the movie and then decided to read the novel! And imagine how many of THEM probably became lifelong King fans as a result.
But, as I've said elsewhere, I give King credit for not lying about it and just saying he likes the movie. That'd be the easy way out; being honest about it is at least respectable. Unfortunately, it also opens him up to being asked about the movie by roughly a dozen reporters per year, none of whom ever seem to have read a single other interview the man has done; else, why would they bother asking him something he's been asked a gajillion times?
yup, I agree -- he's made his point about the Kubrick film. I wish he would move on and talk about HIS work/art.
ReplyDeleteI guess it's kind of to be expected since a sequel to "The Shining" is coming out.
DeleteWhich I am totally stoked for! I'm off Tuesday and Wednesday, and expect to finish the whole thing in that time. If the reviews are any indication, it's a winner.
You know it's giant, right? You'll be numb if you read that fast. Like gulping a fine meal.
DeleteI read "11/22/63" in three days, and had no ill effects, so reading this in two ought to be manageable.
Delete