I think Christine is the extremely rare (and perhaps only) example of a Stephen King movie being better than the book. I love King, but the man can't end a fucking book to save his life. Christine (the novel) just goes on and on and on, and I'm just like, "Just end already!" I feel this way about a lot of King books, but I think Christine is particularly egregious in the manner. The movie is tight, succinct, narratively propulsive, incredibly engaging, and genuinely emotionally heartfelt. These are not cardboard characters - they really feel like real people, and the relationship between Arnie and Dennis very sweet and tragic. It almost feels a little homoerotic to me, but that's also viewing it from a contemporary lens; back then I don't think they were thinking about that though, they were just writing two really sweet guys that cared about each other. Not everything was viewed through politics and identity (I say all this as a gay man, by the way).
Anyway, this comment is getting out of control. All of which is to say, I appreciated this post. I have also become interested in trying my hand at writing horror fiction, which is why I initially started following you. I think part of what I struggle with is my intense interest in character, and less interest in Plot (and, frankly, my inability to be very creative in that area, whereas as both a psychologist in real life, and a massive consumer of books and movies, characterization comes much easier).
I've noticed, when struggling to write story, I have a tendency to fall back on impressionism. I think it's a side effect from reading so much Modernist lit over the years. If I find myself specifying my protagonist's every thought and movement, that's usually a sign I'm stuck.
That said, interest in character is an asset, right? It's a certainly one of Stephen King's strengths. I'm still figuring it out, but I bet you can learn to leverage your interest in character if you're persistent.
Personally, I'd put Kubrick's The Shining in the superior adaptations category (and of one of King's best novels, no less!), though the two versions are so different it almost doesn't make sense to compare them. I reread the novel recently and was honestly blown away by how well it holds up.
The Shining is definitely adjacent to that distinction (being better than the book) but I also think of them as such different entities, that seems unfair. I think they're both spectacular but ultimately not very comparable. The first time I read The Shining, I was like, damn, the movie suuuucks. But then I watched it again and didn't think it sucked but was so much more about atmosphere and plot machinations (sort of? Not much actually happens in the movie), whereas the book is such a wonderful character study. And I agree, King is kind of the master of character when it comes to horror. I think that's what elevates his books so much above being "genre novels," whatever that really means. It also occurred to me a few years ago how many of his novels are specifically about childhood trauma being played out in adulthood. He seems to have an uncanny intuition about the carrying and effects of trauma, and using that to ground his characters and their behaviors. I think that's one thing that makes the suspension of disbelief in his novels easier for me.
As I'm writing this out, I would say Carrie the movie is also maybe better than the novel. I also haven't read that novel is probably 30 years or more, but I can watch that movie over and over and over.
I think Christine is the extremely rare (and perhaps only) example of a Stephen King movie being better than the book. I love King, but the man can't end a fucking book to save his life. Christine (the novel) just goes on and on and on, and I'm just like, "Just end already!" I feel this way about a lot of King books, but I think Christine is particularly egregious in the manner. The movie is tight, succinct, narratively propulsive, incredibly engaging, and genuinely emotionally heartfelt. These are not cardboard characters - they really feel like real people, and the relationship between Arnie and Dennis very sweet and tragic. It almost feels a little homoerotic to me, but that's also viewing it from a contemporary lens; back then I don't think they were thinking about that though, they were just writing two really sweet guys that cared about each other. Not everything was viewed through politics and identity (I say all this as a gay man, by the way).
Anyway, this comment is getting out of control. All of which is to say, I appreciated this post. I have also become interested in trying my hand at writing horror fiction, which is why I initially started following you. I think part of what I struggle with is my intense interest in character, and less interest in Plot (and, frankly, my inability to be very creative in that area, whereas as both a psychologist in real life, and a massive consumer of books and movies, characterization comes much easier).
I've noticed, when struggling to write story, I have a tendency to fall back on impressionism. I think it's a side effect from reading so much Modernist lit over the years. If I find myself specifying my protagonist's every thought and movement, that's usually a sign I'm stuck.
That said, interest in character is an asset, right? It's a certainly one of Stephen King's strengths. I'm still figuring it out, but I bet you can learn to leverage your interest in character if you're persistent.
Personally, I'd put Kubrick's The Shining in the superior adaptations category (and of one of King's best novels, no less!), though the two versions are so different it almost doesn't make sense to compare them. I reread the novel recently and was honestly blown away by how well it holds up.
The Shining is definitely adjacent to that distinction (being better than the book) but I also think of them as such different entities, that seems unfair. I think they're both spectacular but ultimately not very comparable. The first time I read The Shining, I was like, damn, the movie suuuucks. But then I watched it again and didn't think it sucked but was so much more about atmosphere and plot machinations (sort of? Not much actually happens in the movie), whereas the book is such a wonderful character study. And I agree, King is kind of the master of character when it comes to horror. I think that's what elevates his books so much above being "genre novels," whatever that really means. It also occurred to me a few years ago how many of his novels are specifically about childhood trauma being played out in adulthood. He seems to have an uncanny intuition about the carrying and effects of trauma, and using that to ground his characters and their behaviors. I think that's one thing that makes the suspension of disbelief in his novels easier for me.
As I'm writing this out, I would say Carrie the movie is also maybe better than the novel. I also haven't read that novel is probably 30 years or more, but I can watch that movie over and over and over.
Well said! I'm working on a future piece that makes some similar points. And Carrie -- man, I need to watch that again. It's been too long.