Monday, January 25, 2016

Review: The Haunting of Hill House

Is this really the same Shirley Jackson who wrote “The Lottery”? The slowly-building style is there, but where’s all the richness? The symbolism? Maybe I need to give the book another read to find it, and at 246 pages I could probably squeeze that in, but I think I expected more—though the humor and the witty banter lent a charm I wasn’t expecting.

I’ve made it sound like I disliked The Haunting of Hill House, but I didn’t. I loved it. It just wasn’t what I expected. I love Shirley Jackson’s slow-building exposition, setting up the situation and the selection of the cast of characters. On page 6, when Shirley Jackson explains the various reasons others didn't join the group, she says simply of those who did: “The other two came.” 
Maybe it's my imagination, maybe I was already keyed up for a scary story, but I read that line as the action by which they damned themselves. To me, it was too straightforward to be anything but foreboding. And when a little old lady quickly changes her “Damn you” attitude to “I’ll be praying for you,” I have to wonder if the protagonist Eleanor is going to be needing all the divine intervention she can get.

Jackson set up Eleanor’s nothing-to-lose situation through her unhappy relationship with her mother, her bullying sister, and her interest in just about anything—from an empty field, to a secluded cottage near a depressing town—so long as it is away from home. She’s so awkward and sad that standing up to her sister and taking the car counts as her "save the cat" moment.

I don’t know that Shirley Jackson does anything by accident. I wonder if the two sisters, squabbling over the car was intentionally set up to mirror the situation of the two Crain sisters who squabble over Hill House. The latter’s disastrous consequences set up the result for the other, so I needn’t have been surprised when it added badly. Lesson learned from Professor Shirley Jackson: Don’t fight with your sister.

When Theodora is introduced, she brings life and banter and joy to the character set. Eleanor becomes wittier after her arrival, and their cheerfulness is  a welcome change to the stern and foreboding backdrop of the house. But then, Luke’s wit sounds a lot like Theodora’s too, so maybe all of the characters are written with the same voice—Shirley Jackson’s. Nevertheless, I needed those moments of levity between dark scenes of oppressive fear, but I wonder if Jackson relaxed the tension too much in those moments. It seems everyone is safe so long as the sun is up, and not every night is eventful, so at times I think I relaxed too much.

Still, I could learn a thing or two from Jackson’s ability to build an anxiety-filled scene. In the four pages from Eleanor’s arrival in the blue room until the sound of Theodora’s car door, Jackson had me terrified, and I think it’ because Eleanor, too, is terrified by then. After looking out the window she’s “afraid to go back across the room.” But even before that the descriptions are all qualified with negativity—“unbelievably faulty design,” “pressing silence,” and “the sunlight came only palely through.” Still, I’m not sure what exactly is wrong with the room, but I’m afraid every time she’s in it.

At the end of chapter 4, after the first nighttime fright with the banging on doors and trying the knobs, Dr. Montague says, “Doesn’t it begin to seem that the intention is, somehow, to separate us?” That’s a turning point in the book, because at that point we know the house’s game. But it waits. No more overt separations. Instead, it lets them separate themselves when they react to stress and confinement, judging each other's actions, motives, and characters and assuming the worst. The house sets them on a course, but it’s their reactions to paranormal occurrences that drive wedges between them, not some persistent phantom dog. And Eleanor’s attitude toward the spirit of the house turns from fear to acceptance, and she begins to relish being the one who can hear the chattering song—being special in some way—which she is because the house is singling her out, ostensibly because she’s experienced poltergeists before. Speaking of which, isn’t Theodora supposed to be special too? Isn’t she telepathic? Why hasn’t that come up after page 8? Is she a fake?

As for the symbolism I was looking for, should I read more into the oleanders? The “Journeys end in lovers meeting” refrain? Should I try to read more into Dr. Montague’s name—like Romeo, he’s fated to want what’s forbidden? Seems a stretch. Maybe her symbols went over my head this time, but the absence of meaningful symbols and motifs in The Haunting of Hill House makes me think those overly-eager high school lit. teachers may have been reading too much into “The Lottery.” 


9 comments:

  1. Kristin,

    I think you hit the nail on the head with her "anxiety-filled" scenes. Your description of how the Blue Room terrified you was spot on. And although I never ended up being too scared while I read this book (I believe that will change as the semester goes on) I was always tense, and it was enough to keep the pages flying.

    I began to wonder if Jackson was making a statement about mental illness in general? Was she trying to compare paranormal activity to someone who is losing their mind? I'm probably losing my mind trying to find the symbolism....but it was something that popped in my head.

    I enjoyed your review.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kristin, I enjoyed your review, and your quest to find the meaning and symbolism in Jackson's story. I especially liked it when you pointed out the possible symbolism of the two sets of sisters in the book. Good catch! I agree, too, with your assessment of Jackson's ability to create tension and anxiety in her scenes - it's something to shoot for, technique-wise.
    I also took note of the point in the story when they all realize that the house actually tried to separate them in order to terrify them. And then, as you say, they ended up doing the House's work for it by being judgemental and paranoid. Brilliant.
    Gwen Cope

    ReplyDelete
  3. I never really put the parallels between the two sets of sisters together. That was an interesting observation. It does seem quite possible that it was intentional. I wondered about Montague's name as well. It's such a well-known and loaded name that it made me wonder what she intended (if anything) by choosing that name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, my high school teachers went on and on about how much care Shirley Jackson put into names in "The Lottery," and nothing in this book really rang that bell for me. Hmm. Maybe it's a trick she was test-driving at that time. Or maybe they read too much into her stories.

      Delete
  4. Hey Kristin!
    I'm glad you got more out of the book than I did. Well, actually, I don't know, I guess I would rather have got more out of it myself :)

    The book started out good. I didn't know anything about Jackson, or her novels. So to be honest, I had no idea what to expect. When she was fighting with her sister, I thought, "oh, she gonna kill her sister, and then the sister will haunt her." NOPE!

    The when Eleanor was at the diner, I thought there would be something there with the weird way the employee was acting. NOPE! As the story went on, I kept thinking, Maybe--. NOPE! For me, it was a big NOPE! I expected more, I hoped it would spook the heck out of me, sadly it didn't.

    I think at about mid-point in the book, I lost interest. In fairness to the author, I did read the entire novel, but the second half was speed reading. That may be why I think I missed some of the points one would get if they were doing deep reading.

    Oh well, hopefully Hell House will be better. I started it yesterday, so far so good!

    MM

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kristin,

    You made a fabulous point about the "Journey's end in lover's meeting," line. Even though it is repeated throughout the book, I just now (don't judge how slow I am, symbolism generally needs to beat me around the head and neck for me to get it) realized that Eleanor's journey ended when she met the house. THEY are the lovers.

    God, I feel embarrassed admitting that I just got that.

    I also noticed that a lot of themes were set up but never really followed through on... such as the separating of the characters. Even when they did accidentally get separated, nothing horrible happened to them (with the exception of Eleanor at the end). The Dudleys were complete red herrings, as were Mrs. Montague and Arthur.

    I want it to be clear that Ms. Jackson was a wiz with prose, but with this story she let it go flat. I enjoyed the experience of her writing, but not her story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Omigod, I totally missed that. They are the lovers. Huh. Yep, that went over my head. Phew, one question answered, Chad. What're you going to do with the rest of them?

      Delete
  6. Yep, I'm totally with you. I loved "The Lottery," and enjoyed much of the prose and scenes of this story. It just never really seemed to come together for me. I mean, I get the idea that you are going to use a light touch, but it seemed like so little was spelled out that the book was just an exercise in guided imagination. The interactions of the characters, the description of the setting, and the setting of the tone were really well done, but they only worked integrally for me. They never really felt like they tied into a coherent, arcing story.

    If anything, it's good to know that if I'm an art-hating philistine, at least I'm in good company!

    ReplyDelete
  7. *Spoiler alert* The Haunting, 1963

    So. I borrowed the 1963 movie adaptation from the library. Chris Daniels ad already bashed the 1999 version, so I'll spare myself the suffering, but my mom said the 60s version was HER FAVORITE SCARY MOVIE. So I popped my popcorn and curled up in my fleece, ready for a chilling movie.

    Halfway through I began organizing my medical receipts. I needed something else. I was bored.

    In the movie, Eleanor is 100% unlikeable. In the scene with her sister and brother-in-law, the one in which they tel leer she can't take the car--in the book she expresses her intentions, they talk at her, she reiterates her intentions, they talk at her some more, they go away, and in the next scene she's doing what she said she'd do.That showed moxy. It made me like her. In the movie she throws a tantrum and acts like a three-year-old, placing me firmly on team overbearing sister and brother-in-law.

    That playful banter between Theodora and Eleanor doesn't exist in the movie. Eleanor simpers and Theodora condescends, and when they crouched in the corner in fear while the doorknob moved, I rooted for the monster.

    In my mother's defense, she hasn't read the book. Though I suspect I would've still disliked the movie characters, my enjoyment was undermined by already knowing what happens. In "Blurring the Line: How Reality Helps Build Better Fiction" Scott A. Johnson talked about the disappointment of seeing the monster, how it's really only scary when it's an unknown threat. I knew how it was going to turn out; it wasn't scary.

    Still, I'm going to set my mom up with the movie 1408 as soon as possible.

    ReplyDelete