Traveller’s Comments (group member since Jan 14, 2015)

Traveller’s comments from the On Paths Unknown group.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Oh, and the Southern Gothic thing. By the end, they're living in a roofless house, in which vines have climbed to the top in one season. That's not going to happen in Bennington Vermont :-)"

LOL, I was busy replying to you in the second thread on that, at which point my PC crashed on me. (It's a sign!)

I was about to say that the story indeed feels more like Southern Gothic than "American" Gothic, though for slightly different reasons... (American Gothic apparently has slightly different characteristics, but I'll have to look them up again.)

Ruth wrote: "Not sure about Finch, though."

Nah, you needn't do all the books on the schedule, of course. The Vandermeer is mainly my and Amy's obsession, it seems, though Allen had also expressed a desire to read Finch, I should actually PM him.

The Bradbury will be part of a "banned books" project. I'm just waiting a bit on something before I send out news about that. :)

We seem to be doing this story in waves. Luckily it's quite a fast read.

Are you going to do the Bradbury with us? Fahrenheit 451 ?

Hi Ruth, welcome to the discussion!

I know, right? I can't remember now if you did the Robert W. Chambers stories with us, the King in Yellow - I think you did at least one with us, eh?

...but it feels to me as if Shirley might be ambiguous that way, though perhaps not quite in the same way. In Jackson's story, you're thinking: "This girl is totally paranoid... or... is she?" ...and then you think: It's creepy either way!

Congrats to both Ronald and Matt. I enjoyed all the reviews you pointed to, and Matt, if you don't see a recent "like" by me, it's because I had already "liked" yours on some previous occasion.

Speaking of "the moon", that is of course a symbol of the sinister (as opposed to the sun => dexter), as well as a symbol of madness, and hence the term "lunacy".

One wonders if Jackson did that on purpose.

Disha wrote: "Actually, I do ot think Charles is the " Prince." He is set up as one, sure. But Jackson plays with the whole genre in this novel so I think its Merricat who is actually the "Prince" in that sense. ..."

Oh, yes, I understood that - it seemed to me though, as if you implied, (and I do think that from the text, there is reason to believe this) that Charles could possibly, on the surface, represent the traditional prince, but that that role is subverted by that it reverts to Merrikat, and that Charles actually ends up as the "villian" and/or the "obstacle" however you want to read it.

I think we discussed Propp before, did we? If this story is interpreted according to Propp's traditional fairy-tale structure, Merrikat is indeed the "hero" who goes out on a mission or adventure, and strives to attain the hand of the "princess" who must be saved from the witch/dragon/etc., and perhaps in this sense, Charles is actually the villain?

Disha wrote: "Puddin Pointy-Toes wrote: "Trying to diagnose Merricat is indeed a waste of time, because her narrative is all we have to go on. There are signs that what she experiences might indeed be delusions ..."

Hmm, though, I must say I am wary of being prescriptive about how a text "should" be read. I don't think there are any specific rules (ha) when it comes to the reading and interpretation of a text.

I don't think we can or should tell anybody how they are "supposed to" read or interpret a text. We could perhaps point out aspects which we think people might have missed, but I don't think any of us really has the authority to decide how a text (any text) should be or should not be interpreted.

That's what so cool about a group reading - we each bring our unique vision and our unique background to a text - and that's what you have both done, Puddin and Disha, you have each contributed from your own backgrounds to enrich the tapestry of our collective vision of this text, as have Linda and Yolande and that's pretty cool!

(Which is why a structuralist reading of this narrative is just as valid as a Marxist one, is just as valid as a Freudian one, is just as valid as a feminist one, is just as valid as a non-Freudian psycho-analyst or even psychiatric one, is just as valid as a socialist reading is just as valid as a naive reading!)

Don't let the fact that we have various interpretations of the text daunt you, guys; if you have more, let it roll! (...but let's just be careful not to become too prescriptive (and inhibitive) with our opinions; all opinions are welcome! There's space for them all to live happily together. ) :) I'm very tempted to add: On the moon! hahaha.

Disha wrote: "Traveller wrote: "Disha wrote: "There is a freudian reading to all this-- if you want to know that -- let me know. "

Do give us the Freudian reading, Disha! I feel as if this story has the potenti..."

That is also all true yes, and I guess I missed the reference to a cave while I read (doh, me) which is indeed of course a very strong universal symbol (along with the chalice) of female genitalia.

More later, got to run again...

Disha wrote: "Traveller wrote: "I see the homo-socialism, but only on Merrikat's part, (though she didn't seem to mind uncle Julian), but I must admit that I don't see the homo-eroticism. Is all love between fam..."

Very interesting, Disha! This is the big spoiler thread for this story, btw, you can give away any spoilers that you like here! That's why it warns of spoilers in the heading, so that we can feel free to post our spoilers in it. :)

I really need to brush up on my feminist theory and on people like Adrienne Rich.

Thanks for your commentary, Puddin, it is much appreciated!

Puddin Pointy-Toes wrote: "Trying to diagnose Merricat is indeed a waste of time, because her narrative is all we have to go on. There are signs that what she experiences might indeed be delusions (Is Constance -really- happ..."

...although, carefully analyzing what a person says, even if they were insane, can still tell us a lot about the person, wouldn't you say, even if the very least it tells us, is that the person is mentally or emotionally unstable in some form.

In the case of Merrikat, there is indeed a lot she tells us about herself and the world around her; one of them being that she is overly concerned with safety. In fact, her narration tells us a great deal about many of the characters and factions in the story, and pretty much almost all of these elements act "in character". It tells us, for one, that the villagers are superstitious and have the typical "mob" mentality that many small towns have, and which seems to be a theme common to Shirley Jackson's work - refer Jackson's story The Lottery, and also the introduction to this book.

Merrikat's narration also tells us, for example, that Uncle Julian had been physically damaged by the poisoning - and in fact, liver and kidney damage, as well as possible brain damage (as the cause of his dementia), would fit in nicely with everything she describes about him.

The narration also tells us a lot about cousin Charles - for example, he is consistently portrayed as a selfish gold-digger with a huge sense of entitlement.

When it comes to Constance, we can read a lot between the lines - Merrikat does describe her as beautiful and golden and all that, and I reckon some of Disha's homo-eroticism may indeed be in play there - but notice that many people like Constance and obviously find her a lot more approachable than they do Merrikat - Helen Clarke, for example, and Charles, for example, certainly fares a lot better with Constance than he does with Merrikat. People also tend to order Constance around, to which she reacts submissively - she seems eager to please and quick to accept blame.
I have seen it suggested that Constance has agoraphobia, though whether she is simply not going out because she is expected to stay home and act like the kitchen maid, cooking and cleaning, I am not too sure of.

...and then Merrikat herself, and here I would like to touch upon the famous "rules":
Merrikat's main concern throughout the narration is for her personal safety. We don't know where this concern originated - was it in some past trauma, or is Merrikat just a paranoid schizophrenic with OCD symptoms? ...whatever else she might be - whether her other symptoms are from some or other traumatic event, or simply because her mind is off-balance, the OCD symptoms ring unerringly true, even from the foreshadowing we get about the "if you step on the crack, it will break your mother's back" - a popular kid's game which is very typical of the kind of OCD that it seems that Merricat has. (Remember all the safeguards that she nails up on trees, for example the book, and then the scarf?)

Merrikat also buries things to keep them safe: "I started at one corner and walked diagonally across the long field toward the opposite corner, and in the middle I came directly to the rock covering the spot where the doll was buried; I could always find it although much of my buried treasure was forever lost. The rock was undisturbed and so the doll was safe."

To me, these passages from Chapter 10 were quite telling too:
"I discovered that I was no longer allowed to go to the creek; Uncle Julian was there, and it was much too far from Constance. I never went farther away than the edge of the woods, and Constance went only as far as the vegetable garden. I was not allowed to bury anything more, nor was I allowed to touch stone.
Who is "allowing" or not allowing Merrikat there - nobody but Merrikat herself... have a look at these links to get a bit of insight about how it goes for people with OCD :
(Note the "checking" behavior, like constantly checking the door, or that the boards are still up or that the gate is still secured, and also note, in the people's examples of OCD how many have "rules" such as that you can only touch red, or you have to start/finish stairs on a certain foot, etc., and then see an example of Merrikat's "rules" below, such as that she is not "allowed" to touch stone) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compuls...
...here are some of people's actual rituals:
http://www.healthboards.com/boards/ob...

The general disorder: http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-co...

"Every day I looked over the boards across the kitchen windows and when I found small cracks I nailed on more boards. Every morning I checked at once to make sure the front door was locked, and every morning Constance washed the kitchen."

Note that in the quote above, each of Merrikat and Constance's "obsessions" are addressed; Constance's obsession with good housekeeping (remember that she also keeps a garden and grows all sorts of goodies) and cleanliness, and Merrikat's obsession with safety - which under the circumstances, seems not quite unfounded... and yes, you mentioned ambiguity, and this is what I love about the story - you can't quite write her obsession with safety off as simple, unfounded anxiety - they certainly do seem to have something to fear from the villagers, and not only the villagers; from Charles as well.

Regarding Charles and Constance: Disha's reading of the fairy-tale dynamics which would have Charles as the structural "prince" aside, I do think he was doing a big con on Constance; this story seems like a handbook of psychiatric disorders, and if so, Charles would most certainly qualify as the resident psychopath, just not a very smart one, heh heh. Remember that psychopaths tend to be real charmers, and Charles most certainly tends to attempt to manipulate the people around him, though in his case, with varying success.

I rather like Ellen's show! Thanks, Linda, will do. :)

Oh, this is funny! The duplicated "always" in that sentence had been unintentional; but I only saw it now that I copied and pasted it! :P Sometimes one misses such errors when the duplicated word starts on a new line.

I tend to peck and go with GR. Come in, check new posts, reply and run off again w/out checking for errors. I must really try and be more careful. :P

LOL, auto-correct strikes again! I noticed just now that in post 15, my :"I might not always always agree, but it often allows me to see more depth in a text. "
became: "I might not always always agree, but it often allows me to see more depth in a test. "

It's only one letter, but...

Sure, Amy, I fully understand. I think we all tend to be a bit overoptimistic about the amount of time we have available for our various projects. :)

Okay, looks like the boring bit was luckily only for a short while. After (view spoiler)[ Janice tries to commit suicide (hide spoiler)] things pick up again, even though it's pretty bleak stuff...

In short, the piece is quite a tantalizing piece of Gothic art which even Robert Chambers might have approved of! :D

For those who did not participate in the Yellow King discussions, in the The King in Yellow and Other Horror Stories stories by Robert W. Chambers, one is never quite sure how much of the story is real, and how much of the story is distorted due to the insanity of the narrator. It's an extremely clever set of stories.

Puddin Pointy-Toes wrote: "For a while reading the story I noticed that Mary Katherine was forbidden a number of things, some of them the sort of thing you would forbid a child, but others seemingly more arbitrary: she was f..."

It will be interesting to see your comments once you get to the ending, Puddin!

Shhh, everyone, no spoilers in response to Puddin's observations, please! :D

Please keep in mind that ending spoilers are for the next thread only. ;)

...and since it's quite high up by now, here is the link: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Yolande wrote: "I'm posting this in a separate comment because it didn't show up in my previous one:

When thinking about it, these feelings of grandiosity makes more sense if it came from someone treated as the l..."

Ha, okay, and let's tie this comment to the discussion we have of this aspect in the next thread. I do believe you and I are now on the same page with this, Yolande!

I have learned so much from discussions, which is why I like it when people post different viewpoints to mine. I might not always always agree, but it often allows me to see more depth in a text. :)

Thanks to all of you for contributing, no matter if we all see it differently!

Disha wrote: "There is a freudian reading to all this-- if you want to know that -- let me know. "

Do give us the Freudian reading, Disha! I feel as if this story has the potential to be interpreted in a variety of ways. I'm pretty sure I could do a Marxist one, too, so let rip with the Freudian one! :)

Disha wrote: "The appeasement by gifts has been part of myth and ritual for a long time.
This book has a lot of folklore motifs in it. Basically, it is about belief and is structured like a fairy tale and Jackson is playing with that genre.
Folklore appears in three ways in fiction - structural, mimetic and referential ( Refer : Re situating folklore) . Structurally as I mentioned the the story is a fairy tale. Constance locked away in a castle as a Princess figure and is close to nature ( she likes gardening etc.) ..."

Thanks for highlighting those aspects for us, Disha! I find it very interesting. Yes, this tale appears folkloric in more ways than one! But I really love how deftly she intermingles 'reality' and psychology into the folkloric mix.

Hmm, and something else- I've been wondering all along how Constance actually got acquitted. The narration says that Constance bought the rat poison - in fact it was Uncle Julian who said so. ...but it never says how come she was released.