My 2 cents

Rating: 10/10 (5 May 2010)

So I've seen the film and read the book (in that order). I've even sat through some of the TV-series (or as much as I could stomach). I've read several threads in this ongoing debate.
In the first place, I'd like to thank and praise King for writing the novel. It is to his brain that we all owe a great debt of gratitude for this interesting story in the first place.
Secondly, I would add that I think we're dealing with 2 different caliber of artists approaching similar subject matter (which, again, King originally came up with). On the one hand, and setting aside basic plot ideas/differences for the moment, I find King's writing to be good (though very long-winded). On the other, I find Kubrick's film-making and screenplay to be brilliant (and concise).
In the end, I feel Kubrick's capacity far outshines King's. I appreciate King's own appreciation for Gothic (esp. Poe), but feel he hardly measures up (to Poe or other writers he admires (such as Lovecraft); I suspect he would agree). King is a good pop-fiction writer. Most people will read him. He explicitly (and annoyingly) explains his metaphors (such as the wasp's nest), rather than leave them for the reader to decipher for themselves (if they do). Most people need that. We live in an age where more people read Harry Potter than Crime and Punishment; but, I digress.
Before closing, I had one final note which may be a piece of fiction of my own, but, I think, is worth considering nevertheless: King's novel, which we know is in many ways autobiographical, may have been a therapeutic exercise for him in which he fabricates a new (and fictional) reality and recognizes (and, therefore, addresses, genuinely I think) his own personal issues/exorcises his own personal demons. As readers, we can only admire him (if that is in fact the case). However, that Kubrick's interpretation puts a wrench in this may be part of the reason why King disliked the film in the first place (and continues to do so). Any personal issues which originally fueled the novel do not need to be adopted or even recognized by Kubrick, who clearly went in a different direction with the character, Jack Torrance (than did King). Here I say, let King be King, let Kubrick be Kubrick.
I never met King or Kubrick, except through their work, and even there both reveal and hide parts of themselves. I am grateful to both, but, if pressed (and regardless of who originated the story), I would consider Kubrick the superior artist. Also, I could barely sit through even some of the 1997 TV-series version (written by King), but can appreciate why he continues to keep the story emotionally sprinkled and sympathetic to Jack Torrance as he does. Here, King's presence remains; whereas, in Kubrick's version, it is checkmated and eliminated from the game.
In closing, I would add that we should also thank Diane Johnson, herself an author and (I believe) PhD in Gothic Literature, who no doubt greatly influenced Kubrick's final product. Cheers, CA