The Shining book club - Part 2: Ch 8-13 (pgs 84-150)

A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
edited March 2016 in General
Part three will be begin next week! Discussion in this thread should only be for chapters 8-13...


  • TaraC73TaraC73 Manchester NH
    Image and video hosting by TinyPic
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    The more I read the more I understand King's frustration with the movie adaptation.  I feel the only character they nailed in casting was Halloran.  His chemistry with Danny in the film is wonderful, and their scene this section really pops and crackles.  It allowed me to see Danny in a different context besides victim, which was nice.  

    I'm not sure I'd say that Nicholson was miscast, because he does amazing things in the back half of the film, but I do wish they'd given him and the Danny kid some quality screen time to build their relationship.

    Duvall as Shelly is just a really bad mis-cast, as well as terribly adapted on the screenplay level. 

    Even still, I find myself picturing everyone's faces just with new dialog / attitudes.  It's working for me so far.  It's still killing me with Danny's POV chapters.  I don't know how I'm going to make it through his daddy trying to kill him.
  • They really didn't get the love Danny had for his dad, or the real love Jack had for Danny. Even monsters can have redeeming qualities.
  • Also, in the movie Jack had a real domestic abuse vibe. I think in the book so far he wouldn't behave that way when sober, and he's horrified by what he did. I don't think Wendy has any personal fear for herself, only Danny.
  • Yeah. King said that casting Nicholson was a mistake because you could tell right away that he was on the verge of going nuts, and felt that Michael Caine would have been a better choice.
  • Michael Caine would have definitely been interesting!
  • So, Halloran has the shining and has explained the titular line.

    What do we think of Halloran?

    I like him :-)
  • TaraC73TaraC73 Manchester NH
    Shelley Duvall is grossly miscast... I never bought her. She's way too mousy and meek. I really like halloran, and always thought Nicholson was awesome but reading that Michael Caine was wanted for the role is interesting... Still plugging away on this week's reading :)
  • edited March 2016
    Just to clarify, the producers didn't want Michael Caine. King said it, many years after the fact. His point was that you could tell right away that Nicholson was on the verge of insanity, and he felt the role should be about someone who you couldn't see it coming, like Michael Caine.

    That is why when the mini-series was done, and King had a much bigger say in it, he chose Steven Weber to play Jack.
  • I always thought Weber didn't get enough credit for his performance, it's actually pretty darn good.
  • As an aside, Steven Weber is also a great audiobook narrator, and his reading of King's "It" is easily the best audiobook I've ever listened to.
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    I really liked Weber in the mini series. He was more of a classic King 'everyman' than Nicholson could ever be. But I really dislike Nicholson and his hammy theatrics generally, so I'm biased.
  • TaraC73TaraC73 Manchester NH
    @Dee -- them's fighting words... Jack Nicholson is on my "freebie list" ;)
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    He's all yours @TaraC73!
  • While re-reading this section I was trying to evaluate Wendy's cumulative culpability in the events that unfold I'm not sure how careful we're being about over arcing spoilers, or if we're assuming everyone has seen the movie.

    Since it's a King novel I'm probably not overstepping by presuming there's bad stuff a-comin'.

    Is Wendy at fault for leaving herself and her son in this situation? Does that responsibility extend back to the broken arm and beaten student? Or just from the Hotel going forward? Are the parents innocent since they couldn't reasonably be expected to foresee the supernatural effects of the hotel?

    Is Wendy a supportive wife who has that virtue used against her, or an enabler ignoring signs?
  • gjulleen said:

    Are the parents innocent since they couldn't reasonably be expected to foresee the supernatural effects of the hotel?

    I was thinking more along the lines could Halloran have done a better job of warning Danny? Considering Danny's young age I get that he didn't want to scare him, but Halloran himself realized that Danny's abilities were much stronger than anyone else he had come a crossed before. Shouldn't he therefore assumed Danny might be exposed to more than just an "average person with the shine"?
  • I had honestly never even considered Halloran's responsibility. I almost feel like he may have hurt Danny by telling him the ghosts couldn't hurt him, they were just like scary pictures. That's a different perspectives, thank you!
This discussion has been closed.