My Stephen King Problem

[Tom Beshear]

Kubrick makes it more psychological, tho' it's clear something supernatural 
is going on -- Danny's clairvoyance  and telepathy (the shining -- the 
overlook's cook has the same ability), visions that are not just 
hallucinations, plus the closeup of the old photo at the end. In the novel, 
King makes clear the house itself is a malevolent entity. King mostly writes 
stories meant to be told (at some length) around the (metaphorical) 
campfire. That's not the best place for ambiguity of character.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <kelber at mindspring.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: My Stephen King Problem


The only Stephen King I've read is (at the urging of a co-worker once, who 
also talked me into reading V.C. Andrews's Flowers in the Attic) his novella 
Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption which was made into the 
incredibly sappy guy-weeper, The Shawshank Redemption.  The Shawshank 
Redemption is rated on various lists as one of the greatest movies ever made 
(though the same basic plot with female characters would be ghettoized on 
women's cable channels).  Both the novella and the flick make a big point of 
telling us that the main character is innocent.  Presumably, the story 
wouldn't be such a hit if this guy had actually killed his wife.  So I'm 
guessing that it's a prime example of King's good-guy/bad-guy mindset.  It 
appeals to people who like their lit/flicks clear and simple and 
archetypical.  Personally, I like my characters complicated and ambiguous.

I was looking for a good essay on Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining, but 
couldn't find anything that was really well written and probing.  Dave? What 
I've always been given to understand was that Kubrick axed (ha ha) the 
obvious supernatural elements in favor of the more psychological.  But this 
may or may not be true.  Anyone?

Laura


-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>
>Sent: Jul 11, 2012 8:23 AM
>To: Dave Monroe <against.the.dave at gmail.com>, pynchon -l 
><pynchon-l at waste.org>
>Subject: Re: My Stephen King Problem
>
>My problem:
>I would rather read Stephen King, whom I cannot read, than this guy any 
>day.
>
>Horror as the subtext of life in these United States is why one might read 
>him. (As well as for his
>presentation of small town, mostly Maine, life.)
>
>In another of those critical compendia that Bloom put his name to--he 
>expresses his massive distaste in his intro---
>it is universal fears, myths involving death, that King has tapped into. 
>Pet Semetary. (Doesn't the writer here
>wilfully miss King's meaning when King says it won't be published. King 
>knew ANY publisher would publish
>anything he wrote; he meant he was too afraid to publish it.)
>
>A better reader than this guy, Michael Wood, devoted a whole book to King. 
>Tapping into US,
>with mythic power (at times). Although I think he finds him ultimately not 
>good enough.(just
>browsed in the book once)
>
>But, c'mon. "Carrie: is a powerful....story? Myth of adolescence, female 
>and therefore rare?
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Dave Monroe <against.the.dave at gmail.com>
>To: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>Cc:
>Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10:07 PM
>Subject: My Stephen King Problem
>
>http://www.salon.com/2012/07/06/my_stephen_king_problem_salpart/
>