Rating: 
Summary: Nothing thrilling about this thriller.
Review: "The Haunting of Hill House" is not a horror, mystery, or psychological thriller. It is a complete bore. I could not understand Eleanor at all. One minute she was confident about herself, the next minute self-conscious. She liked Theo and Luke, and then despised them; I don't understand why she felt so close to the house. There were no super natural experiences, aside from thumping on the door. I felt this story was a total waste of time, and petty. The movie "The Haunted" is very loosely based on this book (same character names, different circumstances, but much more interesting), and I suggest you see it instead. This book is nowhere near a classic. I do not recommend.
Rating: 
Summary: paranormal spookiness entertains..
Review: 'The Haunting of Hill House' is a compact jewel of a gothic novel, combining both classic horror with a psychological examination of one very troubled ghost hunter. It indeed is the perfect sort of read for a rainy evening (I read it in one sitting, during Hurricane Frances).
In our story we have a suitably creepy, enormous house with a history of strange happenings. An experience paranormal investigator hires a couple of young ladies to join him in staying at this house for a summer (..no 'hanky panky' intended, and nothing of the sort happened). Yes, some very disturbing events occured during this period. But perhaps more interesting is the gradual demise of one of the ladies who we discover has some personal issues. No spoilers, but the ending is both surprising and appropriately ambiguous ... Shirley Jackson leaves the reader with some unanswered questions, to be answered by the reader's imagination.
Bottom line: the usual Shirley Jackson competence swirled into a fun if somewhat old-fashioned haunted house story. A very worthwhile read.
Rating: 
Summary: If you like Stephen King...
Review: ...avoid this book. King commonly 'borrows' from this book, but only to intellectually supplement what could only be called his McNovels. Many people, as evident from the reviews, expected a worded description of the many schlock movies adapted from Jackson's novel. Well, its not. Its more akin to The Catcher in the Rye, than The Shining. The ghosts exist in the psyche of Eleanor Vance, and the demons are in the cold distant pleasantries of the other Hill House guests. If you like Catcher in the Rye, My Idea of Fun, The Belljar, etc, then buy an old vinyl of Love is Blue, and sit down with this Shirley Jackson novel on a dark and stormy night.
Rating:
Summary: Not sure what all of the fuss is about...
Review: I had heard for so long how intellectually scary this book was so I was really looking forward to reading it. However, I started and finished in in about 3 days and thought I had missed the point, was there another section to the book I skipped? This book was not scary at all, in fact, I kept waiting to be gripped by whatever it is that haunts the house, but nothing happened. First of all the plot was not well-developed, I wasn't sure exactly what was going on during the "scary" parts as Jackson never let on...sometimes this can be a good thing as you are forced to let your mind wander, but in this case, there were no details except for some writing on the wall and some whispers and knocks on the door. It was never explained what else was going on, why was Eleanor's name up there...was it supposed to be like the Jack Torrance situation in "The Shining"? If so, that point was completely missed. Also, if I had to read that thought that kept going through Eleanor's mind "journeys end in lovers meeting" without it being relevant at all to the situation she was in at the time, I was going to pull all of my hair out. I really have no idea what people are talking about when they say this was the "most thrilling" book they've ever read....it was boring and confusing and left me yearning for a truly good intellectual horror story.
Rating:
Summary: Not what I was Thinking...
Review: I will admit I bought this book because I had seen the movie. (I know, I know, not a great way to pick up a book). But I had enjoyed most of the movie and decided to compare the movie to the book.
I shouldn't have been surprised when the book and movie were completely different. The only real similarities was the haunted house and the characters names.
I did enjoy the book, but I was a little dissapointed. I was expecting more. It felt like there was something missing from the book. Or maybe I was missing the whole point. Either way, I was dissatisfied with the ending.
It's a good book, but it could have been better.
Rating:
Summary: Quite simply the greatest thing since sliced bread
Review: I've read it a few times. But just because it happens to be the best longfic ever written doesn't necessarily mean that I'm gonna read it yet again. Because the fate of a certain pathetic character is just too damn depressing.
Here's my favorite bit: "In either corner of the hall, over the nursery doorway, two grinning heads were set; meant, apparently, as gay decorations for the nursery entrance, they were no more jolly or carefree than the animals inside. Their separate stares, captured forever in distorted laughter, met and locked at the point of the hall where the vicious cold centered. 'When you stand where they can look at you', Luke explained, 'they freeze you.'"
Rating:
Summary: Shirley Jackson's masterful haunted house novel
Review: In one of her best works, Shirley Jackson introduces us to a haunted, evil house that brings out the worst in the four---later expanded to six--people who agree to gather there. In the interest of science, Professor Montague invites a group of people to participate in a study of the psychological effect of the house. His group is winnowed down to himself; Luke, the flippant young grandson of the present owner of Hill House; the enigmatic, beautiful Theodora; and Eleanor, the repressed, 32 year old spinster who has spent the last 11 years taking care of her mother. Later they are joined by Montague's wife, an ardent spiritualist and ouija board devotee, and her bluff, hearty friend. With a set of characters like this, Jackson's compact novel cannot fail to intrigue and satisfy. Readers who have seen the 1962 movie will find inevitable differences in plot and emphasis in the book. Jackson's carefully crafted prose will hook you from the first page to the last. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: EVEN LARKS AND KATYDIDS ARE SUPPOSED, BY SOME, TO DREAM
Review: John Montague, a doctor of philosophy, invites Theodora, Eleanor Vance, and Luke Sanderson to assist him in seeking the possibility of psychic disturbances/manifestations in an eighty-odd year-old New England pile known locally as Hill House. Ever since it was initially published in 1959, THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE has been Shirley Jackson's gift to countless readers around the world who have relished reading this highly original and exceptionally chilling ghost story - if a there is such a thing as a ghost story receiving cult status - then this ingenious novellette would definitely qualify for first prize! Not the type of terror you'd find in a Stephen King (he was a Jackson fan who dedicated FIRESTARTER to "Shirley Jackson, who never needed to raise her voice") or Dean Koontz novel. Jackson's technique is much more finely grained and subtle: this is literature. There are Freudian aspects to be sure, but the symbolism is amazing; (did anyone catch the meaning of the heading?) thirty years after I first read the book (I was nine) I found new symbolic elements which I had missed priorly. Jackson paints her heroine Eleanor Vance as a rather drab and timid wisp of a thing: a 32 year-old spinster who's "never known a life of her own". As you commence reading the book, you are drawn inside the mind of a schizoid person who desperately needs to be loved, yet cannot relate to people rationally, so she finds a safe friend in Hill House itself. Jackson writes in a poetic and mystical fashion which aids the reader throughout the book. Theodora is a free-spirited psychic who's rather spoiled and cheeky personality gives a much - needed contrast to Eleanor's repressed child-woman thinking. There is a scene in a grove of trees: Theo: "I don't understand. Do you always go where you're not wanted?" Eleanor: "But I've never been wanted ANYWHERE". Tingling aspects rise from little nuances throughout: Nell suggests that they look for nameless graves in the nettle patch when she and Theo become bored, a phantom picnic where there is a vision of sunshine, children and a puppy (at night!), walls with dripping blood reaching out for Eleanor to Come Home; a harp which plays by itself, the "cold spot" in the heart of the house, the cup of stars, the stone lions, the oleanders etc. Eleanor is given a bedroom painted blue, the colour of depression. The men in the novel are more like props, supporting players. It's like a spooky version of Lucy and Ethel getting themselves into another scrape with Ricky and Fred simply there when neccesary. Luke and Montague ask what happened while they were outdoors chasing SOMETHING. Eleanor: "Nothing in particular. Someone knocked on the door with a cannonball, then laughed their fool head off when we wouldn't let them in, but nothing out of the ordinary" There are no real "evil" characters in the book: it is a foray into the mind of someone so desperately longing for understanding, love and companionship that she knows not where she goes.............
Rating:
Summary: Psychological terror
Review: Psychological terror. Shirley Jackson introduced the horror genre to numerous themes and concepts (almost like motifs today) that Stephen King has also capitalized on, such as having stones fall on a house (Carrie and Red Rose), an overpowering mother who controls a telekinetic child (Carrie), a large house/hotel isolated in mountains (Shining), a house/hotel that wants a specific person (Shining), use of a scrapbook and/or news clippings to provide historical background (Shining), etc. In this 1959 thriller, Jackson presents the horror of a haunted mansion in the hills that is desperate to claim the life of the heroine. There is no gore or mayhem in this book, but Jackson succeeds in scaring you without it. Typical of Jackson, as in her Lottery story, the ending does not wrap things up cleanly, and leaves the reader's imagination to fill in the details. The first paragraph of this book sets the scene and may be considered one of the best openers in horror fiction. Good stuff.
Several caveats however. Shirley Jackson wrote this book in the 50s. The text has long passages of exposition, is short on dialogue, and frequently delves into the minds of its characters, with viewpoint shifts and tense changes that may confuse the less attentive reader. The book is fairly short, around 50,000 words, as opposed to the 100,000 typical of a King novel. The book is well worth reading, but you will have to work to read and enjoy this story.
Rating:
Summary: Worth revisiting
Review: Rereading this classic haunted house story does not disappoint. I found it just as chilling and engrossing as the first time around. Who can forget the subtle, and therefore all the more chilling, images: the writing on the walls; the doors bulging inward; clasping hands with some unknown thing in the dark? And the ambiguity only ramps up the horror -- was Hill House truly haunted, or were the unexplained events ony the product of a fragile mind belonging to a girl who believed that, at long last, she had finally found a home? Do yourself a favor. Visit Hill House again -- or for the first time -- sometime soon.
|
