This is my first time ever reading Jackson, although I have seen the various Haunting video adaptations. What I’m most struck by is her very distinct Persona-Narrator voice. The sly wit, and the freedom to move across the characters like an amused observer.
Among other things, I'm struck by Jackson's adept and frequent use of adverbs! That is so hard to get right. Writers are taught things like "the road to hell is paved with adverbs," and that they weaken our prose but this book promises to be an education in how to use them well. Anyone else notice this?
I just finished “We Have Always Lived In The Castle” and before that, “Middlemarch “. What’s going on with all these pairs of sisters!? In this first bit I liked the old lady who gets bumped. She even “smiled wickedly”. She seems to classically portend that something is going to go down.
I love that the very first thing that happens to Eleanor when she leaves her house is to be cursed (“damn you, damn you!”) by an old woman. Although she seems to appease the witch, in a fairy tale that would be a very bad start. Also love the “not sane” in the first paragraph because--following that first astonishing sentence--it implies that Hill House is a living organism, which is unsettling as hell.
A witch indeed, she is creepily secretive. "The little old lady smiled wickedly. 'Ive still got this, anyway,' she said, and she hugged one package tight." What is in it? More leftovers? Hmm. And she isn't going to divulge her address either.
I love this book so much; I'm thrilled to have a read-along like this. Shirley Jackson is a master at starting a story; the first paragraph of We Have Always Lived in the Castle is also killer, with its talk of werewolves and the deathcup mushroom and its abrupt concluding sentence: "Everyone else in my family is dead." These two paragraphs examples both give such a mood, both unsettling, but each with a particular personality. Hill House is the character (for lack of a better word) that sets the tone: not dreaming but absolutely real, giving the impression of a strict authoritarian who is somehow not quite right, which is implied in the poetic techniques used in spite of the supposed "absolute reality." It's a sharp contrast with Mary Katherine Blackwood, who is very much a dreamer but also not sane, but I find her form of insanity draws the reader in rather than repelling, as I think Hill House would do if it weren't for the characters set on exploring it.
I find Dr. Montague interesting as he's sort of an authority, but immediately undermined by the tone of the narrator, which is not exactly poking fun but maybe giving him a side eye. Luke and Theo both promise to make the story interesting, but of course it's Eleanor who hits the hardest. Her life is so bleak, and knowing that someone in her desperately unhappy situation is heading toward "not sane" Hill House immediately sets the tone for the book.
This lapsed anthropologist got a good laugh out of the line "....he had taken his degree in anthropology, feeling obscurely that in this field he might come closest to his true vocation, the analysis of supernatural manifestations." I would have though a degree in psychology might have been more apt here.....
I read "We always have lived in the castle" and two short stories of her, but this is the first time I am reading this book.
As others remarked, the narrator's tone is impressive. The way in which it states things matter-of-factly and then offers others in a vague suggestive way with a "perhaps" or, as in the first paragraph, "supposed, by some" conves a coy narrator who alternately obscures and reveals facts in other to make my mind wonder about what lies hidden beside what is presented out in the open.
Do larks and katydids dream? Some think so; but what do we, readers, think?
Secondly, I love the last sentence of the car discussion:
"Besides," Eleanor's brother-in-law said, struck by a sudden idea, "how do we know she'd bring it back
in good condition?"
It instantly confirms that it was never really about safety of their child, the way he just randomly brings up another point. The true reason seems to be that they just don't trust her at all, point.
From what I've read (not a biologist), birds likely do dream -- they experience REM sleep and flight and song areas of the brain are activated during REM. Insects, not as far as I at know.
I'm very glad to be re-reading this book in the company of others, not least with the incredible Ruth Franklin! What an amazing treat! It might be too scary to read again by myself.
The opening sentence is a strange, two-hearted thing: the semi-colon allows a shift from almost textbook prose to something like poetry. It is a bit destabilizing. Then with almost no transition we are inside of Hill House. Where everything is suffocating - "holding" "contained" "upright" "firm" -quickly Jackson assembles this house in front of our eyes and warms us that while not sane it is real.
Thanks, Ruth, for the informative first post. I’m new to the work and the first pages are gorgeous.
Regarding the first sentence: “No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream.”
I love this first sentence, the first paragraph really, in part because it kicks off, right away, the idea of “absolute reality” contrasted with “abnormal.” And the second sentence almost implies to me that Hill House is...a live or living organism.
The concept of “absolute reality” versus the incredible is again challenged by Dr. Montegue who knows his work falls in the questionable realm, so gets his degree to purposefully flaunt it against those who question his “research.” I’m referring to the second paragraph:
“He was scrupulous about the use of his title because, his investigations being so utterly unscientific, he hoped to borrow an air of respectability, even scholarly authority, from his education.”
I’m guessing credibility will be an obvious theme. Jackson is already challenging the reader with smarts and humor, as others have commented, making for an exciting .....something? I’m excited to figure out what.
Also, I am wondering if the stones falling on the roof of Eleanor Vance’s house reminded anyone else of the stoning in Jackson’s famous story, “The Lottery”? Aside from that story, I’m new to reading Jackson and am wondering if stones or stoning is something she uses elsewhere?
(As always, glad on this first day to see who is reading with this round of #APStogether!)
Yes! I’ve been telling my S. King friends about this connection for years! And the fact that Eleanor’s sister’s name is Carrie goes right along with it. I feel like King was definitely giving a nod to Jackson.
Hi Jennifer! I'm glad to see a friend from APS Together To the Lighthouse here!
I didn't think of the stones in "The Lottery." Now I'm curious about that, too.
Like you I am wondering where Jackson is falling on the reality/abnormal scale. Or rather, maybe, how she is going to use it in her story. Theodora's reading of the cards she calls "wakened knowledge" and a "stirring, urgent sense."
Re absolute reality. Eliot (probably): human beings cannot bear very much reality. Or words to that effect.
Also, if I may, re an earlier comment. Doctor M (not a Capulet, though that may be neither here nor there) would very likely (maybe) be aware - and counting on it - perhaps? - that C.G. Jung's psychology is anthropologically grounded. And, too, again maybe, me being no expert, Jung is the par excellence parapsychological séance guy. So I have heard tell at any rate. May all be - eventually? - a useful lens through which to see this book? With a hey and a ho and a hey nonnino. Journeys end in lovers meeting. O Eleanor, Eleanor, if you step out of the book for a moment and let me hold your hand, I'll tell you how much I already love you, how already jealous I am of Theo-dora who after all, as God's gift, is lovely, intelligent, perspicacious and very high class. Of course I already love her too. But not quite so egregiously unbounded. Hi Jennifer!
The connections you’ve made with Eliot and Jung and seances are interesting as well as where you go with Eleanor and Theo-dora. I’m curious, have you read this book before?
The stones definitely reminded me of The Lottery, and also the Bible verse “Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.” And “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” I’ve read all of her novels and people throwing stones also makes a dramatic appearance in “We Have Always Lived in the Castle.”
This book has been on my TBR for years. I've read a lot of Shirley's work but never this.
The first paragraph I knew of too but seeing set out with the rest of the character introductions ensures that the house is most definitely a character too. Love it!
I have only read The Lottery by SJ. I was so scarred by it, I have been unable to read more of her work and almost didn't join for this session of APS Together, even given my prior commitment to the group. But a friend has promised me that this one is not as psychologically distressing, so here I am. I'm not so sure that will be the case, based on these early pages, but I think your company will help. It also goes without saying that if the prose weren't so gorgeous, I wouldn't be experiencing these feelings of dread. Enjoy the dread, I say!
The Lottery was required reading when I was in high school in the late 70s, as an example of the drama genre. It disturbed me, too, but also made me think deeply about the characters’ motivations. Wonder if it’s been banned now? Many books I enjoyed in high school have been.
I love the first sentence. It feels like the reader is being invited into the world of a George Eliot novel. I'm transported to the first paragraph of Daniel Deronda: 'Men can do nothing without the make-believe of a beginning....' There is a solidity and unwavering rationality in that first sentence which immediately starts to crumble and erode even as you re-read it.
I'm struck by the little old lady that Eleanor knocks down and her comments on being knocked down. She feels like a messenger or harbinger of something that is yet to come. I was curious that when the taxi driver asked '"where do we go?" The little lady chuckled. "I'll tell you after we start"' The back-to-front-ness of this exchange somehow captures the quality of the world we're inhabiting in the novel.
Great to have another round of APS Together, nice to see so many familiar names from To the Lighthouse! Thanks to Ruth Franklin for leading this, and for the thoughtful direction right out of the gate. Loved Dreyer’s blow-by-blow of the first paragraph. An editor’s pov really enriches the reading.
First Shirley Jackson for me. Enjoyed the quick introduction to so many characters who I think we’re going to get to know, and some like the little old lady perhaps and maybe the taxi driver we just get to meet for a moment. But lots of characters right up front. Nice to be back with another round of APS together.
I found myself laughing out loud at these opening pages. Dr. Montague "had been looking for an honestly haunted house all his life. When he heard of Hill House he had been at first doubtful, then hopeful, then indefatigable..." And then his letter of "ambiguous dignity." Also, while Eleanor's situation is pitiable, her antipathy to her family made me laugh too, perhaps because of the narrator's bluntness. With her mother dead, her sister is now the only person she hates. Her brother-in-law and niece, she merely dislikes. While her sister worries about "savage rights," Eleanor is ready to go anywhere. Then, after the argument over the car, we get the line "There has to be a first time for everything, Eleanor told herself." Meaning, theft.
On a different note, I know Eleanor is vulnerable, but she is so decisive in making her escape that she doesn't seem so at all at this point.
yes, Jackson's wit is so dry and so dark but so PRESENT. I would argue she doesn't steal the car, though, it is half hers. The law would see this as a dispute between owners, not theft. It is a first time for defying her family though, perhaps, and that's a pretty big deal.
This is my first time ever reading Jackson, although I have seen the various Haunting video adaptations. What I’m most struck by is her very distinct Persona-Narrator voice. The sly wit, and the freedom to move across the characters like an amused observer.
Yes, that narrative voice is extraordinary, sly and compelling and creepy.
Among other things, I'm struck by Jackson's adept and frequent use of adverbs! That is so hard to get right. Writers are taught things like "the road to hell is paved with adverbs," and that they weaken our prose but this book promises to be an education in how to use them well. Anyone else notice this?
Yes, adverbs are considered old-fashioned now, aren’t they. But repeated readings of Jackson has shown me they can work.
I just finished “We Have Always Lived In The Castle” and before that, “Middlemarch “. What’s going on with all these pairs of sisters!? In this first bit I liked the old lady who gets bumped. She even “smiled wickedly”. She seems to classically portend that something is going to go down.
I’ve read this before but had forgotten about the little (truly!) old lady, so now I’m focusing on what she might mean.
I love that the very first thing that happens to Eleanor when she leaves her house is to be cursed (“damn you, damn you!”) by an old woman. Although she seems to appease the witch, in a fairy tale that would be a very bad start. Also love the “not sane” in the first paragraph because--following that first astonishing sentence--it implies that Hill House is a living organism, which is unsettling as hell.
A witch indeed, she is creepily secretive. "The little old lady smiled wickedly. 'Ive still got this, anyway,' she said, and she hugged one package tight." What is in it? More leftovers? Hmm. And she isn't going to divulge her address either.
YES!
I love this book so much; I'm thrilled to have a read-along like this. Shirley Jackson is a master at starting a story; the first paragraph of We Have Always Lived in the Castle is also killer, with its talk of werewolves and the deathcup mushroom and its abrupt concluding sentence: "Everyone else in my family is dead." These two paragraphs examples both give such a mood, both unsettling, but each with a particular personality. Hill House is the character (for lack of a better word) that sets the tone: not dreaming but absolutely real, giving the impression of a strict authoritarian who is somehow not quite right, which is implied in the poetic techniques used in spite of the supposed "absolute reality." It's a sharp contrast with Mary Katherine Blackwood, who is very much a dreamer but also not sane, but I find her form of insanity draws the reader in rather than repelling, as I think Hill House would do if it weren't for the characters set on exploring it.
I find Dr. Montague interesting as he's sort of an authority, but immediately undermined by the tone of the narrator, which is not exactly poking fun but maybe giving him a side eye. Luke and Theo both promise to make the story interesting, but of course it's Eleanor who hits the hardest. Her life is so bleak, and knowing that someone in her desperately unhappy situation is heading toward "not sane" Hill House immediately sets the tone for the book.
Dr. Montegue is absolutely compelling!
This lapsed anthropologist got a good laugh out of the line "....he had taken his degree in anthropology, feeling obscurely that in this field he might come closest to his true vocation, the analysis of supernatural manifestations." I would have though a degree in psychology might have been more apt here.....
I read "We always have lived in the castle" and two short stories of her, but this is the first time I am reading this book.
As others remarked, the narrator's tone is impressive. The way in which it states things matter-of-factly and then offers others in a vague suggestive way with a "perhaps" or, as in the first paragraph, "supposed, by some" conves a coy narrator who alternately obscures and reveals facts in other to make my mind wonder about what lies hidden beside what is presented out in the open.
Do larks and katydids dream? Some think so; but what do we, readers, think?
Secondly, I love the last sentence of the car discussion:
"Besides," Eleanor's brother-in-law said, struck by a sudden idea, "how do we know she'd bring it back
in good condition?"
It instantly confirms that it was never really about safety of their child, the way he just randomly brings up another point. The true reason seems to be that they just don't trust her at all, point.
From what I've read (not a biologist), birds likely do dream -- they experience REM sleep and flight and song areas of the brain are activated during REM. Insects, not as far as I at know.
I love the idea of birds dreaming! Even better, though not necessary, if the suggestion is true....
I'm very glad to be re-reading this book in the company of others, not least with the incredible Ruth Franklin! What an amazing treat! It might be too scary to read again by myself.
The opening sentence is a strange, two-hearted thing: the semi-colon allows a shift from almost textbook prose to something like poetry. It is a bit destabilizing. Then with almost no transition we are inside of Hill House. Where everything is suffocating - "holding" "contained" "upright" "firm" -quickly Jackson assembles this house in front of our eyes and warms us that while not sane it is real.
Scary. Creepy!
I look forward to some virtual hand-holding : )
Thanks, Ruth, for the informative first post. I’m new to the work and the first pages are gorgeous.
Regarding the first sentence: “No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream.”
I love this first sentence, the first paragraph really, in part because it kicks off, right away, the idea of “absolute reality” contrasted with “abnormal.” And the second sentence almost implies to me that Hill House is...a live or living organism.
The concept of “absolute reality” versus the incredible is again challenged by Dr. Montegue who knows his work falls in the questionable realm, so gets his degree to purposefully flaunt it against those who question his “research.” I’m referring to the second paragraph:
“He was scrupulous about the use of his title because, his investigations being so utterly unscientific, he hoped to borrow an air of respectability, even scholarly authority, from his education.”
I’m guessing credibility will be an obvious theme. Jackson is already challenging the reader with smarts and humor, as others have commented, making for an exciting .....something? I’m excited to figure out what.
Also, I am wondering if the stones falling on the roof of Eleanor Vance’s house reminded anyone else of the stoning in Jackson’s famous story, “The Lottery”? Aside from that story, I’m new to reading Jackson and am wondering if stones or stoning is something she uses elsewhere?
(As always, glad on this first day to see who is reading with this round of #APStogether!)
Yes, the stones took me back to The Lottery as well. And also to Carrie by Stephen King!
Great catch. Stephen King loves Shirley Jackson.
True!
Yes! I’ve been telling my S. King friends about this connection for years! And the fact that Eleanor’s sister’s name is Carrie goes right along with it. I feel like King was definitely giving a nod to Jackson.
Hi Jennifer! I'm glad to see a friend from APS Together To the Lighthouse here!
I didn't think of the stones in "The Lottery." Now I'm curious about that, too.
Like you I am wondering where Jackson is falling on the reality/abnormal scale. Or rather, maybe, how she is going to use it in her story. Theodora's reading of the cards she calls "wakened knowledge" and a "stirring, urgent sense."
When really or "really" it had to be luck ??
Re absolute reality. Eliot (probably): human beings cannot bear very much reality. Or words to that effect.
Also, if I may, re an earlier comment. Doctor M (not a Capulet, though that may be neither here nor there) would very likely (maybe) be aware - and counting on it - perhaps? - that C.G. Jung's psychology is anthropologically grounded. And, too, again maybe, me being no expert, Jung is the par excellence parapsychological séance guy. So I have heard tell at any rate. May all be - eventually? - a useful lens through which to see this book? With a hey and a ho and a hey nonnino. Journeys end in lovers meeting. O Eleanor, Eleanor, if you step out of the book for a moment and let me hold your hand, I'll tell you how much I already love you, how already jealous I am of Theo-dora who after all, as God's gift, is lovely, intelligent, perspicacious and very high class. Of course I already love her too. But not quite so egregiously unbounded. Hi Jennifer!
Hi Patrick!
The connections you’ve made with Eliot and Jung and seances are interesting as well as where you go with Eleanor and Theo-dora. I’m curious, have you read this book before?
The stones definitely reminded me of The Lottery, and also the Bible verse “Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.” And “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” I’ve read all of her novels and people throwing stones also makes a dramatic appearance in “We Have Always Lived in the Castle.”
This book has been on my TBR for years. I've read a lot of Shirley's work but never this.
The first paragraph I knew of too but seeing set out with the rest of the character introductions ensures that the house is most definitely a character too. Love it!
Also with regards to your question about reality TV shows set in haunted places, I'll direct you here ➡️ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosthunting_With...
I have only read The Lottery by SJ. I was so scarred by it, I have been unable to read more of her work and almost didn't join for this session of APS Together, even given my prior commitment to the group. But a friend has promised me that this one is not as psychologically distressing, so here I am. I'm not so sure that will be the case, based on these early pages, but I think your company will help. It also goes without saying that if the prose weren't so gorgeous, I wouldn't be experiencing these feelings of dread. Enjoy the dread, I say!
The Lottery was required reading when I was in high school in the late 70s, as an example of the drama genre. It disturbed me, too, but also made me think deeply about the characters’ motivations. Wonder if it’s been banned now? Many books I enjoyed in high school have been.
I love the first sentence. It feels like the reader is being invited into the world of a George Eliot novel. I'm transported to the first paragraph of Daniel Deronda: 'Men can do nothing without the make-believe of a beginning....' There is a solidity and unwavering rationality in that first sentence which immediately starts to crumble and erode even as you re-read it.
I'm struck by the little old lady that Eleanor knocks down and her comments on being knocked down. She feels like a messenger or harbinger of something that is yet to come. I was curious that when the taxi driver asked '"where do we go?" The little lady chuckled. "I'll tell you after we start"' The back-to-front-ness of this exchange somehow captures the quality of the world we're inhabiting in the novel.
That struck me too, nor will she reveal what's in the other package she's clutching (smiling "wickedly").
Great to have another round of APS Together, nice to see so many familiar names from To the Lighthouse! Thanks to Ruth Franklin for leading this, and for the thoughtful direction right out of the gate. Loved Dreyer’s blow-by-blow of the first paragraph. An editor’s pov really enriches the reading.
First Shirley Jackson for me. Enjoyed the quick introduction to so many characters who I think we’re going to get to know, and some like the little old lady perhaps and maybe the taxi driver we just get to meet for a moment. But lots of characters right up front. Nice to be back with another round of APS together.
The first paragraph could be read as an introduction by the author of how she perceives the phenomenon Novel…best part, the reader “walks alone”.
I found myself laughing out loud at these opening pages. Dr. Montague "had been looking for an honestly haunted house all his life. When he heard of Hill House he had been at first doubtful, then hopeful, then indefatigable..." And then his letter of "ambiguous dignity." Also, while Eleanor's situation is pitiable, her antipathy to her family made me laugh too, perhaps because of the narrator's bluntness. With her mother dead, her sister is now the only person she hates. Her brother-in-law and niece, she merely dislikes. While her sister worries about "savage rights," Eleanor is ready to go anywhere. Then, after the argument over the car, we get the line "There has to be a first time for everything, Eleanor told herself." Meaning, theft.
On a different note, I know Eleanor is vulnerable, but she is so decisive in making her escape that she doesn't seem so at all at this point.
yes, Jackson's wit is so dry and so dark but so PRESENT. I would argue she doesn't steal the car, though, it is half hers. The law would see this as a dispute between owners, not theft. It is a first time for defying her family though, perhaps, and that's a pretty big deal.
Good point. But I think Eleanor sees it as theft, with all the revenge that entails.