Boxall's 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die discussion

13 LITTLE KNOWN FACTS ABOUT THE SHINING

From subliminal messages about American Indian genocide to Danny's "happy" version of the film, check out 13 pieces of trivia about this horror classic.

http://www.the-line-up.com/media/the-...

This book is on a recommended list?

Yes, it's on all editions of the list - 2006-2012.

My favourite Stephen King book ever -awful Stanley Kubrick film though!

Maggie wrote: "My favourite Stephen King book ever -awful Stanley Kubrick film though!"

Well that's a matter of taste. They are different from each other in some critical ways but I liked them both and think they are both worthy of their inclusion on the 1001 list (movies and books respectively)

It seems to be that Stephen King fans who read the book first have a tendency to diss the movie because of its departure from a faithful copy of the book, while those who saw the movie first prefer the movie to the book. Stephen King famously hated the movie but I believe he has softened his dislike a little bit now?; perhaps after having so many years of hearing about what a masterpiece the film was he finally looked at it with less biased eyes and saw the good points of the film. Or maybe not...

I think I'm simply confused about the origin of 'the list', who compiled it, what the intent is, and so on.

I'm not dissing King, but just wondering why anything from him would appear on an exclusive, highly-recommended-list; because he clearly writes an entertainment-type of book.

So it comes back to me not grasping the purpose of the list. If someone says to me, "hey, stop fooling around with the usual nonsense you occupy yourself with, here's 1001 Really Important Books You Must Read Before You Die', you better get cracking!" To me, that's a pretty strong implication that the list would contain the world's most depthful, edifying, uplifting, sagacious titles ever authored. Books describing fundamental truths, insights about our inner natures, observations on the human condition.

King is rather something that none of us could easily avoid in our reading; he's everywhere, his books are popculture juggernauts, his stories are not esoteric or hidden-from-normal-life in any way. That was the reason behind my question.

Feliks wrote: "King is rather something that none of us could easily avoid in our reading"

Actually, he's pretty easy to avoid. But to your question, the list came from a publisher who commissioned a bunch of academics to compile one. As I understand it, the list is made up of a variety of (mostly) fiction, often the first of its type or the best of its type. I'm sure King fits this 'best of its type' in the horror genre.

Feliks wrote: "I think I'm simply confused about the origin of 'the list', who compiled it, what the intent is, and so on."

The list is from the published book of the same title as this group. I have never actually taken a look at the book, but supposedly each list book has a description of why it was chosen to be on the list. Now you have me interested to see if my library has a copy of the book to flip through, I'm curious about some of the choices myself.

http://1001beforeyoudie.com/qssUS/us_...

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Actually, he's pretty easy to avoid...."

You might choose not to actually pick up a King title to read yourself, but there's no way you can avoid hearing about him, knowing about him, being aware of his fanbase and his reputation. He's a big part of American culture.

Linda wrote: "The list is from the published book of the same title as this group. I have never actually taken a look at the book, but supposedly each list book has a description of why it was chosen to be on the list...."


Well that clarifies things a bit. Thank you both.

Linda wrote:Now you have me interested to see if my library has a copy of the book to flip through, I'm curious about some of the choices myself.."

Be careful Linda, some of the blurbs apparently give away crucial information which can spoil things. Others also seem to have been written by people who haven't read the book or not any version that the rest of us have... Pretty shameful really and the reason I haven't bought myself a copy.

Nicola wrote: "Be careful Linda, some of the blurbs apparently give away crucial information which can spoil things."

Thanks for the caution, Nicola. I try to avoid spoilers as much as possible, so I would be interested in only reading blurbs about the books I've already read.

I have a copy of the 2006 book and here's what it says about The Shining (I tried to cut all spoilers - the articles in the book/list are full of spoilers):

"[...] the film, however, has perhaps eclipsed the achievement of King's novel as an exceptional and thrilling piece of storytelling. [...]
Perhaps one of the most impressive aspects of his novel however, is the way that King handles and narrates the experience of a psychic/telepathic five-year-old boy who has a direct link to his father's growing insanity. [...] What is fascinating about this book is the balance it provokes between internal and external worlds, and the questions it raises about whether madness comes from the inside or outside or vice versa. [...] It is without a doubt among the most sophisticated of King's novels and is filled with some of the most disturbing and intriguing of all King's characters."

I can see that my book got quite some danish titles i've NEVER hear about, but I guess the translator have taken some choices on the way to make it a danish version. And the book is a fun read;o

Sandi wrote: "I have a copy of the 2006 book and here's what it says about The Shining (I tried to cut all spoilers - the articles in the book/list are full of spoilers):"

Thanks Sandi!

Feliks wrote: "I think I'm simply confused about the origin of 'the list', who compiled it, what the intent is, and so on.

I'm not dissing King, but just wondering why anything from him would appear on an exclus..."

Many of the book could also be called "entertainment". Personally, I don't think anyone should toss an author out of hand.

I'm reading The Shining and it's very good. Still, I would've thought The Stand is better.

Look at the list. Is King the only author who could be called that? Or is he be discriminated against because many of his work is so-called genre fiction (i.e., horror)?

I get irritated when people decide that science fiction, mystery, romance, horror is not "real" literature. Read it first!

Kirsten wrote: "I get irritated when people decide that science fiction, mystery, romance, horror is not "real" literature. Read it first! "

Excuse me, but I'm not interested in romance, horror or science fiction (I do read the occasional mystery). It doesn't have anything to do with whether I think it is "literature" but whether I want to spend what time I have reading it.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Kirsten wrote: "I get irritated when people decide that science fiction, mystery, romance, horror is not "real" literature. Read it first! "

Excuse me, but I'm not interested in romance, horror or..."

So, you don't read it because you don't like it? Or just because you've decided it's no good?

That's my irritation. People that just rule it out without even trying.

Look at the list - quite a few romances there!

I can understand if you have a moral standing not to read gratuitous sex or violence. Otherwise, you are depriving yourself of some good literature!

Lovecraft, Bram Stoker, Mary Shelley (horror)
Agatha Christie, James Ellroy (crime/mystery)
Margaret Atwood, Robert A Heinlein, Arthur C Clarke, Isaac Asimov, H.G. Wells, Jules Verne (science fiction)
Jane Austen, the Bronte Sisters (romance)

By ruling out genre fiction, you are depriving yourself and I pity you.

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone. But this is a pet peeve of mine.

If you don't like science fiction or horror after trying several, that's one thing. But genre fiction also has sub-genres, ruling it out as a blank check is just sad (and a little thoughtless).

Kirsten wrote: "By ruling out genre fiction, you are depriving yourself and I pity you.
"

"If you don't read what I read, I pity you." Isn't that what you've said? Good gracious.

No, that is NOT what I said. I said that ruling out genre fiction because it IS genre fiction is a reason for pity.

I can understand ruling out a certain kind of fiction because of a bad experience.

But to rule it out just because... that I don't understand!

Kirsten wrote: "No, that is NOT what I said. I said that ruling out genre fiction because it IS genre fiction is a reason for pity.

I can understand ruling out a certain kind of fiction because of a bad experien..."

I never said I ruled out genre fiction because it is genre fiction. I said romance doesn't interest me - I have read one Jane Austen and I won't read another. I said I don't read science fiction because it doesn't interest me - I don't get it. I don't read horror. I did read King's Cujo years ago and know that I don't want to read that type of novel. It isn't scary, it's beyond any type of belief. It doesn't interest me.

And, yes, you did say that. You can't stand that some people don't like what you like. Well too bad. I'll read what I damned well please and you can pity me all you like.

Kirsten wrote: "I get irritated when people decide that science fiction, mystery, romance, horror is not "real" literature. Read it first! ..."

You're not offending me. But do you really assume I've never read any horror, western, romance, detective, SF, mystery, thriller, or war stories?

Kirsten wrote: "That's my irritation. People that just rule it out without even trying. ..."

I certainly wouldn't decry any author without knowing what they're all about.

On the other hand, reading gobs of genre-titles all our lives (as most of us have probably done) doesn't mean their key characteristics disappear. No one is saying they're not 'real literature' but they are acutely different than other literature.

Kirsten wrote: "Look at the list. Is King the only author who could be called that? Or is he be discriminated against because many of his work is so-called genre fiction (i.e., horror)? ..."

'Twenty wrongs' don't make 'one right'. If the list is tilted towards today's popular genre authors, it still doesn't vindicate King as anything else than what he is: a genre author. A good one, yes, but still lacking the reputation which say, a Ben Jonson, a Moliere, or a Goethe enjoys.

A list populated with King, or Dean Koontz, or Nicholas Sparks---that reflects more on the list itself. Lots of people might get a lot of utility from it, but it would seems to me that such a list doesn't quite live up to its name ('Books you must read before you die'). Not a sin, of course--they had to come up with some kind of catchy-name to get the list noticed. But if we're boiling down book titles to select the all-time most important works we need to read before we slough-off-our-mortal-coils, I would hope its not over-filled with current pop-lit or 'beach-reads'.

Good for you! But I would re-read my comment that is NOT what I said. Don't read what I read. But don't rule out books just because.

And, in your previous posts, you did NOT say WHY you wouldn't read a book.

(And have you tried SF? You don't say you've tried.)

Judging all romance by one Jane Austen (Many romance lovers don't like her) and all horror by Cujo (I didn't like it either. I prefer creepy horror.)?

I still pity people that won't read a whole genre just because or on one book.

It's like something my dad would do. If I said I didn't like a food (and I hadn't tried it), he'd give me twice as much.

I'm sorry you've taken offense. But when people just rule out an entire genre or say that an author is not literature because he writes horror, science fiction, et al, it just upsets me.

One of the great things about the list is that it exposes me to books I wouldn't normally read. I used to read JUST science fiction and mystery.

Look at my list of books read. It's quite large. I feel I'm a better person for it.

Another thing you need to consider that each genre has subgenres. Margaret Atwood, for instance, writes speculative fiction which is a subgenre of science fiction.

I guess I do want people to like what I like. But that's really not the point. The point is you're ruling out books because of what shelf they're filed on. Not because you'd like them or not.

How do you really know? If you're judging an entire genre by one book you read? Or when you read it?

I tried reading Dickens in high school and hated it. But now it's 30 years later and I think he's great!

Don't blame me! Open yourself! You may not know what experience you're ruling out!

Kirsten wrote: "I still pity people that won't read a whole genre just because or on one book."

I pity sanctimonious people who think they are the arbiters of what other people should - or should not - read. You are younger than my children. Give it up.

Elizabeth - I will give up.

However, I am not sanctimonious and I'm offended you misinterpreted what I wrote.

Am I younger than your kids? Really? And I FEEL old!

Feliks wrote: "Kirsten wrote: "I get irritated when people decide that science fiction, mystery, romance, horror is not "real" literature. Read it first! ..."

You're not offending me. But do you really assume I'..."

Thanks for not being offended. I don't think you haven't tried genre. I don't really know. Many though do.

Also, this list isn't just old classics. I remember being surprised at some that show up. But The Shining has shown up on a lot of lists as a modern classic.

For 20th Century works, I guess they're new enough for us to have stronger opinions than looking back in previous centuries and just assuming it's a classic.

Kirsten wrote: "Am I younger than your kids? Really? And I FEEL old!
"

Then think how your mother feels.

:D
I don't know exactly who these dastardley, havoc-wreaking stuffed-shirts are who are so riling you up with their condescending sneers, rolled-eyes, and curled-up lips. But I think pretty much everyone reading today has a good feel for what science-fiction, romance, or horror fiction are. The notion of someone only having read one book and then dismissing the entire genre: have you actually met anyone who did this?

Now, I freely admit I *will* dismiss the entire paranormal- romance-genre. And maybe some others too. And I don't feel the slightest guilt about it. For the purpose of this discussion I don't care how 'good' a PNR novel is said to be, if we're talking about a shortlist of humanity's best literature.
There's a point at which aligning Stefanie Meyer with HP Lovecraft just fails.

Yes, Elizabeth (Alaska). She said she read one Jane Austen and will never read romance again. She said she read Cujo and will never read horror again.

It happens all the time. Some people will do it without reading at all. Elizabeth, you noticed did not say she ever read science fiction.

I loved the Twilight books but I wouldn't put them down as "classics" - they were just fun!

H.P. Lovecraft is wonderful. My mother introduced me to him!

Kirsten wrote: "Yes, Elizabeth (Alaska). She said she read one Jane Austen and will never read romance again. She said she read Cujo and will never read horror again.."

I was reading for many years before you were born. Do I have to list every book I've ever read? And to repeat, I don't read to please you. You are now blocked.

I'm sorry Elizabeth is so angry. Am I blocked from the group? For expressing my thoughts? I tried to do this nicely.

I just don't like to see people rule out entire genre.

I'd like to apologize for overdoing it. Especially to Elizabeth. (I still want her to try some genre she normally doesn't though. And not necessarily the ones I like.)

Trine wrote: "I can see that my book got quite some danish titles i've NEVER hear about, but I guess the translator have taken some choices on the way to make it a danish version. And the book is a fun read;o"

Yeah, I think they switched out a lot of books in the translated editions, to make it fit the readers in tha language more.

Smart I think, because the English version has books in it that aren't even translated to English, which REALLY bothers me!

Kirsten wrote: "She said she read one Jane Austen and will never read romance again. "

Ah. This is gossip I hadn't heard.

Kirsten wrote: "I'm sorry Elizabeth is so angry. Am I blocked from the group? For expressing my thoughts? I tried to do this nicely.

I just don't like to see people rule out entire genre."

You're not blocked from the group, just from what Elizabeth can see.

By the way, Elizabeth has said before that there are so many books she wants to read but probably won't get to them all because of her age. So with that information I can understand that she is very selective about what she gives a try - I might too if I were her age (whatever age that is...)!

You're young as long as there's a song in your heart...

Feliks wrote: "You're young as long as there's a song in your heart..."

:-)

Kirsten wrote: "I'd like to apologize for overdoing it. Especially to Elizabeth. (I still want her to try some genre she normally doesn't though. And not necessarily the ones I like.)"

I think that's a lost cause and everyone's got their own reasons. I didn't find what you said offensive and I mostly agree with you for my part. I'm reading the list exactly for that reason; to experience what I haven't before. I won't give up a genre because of a few bad experiences, but that's my personal choice and others feel differently. With so many books out there some people prefer to be more selective especially as they get older. It's not the first time I've heard the 'I only have so many books left' statement.

Kirsten wrote:
I'm reading The Shining and it's very good. Still, I would've thought The Stand is better. "

I haven't read The Stand but I definitely want to. That's probably the only other book of his I want to read. I've read several and rate them 'ok', as in, if I was on holiday and didn't have anything else to read I would be happy to pick one up. But The Stand is supposed to be one of his best and I've been meaning to get through it since I was a teenager.

I took some time --in a thread a while ago-- and gave my opinion on Stephen King at some length--if anyone cares to read it, its here on Goodreads...at least it puts me on record not as a King 'hater'. I'll criticize him sharply, but constructively :)
http://tinyurl.com/l5p8v2q

I was a King "hater" for quite a while, Feliks. I loved The Stand and 'Salem's Lot and his short story collections are wonderful. But, then, after a while, I got tired of the cursing in his books. It just seemed so superfluous to the story and just annoyed me. So, after suffering through The Tommyknockers, I just gave up on him.

But then I joined the Goodreads Choice Awards Book Club and we read Joyland one month and The Gunslinger in another and I decided to give him another chance. I'm glad I did!

I recently read Revival and found it wonderful.

As The Shining is roundly considered one of his best scariest, I'm working my way through it now. Though it's not the scariest book I've ever read. That honor would go to Ghost Story by Peter Straub (wouldn't go in my basement for months afterwards!) and The Ruins by Scott Smith (I'm still eyeing the vines in our yard very suspiciously.)

Ah yah, he does curse. Forgot that aspect.

Anyway I hope you agree I gave him an even-handed summary...