We’re delving into horror this time with The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson.
I know my last post very specifically didn’t feature Artemis, but I do have a lot of book owl photos I need to do something with, so you will still have to put up with these posts. I promise I will try to write more non-owl posts, but honestly, I’m not all that interesting. My idea of a wild night out is when a Dungeons & Dragons session gets a little intense…
On to the book stuff: I wanted to read ‘The Haunting of Hill House’ after watching the Netflix show loosely based on it (and absolutely loving it), even though I knew the book would be a lot different. It has now been a while since I finished the book and I’m honestly still not sure how I feel about it. I think I missed some more actual horror – it’s fine to have the book be mostly about the psychological effect the events have on the characters, but without more focus on the things that happens to cause said effect, it’s hard to truly relate.
I also think the book suffers from the same minimalism writing as many other old classics – I don’t need everything spelled out for me, but I would like it if most of the story wasn’t told between the lines.
But all in all I didn’t hate this book.
The Haunting of Hill House
by Shirley Jackson
First published in 1959, Shirley Jackson’s The Haunting of Hill House has been hailed as a perfect work of unnerving terror. It is the story of four seekers who arrive at a notoriously unfriendly pile called Hill House: Dr. Montague, an occult scholar looking for solid evidence of a “haunting”; Theodora, his lighthearted assistant; Eleanor, a friendless, fragile young woman well acquainted with poltergeists; and Luke, the future heir of Hill House. At first, their stay seems destined to be merely a spooky encounter with inexplicable phenomena. But Hill House is gathering its powers—and soon it will choose one of them to make its own.
3 thoughts on “The Bookish Owl – The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson”
I haven’t read this book or seen the newer adaptations, but I did see the 1963 movie and enjoyed that one (surprising everyone, including myself, since I don’t normally enjoy horror). I do remember that it was a lot more psychological in nature, and that was what I liked about it. If the book was like that, I can see where might be told a bit too much between the lines.
I like psychological horror (the Netflix show is also mainly psychological, even though it has more ‘real’ horror’), but this just felt like those books you had to read in school where you afterwards had to spent hours analyzing everything to figure out what the book was about.
Oh, that’s frustrating. Too bad it wasn’t more clear while still being creepy.