I think I have opined in the past that I think of the mystery and horror genres as two sides of the same coin. Both genres share key elements: suspense, the unexpected, the unknown, the surprise ending. That said, I do think it's tougher to write a good supernatural/horror book than it is to write a good mystery, probably because horror is several rungs above mystery in the need for suspension of disbelief, and many of those who can gladly put reality aside to follow an amateur sleuth around bristle when ghosts and monsters start to arrive.
A case study that I've been thinking about lately is Stephen King's 1977 classic, The Shining, which was turned into a now-classic film of the same title by Stanley Kubrick in 1980, starring Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall. Then, just a few years ago (2003), the book was refilmed as a TV mini-series with Steven Weber and Rebecca DeMornay.
In university I took a few film courses, and I distinctly remember my professor admonishing us that books and films cannot be judged by the same set of standards, that the set of characteristics that make a book enjoyable is very different from the set of characteristics that make for a good film. And yet how often do we hear "Oh, the movie wasn't as good as the book"? Quite often, I think....though the question is, of course, "How much would you have enjoyed the movie if you hadn't read the book first?"
I had read The Shining when it first came out, and I liked it. I recently re-read it (as I tend to get on these obsessive kicks), and it was just as I remembered it: well imagined, with a superb setting and a very good story line. It is also, as I remembered it, about 100 pages too long (a chronic problem with King's writing). Upon rereading, however, I realized something I hadn't considered the first time around, which is just how indebted King was to Shirley Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House. For the premise is the same: Hill House is just evil, as is the Overlook Hotel, though to King's credit he offers a bit more motivation for the hotel's malice than Jackson does for Hill House. (Though this is part of the creepiness of Jackson's book--she very explicitly offers no explanation of the house's evil, saying that it is evil, period, for no special reason.)
And despite thinking the book is good, I have to say: I think Kubrick's film is better. I'm no huge fan of Jack Nicholson, so it's not because he's the star. It's because the film has so many iconic, memorable, and disturbing images that aren't found anywhere in the book: the blood gushing out of the elevator; the dead twin girls; the garden maze with Jack Torrance frozen to death at the end; the closing photograph of the Overlook in the 1940s, showing a young Jack Nicholson. And, of course, Jack Nicholson hacking apart that door with an axe is a lot more visceral than the "roque" (an old form of croquet) mallet used by Jack Torrance in the book. The hotel's motivation is different in the film, too: In the book, the hotel is trying to use the little boy, Danny, to increase its own powers, and it's Danny that the hotel wants; in the film, the hotel wants Jack Torrance himself, who it sees as the latest reincarnation of its caretaker. Both motivations are good, and yet subjectively I just preferred the Kubrick film's interpretation. And the film quite rightly removes the psychobabble explaining Danny's "shining," which strikes a very false note in the novel, while being just right when being explained in the conversation between Hallorann (Scatman Crothers) and Danny in the film.
An interesting point, and one much commented upon, is how annoying the Shelley Duvall character (Wendy) is in the film. Upon rereading the book, I was surprised to see that she is indeed annoying there, too. This is where I have to remind myself that there are annoying characters in fiction, just as there are dumb ones. A lot of readers seem to bristle when characters are stupid or annoying--and yet, don't we all know people in real life who are stupid, annoying, or both?
Stephen King didn't care much for the Kubrick film, feeling that Kubrick took too many liberties--which led to the TV miniseries "Stephen King's The Shining." Note the use of the possessive in the title, to clearly differentiate this version and give it the author's stamp of approval. (I am reminded of the Gary Oldman film from several years ago, "Bram Stoker's Dracula," as if Bram Stoker had been alive to give the screenplay the thumbs up.) And because the teleplay had King's approval, it suffers from the same flaws as the book--specifically, it's too long, too drawn out. Even more interestingly, Wendy as played by Rebecca deMornay is much more of a modern heroine, not the clingy, slightly paranoid, chirpy, uneasy neurotic as played by Shelley Duvall (and as portrayed by King in the novel). I really have never known what to do with the character of Wendy Torrance, but perhaps that's part of what makes the novel and the Kubrick film so good; she is a distinctly off-note in a very off novel and film.
This brings me to an image gallery. The following are covers used on the book in its various incarnations over the years. Use the "comments" link below to vote on which one is your favorite, and why.
1. ORIGINAL HARDCOVER.
This is the original dustjacket from the 1977 Doubleday hardback. I like the way it features the Overlook prominently, yet I think the image of Jack Torrance is too handsome. The cover does show all three members of the Torrance family, the only one in which Wendy appears. It also shows two elements of the novel that do not show up in the Kubrick film: the roque mallet (which wraps around the spine to the back cover) and the topiary animals, which come to life and attack the characters (replaced by the garden maze in the Kubrick film). Somehow, though, I just don't think this cover is creepy enough; it could almost be the cover of a romance novel or an English family saga.
2. HARDCOVER REISSUE.
I don't care for this cover at all. It's a little too "Chucky" for my taste, and the boy's glowing red eyeballs make poor Danny Torrance into some sort of evil child, when he is not that at all; he's sensitive and psychic. To remove The Overlook from the cover is to do the book, and its homage to The Haunting of Hill House, a real disservice. However, to me this cover does position the book much more effectively as a supernatural/horror book than the original jacket image.
3. HARDBACK REISSUE.
I quite like this one and love the fonts used. The eyes are reminiscent of In Cold Blood and are subject to intepretation--are these the eyes of Jack Torrance, or the eyes of the Overlook Hotel? My only complaint is that overall the cover is too dark and murky, which didn't allow the cover artist to capture the simultaneous beauty and evil of The Overlook.
4. FRENCH EDITION.
This cover moves the book's central image to that of Danny Torrance. In the background, the Overlook burns to the ground, which is what happens in the novel but not in the Kubrick film. (Indeed, King foreshadows the finale very overtly quite early, and throughout, the book.) To me, this cover is a little too "Firestarter" and again, it makes the little boy seem malicious. And I don't think The Overlook is done justice here.
5. HARDCOVER/LIBRARY BINDING.
It's easy to tell that this is a recent rebinding/redesign, due to the fact that the author's name is so large in comparison to the title. I like the font used for the book title, but what exactly is going on in the background? Why is The Overlook made to look like Stonehenge?
6. OVERSEAS EDITION.
This one is a near-miss for me. It's certainly spooky, and I like the image of the boy from behind; it captures Danny Torrance's innocence while portraying the Overlook as it was: glamorous and larger than life (and intimidating). But somehow an interior shot of the hotel doesn't give the sense of the hotel's scale and grandeur. And focusing solely on Danny on so many of the covers shown here doesn't do justice to the interplay of Jack, Wendy, Danny, and the hotel--which is something that the original hardback dustjacket tried hard to accomplish.
7. MASS-MARKET MOVIE TIE-IN.
This cover reflects the original movie posters for the Kubrick film. I like it, with the font just sort of floating in space with that horrified face part of the capital T. It's sort of grainy and scary, subtle and yet blatant. The purist in me hates when books are redesigned to match films, but the much larger part of me approves of anything that sells more books.
8. MOVIE TIE-IN #2.
Sorry, this one's just sheerly derivative. No subtlety whatsoever. It should read "Here's the book for anyone who saw the movie and remembers Jack Nicholson chopping down the bedroom door and saying 'Heeere's Johnny!' Now you too can read that thing called a 'book' on which the much more important movie was based."
9. RECENT TRADE REISSUE.
To me, a visually interesting take on King's works, but a little too Roy Lichtenstein to convey what the book is all about. And The Overlook seems reduced almost to a quonset hut. I'm not sure the role of the large sun here, when the entire book is all about the massive white-out of a snowstorm that strands the family and finally causes Jack Torrance to lose his marbles.
10. UK PAPERBACK.
My absolute favorite. Author's name is too large, but this does justice to not only the Overlook but to the tone of the book. I wish I could have figured out a better way to get this image to look better on the blog.
11. GERMAN EDITION.
An abomination.
12. EARLY U.S. MASS-MARKET PAPERBACK.
Mixed feelings about this one. I love its simplicity and the neutral but scary shades of gray. And our cover model could be either Jack or Danny Torrance (or both). From a book buying perspective, I like that this cover raises a lot of questions that the reader will need the book to read. But I can't quite love any cover that doesn't have the Overlook somehow included.