When a novel is adapted for film, the director (or screenwriter) has to cut out a ton of stuff to get it to fit in the approximate 2hr time frame. I think that is why the novellas work so much better as adaptations. I think 150 pages are about the right length for a movie. So, think about taking The Shining or any other novel and cutting it down to 150 pages (remember the reader's digest condensed books ). I think it is unrealistic to expect a large novel to be faithfully adapted to the big screen. One of the best large novel adaptations that I know of was John Irving's, "Cider House Rules." John Irving wrote the screenplay and has commented on how difficult it was for him to cut out such large chunks of his novel. Irving was able to keep the spirit of novel but still lost a lot. I believe SK wrote the screenplay for Pet Semetary (correct me if I'm wrong) and I've always liked that adaptation. Anyway, I think you just have to view the film and novel as two separate forms. Stanley Kubrick only wanted to make a horror film. He could have cared less about all of the other themes running through The Shining. I love the movie but I certainly understand those that don't. Kubrick was a great visual director and I've always said that I can watch his movies with the sound off and love them.