Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Hell House vs. Hill House

Warning: This post may contain spoilers for Richard Matheson’s Hell House.
Two library books sit side by side on my coffee table. Both about haunted mansions left empty for decades and what happens to the groups of strangers who investigate them. Both follow four characters—one scientist, two sensitives, and one average person. Many of the scenes have a strange ring of déjà vu—Matheson’s Florence recoils away from the chapel the same way Jackson’s Eleanor does from the library. The first three words of one title is in a smaller, less-conspicuous font, so at first glance even their titles look the same: Hill House and Hell House. I don’t think Richard Matheson makes any apologies about his novel being a knockoff of Shirley Jackson’s. It may have been his attempt to do it right, since his book avoids many of the problems I had with The Haunting of Hill House. His book, though an improvement in many ways, lacks in some ways that Shirley Jackson’s does not.

For starters, Matheson’s characters are compelling because they’re each well-developed and complex of their own right, and each has a well-defined goal that hinges upon surviving the experience. Florence, a mental medium, wants the payout money—one hundred thousand dollars—for her church. Dr. Barrett wants to prove the legitimacy of his work and his theories. Edith doesn’t want to be separated from her husband, lest she suffer crippling anxiety, the account of which gives us an early warning that she’s dealing with emotional instability. And Fischer (whom I keep wanting to call Luke due to his relatively passive role) wants to unload the emotional baggage that’s plagued him since his first traumatic visit to the house. He says he’s sticking it out for the money, but he really wants to best Emeric Belasco and prove his individual worth. And that focus on his worth—proving himself—his ego—is a set up for his insight to what drives Belasco, and to what will be Belasco’s undoing.

Matheson’s characters ping off each other in a reasonably interesting fashion and everybody possesses likeable qualities, but they don’t enjoy the witty repartee that Shirley Jackson’s characters do. Matheson’s characters experience interesting divisive circumstances, but since they’d never experienced the playful closeness of Jackson’s characters, the relationship arc seems less dramatic.

The clearest difference, though, that I see between these two books is mood. The two authors manage tension in completely different fashions. I complained that Shirley Jackson allowed the tension to dissipate too much—that she actively dismantled it—between scenes. But her scary scenes did the job of invoking fear (except for art-hating Philistines like Michael Ingram.) Jackson uses fear of solitude and fears of the unnatural and the unknown to excellent effect. Matheson, on the other hand, never really allows the reader to let his or her guard downweird stuff could happen at any moment, day or nightbut there aren’t very many fear-invoking scenes. The overall reader feel was one of interest, anxiety and concern, even, but not actually fear. Either I’m becoming very rapidly inured to ghost stories (which I doubt, because I’m a wimp) or Hell House is an example of revealing too much of the monster.  “Once you can see ‘it,’ your brain can quantify it and it becomes less frightening” (Johnson, 102).

Despite the absence of humor and fear elements, Hell House is the stronger of the two books on the basis of there not being anything glaringly wrong with it. The hook is still great, the tension is consistent, the characters are complex, and the plot took several turns I didn’t expect. I prefer the more modern close-third POV to Jackson’s impersonal omniscient. Both books, though, are worth reading and have earned spots on my shelf. The library books go back tomorrow, right about when I expect Amazon to deliver their replacements.

Works Cited
Jackson, Shirley. The Haunting of Hill House. New York: Penguin, 2006. Print.
Johnson, Scott. “Blurring the Line: How Reality Helps Build Better Fiction.” Many Genres One Craft. Ed. Michael A. Arnzen and Heidi Ruby Miller. Terra Alta: Headline Books, Inc. 100-104. Print

Matheson, Richard. Hell House. New York: Tor, 1999. Print.

8 comments:

  1. I never quite bought into Fischer's desire to prove himself. He spends so much of the book in the background, refusing to participate in the investigation at all. In this passivity, I agree that he reminded me very much of Luke. In the few scenes (before the end) where he opens up his gifts, he pulls back quickly. I found myself wishing we could have connected with him more to understand his reluctance. We were told horrible things had happened at the house, but I never felt the connection with him or his trauma.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point. I want to know what went down on that other expedition---how he escaped.

      Delete
  2. I agree with you that Matheson's characters are an improvement over Jackson's. While Jackson's witty back-and-forth was fun to read, it really made her characters seem like clones.

    Did you notice early on, mostly in the first act, that Matheson does a lot of head hopping? I think that's a sign that he developed the characters as he went. This feels more like a first draft rather than a polished, well thought-through product. Once he got comfortable with the characters (somewhere around the middle of the 2nd act), the head hopping stopped.

    Did he reveal too much? I don't know. I try to look at it from the point of view of somebody from the early 70s, when this type of over-sharing was popular. Remember, this was the same time as Rosemary's Baby, which, despite being touted as one of the scariest films of all time, left little to the imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'd have to agree with Kristin M. On her assessment of Fischer. I didn't feel he had anything to prove until the end. For the most part in the book, he hid back in the shadows, lacking confidence in himself to provide any insight into the paranormal.

    I will say however that I thoroughly enjoyed this novel. Unlike Hill House, I was glued to this book and never put it down. Actually, I picked it up one evening, read the first 50 pages, and then the. Next morning read the remainder of the book. I enjoyed it so much, I found myself going back and highlighting areas to use as a guide for how to write horror in the future.

    Overall it was a much better book, and I look forward to the next. I'm about 40 pages into Ghost Story and so far I give it a thumbs up!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree that Hell House had a much more consistent mood than Hill House did, Kristin. I also thought that the characters were complex too (although a few of the others did not). And yeah, I would really like to see the prequel to Hell House - a teenaged Fisher, the other characters, the year 1940 ... It could be awesome. Gwen Cope

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Jackson uses fear of solitude and fears of the unnatural and the unknown to excellent effect. Matheson, on the other hand, never really allows the reader to let his or her guard down..."
    Fantastic point. Goes to show what a little restraint can do, even in horror. When it comes to tension, without the low points, the high points never grow as high as they should.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with you Kristian. I think that even though Matheson does dismantles his ability to create a true sense of fear in the reader by oversharing with his ghost. He has established the character of the house as such an ass, that as a reader I am turning the pages to see what will happen next, I want to see if all the characters will survive? I want to see what the crazy house is going to do next. So yes you are right Hell House has hella good suspense.
    Rasheedah

    ReplyDelete