Could somebody please help me understand?

[Brooklyn]

If this was directed at myself and another commenter, we were discussing another author's mistakes, not Jackson's.

[Feliks]

Oh-- I'm sorry. My typed-in phrasing sometimes comes out harsh-sounding or with a menacing undertone. I may be irked at something quite unrelated --like a flapping shutter on my window--but it seeps into a random text comment. Pardon me.

[Greg]

The original movie (The Haunting 1963 with Julie Harris and Claire Bloom) gave me nightmares when I was a child. It was a movie made with almost no special effects but was a scary movie. I saw the 1999 remake and was disappointed. It relied so heavily on special effects that it was just another mediocre attempt at horror. Now, 50 years after seeing the movie, I have brought myself to read the book. I liked it but was not as moved by it as I thought I would be.

[Glenn]

Greg wrote: "The original movie (The Haunting 1963 with Julie Harris and Claire Bloom) gave me nightmares when I was a child. It was a movie made with almost no special effects but was a scary movie. I saw the ..."

Greg, it is like this: Shirley Jackson wrote a metaphysical horror story, from the haunted, jacked-out core of her unique (and her transcendantally appealing!) feminine being. You will come cross folks like me, men like me- whose mother studied under Dr Rhine at Duke in the late 40's- who embrace the ice-cold depth of woman's fear.
And that is it.

[Sud666]

Glenn wrote: "Justine wrote: "Glenn wrote: "Justine wrote: "Glenn wrote: "@Maddy: Shirley Jackson's genius went unrecognized in her lifetime, and even today, those who use her methods are in danger of being misu..."

Glenn, I have read the book only once and liked it but did not love it. But I randomly read this thread and your explanation of Elenor being the focal point and that the haunting was in fact poltergeist activity was fascinating. Thank you for a very interesting insight. I shall re-read the book and see if that is what I take away from it. Thnaks for a new perspective. Also when everybody references the movie, I assume they mean the original and not the '90's version?

[Glenn]

Sud666 wrote: "Glenn wrote: "Justine wrote: "Glenn wrote: "Justine wrote: "Glenn wrote: "@Maddy: Shirley Jackson's genius went unrecognized in her lifetime, and even today, those who use her methods are in danger..."

Sud666, I'm glad if I've rekindled your interest in this great book. As for the 1963 Robert Wise film: yes, in my opinion, that is the only film based on Jackson's book. I have had lots to say, both here and on other threads of this topic, about the 90's "remake". As stand-alone, it merely (although truly, deeply) sucks, but its claim to be a "version" of the Shirley Jackson masterpiece is blasphemous. That's just my POV. ;)

[SherryRose]

I've only seen the 60s version with Julie Harris. It can't be outdone. It's one of the best atmospheric spooky films ever. The other one is The Innocents based on The Turn of the Screw. Some of the oldies really are the goodies.

[Morgane]

I am so surprised by what I read here. Having just finished it, I was blown away by all the homoerotic subtext, but I seem to have been the only one?

To me, this novel reads as more « in-your-face » gay than Carmilla, which is admittedly about a romance between two... we’ll say women, even though Carmilla is not human.

The main relationship Eleanor has throughout this book is Theo. Theo is most likely living as a lesbian, as the gender of her « friend » is always left out and when Eleanor asks if she’s married, « there was a little silence, and then Theodora laughed quickly and said « no ». »

And Luke is only used by either of the two to make the other jealous. Eleanor doesn’t think very highly of him. She says « he is simply not very interesting », while an array of passionate terms are used to describe Theo, in good and bad: she is « lovely », « close and vital »,

In return, Theo says « you’re sweat and pleasant and everyone likes you very much », calls Nell sweet pet names, says she’s a ray of sunshine.

Then there’s the scene, after their big row (that arises because Theo is mad that Nell is flirty with Luke) where they go out into the night, angry at each other. And then Theo, still jealous, says « you know what a beast he is », and Nell says « I‘m sure it’s nothing to me what he is. As if YOU cared, anyway » (if that’s not despondent, I don’t know what it is). They keep being angry at each other, Theo saying Luke’s bad, Eleanor saying things along the line of “why do you care?”, until this:

« “Theo”, Eleanor said awkwardly, “I’m not good at talking to people and saying things.”
Theodora laughed. “What are you good at?” she demanded. “Running away?”
Nothing irrevocable had yet been spoken, but there was only the barest margin of safety left them; each of them moving delicately along the outskirts of an open question, and, once spoken, such a question as “do you love me?” could never be answered or forgotten. They walked slowly, meditating, [...], walking side by side in the most extreme intimacy of expectation »

After that, they become very close again. After their horror vision in the garden, when Theo is in shock, she reaches for Eleanor, calls out her name and puts her head against her, and Eleanor holds her. Same, when they’re in the Doctor’s room when the banging resumes, Theo wraps Eleanor and herself in the blanket and holds Nell close. Right after the day of the row, Eleanor lies on the bed of flowers and moss, and « there was nothing on her mind beyond an overwhelming wild happiness ».
Afterwards, Nell even says she wants to come live with Theo, and spend her days with her.

The haunting, that is most likely caused by Eleanor, resumes when Theo rejects that idea and Eleanor, and is seen flirting with Luke. Everything goes downhill from there.

Now I’m not saying the whole thing is around Eleanor’s feelings towards Theo only. But if she has feelings for anyone, it’s Theo, not either of the men.

[SherryRose]

Morgane wrote: "I am so surprised by what I read here. Having just finished it, I was blown away by all the homoerotic subtext, but I seem to have been the only one?

To me, this novel reads as more « in-your-fac..."

Yes I also believe she’s gay as well. The book was written at a time where people were afraid to admit it. Facing the fact that she’s attracted to Theo would cause Eleanore to deteriorate given her personality type. She was wound so tight. She was also so sheltered before she met Theo.