Cecily’s review of The Woman in Black > Likes and Comments
139 likes · Like
People said it was like a ghost story written by Jane Austen? Were they reading the same book?
That's what I wonder. Or more likely, they've never read Austen.
I haven't read the book myself; but just judging from the features you describe, my guess as to the chronological setting would be about 1950. Steam trains were still in use then, if I understand correctly. In the movie version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, which is set in the early 1940s (not much earlier than 1950), the children are picked up at the train station in a horse-drawn trap. And isn't London pretty much still foggy? :-)
The '50s is probably about right - but only because of the telephones and steam trains. In every other respect, it feels much longer ago, and that slipperiness (which I'm sure is deliberate) can be irritating.
As for fog, London has far less of it than places like San Francisco, and the Clean Air Act of the mid '50s got rid of smog.
Cecily wrote: "As for fog, London has far less of it than places like San Francisco, and the Clean Air Act of the mid '50s got rid of the smog."
I did not know that; thanks for dispelling that stereotype! That's another factor that might suggest a roughly 1950 date, then, just before the change in the quality of London's air that the Clean Air Act would bring about.
Great review, Cecily. I liked this better than The Turn of the Screw. A great book and the movie wasn't too bad, either.
I wasn't so keen on the film (Daniel Radcliffe in particular), but the stage show is excellent.
Beautiful review, Cecily. Sounds like a great book to read.
Yes, it's quite short, and in many ways, quite an easy read, but there's plenty of depth there too.
I haven't read the book either but Arthur Kipps
was the hero in H.G. Well's "Kipps" - how could
the author steal his name!! In "Kipps" he
marries Ann who goes out to work as a maid and
when they marry she has plenty to say about the
design of the house that Kipps wants to build
for her. That is a very famous
book and Jane Austen wasn't involved.
How strange. I wonder if it's a co-incidence or a deliberate homage?
How did this review slip under my radar? Any way this sounds great and I definitely want read it. Cheers! :)
I can't answer your question, but it's quite short, so easy to squeeze into a schedule - but don't rush it too much, or you'll miss things.
Cecily wrote: "I can't answer your question, but it's quite short, so easy to squeeze into a schedule - but don't rush it too much, or you'll miss things."
Happy election day! Don't vote for Whathisname who wants to exterminate the Doctor!
Thanks, Apatt, though I'm not sure "happy" is quite the word. Rest assured, I didn't (nor ever would) vote for UKIP. Polls have just closed, but it could be a while before we know what we've got.
Cecily wrote: "Thanks, Apatt, though I'm not sure "happy" is quite the word. Rest assured, I didn't (nor ever would) vote for UKIP. Polls have just closed, but it could be a while before we know what we've got."
Almost as exciting as the naming of Charlotte Diana Whatshername ;)
Much more exciting - and surprising. Rather like aspects of The Woman in Black!
Cecily wrote: "Much more exciting - and surprising. Rather like aspects of The Woman in Black!"
I heard UKIP performed poorly at the polls because they lost the Whovian votes? I bet next time Nigel will wear a fez and a bowtie when canvassing.
UKIP got lots of votes, but thinly spread (so just one MP, who isn't Farage) - the opposite of the Scottish Nationalists. That's First Past The Post for you.
Ere! How come you reviewed this horror book? where's your review of The Woman in White? What about that woman whose dress is either blue or gold?
Apatt wrote: "Ere! How come you reviewed this horror book?"
I don't read horror-horror, but this is an old-fashioned spine-chiller.
Apatt wrote: "where's your review of The Woman in White?"
It's very old, so very short and shallow: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
(You've even commented on it.)
I've read the book, watched the movie and seen the theatre adaptation! (Didn't buy the t-shirt, though).
A proper good old-fashioned ghost story for Halloween, and one which I thoroughly enjoyed. Albeit a few years ago.
Same couldn't be said for the theatre adaptation; I very nearly burst out laughing at a scary bit that was unintentionally hilarious (as did my wife and several members of the audience).
So, don't see the show, read the book!
Superb review, Cecily!
(I will add this to my 'books read' list now).
USD 8.95 for 178 pages! Now that's horrifying!
Apatt wrote: "USD 8.95 for 178 pages! Now that's horrifying!"
Quality, not quantity. Size isn't everything. Alternatively, can you borrow it from a library or friend? Or, given how short it is, you could be one of these people who visits a bookshop several times a week and leaves their bookmark in a copy they put at the back of the shelf! Not that I'm recommending that, of course.
Kevin wrote: "I've read the book, watched the movie and seen the theatre adaptation!...
I very nearly burst out laughing at a scary bit that was unintentionally hilarious...
Superb review, Cecily!"
I really enjoyed the stage version - twice - and even though I knew the plot, it made me jump, rather than laugh, both times. Yes, it was very "stagey", but it was theatre not cinema, so I rather liked that. Thanks, Kevin.
I have never heard this described as a ghost story written by Jane Austen. Wasn't she a fan of Anne Radcliffe and her over the top imagery and horror props?
I agree with you that the scary part of the book is inside our heads. The seclusion created by Hill's writing was what got me the most.
Great review Cecily, as usual! :)
Amy wrote: "I have never heard this described as a ghost story written by Jane Austen. Wasn't she a fan of Anne Radcliffe..."
I'm not sure where I heard or read that, but it sounded daft at the time, and even more so when I reread this. I'm not a big Austen fan, so am not very aware of who she liked, though I vaguely remember some Gothic tome getting a mention in one of her own novels. Thanks, Amy.
Amy wrote: "I have never heard this described as a ghost story written by Jane Austen. Wasn't she a fan of Anne Radcliffe and her over the top imagery and horror props?
I agree with you that the scary part of..."
In Northanger Abbey, Austen's heroine, Catherine, is an avid reader of Gothic novels (and gets into some trouble when she lets her Gothic-inspired imagination run away with her!). Austen mentions a couple of Ann Radcliffe's novels by name, as well as several other actual Gothic novels of that day, some of which Catherine's friend and fellow Gothic fan assures her are all (deliciously) "horrid." There's some satire here, but it's an affectionate satire, since Austen wasn't above reading and enjoying some of these works herself (though her own writing is quite different; she's a proto-Realist, not a Gothic Romantic.)
Werner wrote: "In Northanger Abbey, Austen's heroine, Catherine, is an avid reader of Gothic novels..."
Ah, yes, that's the one. The baseball-playing Catherine Morland. Thanks, Werner.
Werner wrote: "...she's a proto-Realist, not a Gothic Romantic."
Something to ponder.
Werner wrote: "Amy wrote: "I have never heard this described as a ghost story written by Jane Austen. Wasn't she a fan of Anne Radcliffe and her over the top imagery and horror props?
I agree with you that the s..."
I couldn't remember which Austen book this was mentioned in, so thank you Werner! I read Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho solely because of Austen's enjoyment of it. I found it to be rather long and contrived, unfortunately. I'm sure it was thrilling and a bit scandalous in her time! :)
Amy wrote: "...I read Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho solely because of Austen's enjoyment of it...."
I remember contemplating doing that too. It doesn't sound like a great loss that I didn't.
Werner wrote: "The Mysteries of Udolpho is on my to-read list --but that's a very, very loong list. :-)"
Perhaps one day! :)
Cecily wrote: "Amy wrote: "...I read Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho solely because of Austen's enjoyment of it...."
I remember contemplating doing that too. It doesn't sound like a great loss that I didn't."
It satisfied my curiosity, but I probably wouldn't read another book by Radcliffe.
Werner wrote: "The Mysteries of Udolpho is on my to-read list --but that's a very, very loong list. :-)"
I'll be interested to read your thoughts if it ever does reach the top of the pile.
Amy wrote: "It satisfied my curiosity, but I probably wouldn't read another book by Radcliffe."
Or maybe you needn't bother.
Cecily, thanks for your interest. I do plan to read it someday (my tolerance for old-fashioned diction and long tomes is greater than some people's), but it's apt to be a long wait measured in decades. :-)
Werner wrote: "I do plan to read it someday... but it's apt to be a long wait measured in decades. :-) "
Let's both plan to stick around till then.
;)
Totally agree! Not such a surprising story, but skilfully told, and that's hard to come by :)
Leo wrote: "Totally agree! Not such a surprising story, but skilfully told, and that's hard to come by :)"
Which raises an interesting question: which is harder and rarer: good writing, or a good story?
(It chimes with my current reading of Stephen King's On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft, in which he's just been advising against plotting. Start with a situations, and by describing that, see where it takes you. Sounds strange, but makes more sense in context and I'll elaborate in my eventual review.)
Thanks Cecily, I've always been curious about this story. Did it make up for Stephen King's poorer offering, The Shining?
Alfred wrote: "Thanks Cecily, I've always been curious about this story. Did it make up for Stephen King's poorer offering, The Shining?"
The story isn't very original, but that's (sort of) the point. I think it's really well done. And almost anything is better than The Shining, imo. This, I've read and seen performed several times; The Shining I was too bored to finish even once.
Sounds like perfect reading for rainy November evening . Thanks for that review Cecily since that novel is sitting too long on my shelf. Also I love such atmospheric tales .
Agnieszka wrote: "Sounds like perfect reading for rainy November evening . Thanks for that review Cecily since that novel is sitting too long on my shelf. Also I love such atmospheric tales ."
Yes, it is. And very atmospheric. Thanks, Agnieszka.
I have wanted to read this for a long time, but if it's like "The Turn of the Screw", then maybe not for me. I started that novella many times and had to give up in between.
Nandakishore wrote: "I have wanted to read this for a long time, but if it's like "The Turn of the Screw", then maybe not for me. I started that novella many times and had to give up in between."
Hmm. It's like TotS in terms of atmosphere and genre and length, but the prose is more... "accessible" isn't the right word, but I'm not sure what is. Can you play safe and borrow, rather than buy?
Cecily wrote: "Hmm. It's like TotS in terms of atmosphere and genre and length, but the prose is more... "accessible" isn't the right word, but I'm not sure what is. Can you play safe and borrow, rather than buy?"
I will try the second-hand bookshops in Mumbai here: sometimes you get the books dirt cheap, especially if you bargain.
Oh your review really inspired me, and took a view of the book from another perspective, thank you.
Angel wrote: "Oh your review really inspired me, and took a view of the book from another perspective, thank you."
And thank you for letting me know. That's circularity of opinion, viewpoint, and sharing is what I love about GR.
Do you know if this would be appropriate for a 5th grader? thanks!
back to top
message 1:
by
Christine
(new)
Jul 19, 2012 06:23AM
People said it was like a ghost story written by Jane Austen? Were they reading the same book?
reply
|
flag
That's what I wonder. Or more likely, they've never read Austen.
I haven't read the book myself; but just judging from the features you describe, my guess as to the chronological setting would be about 1950. Steam trains were still in use then, if I understand correctly. In the movie version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, which is set in the early 1940s (not much earlier than 1950), the children are picked up at the train station in a horse-drawn trap. And isn't London pretty much still foggy? :-)
The '50s is probably about right - but only because of the telephones and steam trains. In every other respect, it feels much longer ago, and that slipperiness (which I'm sure is deliberate) can be irritating.As for fog, London has far less of it than places like San Francisco, and the Clean Air Act of the mid '50s got rid of smog.
Cecily wrote: "As for fog, London has far less of it than places like San Francisco, and the Clean Air Act of the mid '50s got rid of the smog."I did not know that; thanks for dispelling that stereotype! That's another factor that might suggest a roughly 1950 date, then, just before the change in the quality of London's air that the Clean Air Act would bring about.
Great review, Cecily. I liked this better than The Turn of the Screw. A great book and the movie wasn't too bad, either.
I wasn't so keen on the film (Daniel Radcliffe in particular), but the stage show is excellent.
Beautiful review, Cecily. Sounds like a great book to read.
Yes, it's quite short, and in many ways, quite an easy read, but there's plenty of depth there too.
I haven't read the book either but Arthur Kippswas the hero in H.G. Well's "Kipps" - how could
the author steal his name!! In "Kipps" he
marries Ann who goes out to work as a maid and
when they marry she has plenty to say about the
design of the house that Kipps wants to build
for her. That is a very famous
book and Jane Austen wasn't involved.
How strange. I wonder if it's a co-incidence or a deliberate homage?
How did this review slip under my radar? Any way this sounds great and I definitely want read it. Cheers! :)
I can't answer your question, but it's quite short, so easy to squeeze into a schedule - but don't rush it too much, or you'll miss things.
Cecily wrote: "I can't answer your question, but it's quite short, so easy to squeeze into a schedule - but don't rush it too much, or you'll miss things."Happy election day! Don't vote for Whathisname who wants to exterminate the Doctor!
Thanks, Apatt, though I'm not sure "happy" is quite the word. Rest assured, I didn't (nor ever would) vote for UKIP. Polls have just closed, but it could be a while before we know what we've got.
Cecily wrote: "Thanks, Apatt, though I'm not sure "happy" is quite the word. Rest assured, I didn't (nor ever would) vote for UKIP. Polls have just closed, but it could be a while before we know what we've got."Almost as exciting as the naming of Charlotte Diana Whatshername ;)
Much more exciting - and surprising. Rather like aspects of The Woman in Black!
Cecily wrote: "Much more exciting - and surprising. Rather like aspects of The Woman in Black!"I heard UKIP performed poorly at the polls because they lost the Whovian votes? I bet next time Nigel will wear a fez and a bowtie when canvassing.
UKIP got lots of votes, but thinly spread (so just one MP, who isn't Farage) - the opposite of the Scottish Nationalists. That's First Past The Post for you.
Ere! How come you reviewed this horror book? where's your review of The Woman in White? What about that woman whose dress is either blue or gold?
Apatt wrote: "Ere! How come you reviewed this horror book?"I don't read horror-horror, but this is an old-fashioned spine-chiller.
Apatt wrote: "where's your review of The Woman in White?"
It's very old, so very short and shallow: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
(You've even commented on it.)
I've read the book, watched the movie and seen the theatre adaptation! (Didn't buy the t-shirt, though).A proper good old-fashioned ghost story for Halloween, and one which I thoroughly enjoyed. Albeit a few years ago.
Same couldn't be said for the theatre adaptation; I very nearly burst out laughing at a scary bit that was unintentionally hilarious (as did my wife and several members of the audience).
So, don't see the show, read the book!
Superb review, Cecily!
(I will add this to my 'books read' list now).
USD 8.95 for 178 pages! Now that's horrifying!
Apatt wrote: "USD 8.95 for 178 pages! Now that's horrifying!"Quality, not quantity. Size isn't everything. Alternatively, can you borrow it from a library or friend? Or, given how short it is, you could be one of these people who visits a bookshop several times a week and leaves their bookmark in a copy they put at the back of the shelf! Not that I'm recommending that, of course.
Kevin wrote: "I've read the book, watched the movie and seen the theatre adaptation!...I very nearly burst out laughing at a scary bit that was unintentionally hilarious...
Superb review, Cecily!"
I really enjoyed the stage version - twice - and even though I knew the plot, it made me jump, rather than laugh, both times. Yes, it was very "stagey", but it was theatre not cinema, so I rather liked that. Thanks, Kevin.
I have never heard this described as a ghost story written by Jane Austen. Wasn't she a fan of Anne Radcliffe and her over the top imagery and horror props? I agree with you that the scary part of the book is inside our heads. The seclusion created by Hill's writing was what got me the most.
Great review Cecily, as usual! :)
Amy wrote: "I have never heard this described as a ghost story written by Jane Austen. Wasn't she a fan of Anne Radcliffe..."I'm not sure where I heard or read that, but it sounded daft at the time, and even more so when I reread this. I'm not a big Austen fan, so am not very aware of who she liked, though I vaguely remember some Gothic tome getting a mention in one of her own novels. Thanks, Amy.
Amy wrote: "I have never heard this described as a ghost story written by Jane Austen. Wasn't she a fan of Anne Radcliffe and her over the top imagery and horror props? I agree with you that the scary part of..."
In Northanger Abbey, Austen's heroine, Catherine, is an avid reader of Gothic novels (and gets into some trouble when she lets her Gothic-inspired imagination run away with her!). Austen mentions a couple of Ann Radcliffe's novels by name, as well as several other actual Gothic novels of that day, some of which Catherine's friend and fellow Gothic fan assures her are all (deliciously) "horrid." There's some satire here, but it's an affectionate satire, since Austen wasn't above reading and enjoying some of these works herself (though her own writing is quite different; she's a proto-Realist, not a Gothic Romantic.)
Werner wrote: "In Northanger Abbey, Austen's heroine, Catherine, is an avid reader of Gothic novels..."Ah, yes, that's the one. The baseball-playing Catherine Morland. Thanks, Werner.
Werner wrote: "...she's a proto-Realist, not a Gothic Romantic."
Something to ponder.
Werner wrote: "Amy wrote: "I have never heard this described as a ghost story written by Jane Austen. Wasn't she a fan of Anne Radcliffe and her over the top imagery and horror props? I agree with you that the s..."
I couldn't remember which Austen book this was mentioned in, so thank you Werner! I read Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho solely because of Austen's enjoyment of it. I found it to be rather long and contrived, unfortunately. I'm sure it was thrilling and a bit scandalous in her time! :)
Amy wrote: "...I read Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho solely because of Austen's enjoyment of it...."I remember contemplating doing that too. It doesn't sound like a great loss that I didn't.
Werner wrote: "The Mysteries of Udolpho is on my to-read list --but that's a very, very loong list. :-)"Perhaps one day! :)
Cecily wrote: "Amy wrote: "...I read Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho solely because of Austen's enjoyment of it...."I remember contemplating doing that too. It doesn't sound like a great loss that I didn't."
It satisfied my curiosity, but I probably wouldn't read another book by Radcliffe.
Werner wrote: "The Mysteries of Udolpho is on my to-read list --but that's a very, very loong list. :-)"I'll be interested to read your thoughts if it ever does reach the top of the pile.
Amy wrote: "It satisfied my curiosity, but I probably wouldn't read another book by Radcliffe."
Or maybe you needn't bother.
Cecily, thanks for your interest. I do plan to read it someday (my tolerance for old-fashioned diction and long tomes is greater than some people's), but it's apt to be a long wait measured in decades. :-)
Werner wrote: "I do plan to read it someday... but it's apt to be a long wait measured in decades. :-) "Let's both plan to stick around till then.
;)
Totally agree! Not such a surprising story, but skilfully told, and that's hard to come by :)
Leo wrote: "Totally agree! Not such a surprising story, but skilfully told, and that's hard to come by :)"Which raises an interesting question: which is harder and rarer: good writing, or a good story?
(It chimes with my current reading of Stephen King's On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft, in which he's just been advising against plotting. Start with a situations, and by describing that, see where it takes you. Sounds strange, but makes more sense in context and I'll elaborate in my eventual review.)
Thanks Cecily, I've always been curious about this story. Did it make up for Stephen King's poorer offering, The Shining?
Alfred wrote: "Thanks Cecily, I've always been curious about this story. Did it make up for Stephen King's poorer offering, The Shining?"The story isn't very original, but that's (sort of) the point. I think it's really well done. And almost anything is better than The Shining, imo. This, I've read and seen performed several times; The Shining I was too bored to finish even once.
Sounds like perfect reading for rainy November evening . Thanks for that review Cecily since that novel is sitting too long on my shelf. Also I love such atmospheric tales .
Agnieszka wrote: "Sounds like perfect reading for rainy November evening . Thanks for that review Cecily since that novel is sitting too long on my shelf. Also I love such atmospheric tales ."Yes, it is. And very atmospheric. Thanks, Agnieszka.
I have wanted to read this for a long time, but if it's like "The Turn of the Screw", then maybe not for me. I started that novella many times and had to give up in between.
Nandakishore wrote: "I have wanted to read this for a long time, but if it's like "The Turn of the Screw", then maybe not for me. I started that novella many times and had to give up in between."Hmm. It's like TotS in terms of atmosphere and genre and length, but the prose is more... "accessible" isn't the right word, but I'm not sure what is. Can you play safe and borrow, rather than buy?
Cecily wrote: "Hmm. It's like TotS in terms of atmosphere and genre and length, but the prose is more... "accessible" isn't the right word, but I'm not sure what is. Can you play safe and borrow, rather than buy?"I will try the second-hand bookshops in Mumbai here: sometimes you get the books dirt cheap, especially if you bargain.
Oh your review really inspired me, and took a view of the book from another perspective, thank you.
Angel wrote: "Oh your review really inspired me, and took a view of the book from another perspective, thank you."And thank you for letting me know. That's circularity of opinion, viewpoint, and sharing is what I love about GR.
Do you know if this would be appropriate for a 5th grader? thanks!
