Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on May 5, 2010 8:47:54 GMT -5
I'm really enjoying the story so far! It's dark and weird and funny and creepy, it's the second time I read a novel by Shirley Jackson (the first one I read was "The Haunting of Hill House") and it's like she's got her own particular brand of horror stories. She's got a real talent for setting up a mood that turns even the most frivolous actions into something frightening.
I too was shocked by Katherine's hatred of the villagers at the beginning of the novel. Her feelings are disturbingly strong - she keeps wishing they were all dead, she pictures herself walking over their dead bodies, and we have no idea at this point where all this hate and violence are coming from. It does seem like it's paranoia and that her own strange behaviour is what prompts the villagers to tease her and make fun of her. At this point, we also have no idea why Constance refuses to leave the house. Whatever the villagers believe, it's clear that the way the two sisters act only reinforces people's negative opinion.
I agree that everything in Uncle Julian's story goes against his claim that Constance is innocent. Anyone listening to him talk would get the impression that he's doing the best he can to let other people know that Constance is the one who killed the entire family. However, when the two women leave and he asks his nieces how well he performed, it got me wondering as to how truthful his tale was. Or at the very least, as to why they would want people to believe it was Constance who did it, whether it's the truth or not. Is it to keep visitors away? I can't wait to read the next section!
|
|
Kristie
Novel turned into BBC miniseries
"If a book is well written, I always find it too short."
Posts: 7,214
|
Post by Kristie on May 5, 2010 18:40:33 GMT -5
I am truly intrigued by this story so far!
I found that as I read, I kept coming up with more and more questions that I want answered! For example, one of the first things that occurs in the story is Mary Katherine's trip into the village and her stating that the villagers hated the Blackwood family. That's where the first question arose: WHY do they hate the Blackwood family? It appeared to be slightly answered when Mary Katherine talked about her mother a little--she seemed a little snobby, like she didn't want to have anything to do with the villagers. So that could be why the villagers hate the Blackwoods. Later on, it's revealed that there was a large portion of the family that died and that Constance was accused of the killing. But that wouldn't make the villager hate them, I would think--just fear them. But then, how could the snobbery of the Blackwoods cause Mary Katherine to hate the villagers? The animosity seems to be equal from both sides--so something REALLY bad had to have happened, I think.
Another question that arose to me was HOW/WHY the Mary Katherine and Constance's mother lost the Rochester house? And then, why is this something that is important to the story? This question, as of yet, has not been answered. At least not that I could find.
I had the astonished "WHAT?!" question when Uncle Julian said " My niece, after all, was acquitted of murder." But that was fairly thoroughly explained after, when Mrs. Wright and Helen Clarke came to tea. However, Uncle Julian did seem a little senile and when he said he didn't even need his notes to explain the event to the women, seemed a little fishy. Like that story could be what he was told and it's not exactly the truth. But then the question is, "Does Mary Katherine know Constance really was the killer?"
|
|
Kristie
Novel turned into BBC miniseries
"If a book is well written, I always find it too short."
Posts: 7,214
|
Post by Kristie on May 5, 2010 19:01:49 GMT -5
“I could tell a local car by the quick, ugly glance from the driver and I wondered, always, what would happen if I stepped from the curb; would there be a quick, almost unintended swerve towards me? Just to scare me, perhaps, just to see me jump? And then the laughter, coming from all sides, from behind the blinds in the post office, from the men in front of the general store, from the women peering out of the grocery doorway, all of them watching and gloating, to see Mary Katherine Blackwood scurrying out of the way of a car.”That it’s probably paranoia was reinforced to me by the childish, slightly obsessive game she makes up where she must miss a turn if someone talks to her or harasses her and so on. But then some of the villagers harass her in the coffee shop, joking that Constance, her reclusive sister, might poison Merricat. Other than that they seem mostly jealous of her due to class reasons, rather than the horrible unadulterated hatred Merricat seems to believe they have for her. Then some of the children tease her about Constance and poisoning some more. These two incidents suggest that perhaps Constance poisoned the rest of Merricat’s family. Merricat being paranoid is later referred to by Mrs Clarke who tells Merricat that maybe there was once some ill feeling but Merricat has built it up in her mind. The paranoia and the weird game suggest to us that maybe Merricat isn’t quite a stable narrator. This is further reinforced by the fact that Merricat isn’t allowed to carry cups of tea or handle knives, despite being 18-years-old. I thought, the whole time, that the hatred from the villagers stemmed from the class reasons. From what Merricat said about her mother, it appeared that she was somewhat snobby. And, while I heard the song/rhyme the villagers said in relation to the Blackwood family, I didn't even think twice about the poison. It wasn't even until you just now mentioned it. I mean, it should've clicked as soon as I found out the story of the Blackwood Family murders haha And now it makes complete sense. But I still don't think these murders are the stem of all the hatred. It just seems like these murders are another reason that just furthered the animosity.We find out precisely what happens when Uncle Julian recounts it to Mrs Clarke and Mrs Wright, who have come calling for tea and to try to convince Constance to re-enter society. It was a bit of a surprise that to me that the family had callers, because while I thought Merricat was a bit paranoid I got the sense they were more cut off from the world than that. I thought they were more cut-off than that, too. But then, the Clarke family was one of those other "snobby" sounding families, along with the Carringtons, that Merricat mentioned stayed away from the villagers. So maybe they only associate with the other "snobs" or something, to keep up a little appearance and look less suspicious, if Constance was at fault for the murders.We learn that Constance was acquitted for the murder of her parents, her brother and Uncle Julian’s wife in a very famous poisoning case. Arsenic was mixed into the sugar and Constance served it to the family. Uncle Julian tells the ladies he’s convinced of his niece’s innocence, despite the fact that she bought the arsenic, scrubbed the sugar bowl and none of the other cutlery, didn’t call a doctor until it was too late and when the police arrived told them that they all deserved to die. I found this information pretty shocking coming from Uncle Julian’s mouth since he had just proclaimed Constance innocent, but then we discover he’s probably not a reliable narrator either; he was left an invalid by the poisoning and has to ask CONSTANCE, who is not exactly a disinterested party, whether it really happened or not repeatedly, as though he might have imagined it. Later he implies he’s not so sure she’s innocent, so he’s also very changeable. All the time Mrs Clarke and Mrs Wright are drinking tea and eating rumcakes that Constance, who we must assume is almost certainly guilty of multiple murders by poisoning, made. I also found it interesting that Uncle Julian seemed to need help in remembering how everything went down, especially when he said he didn't even have to look at his notes to help him tell the story.
As for the fact that Mrs. Clarke & Mrs. Wright were eating food prepared by a woman who is suspected of poisoning food, I caught this, too. PLUS, Merricat told us that she wasn't allowed to do anything in the kitchen--only Constance cooked and prepared meals. I find this very interesting...
|
|
Kristie
Novel turned into BBC miniseries
"If a book is well written, I always find it too short."
Posts: 7,214
|
Post by Kristie on May 5, 2010 19:15:19 GMT -5
I'm really enjoying the story so far! It's dark and weird and funny and creepy, it's the second time I read a novel by Shirley Jackson (the first one I read was "The Haunting of Hill House") and it's like she's got her own particular brand of horror stories. She's got a real talent for setting up a mood that turns even the most frivolous actions into something frightening. I hadn't really thought of it as a horror story, but now that you mention it, it could get very weird and creepy.I too was shocked by Katherine's hatred of the villagers at the beginning of the novel. Her feelings are disturbingly strong - she keeps wishing they were all dead, she pictures herself walking over their dead bodies, and we have no idea at this point where all this hate and violence are coming from. It does seem like it's paranoia and that her own strange behaviour is what prompts the villagers to tease her and make fun of her. At this point, we also have no idea why Constance refuses to leave the house. Whatever the villagers believe, it's clear that the way the two sisters act only reinforces people's negative opinion. I wonder if this hatred and the "visions" Merricat has will lead to her own violence towards the villagers. If Constance did indeed kill and Merricat knows this, maybe she will have to just follow suit.I agree that everything in Uncle Julian's story goes against his claim that Constance is innocent. Anyone listening to him talk would get the impression that he's doing the best he can to let other people know that Constance is the one who killed the entire family. However, when the two women leave and he asks his nieces how well he performed, it got me wondering as to how truthful his tale was. Or at the very least, as to why they would want people to believe it was Constance who did it, whether it's the truth or not. Is it to keep visitors away? I can't wait to read the next section! Uncle Julian definitely doesn't appear to be the most reliable narrator. And the way he talks leads me to sort of think that maybe he had a hand in something. Or at least that he knows that Constance really did it, if she really did do it. I'm still not sure she did it, but I know there is considerable evidence against her.
I AGREE THAT I CAN'T WAIT TO READ THE NEXT SECTION TOO!!
|
|
Lu
Administrator
Posts: 5,469
|
Post by Lu on May 12, 2010 2:05:37 GMT -5
I have missed first part of the discussion I'll start with the second one. I'm really enjoying this book, and I had hard time not to start chapter 8 as soon as I finished the 7th but I wanted to follow the schedule. I think Isa found the perfect words to describe this book: weird, funny and creepy. I too found the opening of this book very intriguing. I really like the way the reader is introduced with all the characters, first with Katherine walking through the village, then with the other family members in her returning home, for me that was quite an effective way to set up the mood. The part with Mrs. Clarke and Mrs. Wright visit was very interesting for me and gave me a lot of things to think about. I'm not so sure if it was Constance who poisoned the family, and why does she want everybody to think she's guilty? Because, it looks like that's the point of her Uncle's speech... I also wonder why she always cook...like someone who wants to make sure her family doesn't get poisoned again would do... In the second part we see the arrival of cousin Charles. At first I believed that he just wanted to meet his relatives and that he was curious the same way as Mrs. Wright. Now I'm not sure of it, because of the way he talks to Katherine, his taking over Mr. Blackwood's place, I can't understand what he is up to. And isn't it weird that he arrives just after the idea of "not hiding in the castle anymore" has been mentioned a couple of times to Constance? And she's begun to take that seriously? I feel a bit paranoid in saying this but I don't trust any of them (well, except maybe the cat Jonas). Even Uncle Julian, who I thought was sort of funny in the first part (expecially in his talk with Mrs.Wright), sounds creepy and sad now. I know Katherine can't be considered a reliable narrator but she does influence me. I am truly intrigued by this story so far!
I found that as I read, I kept coming up with more and more questions that I want answered! Me too and I can't wait for tonight, so I can start reading chapter 8!
|
|
Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on May 12, 2010 5:56:05 GMT -5
Just like Lu, at first I was kind of glad to see Charles arrive. He seemed like a young man determined not to let what happened in the past influence his own judgement, and I thought that was good of him. But as the story goes on, it becomes clear that he's after the Blackwood's fortune. No one really seems to notice what he's doing: Mary Katherine is too busy hating him for no reason other than him showing up in the first place, Uncle Julian is getting more and more mixed up, and Constance can't help but enjoy the fact that a young man is paying attention to her for the first time since the deaths happened.
I thought it was really weird when Uncle Julian mentioned Constance was his only niece, that the other had died in an orphanage during the trial. I can't help but think there's some kind of truth hidden behind what appears to be something said by a crazy old man. Yes, Uncle Julian is losing it, but so far he hasn't been making stuff up. You bring up a good point Lu, about Constance always cooking for the others. I'm starting to get the feeling that maybe Constance didn't have anything to do with the murders and is only covering up for someone. Could it be that Mary Katherine did it and Constance is protecting her little sister? Or did the two of them planned the murders together??
Can't wait to read more tonight!!
|
|
Michelle
First novel published
Posts: 2,563
|
Post by Michelle on May 14, 2010 17:37:59 GMT -5
I fell a little behind (or really behind) but I'm hoping to catch up this weekend and hop in the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Dominique on May 16, 2010 3:37:49 GMT -5
I just finished the latest section, so I'm a bit late posting. Charles seems like a pretty horrible man, it's bizarre how he's managed to gain so much control over the household. I thought it was really weird when Uncle Julian mentioned Constance was his only niece, that the other had died in an orphanage during the trial. I can't help but think there's some kind of truth hidden behind what appears to be something said by a crazy old man. Yes, Uncle Julian is losing it, but so far he hasn't been making stuff up. You bring up a good point Lu, about Constance always cooking for the others. I'm starting to get the feeling that maybe Constance didn't have anything to do with the murders and is only covering up for someone. Could it be that Mary Katherine did it and Constance is protecting her little sister? Or did the two of them planned the murders together?? This confuses me too, at first I thought maybe Merricat really is dead and is actually a ghost, which might explain her connection to the magical world, her bad omens and protection charms etc. It also might explain why she is treated like and acts like a child, even though she says she's now 18-years-old. But the explanation that maybe she did it and Constance is covering for her or they conspired together makes sense too. She does seem more unhinged than Constance even though Constance is the supposed murderer. I'm interested to see how the end of this book will play out!
|
|
Michelle
First novel published
Posts: 2,563
|
Post by Michelle on May 16, 2010 22:23:19 GMT -5
I thought both that maybe Mary Catherine was the real killer and that maybe she was a ghost. But Charles sees her.
I know MC is unreliable but I feel so bad for her once Charles comes. Why does he have to invade their lives so much? I'm actually cheering for him to end up dead somehow.
The news that Julian thinks MC is dead is so intriguing to me that I am going to go keep readig instead of attempting to sleep like I should.
Sorry for the short reply. I'm on my phone.
|
|
Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on May 17, 2010 8:08:49 GMT -5
The reason why I didn't exactly hate Charles at first was because I thought it was kind of nice that a young man would come into Constance's life. Even though she was not found guilty of the murders, she hasn't been able to leave the house ever since her family died, so it's like the house has become her own prison and she's paying the price of a crime she might not have committed. At first, I attibuted Mary Katherine's reaction to jealousy, because she obviously doesn't like the idea of sharing her sister's attention with someone else. But then as it became clear that Charles was after the family's money, I too began hoping someone would put a little sugar in his coffee... ;D
|
|
Kristie
Novel turned into BBC miniseries
"If a book is well written, I always find it too short."
Posts: 7,214
|
Post by Kristie on May 18, 2010 19:57:37 GMT -5
I know I'm almost a whole week late with my post for the second section. But I was busy with moving and getting ready for the move and everything. But never fear, I am now ready to post and have all day tomorrow to read the rest of the book and write another post. It might actually help since this is fresh in my memory.
These chapters introduce us to a new character, Cousin Charles. Now, I don't know about the rest of you (because I haven't yet read your posts), but Charles seems to be a sniveling, underhanded man. I mean, the introduction of his entire character is completely random, which makes him seem a little suspicious. It is very clear that Merricat dislikes and distrusts Charles, probably for a good reason. Constance appears to think he can do no wrong. The life Merricat, Constance, and Uncle Julian have had for the past years has worked for them, however bizarre it is. But then along comes Charles, and he tries to convince Constance that she has done wrong by the other two; kept them from what they should have been doing in life. Also, I really dislike the way Charles talks to Merricat through Jonas (the cat). He even practically threatens Merricat by doing this, when he mentions how he "gets even" with people who do him wrong or hurt him. Charles even says that he wonders who will still be at the Blackwood residence in a month: himself or Merricat. This is just scraping the surface, I believe, of his character.
I also saw a new side to Merricat while reading these chapters. Do any of you have a feeling that Merricat is not fully in her right mind? She has not forgotten things, such as Uncle Julian. But all of the talk that she says about "On the moon..." and nailing stuff such as books and watch chains to trees makes me think that she is a little cuckoo. Now, if she wasn't 18, I might look at this as a childish routine, such as an imaginary friend. But she is old enough that these things don't appear, at least to me, to be play-acting or anything. And I have a feeling that she is going to do something drastic to get at Cousin Charles. I mean, she did tell him about the poisonous mushrooms and how quickly some of their effects take place and how long it takes to die from them. When I read this part (p.72-73 in my edition), I actually thought that maybe Merricat had somehow smuggled some poisonous mushroom into the dish Charles was eating and only time will tell if he really was poisoned. This sort of leads into my next thought.
I have a feeling, however slight, that Merricat was possibly the poisoner of the family. Constance's actions after the family died could have been attributed to her covering for her sister. And, in this section, I see quite a bit of devotion/dependence laid on Constance by Merricat. Also, this could account for Merricat's semi-craziness. She could have gone a little loopy after she realized what she did and this traumatization caused her "loopiness". I mean, Merricat was 12 when the whole murder happened, so she definitely was old enough to know how to do it and what she was doing. And this could account for why Constance always cooks everything in the house--Merricat can't be trusted. What are your feelings on my possibly-crazy idea?
|
|
Kristie
Novel turned into BBC miniseries
"If a book is well written, I always find it too short."
Posts: 7,214
|
Post by Kristie on May 18, 2010 20:10:56 GMT -5
Just like Lu, at first I was kind of glad to see Charles arrive. He seemed like a young man determined not to let what happened in the past influence his own judgement, and I thought that was good of him. But as the story goes on, it becomes clear that he's after the Blackwood's fortune. No one really seems to notice what he's doing: Mary Katherine is too busy hating him for no reason other than him showing up in the first place, Uncle Julian is getting more and more mixed up, and Constance can't help but enjoy the fact that a young man is paying attention to her for the first time since the deaths happened. I think there are reasons as to why Merricat dislikes Charles, aside from his throwing off the routine of things. First of all, he has clearly influenced Constance and practically taken her away from Merricat. Constance is now doing things that never happened before his arrival and Charles is also, basically, trying to talk her into forcing Merricat and Uncle Julian out of the picture, for whatever reason. He says she has done them wrong by letting them be shut up as they have been for so long. So this also makes Merricat just completely uncomfortable. And lastly, Charles has essentially told Merricat, by talking to Jonas, that he is going to get even with her, for what I'm not exactly sure. Merricat has many justifications to hate Charles.I thought it was really weird when Uncle Julian mentioned Constance was his only niece, that the other had died in an orphanage during the trial. I can't help but think there's some kind of truth hidden behind what appears to be something said by a crazy old man. Yes, Uncle Julian is losing it, but so far he hasn't been making stuff up. You bring up a good point Lu, about Constance always cooking for the others. I'm starting to get the feeling that maybe Constance didn't have anything to do with the murders and is only covering up for someone. Could it be that Mary Katherine did it and Constance is protecting her little sister? Or did the two of them planned the murders together?? I think Merricat was the killer. If you look at my post, I have a whole paragraph about this theory. It makes perfect sense that she could have (and I think did) murdered the family. Maybe this is why Uncle Julian thought Merricat died in an orphanage. Perhaps he's been told that Merricat died and the girl who Merricat really is is supposed to be someone else? Because maybe Uncle Julian could've figured it out if Merricat was really "alive".
|
|
Kristie
Novel turned into BBC miniseries
"If a book is well written, I always find it too short."
Posts: 7,214
|
Post by Kristie on May 18, 2010 20:14:32 GMT -5
I thought it was really weird when Uncle Julian mentioned Constance was his only niece, that the other had died in an orphanage during the trial. I can't help but think there's some kind of truth hidden behind what appears to be something said by a crazy old man. Yes, Uncle Julian is losing it, but so far he hasn't been making stuff up. You bring up a good point Lu, about Constance always cooking for the others. I'm starting to get the feeling that maybe Constance didn't have anything to do with the murders and is only covering up for someone. Could it be that Mary Katherine did it and Constance is protecting her little sister? Or did the two of them planned the murders together?? This confuses me too, at first I thought maybe Merricat really is dead and is actually a ghost, which might explain her connection to the magical world, her bad omens and protection charms etc. It also might explain why she is treated like and acts like a child, even though she says she's now 18-years-old. But the explanation that maybe she did it and Constance is covering for her or they conspired together makes sense too. She does seem more unhinged than Constance even though Constance is the supposed murderer. I'm interested to see how the end of this book will play out! It never occurred to me until you both mentioned it that Merricat could possibly be a ghost. I guess I didn't see that as an option because of the way Merricat was in town at the very beginning of the novel. The townspeople see her and she brings food back to the house. Plus, Constance talks to her. However, Uncle Julian hardly ever acknowledges her, so I can see where that might contribute to her being a ghost. And Charles talking to Jonas instead of directly to Merricat. But I just think there is too much tangible evidence of Merricat still being alive.
As mentioned in response to Isa's post, I believe the theory that Merricat committed the murders.
|
|
Lu
Administrator
Posts: 5,469
|
Post by Lu on May 19, 2010 1:06:18 GMT -5
I thought it was really weird when Uncle Julian mentioned Constance was his only niece, that the other had died in an orphanage during the trial. I can't help but think there's some kind of truth hidden behind what appears to be something said by a crazy old man. Yes, Uncle Julian is losing it, but so far he hasn't been making stuff up. You bring up a good point Lu, about Constance always cooking for the others. I'm starting to get the feeling that maybe Constance didn't have anything to do with the murders and is only covering up for someone. Could it be that Mary Katherine did it and Constance is protecting her little sister? Or did the two of them planned the murders together?? I think Merricat was the killer. If you look at my post, I have a whole paragraph about this theory. It makes perfect sense that she could have (and I think did) murdered the family. Maybe this is why Uncle Julian thought Merricat died in an orphanage. Perhaps he's been told that Merricat died and the girl who Merricat really is is supposed to be someone else? Because maybe Uncle Julian could've figured it out if Merricat was really "alive". That's an interesting point. I don't understand why Uncle Julian said Katherine had died, the idea of her being a ghost is interesting. Do you guys think he knew Katherine was guilty? I've just realized I hadn't paid a proper attention to Uncle Julian and Katherine's relation...that is a good reason to read the book again! ;D I loved We Have Always Lived in the Castle, I think I'll buy my own copy and reread it someday. During the fire, I noticed that Merricat is the one who takes the situation in hand and support her sister. I had the same impression at the beginning, althought Merricat has something puerile about her attitude. Then, when the action moves to the castle, things changed and I had the impression that Constance was the one who run the house, the most responsible of teh two (three). It's interesting how they exchanged roles. In the third part, it's finally revealed that it was Mary Katherine who poisoned her family, so that Constance was just covering for her sister. It struck me the way Constance mentions that event and it made me wonder if she told the police that her relatives had deserved to die only to cover for Katherine or if she really believes that. I finished reading the novel while I was waiting for the bus, and since I didn't have any other book with me I started to reread it from chapter 8. There was one thing I hadn't paid much attention the first time: when katherine is returning home and she feels Charles is still angry and she wonders how a person could mantain one single emotion for such long time, that thought of Katherine struck me because int the second reading I knew for sure that she poisoned her family. I also noticed that people who are described as "normal" (they don't nail stuff to trees at least...), turn out to be mean. Charles, when he arrives, is apparently a normal guy, but he's in fact quite a bad person, only interested in money. The villagers looks normal, but they can be so mean as to save an house from fire just to damage it with their own hands...maybe they didn't killed anybody but are they so much better than Katherine? Surely they're not better than Constance!
|
|
Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on May 20, 2010 7:52:10 GMT -5
I loved We Have Always Lived in the Castle, I think I'll buy my own copy and reread it someday. I'm going to read it again for sure! I love the way it was finally revealed that Mary Katherine was the guilty one, sort of just in passing... Just like I love how Mary Katherine doesn't really seem to be 18 years old. By making her seem younger than she really is, Jackson gives the reader the impression that there is something wrong with Mary Katherine without having to spell it out, and without making her seem like a monster despite of what she's done. Shirley Jackson is pretty brilliant at doing things like that! It's really interesting what you say about "normal" people, Lu. The most violent scene in the entire novel is when the villagers destroy the house. These are supposed to be normal people, but hatred comes over them and they do a really terrible thing. It sort of puts what Mary Katherine did into perspective - we don't know what her motives were to act the way she did, but if "sane" people can work themselves up to the point that they can destroy a house, it's easy to imagine that something might have happened to provoke Mary Katherine - who's already unstable - into acting the way she did. I've also read that Shirley Jackson never adjusted to life in North Bennington, a small village in Vermont, and she was always considered by the villagers as an outsider and a bit of an eccentric. Maybe that scene was her way of saying "see, you're just as demented as I am, it all depends on how you look at it" What I really enjoyed about this novel was that it made me think of when I was young, and there was that spooky house with the spooky family everyone made up stories about. I'm pretty sure everyone's had one of those! It especially reminded me of it at the end of the book, when the children are playing on the front lawn and daring themselves to go stand on the front porch. I can easily imagine Shirley Jackson seeing a house like that and coming up with the story for "We have always lived in the castle". It's like through the novel, she manages to take us inside that creepy house, something we would never have had the courage to do as kids, and that's what gives the novel its subtle horror flavour. I loved it!
|
|