The Haunting of Hill House
discussion
Could somebody please help me understand?
Congratulations on finding your way to what is perhaps the #1 novel of the supernatural you can find in American letters.Your questions are not foolish at all.
"Umm, did Luke and Theodora kind of get together there at the end?"
Luke, (the overgrown frat-boy) and Theo (lesbian)--sparred and clawed at each other all through the story. But perhaps they stopped their bickering and developed some form of gentle bond at the end of the tale, since they had both just been through a chastening ordeal in which one of their companions was killed. But I highly doubt they will go on to become intimates.
"And was Eleanor interested in Luke in that way?"
Nooo. Eleanor was a distraught woman with little-to-no romantic experience of any kind; she was a sheltered, uncertain, fumbling woman filled with self-doubt and frightened of her own shadow. She was not sexually adventurous or savvy, what she wanted from everyone was just simple acceptance, tenderness, and esteem. She warmed up a bit under Theo's attentions but eventually, was headed on a downward path away from even that--a path partly woven of her own insecurity and partly fashioned by...you-know-what. Her mental shakiness is what made her both the focal point of the story and the linchpin in the psychic battle the four guests agreed to undertake.
One of the saddest literary characters ever, though.
Feliks wrote: "Congratulations on finding your way to what is perhaps the #1 novel of the supernatural you can find in American letters.Your questions are not foolish at all.
"Umm, did Luke and Theodora kind ..."
Okay, thank you so much for explaining this to me!! I was so confused, but I'm glad that you could help clear that up. :) I was thinking that Eleanor was interested in Luke in the book as she was interested in the doctor in the movie, and that maybe they had just switched that in the movie…
You're welcome. By the way--for me at this point, book and movie are nearly-interchangeable in my memory--so I hope other readers chime in as well. I'll add this, though: of the two men, the doctor (sheltering, protective) offers more distress/attraction to Eleanor than Luke, who is after all just a schoolboy. That's certainly safe to say. It is the doctor's project after all, which gives Eleanor the opportunity to escape her dull life; and she is inordinately grateful to him.
I just finished reading this today (enjoyed it a lot!) and I thought I would add my two cents.I definitely got the impression that Eleanor had some sort of romantic interest in Luke, although it was naïve and pretty insubstantial. When she sees or thinks about Luke she often thinks of "Journeys end in lovers meeting," a line from a song in Twelfth Night (which I know nothing about... I wonder if there are any interesting connections.) She has that conversation with him where she seems to be trying to make a romantic connection (thinking, "I am learning the pathways of the heart,") but she's disappointed in his answers and Theo teases her about it. You could say Eleanor wasn't interested in Luke specifically but just the idea of being in love with anyone.
Luke and Theo's relationship is a lot more ambiguous. Eleanor is jealous of the attention Luke pays to Theo, and she might have thought they were interested in each other. But if I had to guess, I would say there probably wasn't anything going on there.
None of the romantic interests in the narrative are fully-fledged, mature, or realistic. They are all stunted and adumbrated. Because Eleanor is so sheltered and inexperienced, her mind magnifies everything and distorts everything. Its one of the saddest aspects of the book. But if you notice, every element of the characters is mirrored by every element of the horrible, despondent house itself. The 'haunting' is all about repressed persona, stilted relationships--all about wanting contact one cannot have. That's what makes it the best supernatural story ever.
@Maddy: Shirley Jackson's genius went unrecognized in her lifetime, and even today, those who use her methods are in danger of being misunderstood. A subterficial viewpoint is easily mistaken for third-person, omniscient, when really it's anything but. The story is told purely from Eleanor's perspective. We can be sure that she perceives things so; we have no other assurance.In regards to Luke or Theo, we are told what she believes they think and feel about her. The only solid clues are at the beginning and the end: "those who walk there, walk alone."
The combination of medium/spiritualist with mental instability is a superb invention for fallible narrator.
The Haunting of Hill House is a model of the genre.
It's been a couple decades since I read it, but I clearly remember a scene where Dr. Montague is lecturing everybody about the true nature of the paranormal. (He seems to be persuaded, it's observor-end event; it is an observor-dependent phenomenon, which- if anyone is listening- will ultimately suggest that there are no ghosts. Eleanor herself is the haunting.) Concurrent with the Doctor's lecture, Eleanor is concerned about whether she's wearing appropriate shoes. She feels this is pivotally important. The Doctor makes his closing point and Eleanor replies to him, "I have red shoes on my feet." For her, this is a perfectly logical and apropos assessment of "where she is", regarding her acceptance of the house and its affect on her. We are not told how others react to this seemingly bizarre and irrelevent comment: like most people with associative disorder, Eleanor does not know. She does not "read faces", nor interpret tones of voice, nor follow the thread of another person's viewpoint. Eleanor is a deeply sympathetic character; Julie Harris portrayed her splendidly. But on a wild ride like this, it is very disconcerting that a "crazy woman" is our only pilot through the storm. Jackson drives the premise to the floor, then into a tree: all we ever had was empty halls, locked doors and silence. "The Haunting of Hill House" remains the perfect form of the ghost novel. Everything before or since is lightweight, by comparison.
I believe there are Three Rules of supernatural horror: (1: Never show the monster. (2: Never be funny. One good laugh completely neutralizes apprehension. It's very difficult for a horror writer, not to release his/her own tension through a giggle here or there. Jackson herself succumbed: there are a couple lines in "Haunting" which, through the most subtle nuance of context and timing, are hysterically funny. (3: As Edgar Allen Poe implied, the protagonist must be sympathetic (no one cares what happens to some shmoe) and she absolutely must be female. Right or wrong, we feel in our hearts that a man can and should be able to take care of himself and if the gollywoggles get him, well then he wasn't that much of a man. A woman or a girl in danger triggers deeper empathy, concern about her fate and if it's ill then, as Poe stated, there is nothing quite so tragic. Shirley Jackson understood these "three rules" like no writer before her, nor since.
Maddy wrote: "So I loved this book when I read it recently. It was such a classic, and I can't believe it isn't more popular. I saw the movie first, then learned there was a book, rushed out to buy it, and ended..."A lot of stuff in this book is implied, rather than explicitly stated. A lot remains open to the reader's interpretation. That being said, I don't think Theodora and Luke really got together.
I think Eleanor had a crush on Luke, but it wasn't a serious crush at all. I think it had more to do with the fact that she wasn't used to being around guys, and he was a guy, so she was sort of curious. She had a lot of fantasies built up about romance and finding a guy, but that was mostly in her head.
It seems possible that Theodora was a lesbian or bisexual, but that's not clearly stated, and remains ambiguous.
But the main difficulty is that we see the events only through Eleanor's head, and Eleanor herself really doesn't understand what's going on.
If you liked this book you should check out _We Have Always Lived in the Castle_. I absolutely LOVE this book (it's my favourite book to read and teach) and my students will always have an emotional reaction to it. That's Jackson's true talent, even a group of teenagers who "hate" reading will get riled up at her characters and plots!
I've added glowing reviews for both titles here on Goodreads; but in all fairness these works don't achieve 100% success with all readers. There's plenty of folks --for each book--who come away wondering what all the fuss is about. I'm not one of them--I must say I was startled to see any negative criticism of Jackson--nevertheless I think we should at least recognize and respect those opinions.
Glenn wrote: "I believe there are Three Rules of supernatural horror: (1: Never show the monster. (2: Never be funny. One good laugh completely neutralizes apprehension. It's very difficult for a horror writer, ..."I like the rules, 1 and 3 are absolute truths! But 2 is questionable. Really good horror (and drama for that matter) are often increased by the addition of humour. The allusion of lightening a mood, or adding in breathing space allows the horror to come across as darker and more intense. Dark needs light sort of thing. I think there were some points of comedy in Jackson's work, or at least "breathable moments."
Rule #1 is broken frequently in many good horror movies however.Rule #3 is not absolute either (I would tentatively suggest) for we do have antiheroes all throughout genre literature --and, monsters we root for--and there are even some characters who flipflop--starting out as likable and winding up as a monster or 'other'.
Annemarie wrote: "Glenn wrote: "I believe there are Three Rules of supernatural horror: (1: Never show the monster. (2: Never be funny. One good laugh completely neutralizes apprehension. It's very difficult for a h..."I hear what you're saying. Since "horror" is actually quite a broad category, that may be true of certain works. But I still feel that "The Haunting of Hill House" evokes a certain, profound emotional response that one of my old professors called, "numinous dread". It is a certain apprehension that at any given moment, the sane and rational cosmos we trustingly inhabit will be pulled out from under our feet. (HP Lovecraft was, ham-handedly, a sort of brute-force master of this effect.) Yes, there are two lines in "The Haunting" that are hysterical. One is where Dr. Montague is lecturing on the non-conscious nature of the phenomenon: it induces chills at a certain location, speaks through walls of the children's bedroom, pounds on all the doors and then leaves writing on the wall and it will do this over and over again, whether anyone is in the house or not. There is a tense silence and then Theo says, "But that seems simply stupid." That's a belly laugh in context. Then, for several pages, Hill House isn't really all that scary anymore. That's just how it hits me.
Feliks wrote: "Rule #1 is broken frequently in many good horror movies however.Rule #3 is not absolute either (I would tentatively suggest) for we do have antiheroes all throughout genre literature --and, monst..."
Well, again, "horror" is sufficiently broad that we may not be alluding to exactly the same thing. Bram Stoker's "Dracula" evoked a historical figure whom some in Eastern Europe view as Christian saint and hero; there is that formidable mystique of the "Jedi knight" who goes over to the Dark Side. "Dracula" is universally considered "horror"; I find it moody, atmospheric, moving, even haunting but it never raised a hair on my scalp, per se. There is another writer with whom I've had some personal corespondance; I'd like to feel I still have enough class to refrain from dropping her name. But her first "Vampire" novel was, in my view, an exquisitely Poe-esque work of romantic melancholy- and, again, about as scary per se as.... most of the "horror" novels out there.
Not to go off-topic, but since I've mentioned Lovecraft: regarding "Rule #1": Lovecraft showed his monsters like the Diva sings Walkure. Amidst torrents of archaic and emotive adjectives, he conveys the scrotum-tingling, illogical evolutions of tentacles and tendrils, broken beak and shell, soft membrane of a 4-space being, passing through our 3-space cosmos. But towards the end of his life, in a letter to Frank Belknap Long, he said something to the effect, "I acknowledge that Cthulhu was an infantile invention. I wish now I'd never shown him, and I really rather wish to never speak or hear of him again."
I, too, love both the book and the movie. I'll never forget the first time I saw the film: it scared the crap out of me and I've always held it up as my touchstone for eerie movies. I saw the movie first, then found the book. It's been years since I read it, though, and it would be worth a reread.I don't have anything to add to this very erudite discussion. Just wanted to add my name to the list of fans of the story...
Glenn wrote: "Well, again, "horror" is sufficiently broad that we may not be alluding to exactly the same thing. ..."True, we may not be talking about the same thing.
Glenn wrote: "But towards the end of his life, in a letter to Frank Belknap Long, he said something to the effect, "I acknowledge that Cthulhu was an infantile invention. I wish now I'd never shown him, and I really rather wish to never speak or hear of him again." ..."
I wonder though, whether HPL was specifically replying (with these words) in direct response to the 'rule' you are postulating. After all, he showed other creatures (to the viewer) in other stories. It was a habit of more than just his Cthulhu writing.
I appreciate your avidity for the genre and the thoughtfulness you are putting in your replies.
Feliks wrote: "Glenn wrote: "Well, again, "horror" is sufficiently broad that we may not be alluding to exactly the same thing. ..."True, we may not be talking about the same thing.
Glenn wrote: "But towards t..."
Why, thank you, Feliks. And your point engenders thought. I used to own the complete Arkham House editions, and the quote is from somewhere in Vol. III of his letters. The context was, indeed, peculiar. He was contemplating a "Phase III": using the nostalgic melancholy of the Dreamlands to induce, not bliss and wonder, but pure fear. Using beauty as a weapon; using the innermost sadness of our hearts, against us. It would have been a sort of Horror atom bomb. Perhaps that's why he died so young: God said "Okay, you're done", and the Herd at the Gate rushed to receive him. But, who knows.
Glenn wrote: "Glenn wrote: "Feliks wrote: "Rule #1 is broken frequently in many good horror movies however.Rule #3 is not absolute either (I would tentatively suggest) for we do have antiheroes all throughout ..."
Thanks, Glenn! I truly appreciate the inclusion, and got a good laugh from your reply...
Annette wrote: "I, too, love both the book and the movie. I'll never forget the first time I saw the film: it scared the crap out of me and I've always held it up as my touchstone for eerie movies. I saw the mov..."Annette, thirty years after last reading the book, I was in a fit of melancholy, and sought to divert myself by reading it again. I thought, it just might still be good for a stimulating tingle. I re-read it at a sitting, finished near to dawn, and thought, Well that was really quite as good as I remembered. But scary, per se? -Oh of course not; I was a middle-aged man, and such effects just work on children. Then I happened to look in a mirror. My face was ash-white, my hair stood straight on end, and my pupils were the size of nickels.
And please my dear, don't ever feel you've nothing to contribute. The simplest insights often are the truest and the best.
Annemarie wrote: "If you liked this book you should check out _We Have Always Lived in the Castle_. I absolutely LOVE this book (it's my favourite book to read and teach) and my students will always have an emotiona..."This is definitely a book to be discussed. I am so glad your teens like it.
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 misunderstood. A subterficial viewpoint is easily mistaken for t..."Not to jump in way after a conversation but ... If you remember the first chapter of the story, it's actually told from several perspectives: the doctor's, then Eleanor's, then Theo, then settling back on Eleanor. I don't remember exactly, but I don't believe they ever gave Luke his chance to add his two cents with a POV segment. That's what threw me off a little at the beginning. I thought it would bounce around to different POVs but then it just settled back on Eleanor, which isn't bad, but makes you wonder why bother with the other POVs in the beginning.
Annemarie wrote: "If you liked this book you should check out _We Have Always Lived in the Castle_. I absolutely LOVE this book (it's my favourite book to read and teach) and my students will always have an emotiona..."I second that! We Have Always Lived in the Castle is brilliant and one of my all time favorite books of hers!
Sarah wrote: "Annemarie wrote: "If you liked this book you should check out _We Have Always Lived in the Castle_. I absolutely LOVE this book (it's my favourite book to read and teach) and my students will alway..."Happy to meet others that just LOVE this author!
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 misunderstood. A subterficial viewpoint is easily ..."I think Jackson wished to make it clear, the bug was up Eleanor's butt, and not a simple rookie error in her writing. You would be astonished, how quickly even "professional reviewers" will jump all over subterficial perspective- critiquing things like grammar and punctuation, as though they were failed wanna-be middle-school English teachers.
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 misunderstood. A subterficial view..."Spoilers
You've got a point about Eleanor.
I truly never understood that it was only Eleanor.I just read this book a couple of weeks ago, and I'm still letting it settle. I'm sorry if this sounds like a dumb question, but if it was only Eleanor, then why did everyone experience the weird hallucinations(?) and door knocking?
Again, I'm sorry for the mediocre question ... I just never really knew what was actually going on and what was imagined... and I haven't deciphered it yet.
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 misunderstood. A sub..."Please, no apology is needed. It is a disturbing, confusing narrative- which Jackson quite intended- concealed behind Eleanor's childlike and solipsistic perspective.
Though even the 1963 Robert Wise movie slipped on this banana peel- with Luke solemnly intoning that the house "really is haunted"- I daresay the consensus is that it was not.
My mother studied under Dr JB Rhine at Duke. (Imagine a roomful of young students, hearing the word "parapsychology" as a newly-coined term). After letting me, aged nine or ten, watch the film alone (you call that, Old School parenting), she gave me a sort of primer in Parapsychology 101.
"The Haunting" is actually not one. The phenomena are actually consistent with a poltergeist. A poltergeist emanates from a living individual- most often, from an adolescent girl, which emotionally challenged Eleanor affects as being. In the beginning, Dr. Montague contacts Eleanor Vance because of her childhood experience of stones raining down on the roof (a poltergeist event). Eleanor becomes hysterical (in the more literal sense of the word) when Theo accuses her of writing on the wall herself. At the movie's end, she voices over "We who walk here, walk alone." Put it all together: Eleanor is haunting her own life. She is the ghost. So far as all these paranormal things really occurred, we are meant to finally understand that she (and not an "entity" extant within the house) is the unconscious perpetrator.
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..."Hm ... thanks Glenn! This definitely adds another layer of genius to the novel. And I'm definitely going to have to watch the movie!
Elsewhere in this thread, the topic of "Never show the monster" was discussed. If the monster is a haunting, ghost or spirit, I'd extend that special case to, Don't EXPLAIN the monster. A certain famous author (his name rhymes with "even bring") has a dastardly habit of doing that: having, say, a ghostly butler discuss the administrative goals and structure of the House's Spirits, Inc. This suggests a rational and rulebound entity to whom you could, perhaps, dispatch an e-mail in complaint. An example of much better treatment is William Peter Blatty's "The Exorcist": the demon might be named Pazuzu; it might be associated with locust infestations; there might be a weird statue of it, somewhere in Iraq. But what it is doing in Georgetown, and why it likes little girls, and why this one, etc etc is left pretty much in shadow or, connections are provided which seem frighteningly trivial (be careful of handling odd knick-knacks of unknown origin, etc.) For me, the PERFECT example would be Shirley Jackson's "Haunting": its non-events, self-contradictions are at least (but are no more than) quite internally consistent.
Maddy wrote: "So I loved this book when I read it recently. It was such a classic, and I can't believe it isn't more popular. I saw the movie first, then learned there was a book, rushed out to buy it, and ended..."Please see the version made by Robert Wise in 1963 it is far superior than the 1999 version and is truer to the book. I saw this film as a midnight movie in the late sixties and it terrified me (in a good way)
Keith wrote: "Maddy wrote: "So I loved this book when I read it recently. It was such a classic, and I can't believe it isn't more popular. I saw the movie first, then learned there was a book, rushed out to buy..."Er, um, about that 1999 "version".... on the discussion "Should I Read It?", I expressed my admittedly histrionic opinion of that "movie". No, Maddy: do not watch the 1999 film titled "The Haunting". Avoid watching any part of any trailer of that film. If you are accidentally exposed to any part of it, promptly wash your eyes and ears out thoroughly with saline solution. (Disclaimer: I am not a physician and am only expressing my emotion, and am not dispensing medical advice.)
Glenn wrote: "Elsewhere in this thread (or in another, on this book), the topic of "Never show the monster" was discussed. If the monster is a haunting, ghost or spirit, I'd extend that special case to, Don't EX..."I kinda disagree. I think in many instances showing the monster is awesome. However, very few authors are able to pull it off. And I believe the author you were referrihng to handled it excellent in some works and abysmally in others.
As for The Exorcist, I honestly wanted an explanation as to how Pazuzu got from the middle east to DC and WHY he/it possessed Regan. I LOVE that book but the lack of clarity there always bugged me.
I welcome your perspective. This is a case of, chacun a son gout ("to each his own taste").
Agreed. And... what language is that?
Brooklyn wrote: "Glenn wrote: "Elsewhere in this thread (or in another, on this book), the topic of "Never show the monster" was discussed. If the monster is a haunting, ghost or spirit, I'd extend that special cas..."RE Certain Author: "The Stand" was a whole mega-page intimate character study of a monster. It impacted me profoundly, due to a long-term real-life association with an individual who very, very closely matched the description. (Public figure; I won't name him: I definitely DO NOT wish to hear from him again.) I know exactly how he looks, how he talks, his gestures, facial expressions, all, and trust me: the more you get to know this guy, the scarier he gets. But towards the end, as Flagg is weakening, he shows his human, vulnerable, introspective side and here, I felt SK completely blew it. When Flagg's demonic charisma wore off: King should have SHOWN A MONSTER. (The momentary revelation, to the Trash Can Man I think, of a contorted Randy Flagg with ram's horns, etc, was a tap where more a sledgehammer was needed.) Something like the formerly-human fungus in the SK movie "Creepshow". Just my personal opinion.
Oh I agree with Flagg. And his ending in the DT made it worse. The Library Policeman, Atropos in Insomnia, and that demon that possessed the autistic kid in THE REGULATORS were brilliantly handled. IT and Christine were great right up until the very end.
Brooklyn wrote: "Agreed. And... what language is that?"Oh. Forgive me. That was French.
Love it. I shall have to use it sometime. :)
Brooklyn wrote: "Oh I agree with Flagg. And his ending in the DT made it worse. The Library Policeman, Atropos in Insomnia, and that demon that possessed the autistic kid in THE REGULATORS were brilliantly handled...."OMG. Come with me, thon. I'm a poleethman.
Nowadays, perhaps, that would be considered an offensive stereotype.
But for creepy, it went straight up off the graph.
Brooklyn wrote: "Love it. I shall have to use it sometime. :)"Chay' saw nah saw ngoo' ;)
Sterotype? I thought it was a creepy homeless guy with a speech impediment. It's been awhile since I read it. Was the guy ethnic? I might have missed that.On another note, I think The Library Policeman would make a terrifying film.
Brooklyn wrote: "Sterotype? I thought it was a creepy homeless guy with a speech impediment. It's been awhile since I read it. Was the guy ethnic? I might have missed that.On another note, I think The Library Pol..."
Well, perhaps I shouldn't have gone there, as I try my best to steer clear of all politics/religion on this site. I meant, the lisp. Some people might object, Oh so that's how we know he's gay. Please pardon me again, and just regard that comment as a needless indiscretion.
"The Library Policeman", as a film, would be a definite Discretion Is Advised.
Ah, I didn't even see the lisp as an indicator of being gay. I thought it was just a speech impediment and he was just a pedophile. And oh yeah, the film sould definitely have to be rated R... and maybe they can give the guy a harelip or something to double cement that it's not a gay sterotype. Or hint that he also preyed on girls.And don't worry about coming to that conclusion. I'm sure others might have read it that way too.
Shirley Jacksons book about Hill House has without a doubt must be in the top 3 "haunted house"novels and deserves to be read by anyone remotely interested in the genre. I must admit my own copy is now on its last legs but is still well enough to scrape out one final frightening read.
Do reviewers seriously assume Jackson 'made mistakes' in her writing? Sheesh. Yeah that'll be the day.Jackson is one of two females in my 'top five authors of all time' list. That's a very short list, and an indication of how highly I rate her. Whether you like her style or not, suggesting she ever missed a trick is ludicrous.
Did I read (up above) that someone was confused by the changes-of-POV in the early chapters? Again: intended.
Feliks wrote: "Do reviewers seriously assume Jackson 'made mistakes' in her writing? Sheesh. Yeah that'll be the day.Jackson is one of two females in my 'top five authors of all time' list. That's a very short ..."
The young Justine expressed her honest question most politely, and she sweetly was receptive to my answer.
Don't worry, Feliks. No one is unfairly slighting Jackson on our watch.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Haunting of Hill House (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Turn of the Screw (other topics)The Haunting of Hill House (other topics)
However, I think I might have missed some points in this book… I know, shame on me, I kind of just sped through it....
Umm, did Luke and Theodora kind of get together there at the end?
And was Eleanor interested in Luke in that way?
I feel so dumb, especially for having to ask this on here, but I couldn't find it easily anywhere else on the Internet…
Thanks for anybody who has an answer!!