Horror Aficionados discussion
This topic is about
We Have Always Lived in the Castle
Group Reads
>
February 2014 Group Read: We Have Always Lived in the Castle
Looking forward to this one. Don't have this in print, but I do have the Audible audio book edition of it
I listened to the audio read by Bernadette Dunn. I really, really enjoyed it.
A good choice. It poses a bit of a dilemma, though since, at 160 pages of story, that's just over 5 pages per day. I don't have that kind of self-control. Soooo...We can read it over the first week or so and then have nothing to discuss for the rest of February. Or we take a chance and read it at the end of February and hope that no one posts any blatant spoilers. Decisions, decisions.
I remember when reading used to be fun. :-)
I don't know why I've always been reluctant to read this one...but I'm going to give it a try. Besides, it's one of the books on the Horror's Best Books Reading Challenge list!
This is one of my favorite "horror" books, and IMO it's better than The Haunting of Hill House, but in a different way.
Good pick, I enjoyed reading that book.
Have not read it, but I am looking forward to reading it a lot! (After all, I recommended it! And it won! :D ) To save myself from spoilers, will come here to discuss after starting(and probably finishing in one go :p) the book... Happy reading, fellow horror aficionados! ^__^
Mike wrote: "A good choice. It poses a bit of a dilemma, though since, at 160 pages of story, that's just over 5 pages per day. I don't have that kind of self-control. Soooo...
We can read it over the first week or so and then have nothing to discuss for the rest of February. Or we take a chance and read it at the end of February and hope that no one posts any blatant spoilers. Decisions, decisions."
I was wondering about this, actually. This is my first time doing a group read so I don't know how the pacing/discussion aspect actually works? At any rate, I won't be picking up my copy from the library until the third.
We can read it over the first week or so and then have nothing to discuss for the rest of February. Or we take a chance and read it at the end of February and hope that no one posts any blatant spoilers. Decisions, decisions."
I was wondering about this, actually. This is my first time doing a group read so I don't know how the pacing/discussion aspect actually works? At any rate, I won't be picking up my copy from the library until the third.
Just ordered my cheap paperback copy! This one counts for two of my challenges!
I have been wanting to read this one for a while...good choice!
Mod
This may be my first group read. Are reading expectations posted or more of a free-read atmosphere. Any advice appreciated.
Carrie wrote: "This may be my first group read. Are reading expectations posted or more of a free-read atmosphere. Any advice appreciated."Read at your own pace and any specific comments/discussion need to be tagged as spoiler so as not to ruin the story for others.
This looks like a great choice.
Wow I just finished the first chapter. Im a big city girl and I can't imagine living my life under such scrutiny and judgement of a small village. I'm feeling a wee bit suffocated. Good choice!
Finished it in one setting yesterday. Disturbing, strange, sinister. I was overwhelmed by the bullying and death threats. I don't know what was worse. This just has to be the Most Dysfunctional family. So this is American Goth.
Finished this last night and really enjoyed the story. Unfortunately, I realized too late that the introduction to the book contained spoilers. I'd probably have like it more if I hadn't known certain things.
Dizzybea wrote: "[...] Unfortunately, I realized too late that the introduction to the book contained spoilers. I'd probably have like it more if I hadn't known certain things."
Oh no! Thanks for letting the rest of us know. I usually don't read introductions until after I read the book, unless they're written by the author, to avoid that very thing.
Oh no! Thanks for letting the rest of us know. I usually don't read introductions until after I read the book, unless they're written by the author, to avoid that very thing.
I read it when I was a kid and enjoyed it very much, but I certainly wouldn't call it a horror novel.
I have this one in an American Library edition of Jackson's best fiction (would like to see a second volume of her other work). Read it quite a while back, will be interesting to see how much I remember of it second time around.
I'd agree, Harvey. I've just finished it and, while I'd admit that it left me feeling uneasy, even a little horrified, I wouldn't call it a horror story.Fantastic writing that really got inside my head but not scary.
Can't horror be so many different things? Feelings of dread, uneasiness, etc. Of course, many believe horror to be Lovecraft, Poe, etc... but, in the 60's (correct me if I am wrong), there were not a plethora of 'horror' books (as we know them today) being written. I'm not sure about discounting Jackson's contribution to the genre based on our standards today. I think the 60's was definitely sparse in the genre.
Aric, where does the oozing boundary between mainstream and horror lie, though?There are many mainstream novels that contain unsettling elements, elements of terror or horror, possibly even some overt supernatural elements, but which wouldn't be called 'horror stories'. Obvious examples include The Witches of Eastwick, Heart of Darkness, A Christmas Carol.
I'll happily read most of those novels, perhaps I'm even drawn by the elements of the supernatural or other horror, but I wuldn't consider most of them to be 'horror' novels.
It's hard to create a cast-iron definition of horror without resorting to 'I know it when I see it' positions.
I suppose it's all a big venn diagram with the different genres overlapping left, right and centre. I tend towards the centre of the core horror circle.
Mike wrote: "Aric, where does the oozing boundary between mainstream and horror lie, though?"
I'm still reading We Have Always Lived in the Castle so I can't contribute to the discussion about that book in particular (yet), but I think that one way to make the distinction between a horror novel and a novel that merely has horror elements is "Does the horror element turn the plot?"
I'm still reading We Have Always Lived in the Castle so I can't contribute to the discussion about that book in particular (yet), but I think that one way to make the distinction between a horror novel and a novel that merely has horror elements is "Does the horror element turn the plot?"
I have a feeling this will be on the oozing boundary Mike in terms of horror, and I still haven't received my copy yet... so I can't comment on content. I tend towards the center of the core horror circle as well. (Though the film I did (Yellow Wallpaper) is probably considered on the edge of horror ~ who happened to star Veronica from Witches of Eastwick...ha ha.. wrote that because you brought up the movie. :) Meranda~ does the horror element turn the plot? I agree with your statement, if it does turn the plot, it is most definitely horror. It will be interesting to see if 'I Have Always Lived in the Castle' applies.
Looks fun!! Gonna give it a go!!
You are correct Mike. Upon finishing the novel, this is not a horror book. Perhaps a mystery, or maybe suspense/thriller, but not horror.
I think it's horrific. Perhaps not in the way we are used to looking at horror now, but definitely horrific. Then again I am fond of older horror stories,(and I know you are too), especially tightly woven psychological ones. So, maybe it's just me. :)
Yes, I am all for peripheral horror...might I bring up, "Picnic at Hanging Rock" (even though it is a film). But to me, this seemed like simply a different rendition of 'The Lottery', just told in a different way. But the story is horrific for sure. But would you categorize it as a 'horror' novel?
The question of genre: I've seen We Have Always Lived in the Castle called psychological horror, and it was reviewed as part of a book of horror stories (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?7...). It seemed to me to have many characteristics of a "gothic."
I did like the book. I have some questions for discussion that I'll post when I have more time.
I did like the book. I have some questions for discussion that I'll post when I have more time.
Meranda, At first sight, I'd have agreed. 'Gothic' is the word. However, I note that wiki shows Gothic fiction also being referred to as Gothic horror so that definition also has a sort of circular feel to it. Is WHALITC gothic in feel but not by definition, perhaps?
Aric wrote: "Yes, I am all for peripheral horror...might I bring up, "Picnic at Hanging Rock" (even though it is a film). But to me, this seemed like simply a different rendition of 'The Lottery', just told in ..."I actually would classify it as a horror novel. I'm not sure it fits easily into any category, but that's the one that comes the closest, IMHO.
(view spoiler)
Interesting read but in the end not all that satisying as a narrative too many things didn't make sense.
Deborah, that could be one of the things Wayne is talking about when he said some things didn't make sense.
Yes it was and the lack of hostility at times also surprised me.
I will probably start reading it tonight at midnight Mwa ha ha.
There was a part that confused me - (view spoiler)I probably missed something - sometimes when I get into a book I skim a little bit.
A couple of chapters in so far, I must admit Ive no clue where the story is going to take me, it's different from any book I've read when my horror has been limited to king and koontz.
Why is that when a young girl narrator introduces herself by name in a novel's first sentence, it has the effect of being so haunting?Am I the only one who feels this way?
Alice Sebold begins Lovely Bones like that, but then again the narrator also tells us right away that she's dead. Maybe even more haunting, though, is Marilynne Robinson's Housekeeping, which isn't even a horror novel--but one of the more haunting books I've read, nonetheless.
Does anyone know if Shirley Jackson was the first to open a novel this way? (Other than Melville in Moby Dick, which is totally different, I think.)
Aric wrote: "But to me, this seemed like simply a different rendition of 'The Lottery', just told in a different way. "I'm really curious about how you think this parallels The Lottery.
Bailey wrote: "Aric wrote: "But to me, this seemed like simply a different rendition of 'The Lottery', just told in a different way. "I'm really curious about how you think this parallels The Lottery."
Hi Bailey! The culmination of the horror where the townspeople start throwing rocks through the windows of the already burned house (same as 'The Lottery'), and cluster around the two women in a mob mentality struck me as identical to her story. No, the townspeople didn't pick a name out of a lottery, but to me they seemed to have chosen right from the beginning...just without the lottery aspect. I have read all of Jackson's work, and so far her collection of stories 'Come Along with Me' is the best, though many of the stories there are not of the suspense/thriller/mystery element. I still found the book very enjoyable, and the parallel did not ruin the novel for me in any way.
"Aric wrote: "But to me, this seemed like simply a different rendition of 'The Lottery', just told in a different way. "Hey, Aric. Great explanation! Thanks! I think you're totally right. Shirley Jackson really had a thing for mob violence, didn't she?
The thing about The Lottery, though, was that the townspeople were willing to kill anyone just because tradition and superstition said so. From what I remember after reading it last year, I thought the story was kind of a warning against the human capacity to act reflexively and violently in the name of a perceived greater good. Sort of a modern inversion of Abraham and Isaac. (The lesson may be a little, well, obvious, but Shirley Jackson was writing like right after the holocaust, so I guess we can give her a pass on heavy-handedness when it comes to complacency in the face of murderous authority.)
(view spoiler)
Considering the loads of hate mail Shirley Jackson got after publishing The Lottery, and also considering that We Have Always Lived in the Castle takes place in what is ostensibly Bennington, where she lived, I wonder if maybe the story was kind of an exploration of her own personal fears? An agoraphobic's Gothic nightmare? What do you think?
I agree. I do feel the story is an exploration of her fears about society during the 60's. There was a strange sense of homogeneity during this time period, and it would be quite easy to feel out of place in the perfect world that was being carried over from the 50's. Obviously that all blew up by the end of the 60's, and I think Jackson may have been foreseeing the long drawn out 'American Dream' falling apart before it actually did. I definitely think she was 'tapped in', so to speak, which agrees with your point about the characters not falling into a 'traditional' family caricature, and the mob/townspeople reacting in the manner that they did.I like your idea of an agoraphobic's Gothic nightmare, which I had not applied to the story before you brought it up.
Just picked this up today. I've heard its twisted, But it's one of the books on the Horror's Best Books Reading Challenge list so looking forward to it.
Bailey wrote: ""Aric wrote: "But to me, this seemed like simply a different rendition of 'The Lottery', just told in a different way. "Hey, Aric. Great explanation! Thanks! I think you're totally right. Shirley..."
Interesting perspective had looked at it from this angle.
Discuss and enjoy~