“Misery” seems like a great Stephen King novel until watching the 1990 Rob Reiner movie of the same name.

After watching the movie, “Misery” is really a great short story.

In the novel, King stretches the story of an injured novelist “rescued” then held hostage by his psychotic No. 1 fan – who makes him resurrect the bestselling character he recently killed off – into a 351-page book. Reiner boils King’s novel down to an intense movie with a running time of less than two hours.

It’s an odd realization for a book that’s nearly 40 years old and a movie that is more than 30 years old in this age of streaming television shows.

In this age, when television shows can poke into every detail of a book adaptation (as well as adding some additional details) with varying degrees of success, many viewers may come to look at a season of television as being novel length and movies as being the equivalent of short stories. Even for series and movies not based on books, the novel vs. short story comparison is readily there.

For older readers/viewers who grew up with the common movie analysis of “the movie is good but the book is better,” finding the television show is as good as or in some cases better than the book is surprising. 

But sometimes, the television version isn’t better; in many cases, an episodic adaptation can point out that the book and the season worth of TV aren’t necessarily better but too long.

“Misery” is a tense, page-turner of a novel. Yet, the movie is more intense (helped not only by Reiner’s direction but Kathy Bates’ Oscar-winning performance as the deranged fan Annie Wilkes). Watching the movie after reading the book emphasizes the length of King’s novel – a length that abruptly seems unnecessary and possibly tedious by comparison.

Still, “Misery” is a good novel that could have been a great short story.

The book is good but the movie is better.