So I've been a big fan of the shining movie and wanted to see how the book told the story cause I heard that a) Stephen King didn't like the movie b) the story was different.

So considering that I felt like I was reading a story I really enjoyed specifically to appreciate the differences. At points it felt like a slog, with date rusty and clumsy politics and such. But some of the differences I really appreciated about the book included the greater sympathetic lens we view jack Torrence through, his suicidal tendencies, struggles with alcohol, and love for danny cast him in a much more sympathetic light, which makes his descent into unhinged murderous rage much more disturbing and tragic.

The shining and magic of the world is also much more prevalent and explored and even the jump scares and horrors focus on hornets, hedges, anthropomorphic ghouls, and possession than the blood tidal waves, and creepy twins that are so iconic from the film.

Definitely better appreciate all the liberties that were taken with the film and world building shoved aside that make up the novel. I can see why Stephen King felt antagonistic to the film, and appreciate the story better for it all.

But all in all, don't think I really like Stephen King's writings that much, this being my first read, and might just stick to how pop culture interprets and bastardizes his works in the world of b-rate horror films.

Some things are just better seen than read.