The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

LIX. A SUDDEN DEPARTURE

LX. THE JOURNEY

LXI. OUR BED-CHAMBER

LXII. A WELL-KNOWN FACE LOOKS IN

LXIII. SPICED CLARET

LXIV. THE HOUR OF DEATH

LXV. IN THE OAK PARLOUR

CONCLUSION

Well, all is well that ends well and the good guys live happily ever after.

I had high expectations for Uncle Silas (the book) and was left a little disappointed. I thought for sure that ghosts and spirits would play a prominent role in the novel considering the first chapter creates an atmosphere for a spooky story. Within the first few pages we are told that the sectaries of Swedenborg communicate with the dead, Austin Ruthyn is described as a phantasm and a ghost as well as Dr. Johnson. The drawing room is dark with grim portraits hanging on the walls and to top it off there is a storm raging outside. I was expecting a real thriller. Chapter five also talks of the spirits of Rachel Ruthyn who “is not seen, only heard” and the link-man who “is seen only, never heard” and these spirits are not mentioned again in the novel. The book seemed to be more of a murder mystery than a spooky thriller, but maybe I do not fully understand the characteristics of a gothic novel. What did everyone else think of the book now that we have finished?

I agree that the spookiness was not well maintained throughout the novel although the mystery was. Perhaps it is because le Fanu was writing after gothic novels had ceased to be so popular and mystery novels were taking their place - like those of Wilkie Collins. Had he continued to write in the vein of Walpole and Radcliffe his audience would not have appreciated it. It is perhaps significant that Jane Austen wrote her 'send-up' of the gothic novel, Northanger Abbey, in 1798 though it was not published until 1817 when the taste for the gothic had already subsided. Uncle Silas was published in 1864/5, some time after the genre was at the height of its popularity and when mysteries, pioneered by Wilkie Collins, were becoming fashionable.

I appreciated the mystery and was glad the supernatural was downplayed. I was hesitant to read it because it is promoted as a supernatural gothic which I don't like to read. My research indicates that Uncle Silas was published in 1864 and not 1939. I'm assuming that is a typo.

Thanks Emily - now corrected. I am labouringunder difficulties at present as my computer is still 'at the menders' and I am working on a very very slow netbook which takes absolutely ages to find links etc. I am very exhausted by it!

I had been read this was the very first "psycho" thriller and I did find it to be good in that respect. I'm glad I read it.

Seeuuder wrote: "Well, all is well that ends well and the good guys live happily ever after.

I had high expectations for Uncle Silas (the book) and was left a little disappointed. I thought for sure that ghosts an..."

I was disappointed overall. I think the first person narrative hurt the believablity of the story. We hear nothing of what Milly, Maud's aunt or future husband are doing during all of this time. All we get is a quick visit from her Aunt. They must have know Maud was in trouble, but no action on their parts seems nonsense. It may have made a better short story or novella.

It may have made a better short story or novella.

These were le Fanu's stock in trade and it may be that he overstretched himself when attempting a full novel and could not sustain the action.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thank goodness it was more a mystery than a ghost story. Love mysteries. Not fond of the supernatural. To me the first person narrative was essential and not a mistake. There was suspense because we as adults could see the child was in more danger than she realized. I had one problem. It seems contradictory that the father would cut off all contact with his brother, yet put his daughter at the brother's mercy. Was the father senile? Other than that, all the motivations, etc seemed consistent to me. I thought the governess was particularly well done - both comical, horrible, and human. Good book. Thanks for introducing me to Le Fanu.

It seems contradictory that the father would cut off all contact with his brother, yet put his daughter at the brother's mercy.

I think this was because Silas was his only blood relative and the family name and fortune was perhaps more important than a daughter?

At one point I was a bit concerned that was in fact what was actually happening.

I think this might have been deliberate ambiguity on Fanu's part.

BunWat wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Maud is confused or mildly disturbed, but the reader knows more than she does... There's a certain Mr Magoo quality to Maud..."


Yes, I think Maud's naivete was a bit Magoo-ish:) And I think it's far more effective this way because, for me at least, Maud herself is what kept me interested.

I was able to get my hands on a VHS copy of the 1987 movie version The Dark Angel with Peter O'Toole, and now I know why it has not been released as a DVD -- O'Toole is paying someone to never never let it see the light of day again. The last scene, with O'Toole as Silas, spinning in circles in an opiated frenzy, making keening noises like "Wooo-ooo-oooo!" was one of the strangest things I've ever seen on screen. I burst out laughing. It was awful.

I do have one question... Peter O'Toole's Uncle Silas is very obviously an incestuous old lecher, kissing Maud quite voluptuously on the lips more than once in the movie. I don't remember Silas doing that in the story, or, was it a subtlety I missed?

Where the movie really failed, tho', was in portraying Maud as worse than Mr. Magoo. At least in the book she had the ability to question herself, and examine her own paranoia. In this movie, she was basically an hysteric.

I wish I could find other film versions... I think this story could make an excellent film.

Yes, Austin was hoisted with the petard of his belief in the importance of family no matter what. His willingness to sacrifice his daughter on that altar shows that he was really no better than Silas - just a different side of the same corrupt coin.

Peter O-Toole as Silas kissing Maud was a bit of director's licence! Ugh!

I agree the movie video fell way short of what a movie from this novel could have been. There is another one - but it is a 40's Hollywood version and Maud is "Catherine" I think. I didn't even try to get a copy . . . Liz

Janice George wrote: "BunWat wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Maud is confused or mildly disturbed, but the reader knows more than she does... There's a certain Mr Magoo quality to Maud..."


Yes, I think Maud's naivete was a bi..."

Janice - There was a nice version of Uncle Silas done for Masterpiece Theater a few years back. You might try that version.

I enjoyed reading the book, but was disappointed in the ending. While I appreciate Le Fanu's attempt to tie up all the loose ends, to do so by saying this happened, this happened, this happened as almost an aside to the story was very frustrating to me.

BunWat - That's interesting. I've never read a Victorian novel with one before.