“700 pages of why not to go to a secluded snowed in haunted hotel with your child abuser, emotional abusive, only said I love you 3 times in 7 years of marriage husband.”

This was my original review of The Shining back in June and I haven’t stopped thinking about the novel since then. Obviously this wasn’t a fully fleshed out review of the book and its content, but it was an accurate representation of my feeling after reading. The truth is after all these months I feel like I am finally ready to discuss The Shining , why it hasn’t left my head since reading, and why I believe people misinterpret the story.

Originally King hated the movie adaptation of the Shining, but over the years it’s become more synonymous with the story than the book and he’s grown to approve of the faithful adaptation. Interestingly enough he originally didn’t approve of this movie because he felt like the family of main characters were all good people who were betrayed by the real villain – the hotel. King did not believe the abusive and alcoholic murderous father to be the main villain, but instead the hotel. Notably this is not a commonly shared thought of one reading the book. As we know though, the king isn’t the most faithful interpreter of what people take with them from his works. The shining is a special kind of work. In its length it encompasses a fully fledged review of the human condition, but under extreme natural and supernatural conditions. Having read The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon by King which also juxtaposes the relentlessness of nature with the human condition I can say I think this is the kind of content where kings characterization shines through. Many specifically complain about the depiction and characterization of Wendy in this story, but personally I find that he accurately depicts what it would be like to stay with a partner who has an abusive past and is recovering. Most if not all women don’t leave after one instance of abuse or disrespect and Wendy herself isn’t portrayed as weak throughout the novel in fact she tends to protect herself and her son from Jack’s anger. Once the hotel is finally converging its evil with Jack she locks him away and hunts him down at times without hesitation. She doesn’t try more than once to try to connect with his humanity and only forgies him when there are instances of substantial proof that he is not to blame for some of the evil actions of the hotel. An interesting example of this is when their son comes to them with choke marks while Jack claims his innocence; she insists since they’re alone it can only be him. Separating herself and her child from Jack until it’s proven by the child that her husband isn’t to blame. I think King portrays her in these instances not as naive or weak but instead as knowledgeable on her husband’s true nature but since the beginning of the novel as being hopeful that this job will transform him into something else. I think the misinterpretation of her character also has to do with how she was portrayed in the film. While I think Shelley Duvall does an incredible job especially ironically considering the abuse she had to withstand during filming, I think her character is a bit more emotionally sensitive in nature than in the book. I do believe this kind of on screen sensitivity was Duvall’s way of portraying the character’s sensitive inner monologue that couldn’t be truly portrayed on screen. 

I think what’s most interesting about this story is undoubtedly the setting. The hotel is its own character, it is alive and often works with the nature of the wintery landscape to craft its own characterization. Since the beginning of the novel we’ve been warned about the isolation of the winter scene at the remote location of the hotel. Even being told that this has led to violent murder and suicide in the past. In fact it seems that everyone, even the people hiring Jack are warning him almost to quit. There is no way to truly encapsulate the incredible job the king does tying in the supernatural, realism, and mystery of the hotel character, but I think because of the movie there is a misdirection as to what’s truly happening to the character of jack. In the novel he is truly intrigued by the history of the hotel and he knows its affecting hum at times pushing back and trying to convince himself in his internal monologue that he can push back on what he realizes pretty soon into the novel is the evil nature of the hotel. I think this also gets interesting when we touch on the characters dick and Danny, but that storyline could only be encompassed in another think piece. In terms of Jack’s story line and connection to the hotel I think the reason why King didn’t like the film adaptation at first is because we can’t see as well in the film adaptation that Jack knows there is something wrong with the hotel, but tries to fight off internally between himself and the hotel. In the movie he succumbs more easily to the hotel’s evils. In the novel when Danny is choked by an old lady and Jack finds her in the bathtub as a seductive younger lady he watches her until her corpse soon turns into a rotting woman. He is intrigued but aware that the hotel is doing something dangerous, having felt suspicious about this room number and knowing no one else should be in the hotel, but in the film he makes out with the women before she is turned into a rotting corpse. I feel the movie in ways does betray his character. He definitely in my opinion is a villain along with the hotel. He’s still abusive if not fully always physically and psychologically and being so  without the hotel’s evil influence. I think the hotel attaches itself to this evil and vulnerability as established with the history of the hotel, but I think I can see how the King thought Jack was misportrayed in the film. I do think it’s important to note though that every main character survives in the shining escaping the hotel’s evils except for Jack which is impactful because this was supposed to be his recovery, but this shows his evil and the hotel was one in the same and truly inescapable. For his family to be freed he needed to die.

The Shining is an excellent novel. The movie is entertaining and a great piece of art, but the novel is genuinely a masterclass in character study and supernatural and villain writing. King makes a very compelling story. With action, mystery, and supernatural he really engages the reader in a case study of sorts. I do believe that the movie does not fully do the novel justice , but is a masterpiece in its own right with an interestingly different kind of writing and case study and a masterclass in acting. I think everyone should read the novel in the same way I think everyone should watch the film. 

---

Written by Eva Hamilton. Eva Hamilton is a freshman at GW studying data analytics with a concentration in physics and minoring in public policy. She loves to read, lift, and explore astrophysics content in her free time.