Reply #52: But I don't think that novel-Jack is all that nice or harmless

[cemaphonic]

Read the bit at the beginning with the hotel manager, or some of his phone conversations with his old friend. And remember that it took a possible hit-and-run to sober him up (in the movie, it was just the broken arm), and he was still so out-of-control that he was fired for assaulting a student at his school. This is a mean, pissed-off guy that radiates hostility in all directions, just barely keeping his rage in check enough to be a somewhat functional member of society (the boiler room metaphor again - and note who actually does the work of maintaining the boiler through much of the book). He is dangerous and unstable, and someone that you would NOT want to leave your small child in the care of. Most of what is "good" about him (his self-awareness of his problems, and desire to get better - his affection for his son) is confined to internal monologues that really wouldn't have worked in a movie, so I can see why Kubrick and Nicholson went the way they did with the character.

He is written sympathetically - King is very good at that sort of thing. And I agree that there is a strong thread of tragedy through the novel. But I think that it is the tragedy of a man who has hit rock bottom and is making a real (and initially successful) effort to improve, only to be destroyed, rather than that of a nice guy who goes bad.

And I do agree that the transition between irritable jerk and gibbering, axe-wielding loon is a bit rushed in the movie. I haven't seen the miniseries, but I can imagine the extra time available in that format would have helped with that.