Classics Without All the Class discussion

There are a lot more details about Jack's past in the book vs. the movie. What are your thoughts on why King spent a lot of time on this and did you like knowing about his troubled past? What made him vulnerable to the powers of the Overlook?

I think that King did this because he wanted Jack to be the everyman. He wanted the reader to be connected to him so that once he is overcome it makes it too real. He is supposed to be a normal out of luck writer. So anyone can succumb to the craziness.

I couldn't decide if I liked all the background on Jack. I agree that King wanted us to see how flawed he was. I saw him as more vulnerable than the average Joe though because he had a severe anger problem, had trouble staying with the straight and narrow. He didn't seem comfortable in his own skin before entering the Overlook and well, his insecurities made him an easy target.

That is true he was a lot more violent in the book. He had a history of physically abusing Danny due to his alcoholism. (i.e. the incident). He was probably more vulnerable due to that- already having anger and frustration over his failures.

King shows us that he was an alcoholic with a penchant for violence and the son of an alcoholic with a penchant for violence- a victim who becomes a perpetrator. I have empathy for him but also see him as responsible for some of his problems, basically like most of us? Even though most of us aren't alcoholics we are all affected by our pasts.

Building a character helps with the plot and storyline. Knowing who a character is makes the whole storytelling more believable IMHO. Without any background, how would we try and know anyone?

You are right. I hate stories that provide no background on characters. I just didn't enjoy that part of the book. I felt like King spent a lot of time on Jack's past. I had trouble empathizing with Jack in spite of his sad childhood. I was much more interested in Danny, Halloran and the sordid history at the Overlook.

Yes some of this lagged. I did enjoy the history of the Overlook. I actually wanted more of that. I empathized with Jack to a point and then it was like you need to just chill. I did find the part about his failed writing and the accident he and his drinking buddy had.

I do like how fleshed out King makes his characters too.

Wendy got relatively little background development. Perhaps typical 1970s sexism? She's not the one who had all the baggage, so I guess not as interesting, but he could have made her interesting with more effort.

I agree George. She was an important character but came across as common and frankly dull. I think that was intended but she deserved more character development to support why she was like that.

Films deal in visuals so it's natural that Kubrick, visual artist that he was, chose to focus on the haunted house and Danny's paranormal gift aspect as the main means of terrorizing the viewers.
But King's novel is not really about a haunted house. Or a son with a paranormal power. Those were secondary stories that served to compound the real horror: a decomposing mind drawn to drugs, alcohol and erratic, violent behaviour. He was abused. He was abusive.
From a personal point of view, King was channeling his personal demons into his work. He worked too much, let the darkness in and did a lot of drinking and cocaine for a long time.
So, in essence, it's the film that deviates, for me, too much from the horror that is the human condition. I was much more frightened by the book than the film. You can get desensitized to elevators of fake blood and a madman with an axe. You can't ever be desensitized to the darkness that exists in each one of us.
That's something else King speaks and writes often about...how each and every one of us has horror inside us.

Also, I'm not saying the film is bad. I love the film. But it stands on totally different merits. It is, however, a bad book-to-film adaptation, whether you like the film or not.

Great comments Tanya Marie. I'm a big movie buff as well, and they are more focused on what they can do interesting visually esp American movies.