The Shining

By: Stephen King

Narrated by: Campbell Scott

Length: 15 hrs and 50 mins

Publisher's summary

Before Doctor Sleep, there was The Shining, a classic of modern American horror from the undisputed master, Stephen King.

Jack Torrance's new job at the Overlook Hotel is the perfect chance for a fresh start. As the off-season caretaker at the atmospheric old hotel, he'll have plenty of time to spend reconnecting with his family and working on his writing. But as the harsh winter weather sets in, the idyllic location feels ever more remote...and more sinister. And the only one to notice the strange and terrible forces gathering around the Overlook is Danny Torrance, a uniquely gifted five-year-old.

©1977 Stephen King (P)2005 Random House Audio

Critic reviews

"A master storyteller." ( Los Angeles Times)

"He's the author who can always make the improbable so scary you'll feel compelled to check the locks on the front door." ( The Boston Globe)

"Scary!... Serves up horrors at a brisk, unflagging pace." ( The New York Times)

A shaggy ghost story

Any additional comments?

I can't count how many times someone has told me to read The Shining because of how much better and different it is than the Stanley Kubrick film. For years I've wandered around with the memories of people saying how Kubrick ruined the book, how he changed everything that was important to the book to create a film that resembled the book in title only. "Oh, you'll understand so much more", and "the book is way scarier", and "there is good motivation for what Jack does in the book", people have said to me. And so I've been curious about this book for a long time. I've wondered what exactly it is about this book that causes people to, quite emphatically, state that arguably the greatest filmmaker in the history of motion pictures, not to mention one of humanity's greatest artists had someone botched the whole thing.

Good horror is created by not knowing all of the pieces of a dangerous puzzle: "What's around the corner?", "Who's screaming in that graveyard on this stormy night?", "Is there a killer alien with acid for blood on-board this old mining ship?". Combine not knowing important information with the chance of death (or worse) and you've got the basic formula for horror. And often a thing ceases to be scary when we see it, when the lights come on, or when we understand it - fear is born of the unknown.

In this novel, King attempts to create fear and terror by setting us up in a fancy hotel with a mysterious past for a few months of winter isolation; it's basically his take on the old haunted house story. The problem, however, is that he really does wind up explaining too much or tries too hard to give us two plausible interpretations of what is going on - are they just hallucinating, is Jack just going through alcohol withdrawal, or is the hotel really haunted. And if the hotel is haunted, who is haunting it? Old Hollywood mobsters and a rich old lady who killed herself?

I can see why Stanley Kubrick was attracted to this book because there are a lot of good ideas, but Kubrick trimmed all of the fat and turned a fairly shaggy book that, frankly, isn't that scary into one of the greatest horror films ever made. And all Kubrick did was not explain everything that King went into great detail about. Kubrick pretty much went through the book, crossed out everything that even smelt like an explanation, reconfigured a few scenes to be more efficient (having Hallorann give them the full tour instead of it being broken up into two parts like in the book).

Now I'll admit that in a book where we are supposed to live inside the character's heads King couldn't just give us limited information otherwise the book would have been about 150 pages long, at best. And King is at his best when he's creating characters and having them interact, though this book largest weakness is that there are so few characters that it sort of goes against King's strength as a popular writer. Books like The Stand, Tommyknockers, and It work well because the characters have a lot to do and it wasn't until later with Misery and Pet Cemetery that he could do more with fewer characters because by then he'd become a better writer.

So in a way this book really can only ever be a good template for a great film because it just doesn't work that well as a book. The characters a thin, Wendy in particular is useless and flat - in fact she's so bad that not even Kubrick could do anything interesting with her outside of making her life miserable in the film. Danny is pretty good, as is Hallorann, but they don't feel very fleshed out, they exist only to keep things moving or to make things weird. I do, however, much prefer King's Stuart Ullman to Kubrick's. Why Kubrick made Ullman so likable was a missed opportunity because Ullman is our introduction to the hotel, it's spokesman so-to-speak, and Kubrick should have made him more menacing.

My biggest gripe I reserve for the hedge animals. In small doses they would have been fine, but by the end I just could not take them seriously. The second you actually try to visualize a hedge animal attacking someone the image is just too comical to be scary or to even be taken seriously. Kubrick was wise to carry on with the European flavor of the hotel by using a hedge maze instead.

One thing I did find odd is that so many people have told me that the alcoholism of Jack is far more played up in the book and is a possible central cause to his insanity. Yet this is also true in the film. The scenes with Lloyd are almost identical, Kubrick changed almost nothing for those scenes and it's quite apparent Jack has a drinking problem and that the hotel is using that against him to drive him more insane and to control him. True the film isn't about a alcoholic losing control, Kubrick's film is more supernatural, but the themes are still there and one could easily say that the hotel (right down to the film's neuron receptor carpets) is a manifestation of Jack's drinking issues and abuse. For King (and audiences who prefer King over Kubrick) to claim Kubrick messed this up is idiotic and says more about King's (and his fan's) inability to contextualize theme.

I also was scratching my head about the whole side-story with Jack's drinking friend, especially the part where they thought they killed a child on a bicycle. What was that all about? That whole idea literately goes nowhere. Yes it scared them both to stop drinking, but why didn't King tie that into the rest of the book? And speaking of missed opportunities, why didn't King include Grady's dead wife and, more importantly, dead little girls? Kubrick immediately took advantage of this to create what is arguably the most iconic image in the film: the Diane Arbus style twin girls holding hands. The hotel had all the other ghosts of people past, why not them, too?

I did like that Hallorann played a more important role in the book. Kubrick just kills him off the second he gets to the hotel and that was only used in that he needed a way to get Danny and Wendy out. King used Hallorann more, but that character dipped so dangerously close into a "black man" stereotype that I cringed more than once.

All in all the book isn't bad, but the last quarter is just a lot of grunting and screaming and inane dialogue with too much pleading and yelling. The Shining is a shaggy ghost story that isn't nearly as well crafted as King's later, and much scarier books (Pet Cemetery being my personal favorite because it's also a little goofy) . I really was let down because not only because I didn't find it all the scary, but also because the book and Kubrick's film are far more similar than I was led to believe - I had been hoping for something much different.

Great! My First Book on Audible.

This is the first audiobook I have ever listened too. I choose Stephen King because he is my favorite and just by chance hadn't read the Shining, one of his best know stories. So I set out on my 9 hour car trip and listened the whole way there and the whole way back. I'm hooked now. I still read paper whenever I am able but in the car there is always an audio book playing. I highly recommend this audio book. King has a great story and Scott brings it to life.

Just as Awesome as it was when I read it years ago

The Shining is a great book. I read it years ago when it first came out. Then came the movie - loved by millions... but if you've only seen the movie - it's quite different from the book and not as good as the book. If you haven't read this book you won't be disappointed. Actually you will be disappointed that you thought the movie was great until you realize the book is even better.

The narrator is excellent. I read another post that complained that his enunciation is very precise and it is. Crisp, clear and exact. Perhaps the other person would prefer a person who speaks in a lazy manner - something I personally don't care for. I give this narrator 5 stars for the excellent reading that really brought SKs book of wonderful prose to life!

I'll always like this book - it's a keeper. Except now, when I next watch the movie - I know I'll be wondering "Why did the producer change that in the movie - why didn't they stick to the book?" The movie would have been so much better.

Revisiting The Shining

I only vaguely remember having read The Shining back when it first came out in 1977. The movie version is more firmly stuck in my mind, but it is hazy, too. So I decided to re-read this classic Stephen King book before trying the sequel, Dr. Sleep.

Although I really enjoyed reading it, I was somewhat disappointed as well. I thought I’d be on the edge of my seat and terrified. The first half or 2/3 of the novel seemed almost overburdened with foreshadowing and character development. The final 1/3 was much more exciting, and so I did come away feeling that the book almost lived up to its reputation.

Also, as usual, I really appreciated Stephen King’s writing and the structure of the novel. He is good! Now I can’t wait to watch the movie again! And then on to Dr. Sleep!

So glad I didn't just see the movie!

Again the master has amazed me with paint brush of his creativity it is freaking so good and believable enough to make you wonder did someone just laugh outside my window? Did the rain come out of nowhere? Should I vote yes or know on topiary being put in around the playground? Hard No! Definitely one of my favorites! Campbell Scott gives an amazing performance adding the unique rasp and believability to the whole experience! Amazing.

Classic King

One of the first books that introduced me to SK. A must-have in your SK library; great characters and creepiness. Be sure to read it too if you like the movie. The book fills in all the holes, as books do. Wonderful narration.

The “S” sound came on strong - got better fast lol

Very sophisticated reader once you get past the intro . Lol give it a try before you hack it.

The dark corners of psyche

The Shining is my favorite movie and until now I’ve looked down somewhat on the work of King as being pop culture quickly turned out crap. I am happy to admit to being very wrong about this- no one writes better psychological horror than King. I love how much heart this story has- Jacks possession by demons is such a compelling metaphor for what it must feel like to struggle with addiction and mental illness. Very very moving/horrifying/tragic especially at the end when Jacks internal monologue with the devil inside him reaches its peak.

Better than the movie!!!

This book was fast paced! Excellent narration and all in all it was so much better than the movie!!!

So different from the movie

I recently sat down and finally watched all of “The Shining.” I had only seen parts of the movie (mainly the iconic scenes). My husband had watched a YouTube video about how Stephen King hated the movie adaptation and it was comparing the movie to the book. They have similarities but the movie was done so differently from the book. The video piqued my interest so I decided that I would go ahead and read the book.

I have to say, I’m not a fan of the lengthy, detailed way in which Stephen King writes. I think there are places where that is needed but I do think there were parts of the book that could have been cut out because they were excessive or unnecessary.

The story is one that I find to be very original and I like the main plot of the story. I can see where Bentley Little might have been inspired by Stephen King’s work. Some of his books remind me of this one.

Basically, The Overlook Hotel is possessed by this evil entity in a sense. Bad things have occurred there throughout the years of it being built and people in bad businesses have tried to own The Overlook and make it successful. Finally, under the management of Halloran, The Overlook is starting to see some success.

Jack Torrence has been a man that has experienced bad luck. He was abused by his alcoholic father. He becomes alcoholic in college and breaks his son’s arm. He works hard to become sober after the incident while working as a teacher in a high school. One of his students on the debate team gets upset with him for kicking him off due to his stuttering problem. He retaliates against Jack and Jack catches him in the act which in turn puts the two into a physical altercation which = Jack losing his job.

One of Jack’s drinking buddies that was in the war with him happens to be on the school board and owns The Overlook Hotel helps him get a job as the caretaker for The Overlook. He brings his meek wife, Wendy, and telepathic son, Danny, along on the job. They are to take care of the hotel from October to March when the snow cuts the hotel off from the world. Jack has no idea what he has just signed his family up for but he’ll find out soon enough.....