Helpful Score: 4
Since I had seen the original movie (the b/w version of The Haunting), I was able to visualize the characters based on that. But I don't think the book alone would have brought the images as much to life. For example the first manifestation of the pounding on the door was extremely vivid in the movie, but I didn't get the same sense from reading the book.
Helpful Score: 3
With all the hype I was expecting a book that would give me chills. While it was an interesting (if quick) read, I didn't think it was scary at all. This is one of the very few times that I have actually preferred a movie version to the book itself.
Helpful Score: 2
I was more afraid reading the book than the "recent" movie. If you are into thrillers, this will is a good one.
Helpful Score: 1
Great spookiness. But this Penguin edition with an 18-page Introduction by Laura Miller should have SPOILER ALERT in the first paragraph since she gives away some plot points that readers new to this tale shouldn't be told about before reading.
Helpful Score: 1
I have not been this scared reading a book since I read The Shining three years ago. Excellent story, with interesting characters, Shirley Jackson writes so well, and her descriptions are so eerie. This is really a classic.
Helpful Score: 1
This book is one of the scariest books I have ever read, and I love it! Its scary in both psychological and supernatural ways. Ghosts and crazies...yea!
Helpful Score: 1
I decided to read this novel because I love Shirley Jackson's short stories, and I was just as happy with this book. Jackson did a great job at creating subtle, yet effective, suspense. If you like psychological thrillers and excellent writing, you'll love this book. In a society where the art of story telling is being replaced by movie making, this is still a classic. I enjoyed this much more than the movie.
The great art of life is sensation, to feel that we exist, even in pain.
-Lord Byron
I first encountered this story in the 90s after the release of the movie with Liam Neeson and Catherine Zeta Jones, which is rather loosely based on the book. There was another movie adaptation released in the 60s, which was probably more faithful to the original psychological horror tale. I personally became acquainted with Shirley Jackson's work my freshman year in college, during freshman composition, when we were required to read and critique "The Lottery," perhaps her most famous story, reportedly modeled on a small town in Vermont where she resided for a time. I recall being in the library and speaking to one of the only ill-tempered librarians I've ever come across (not unlike the character in the story, Mr. Dudley!) about how to find literary criticism about the story; I recall him grumbling something about "well, I can tell you about why she wrote and published the story... MONEY, of course... why else?!"
There are just so many elements to this story, far outside the norm for a horror story. Jackson almost juxtaposes life with the seeming vacuum of the house, which consumes all that enters it. What I like most about reading really good stories are the details which just herald life in general, in all its imperfect yet precious glory, and this rich tale has them in abundance. The mental image of a little girl who refuses to drink milk from an ordinary glass rather than her own "cup of stars" is something to hearken to memory at random occurrences in other places. These vignettes reach across time to speak to readers when they encounter something reminiscent, creating a bridge between fact and fiction, leaving lasting portraits that stay with you all your life, in some cases.
Similarly, the daydreams and fantasies included throughout are really lovely, and familiar: lonely Eleanor's desire to live in a small cottage in the garden, where she would plant oleanders to further hide from the world, and there light a fire in the evening, and raise white cats, and have a robin, and toast apples, and sew white curtains for the windows, and only come out to go to the store to buy cinnamon and tea and thread... my ambitions and aspirations, similar though they are, are only slightly more ambitious.
On to the story itself: unlike many other stories, where the location just serves as a setting or backdrop, in this tale, the house is definitely a major character, in addition to the persons inhabiting it. It has a certain predilection for suffocation, even consumption, it seems: the heavy brush guarding the front drive, doors and windows refuse to open and swing shut again every time someone lets go of them, enveloping its victims within, rooms intentionally encased within other rooms, seemingly nonsensically, and even the beds are so soft that guests sink inescapably into them. The general sense is that the house subtly and not-so subtly imbibes all who attempt to inhabit it, which is what occurs with impressionable Eleanor, which, in a Shining-esque sense, seemingly has always belonged to the house; inescapably, it is, or becomes, her forever place, one she cannot be forced to leave. The house, it seems, continues to collect souls.
In the words of the series editor, "I was overtaken by the Miltonian sense of abandonment, the absolute horror of a life without a reason. The tragedy of the tale was not dependent on evil. That's the supreme pain of the novel-tragedy requires no villain." (Guillermo del Toro) It's certainly a psychological tale: nothing of form appears to terrify the inhabitants of the house, unless it's the doctor's wife, along with her "driver," who is perhaps the manifestation of the ills of the house, in the flesh. The villain is seemingly the house, with its collection of utterly disturbing and unsettling "things that go BUMP in the night," literally, in this case: formless, shapeless fears that invade the consciousness of their victims until they are consumed totally. This is definitely a capable horror masterpiece, reminiscent of the Gothic tales which certainly inspired it.
-Lord Byron
I first encountered this story in the 90s after the release of the movie with Liam Neeson and Catherine Zeta Jones, which is rather loosely based on the book. There was another movie adaptation released in the 60s, which was probably more faithful to the original psychological horror tale. I personally became acquainted with Shirley Jackson's work my freshman year in college, during freshman composition, when we were required to read and critique "The Lottery," perhaps her most famous story, reportedly modeled on a small town in Vermont where she resided for a time. I recall being in the library and speaking to one of the only ill-tempered librarians I've ever come across (not unlike the character in the story, Mr. Dudley!) about how to find literary criticism about the story; I recall him grumbling something about "well, I can tell you about why she wrote and published the story... MONEY, of course... why else?!"
There are just so many elements to this story, far outside the norm for a horror story. Jackson almost juxtaposes life with the seeming vacuum of the house, which consumes all that enters it. What I like most about reading really good stories are the details which just herald life in general, in all its imperfect yet precious glory, and this rich tale has them in abundance. The mental image of a little girl who refuses to drink milk from an ordinary glass rather than her own "cup of stars" is something to hearken to memory at random occurrences in other places. These vignettes reach across time to speak to readers when they encounter something reminiscent, creating a bridge between fact and fiction, leaving lasting portraits that stay with you all your life, in some cases.
Similarly, the daydreams and fantasies included throughout are really lovely, and familiar: lonely Eleanor's desire to live in a small cottage in the garden, where she would plant oleanders to further hide from the world, and there light a fire in the evening, and raise white cats, and have a robin, and toast apples, and sew white curtains for the windows, and only come out to go to the store to buy cinnamon and tea and thread... my ambitions and aspirations, similar though they are, are only slightly more ambitious.
On to the story itself: unlike many other stories, where the location just serves as a setting or backdrop, in this tale, the house is definitely a major character, in addition to the persons inhabiting it. It has a certain predilection for suffocation, even consumption, it seems: the heavy brush guarding the front drive, doors and windows refuse to open and swing shut again every time someone lets go of them, enveloping its victims within, rooms intentionally encased within other rooms, seemingly nonsensically, and even the beds are so soft that guests sink inescapably into them. The general sense is that the house subtly and not-so subtly imbibes all who attempt to inhabit it, which is what occurs with impressionable Eleanor, which, in a Shining-esque sense, seemingly has always belonged to the house; inescapably, it is, or becomes, her forever place, one she cannot be forced to leave. The house, it seems, continues to collect souls.
In the words of the series editor, "I was overtaken by the Miltonian sense of abandonment, the absolute horror of a life without a reason. The tragedy of the tale was not dependent on evil. That's the supreme pain of the novel-tragedy requires no villain." (Guillermo del Toro) It's certainly a psychological tale: nothing of form appears to terrify the inhabitants of the house, unless it's the doctor's wife, along with her "driver," who is perhaps the manifestation of the ills of the house, in the flesh. The villain is seemingly the house, with its collection of utterly disturbing and unsettling "things that go BUMP in the night," literally, in this case: formless, shapeless fears that invade the consciousness of their victims until they are consumed totally. This is definitely a capable horror masterpiece, reminiscent of the Gothic tales which certainly inspired it.
The first horror book I enjoyed reading was a classic: Wuthering Heights. While I hated Heathcliff throughout I loved the writing and read avidly to the very end. Haunting is just as exciting, a thrilling horror novel that keeps you on the edge of your chair until it spirals to the end. At that point you are fairly certain that one character will not survive. Whether others do or not is debatable at this point.
The characters are Eleanor, Luke, Theo (for Theodora), and Dr. Montague. Montague has heard much about this house and wants to study it but with an accompanying group of people to help him view the effects of the house. He has seemingly screened the group carefully yet these individuals are more interested in self-preservation except perhaps for Theo. I found myself liking, detesting, pitying and wanting to help Eleanor who seems to be the victim that the house wants to ensnare.
Jackson builds the horror with sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph, and scene after scene. While it is subtle the horror keeps rising. The writing is superb and the introduction by Stephen King clearly demonstrates his admiration of this writer throughout the many pages he devotes his analysis of the book.
I advise that you do not read that introduction if you have this edition as it gives too much information about what happens during the telling. Save that enjoyment until you have read the novel. Both are well done! I found tale most entertaining and exciting to read. All the horror exists in the mind or does it?
The characters are Eleanor, Luke, Theo (for Theodora), and Dr. Montague. Montague has heard much about this house and wants to study it but with an accompanying group of people to help him view the effects of the house. He has seemingly screened the group carefully yet these individuals are more interested in self-preservation except perhaps for Theo. I found myself liking, detesting, pitying and wanting to help Eleanor who seems to be the victim that the house wants to ensnare.
Jackson builds the horror with sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph, and scene after scene. While it is subtle the horror keeps rising. The writing is superb and the introduction by Stephen King clearly demonstrates his admiration of this writer throughout the many pages he devotes his analysis of the book.
I advise that you do not read that introduction if you have this edition as it gives too much information about what happens during the telling. Save that enjoyment until you have read the novel. Both are well done! I found tale most entertaining and exciting to read. All the horror exists in the mind or does it?
There were a few times when I had to turn the lights on listening to this one. The 1964 movie The Haunting actually follows pretty close to the book. The best part was you never "saw" what was haunting Hill House and I think that made it 100% more creepy.
Wasn't much of a horror story, but still a good read.
My favorite part of this book was Shirley's descriptions of the house. They were so intriguing, creative and creepy. Seeing the changes the characters were going through was so entertaining and interesting too. I really enjoyed reading it. The only thing I didn't like is that the ending is fairly predictable. I had it figured out around half-way through and that killed the suspense.
Still a great, well-written read though. I have never seen the movie so I couldn't compare it to that.
Still a great, well-written read though. I have never seen the movie so I couldn't compare it to that.
a good atmospheric horror tale. Much better than any of the movies.
By the tingling of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes. Shirley Jackson is a master of the macabre: she can give Ray Bradbury a run for the money any day, except that her prose is beautiful and refreshing. A professor hires three cohorts to spend the summer with him in a haunted house researching the supernatural. Spooky? Yes! Spirits? Of course! Who ya gonna call? Enter Mrs. Professor, a maven of transmogrification and existential transcendentalism. Look for an unexpected ending, but dont look for the flash and dash of the movie; theres only a vague comparison.
This spooky tale started off a bit slow. It was merely drawing me in. I really enjoyed the use of psychological horror.
Four people team up to spend a summer in Hill House, a known haunted house that the rest of the townsfolk avoid after dark. Lots of interesting paranormal events happen and one member of the group feels especially drawn to the Hill House. I've read this book several times and each time I get scared reading it--a testament to how well this book was written. This is simply the best haunted house story I've ever read, and I read a lot. Stephen King also recommends this book!
I was expecting this to be scary in the normal ghost story sense. It wasn't. It was scary because it was always just a feeling. That feeling you get that something is there just at the corner of your vision or a thought that could be just imagination...or is it? Very quick and enjoyable read..especially now for Halloween time.
Unabridged Version. I really enjoyed this book..A little strange but very entertaining!
One of the scariest haunting stories ever written.
Stephen King once said this is one of the scariest books he'd ever read. It was enough of a good review to convince me.
A classic in the horror genre. I really enjoyed reading it.
Never-read hardcover edition of this novel. From The Stephen King Horror Lilbrary.
This was creepy and scary without gore or jump scares. It was almost more psychological because there was never a solid presence or any one thing to fear like in a slasher film/book. It's like going into a dark basement alone at night. Logically you know there is nothing there that can harm you, but you still get the wiggins. It's the not knowing that freaks you out because your imagination can conjure much worse things than what's actually hiding in the shadows.
Clearly there was a presence haunting the house and it tormented Doctor Montague and his group of young assistants--to a bad end for poor Eleanor. The house seemed to be an entity itself and it sucked Eleanor in--bewitched her.
Very well written, interesting characters. I have to assume that the author meant for readers to hate Mrs. Montague, because she was just a nightmare. I wanted bad things to happen to her in the house. With the other characters [Doctor Montague, Theodora, Luke, Eleanor] you could see both their endearing, and annoying qualities. And overall enjoyable listen.
Clearly there was a presence haunting the house and it tormented Doctor Montague and his group of young assistants--to a bad end for poor Eleanor. The house seemed to be an entity itself and it sucked Eleanor in--bewitched her.
Very well written, interesting characters. I have to assume that the author meant for readers to hate Mrs. Montague, because she was just a nightmare. I wanted bad things to happen to her in the house. With the other characters [Doctor Montague, Theodora, Luke, Eleanor] you could see both their endearing, and annoying qualities. And overall enjoyable listen.
The classic tale by Shirley Jackson...
This is a slim volume (the version I have is 246 pages) so I was able to read it in a couple days. A time period is not referenced in this book so it took a while for me to finally get some idea of when this occurred. Eleanor, the main character, co-owns a car so I assumed this was set in more "modern" times (1950s or later). It wasn't until after Eleanor arrived at the home and was talking with someone (I believe Dr. Montague) that I was able to figure out that the time period was the early 1900s--Dr. Montague mentioned that someone had left the house on a horse about 18 years earlier and was killed when a tree fell on him (or some such thing). So I figured the book was perhaps set in the 1920s or 1930s when cars were becoming more common. The writing style (dialogue) also seemed awkward. I wondered if the author was purposely trying to write that way to evoke a certain period (Gothic).
I am not normally a reader of horror books but added this to my book list after someone recommended it. I didn't find this book scary at all. While reading the parts about the doors being banged on, etc., I wasn't scared--thought perhaps written form didn't do it justice and that it might be scary as a movie (I have since found out that it was made into a movie in the 1960s). People who like this book (Amazon reviews) suggest that perhaps those who dislike it prefer slasher-type horror so Hill House isn't graphic enough to be scary. I don't watch slasher movies so that doesn't apply to me. I just didn't find the "haunting" incidents scary.
Theodora and Eleanor (the main character) are simplistic and childish--they really like one another and then they can't stand one another and then they go back to liking one another, disliking (you get the picture). The back cover describes Theodora as Dr. Montague's assistant but (as an Amazon reviewer noted) nowhere in the book is she described as his assistant nor does she do anything that would imply she was. When the scary events occur, the characters (for the most part) don't seem all that bothered--they are often laughing and acting silly shortly thereafter. It occurred to me that perhaps that behavior was a coping mechanism. Toward the end I started to wonder if some of the events were figments of Eleanor's imagination (and that question is not answered in the book).
Also, there doesn't appear to be any reason why the house is supposedly haunted. From my limited knowledge of haunted places, they are haunted because someone died there or the building is atop a graveyard, etc.
Amazon reviewers who gave this book one or two stars said they really enjoyed other books (and found them very scary) of the author so I may read some other works by Shirley Jackson. Perhaps I'll try to find the 1960s movie based on this book.
I am not normally a reader of horror books but added this to my book list after someone recommended it. I didn't find this book scary at all. While reading the parts about the doors being banged on, etc., I wasn't scared--thought perhaps written form didn't do it justice and that it might be scary as a movie (I have since found out that it was made into a movie in the 1960s). People who like this book (Amazon reviews) suggest that perhaps those who dislike it prefer slasher-type horror so Hill House isn't graphic enough to be scary. I don't watch slasher movies so that doesn't apply to me. I just didn't find the "haunting" incidents scary.
Theodora and Eleanor (the main character) are simplistic and childish--they really like one another and then they can't stand one another and then they go back to liking one another, disliking (you get the picture). The back cover describes Theodora as Dr. Montague's assistant but (as an Amazon reviewer noted) nowhere in the book is she described as his assistant nor does she do anything that would imply she was. When the scary events occur, the characters (for the most part) don't seem all that bothered--they are often laughing and acting silly shortly thereafter. It occurred to me that perhaps that behavior was a coping mechanism. Toward the end I started to wonder if some of the events were figments of Eleanor's imagination (and that question is not answered in the book).
Also, there doesn't appear to be any reason why the house is supposedly haunted. From my limited knowledge of haunted places, they are haunted because someone died there or the building is atop a graveyard, etc.
Amazon reviewers who gave this book one or two stars said they really enjoyed other books (and found them very scary) of the author so I may read some other works by Shirley Jackson. Perhaps I'll try to find the 1960s movie based on this book.
May seem a bit dated to modern readers (and tame relative to recent thrillers), but a good yarn regardless.
"Dr. Montague is a scholar of the occult, looking for evidence of haunting. He has recruited three volunteers to spend a summer investigating the paranormal phenomena at Hill House. Only Eleanor, a lonely young women all too well acquainted with poltergeists, strikes a peculiar affinity with Hill House, one that may well prove dangerous..."
One of the greatest horror stories of all time. My copy is vintage 1959 Popular Library edition.
