Women's Classic Literature Enthusiasts discussion

We will discuss the first three chapters in this thread.

I think the first sentence of the book is intriguing. "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream."

Is this a great way to start a horror book? Do you agree with the statement?

I also highlighted that comment. The idea that nothing is truly sane or as it seems definitely appeals. Perfect start.

I'm enjoying the style of writing, I've never read Jackson before.
We all know haunted house stories, the were en vouge at the movies a few years ago. Yet this, which seems to be the first of its kind, has the soul which the subsequent remakes have lost.

I keep getting the feeling that this book will rely more on psychological terror than gruesome horror.

☯Emily wrote: "I think the first sentence of the book is intriguing. "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, t..."

I think it was an interesting way to start a horror book and I do agree with it. Dreaming provides an escape from the pressures of reality. We can dream about anything from being a magic princess (as Eleanor does) to what it would be like to have a different job or (in my case right now, lol) how awesome it will be when this semester is over and I get a break. :P Dreaming can give us something to look forward to when the going gets tough.

Interestingly, we've always thought that we dream because we sleep. There's been new research that shows that dreaming, even if you are not cognizant of your dreams, actually drives sleep. (Way off the point)

Eleanor seems very young (childish) in her outlook. Perhaps that is the result of being a virtual servant for so long; that first taste of freedom is exhilarating.

Lisa wrote: "Interestingly, we've always thought that we dream because we sleep. There's been new research that shows that dreaming, even if you are not cognizant of your dreams, actually drives sleep. (Way off..."

It does? Cool!

☯Emily wrote: "Eleanor seems very young (childish) in her outlook. Perhaps that is the result of being a virtual servant for so long; that first taste of freedom is exhilarating."

The first sentence also establishes that Hill House is a "live organism" by describing it as "not sane." Does that also mean it dreams? or just its residents?

Nancy wrote: "The first sentence also establishes that Hill House is a "live organism" by describing it as "not sane." Does that also mean it dreams? or just its residents?"

Good point. I thought the statement referred to humans or other living organisms. The second chapter certainly portrays the house as a living creature with malevolent emotions. Or is that just the humans imagining all this?

☯Emily wrote: "I think the first sentence of the book is intriguing. "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream..."

This is an interesting start for the book. To me this sentence implies something that I believe. And that is that it is reality that is not sane and I should find an escape from it as often as I can and that dreams are one of the means of escape from that reality. My two favorite means of escape from reality is the waking daydream and through reading.

Also, this sentence makes me wonder if the author is issuing a warning the reader that the phenomena in this book that Dr. Montague is trying to document that we may experience in this book is only the reality of the characters who see it.

Can we rely on what the characters think that they see or experience, when "things" start to occur in this house?

Christopher wrote: "Regarding Theodora does anyone else believe she is a Lesbian?"

If anyone wants and answer to this question (view spoiler)[yes I think that one of the woman characters is a lesbian. Clues point to Theo as the one, but I'm keeping an open mind. The clues that I see that point to who the lesbian is, may be red herrings. (hide spoiler)]

I read an article about the filming of the movie based on this book and it said that the powers that be informed the director that the two women must not touch. There is however, physical contact between Eleanor and Theo within the first three chapters of the book.

☯Emily wrote: "Eleanor seems very young (childish) in her outlook. Perhaps that is the result of being a virtual servant for so long; that first taste of freedom is exhilarating."

I think that in some respects a person who has lived as Eleanor has lived through all of her 20s, missing the rites of passage that young women go through and the the social interaction, dating and holding a job, may leave Eleanor in a childlike state in some respects. I think that it was childish for Eleanor to say what she did about her nonexistent apartment. I feel that Eleanor is accepted by the others in the house and is a part of the group and included. I saw no need to make things up to try to impress anyone to fit in.

My impression is that Theodora is overwhelming and interesting, far more interesting and exciting than anyone Eleanor has ever met. I think Eleanor invents another aspect to her life not only to appear interesting in comparison to Theodora; but to try to convince herself that she has some individual importance. I think she would love to believe that life.

Christopher wrote: "Andrea (Catsos Person) wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Regarding Theodora does anyone else believe she is a Lesbian?"

If anyone wants and answer to this question [spoilers removed]

I read an article ..."


There are two, under the title The Haunting. The more recent one was a macabre deviation from the book

When Dr Montague spoke about the background of this house, aside from the hanging, I didn't think that the history was so very bad.

Lawsuits and squabbling about the house's ownership and the "stuff" in it doesn't make this house seem sinister.

What makes this house seem sinister are the initial reactions on seeing it by Eleanor and to some degree, Theodora (what a name).

Christopher wrote: Regarding Theodora does anyone else believe she is a Lesbian?

In my edition's preface it mentions an interview with Jackson. It certainly seems like it to me but the author was like, "Who cares, it doesn't matter!" so I'm honestly not sure.
It seems like Theodora is but it wouldn't surprise me if Jackson purposefully put some hints in there to mislead the reader and that she's not.

Anastasia wrote: "Christopher wrote: Regarding Theodora does anyone else believe she is a Lesbian?

In my edition's preface it mentions an interview with Jackson. It certainly seems like it to me but the author was..."

Agree with the author! Who cares? Nowadays, many people are trying to read into every character, trying to guess which character is a homosexual, ranging from Elizabeth Bennet to Tom Sawyer. I doubt if 19th and early 20th century authors gave any thought to that issue. That question doesn't seem to have any relevance to our novel (at least up this point.)

Andrea (Catsos Person) wrote: "When Dr Montague spoke about the background of this house, aside from the hanging, I didn't think that the history was so very bad.

Lawsuits and squabbling about the house's ownership and the "stu..."

I agree with you. I'm reading the background that Dr. Montague gave and saying to myself, "What is so spooky and weird about this history?" I don't see anything to indicate why the house would be haunted from his description.

I am so impressed with the way she evokes this powerfully beautiful mood! In the very first two sentences the omniscient narrator tells us that the house is alive and not sane. Then she completely changes the mood with a tongue-in-cheek overview of Dr. Montague and his project. Then after she gets us laughing at Montague, we have our introduction to the utterly endearing Eleanor. Her solitary drive, her flights of imagination, her joy in having escaped! And then finally we watch them all attempt to settle down to sleep (and to their dreams, which may or may not keep them sane), each with their own comfort measures, each wondering along with us, "Is there, or isn't there, something out there in the hall?" So richly exquisite!

Jackson deliberately keeps not just Theodora'a sexual orientation veiled, but the entire question of sexuality. The roommate has no gender specified, and therefore we're left with a range of possibilities, not only of gender but also as to the degree of "friendship." Completely unstated, yet by not stating it makes us start to wonder; I don't think it's an accident that Jackson framed it that way.

@Alexa

Very keen observations.

I too found Montague as laughable.

Alexa wrote: "I am so impressed with the way she evokes this powerfully beautiful mood! In the very first two sentences the omniscient narrator tells us that the house is alive and not sane. Then she completel..."

fascinating observations. Thanks. Makes me want to go back and reread.