All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

[RandomThoughts]

I think The reason that was typed over and over on the manuscript, was a comment on how so many things correlate.

Although King may see it more as repetition, since he mentions that also in a few of his stories.

That was not showing the Jack Character as being nuts, but showing what that character represents in SK view.

In my view of his view, that comment is about how everything correlates, like how existence is the same stories in many places. By many stories being repeated in many places, although it is also true that many people have the same challenges in life.

It is mostly the nouns that I notice correlating.

:shrug:


I think I understand some of it, and see patterns of correlations in many things, but it is also possible to see things different ways also, so part of the challenge is not to let something you are used to seeing, be what you see when you look at something, then by force of will, you break the correlating, by not letting the most often thought on item, be how you see something. Or see something in a different way, breaks a pattern of seeing many things the same ways.

If you let the most often way you see something guide you, you will see things the same, becuase you will look for that same pattern. So you have to try and find new patterns, to avoid repetition in stories, from that you can find new stories in the same stuff many times.

[cemaphonic]

1. The funny thing is that that is from the movie.

I think that is part of the reason King hates the movie - so many iconic things that people remember about the story are scenes from the movie that were not in the book.

[RandomThoughts]

2. Yea directors screenwriters and producers change much in stories.

Most remakes even change the meanings in the previous movie, or try and remove them.

The Second Shinning movie was a bit more interesting.

[Ahpook]

4. Are you saying you liked the TV one?

I did enjoy it since it stuck closer to the book. BUT:) Kubrick made an extremely haunting movie on that idea. Found myself comparing the two, which isn't fair?

Jack is such a menace hulking around the hotel. Reminds me of my childhood playing cat and mouse with my drunken father.

[Duer 157099]

6. Is that true, that it isn't in the book? I can't recall.

If it's true, then I have an even more sinister interpretation: it was a dig at King himself. Kubrick took other digs at King in the film, so I would not be surprised if this was yet another one. Kubrick loves multiple entendres.

[cemaphonic]

7. Yeah, in the book, Jack is working on some expose of the hotel's dirty secrets.

It offered some interesting character development, since his main motivation for writing it seemed to be working out a self-destructive desire to alienate his rich drinking buddy that got him the caretaker job out of resentment. But not as great as the "all work and no play" bit.

Where did you get the idea that Kubrick is taking digs at King. I haven't ever come across this interpretation, and it seems unlikely to me that Kubrick would have cared enough about King to go to the effort.

[Duer 157099]

8. I've never seen this interpretation for this particular scene

it just came to me while reading this thread. I would not be surprised if Kubrick had some disdain for King's proliferative writing; Kubrick himself was just the opposite, taking loads of time to create just a few masterpieces.

There is certainly at least one overt dig, the scene with the overturned VW bug that Dick Hallorann passes while returning up the mountain in the snow.

[denbot]

3. Hi RT

I haven't seen you post lately.

[PuffedMica]

5. All work and no pay makes Jack broke

I need a job with a future.