This is the sequel to The Shining, and Stephen King flat out tells us in his author's note at the end that nothing can live up to the original good scare. He cites the Psycho sequels as examples, claiming that Psycho IV was actually good (I wouldn't know; I've never seen it), but that nothing can match Janet Leigh's murder scene or Norman Bates coming down the stairs dressed like his mother. Similarly, nothing following can top the original scare of The Shining, and I think it would be a waste of time to try. Luckily, Mr. King doesn't try to top anything, and simply gives us a tale letting us know what happened to Danny in the later years, and shares a major adventure when he's in his 40s. I gave both stories four stars, and "I really liked" both, which is what the fourth star stands for, but please know that I consider The Shining the superior book by a long shot. 
 Does one need to read The Shining in order to follow this? I don't think so. Doctor Sleep can stand on its own. Any events relating to The Shining that are included in this book are sufficiently explained so the reader can follow the narrative without being confused. However, I highly encourage reading part one before reading this because it enriches the experience immensely. It would be like eating strawberry shortcake without the whipped cream; you can do it, and it would still be good, but something would be missing. For example: Dan calls someone an "officious little prick" in his head at some point. This was a phrase his father Jack Torrance used to describe his own boss in The Shining. Such Easter eggs are peppered throughout the story, and it was a treat to come across all of them. 
 I really liked the character of Danny and how he turned out because I can relate to him. His alcoholism both when he was drinking and when he was in recovery, specifically. The events of his story are quite different from my own (thank God; I might not get along with my dad very well sometimes, but at least he's never tried to kill me, and I don't have any mean ghosts trying to kill me either), but the feelings and emotions felt while going through his journey are something to which I can relate 100%. Plus, I like his take on the AA meetings he goes to. If it weren't for the alcoholism theme, I would give this book three stars, but that bumps it up a notch. 
 Now, why only three without the aforementioned bit? Clive Barker says "I firmly believe that a story is only as good as the villain," and I firmly agree. Rose the Hat is a good villain, but not a great one. She creates a lot of havoc, is an awful person, plans some horrible events, but in the end she just can't deliver. (And I know my fellow Stephen King fans are going to hate this because it pokes at something that's considered sacred by many of them, but I'm going to say it anyway). She makes me think of Randall Flagg. For all of his abilities and aptitude, and in spite of all the damage he caused, after all was said and done he was just a bungler who could never meet his goal. (Someone on the internet pointed out that in the end he couldn't even kill a spider, and God, do I wish I had come up with that line myself). Rose is like that. A lot of flash, but not very much substance when the chips are down. And pardon me for indulging in a mixed metaphor. 
 I think another part of my problem with it is that Rose was slightly weaker than the protagonist, even though the protagonist was a 12 year old girl named Abra and Rose an experienced world traveler who had been doing her heinous deeds for over a century with a huge posse following her. I like seeing a more powerful villain getting beaten by a less powerful hero, but that's just a personal preference, and I don't require that stipulation in stories I enjoy. But those two things weakened the story for me. 
 Still, I'm giving the story four stars, and may even read it again one day. There was a lot in it to enjoy. Much of it related to the links to the first book, but Danny's character was pure awesomeness, and his part carried much of the book. Abra was also really cool, but... 
 I just remembered... Someone needs to update Stephen King on the latest technology. I give mad props to a 65 year old man for making an effort to keep up with the times, but I can't think of a single 12 year old in 2013 who uses IM on a computer. Maybe it's a New England thing? Down here in Virginia they all text on their phones right now, and have for a few years. 
 Still, this is a great book with great horror elements, and I give it a recommendation to any who enjoy such.