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 20, 2010 11:54:57 GMT -5
I don't honestly have that much to say for this last section of the book, at least not before reading your posts.
The first thing I have to say is: "I WAS RIGHT!" I'm so proud of myself that I predicted something right in a somewhat mysterious novel. Merricat was the one who poisoned the family. Although, along with this, I wonder, "Why?" Merricat did recollect something about her mother (I think) telling the other relatives in the house that Merricat was not to be punished, especially sent to bed without her supper. This leads me to believe that Merricat was sort of treated like a princess and then she thought she was special, too. But then, what did she do that caused the family members to punish her, resulting in a revenge sort of action?
Finding out that Merricat did kill the family just gives me more questions that went unanswered. Merricat clearly states that she didn't want to hurt Constance when she talks about how she knew Constance didn't eat sugar. Another question that came about at the end of the novel is, "What now?" What happens when the book ends? It's very open ended.
I really liked this book. It was a little creepy. I find the sort of crazy-talk that Merricat has sort of creepy, especially because it tells me she is not all there in the head. And a crazy murderer is always creepy, to me. And it was just an interesting novel all around. I wanted it to go on and answer more questions, but that leaves it up to me, as the reader, to add my own sort of ending for Merricat and Constance.
|
|
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 20, 2010 12:31:46 GMT -5
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.[\quote] I noticed this, too! It's even a little confusing. How often does this sort of switch really happen? That is why, at the beginning, I didn't really see Merricat as being mentally unstable. Only when she was with Constance did she seem to go a bit loopy and become the unstable one.
|
|
Lu
Administrator
Posts: 5,469
|
Post by Lu on May 21, 2010 11:25:48 GMT -5
I loved We Have Always Lived in the Castle, I think I'll buy my own copy and reread it someday. 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" I didn't know about her never adjusting to life in a small village, it makes sense because she's really good at describing the feeling. So good that, at the beginning of the novel, I actually pictured the fictional village as the town where I live. (I moved here from city nearly 10 years ago and it took me years to adjust to it ). Lol, I think you're right Isa. Almost everywhere there's a spooky/place to make up stories about.
|
|
Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on May 21, 2010 12:32:20 GMT -5
I'm actually interested in visiting North Bennington now, it's about 6h away from here by car so it would be kind of a cool road trip. At the same time I could visit Robert Frost's homestead in Bennington
|
|
Lu
Administrator
Posts: 5,469
|
Post by Lu on May 21, 2010 13:16:00 GMT -5
That's cool, Isa! The first thing I have to say is: "I WAS RIGHT!" I'm so proud of myself that I predicted something right in a somewhat mysterious novel. Merricat was the one who poisoned the family. Although, along with this, I wonder, "Why?" Merricat did recollect something about her mother (I think) telling the other relatives in the house that Merricat was not to be punished, especially sent to bed without her supper. This leads me to believe that Merricat was sort of treated like a princess and then she thought she was special, too. But then, what did she do that caused the family members to punish her, resulting in a revenge sort of action?
Finding out that Merricat did kill the family just gives me more questions that went unanswered. Merricat clearly states that she didn't want to hurt Constance when she talks about how she knew Constance didn't eat sugar. Another question that came about at the end of the novel is, "What now?" What happens when the book ends? It's very open ended.. I wonder why she killed her family too. I had the impression that the part with Merricat's mother saying that she wasn't to be punished was sort of a dream, that in fact she was often punished...but maybe I got it wrong, I'm going to find that part and reread it (before returning the book to the library). That part Kristie mentioned, when Katherine told Constance she knew she doesn't eat sugar, doesn't that dialogue prove Merricat had planned to kill her family? That it was premeditated? In the novel Katherine herself says a couple of times that she never eats any food when she's with others, so I wonder why the idea of being sent in her room without dinner seems to provoke her.
|
|
|
Post by Dominique on May 21, 2010 18:55:16 GMT -5
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.I realised this not long after posting, I guess it just struck me how weird it is that Julian never seems to speak directly to her, I guess because he's been coached to think she's dead. I kept expecting a bit more of an explanation about why too, like other people have said. Something that struck me about the whole novel was the focus on material items. Merricat and sometimes Constance seem to have very little to no emotional connection with their dead family apart from the things they left behind. And they constantly mention their dead family's things with seemingly very little thought about who they belonged to. It was such an unusual novel, and so creepy! I liked so many different aspects, like not knowing if you can trust anything any of the characters say etc.
|
|
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 24, 2010 12:56:55 GMT -5
Lu: I don't know if Merricat really did plan on it, as if she had been thinking about it for a long time. She could have decided, when she was putting the arsenic in the food, that she wanted someone to stay with her and she remembered that Constance didn't eat sugar--the perfect way to keep someone with her. And also, if Merricat had killed every member of her family and not saved one, then it would be pretty obvious she was the murderer. So, maybe Merricat was being extremely selfish and didn't even keep Constance alive for any other reason than to keep herself out of jail/trouble.
|
|
Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on Jun 6, 2010 10:36:47 GMT -5
I realised this not long after posting, I guess it just struck me how weird it is that Julian never seems to speak directly to her, I guess because he's been coached to think she's dead. OK, here's a new theory - is it possible that Constance and Merricat are the same person? That one of them truly is dead and the other one has developed a multiple personality disorder? OK, now I really need to read the book again to see if it's a plausible theory or not!
|
|
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 Jun 6, 2010 11:10:47 GMT -5
That's a really interesting theory, Isa! I never would have thought of that. I can definitely see how that could make some sense in the story.
But how would this work with their cousin? Did he know that there was a split personality and sometimes direct his conversation to the Merricat-side and stay nice to the Constance-side? That could be possible, too, because he definitely thought there was some crazy stuff going on in that house. Maybe he wanted to take advantage of the sister(s) and played along with it, thinking, "If she's this crazy, it'll be no problem getting the money away from her!"
|
|
Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on Jun 6, 2010 12:20:26 GMT -5
Yeah, I thought about Charles as well, and about the two ladies coming over for tea, that's why I need to read it again to see if it might work. But wasn't there something about Charles always speaking to the cat instead of actually talking to Merricat?
|
|
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 Jun 6, 2010 18:45:07 GMT -5
That's true! Charles never really did address Merricat. I can't remember how the ladies talked to her. But I remember Constance and Uncle Julian doing much of the talking during that one visit.
|
|
Lu
Administrator
Posts: 5,469
|
Post by Lu on Jun 7, 2010 14:09:28 GMT -5
I never would have thought of that either. It's an interesting theory! It's made me think of the part when Merricat returns from the village and she enters the garden, I don't know why...maybe because it makes sense as a change to the Constance-side of personality. But what about the villagers?
|
|
Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on Jun 8, 2010 7:01:13 GMT -5
I quickly re-read the part where the two ladies come for tea and although it's a bit of a stretch, if you read that passage thinking that there's actually only one sister, it is possible that the ladies are aware of Constance/Merricat's condition and are trying to humour her by acknowledging the presence of both sisters... I wish I were still in school and could pitch that idea to one of my professors!
|
|
|
Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on Jun 9, 2010 5:48:44 GMT -5
This could be such a great essay! haha That's what I was thinking too I tried to find some info on the net but it doesn't look that theory has ever been discussed. Shirley Jackson did write another novel (The Bird's Nest) about a character with multiple personality disorder so obviously it was something she was interested in...
|
|