And with the resounding thundering footstomps of people rushing and charging to respond to this statement - - no, wait. There is just us, Sharonna. And that's cool with me.
Well, if no one has read Jackson, we both know it's that person's loss. :)
And definitely the same goes for Flannery, yes. :)
I never got an alert that you had responded, sorry, OldSchoolTheSKOSlives. Thanks for adding your unpit ~ that was supposed to be "input" but I like that typo. It stays! :)
Can't say that I have a favourite author. Some authors I like so much that I read everything they've written. My tastes change. Have never been attracted to authors or themes of horror or terror.
Would liking an author/s so much that you read everything he or she wrote make that author a potential favorite of yours? But even as I type I can see how that reading all of an author's works would not necessarily mean that author had to be a favorite.
Jackson somehow has remained very strong with my respect for her works. I think I've read most, if not all, of her published works. I find her stuff disturbing yet compelling and accurate in portraying humanity's twists.
I can say I like all of anything I've read by her.
But my favorite short story is not by Jackson -- it is Conrad Aiken's "Silent Snow, Secret Snow" -- a poetic portrayal of a young boy's descent to madness. Or is it? I like works that leave no clear cut answers.
I'm rambling, hartfire.
Thanks for adding your thoughts to my "statement." :)
I only just now came across your reply here. I don't think I received an alert or anything but I may have missed it.
This post was edited by WelbyQuentin at November 20, 2016 8:58 PM MST
When I read all of an author it may be for different reasons - partly because my reading is not just for pleasure but also to show me how to improve my writing. I look for beauty of language, depth of characters, realism, cultural setting, theme, questions raised and explored, and I am a sucker for a gripping plot. Ideally, I prefer a novel that combines all of these features - e.g. Umberto Echo's, "Name of the Rose". Also love poetry. Occasionally will read non-fiction - although I'm limping behind in this area.
I looked up Jackson. I will keep her in mind and possibly give her a try sometime. The fact that she keeps the fear wrapped in vague suggestions of the character's mental processes might, maybe could, perhaps, oh hell, I don't want to admit it, make it more bearable for me than actual horror or terror. It's a weird thing - I can read some really horrible stuff, such as Fallici's vivid images of the war in Lebanon in her "Inshallah," or Hosseini's close-ups of the atrocities and hypocrisy of the Taliban against Hasaras in "The Kite Runner" -- and I cope okay because somehow I feel I must understand the brutal aspects of humanity at its worst. Yet when it comes to psychic phenomena and the paranormal, because I don't believe they are possible (despite some evidence that I don't want to believe), I shy away as if fearing contagion. My attitude is definitely irrational. Thanks for helping me see it. Now I'm going to have to order a Shirley Jackson, and face what I've been avoiding. I'll try her 1959 "Haunting of Hill House." Usually takes a fortnight for books to arrive by post, but I'll let you know my thoughts when I've read it.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 21, 2016 8:21 PM MST
You make some great points here, hartfire! Thanks for sharing! Yes, the reasons you stated for reading all of an author's works - - reasons such as those came to my mind. Indeed, there are probably myriads of reasons for reading all of an author's works and, yet, that same author may not necessarily become a favorite.
I've not read "Name of the Rose."
Yes, that brief summary you shared of Jackson's style -- the vague suggestions -- I find that very true and one of her greatest strengths. Funny, "The Haunting of Hill House" is possibly her most famous work besides her short story "The Lottery" but after re-reading many of her works in the last year or so, I find my favorite novel of hers may be "The Sundial." And her "We Have Always Lived in the Castle" is a favorite, too. Neither are as "paranormally-based" as is "The Haunting of Hill House;" yet, as I've said, like Aiken's "Silent Snow, Secret Snow," Jackson so often just tells her story and does not necessarily "help" the reader to 100% decipher the meaning of her work. (If that makes sense.) Sometimes after reading her works I come out with a "What-just happened?" reaction. In any case, to me, "The Haunting of Hill House" is worth reading just for the opening paragraph -- probably the best opening paragraph I've read in a book. :)
I hope you enjoy reading it! You probably already know it but there is a great 1960's (1963, I think) black-and-white masterful film called "The Haunting" based upon the novel. It's a great film for me. There's also an incredibly weak remake in the 1990's, I believe, also called "The Haunting." It journeys far too far away from Jackson's novel for me to enjoy the film. :)
I don't find any of what you've shared irrational at all. :)
This post was edited by WelbyQuentin at November 21, 2016 8:43 PM MST
Thank you. :) I've listened to a writer's panel discussing "not helping the reader." It might be one of the trickiest aspects of writing - one that I do not understand well yet. The general rule of thumb is that every detail must be necessary to the story as a whole. But that one should also allow plenty of room for the reader to visualize and sense the scenes, because that is a major part of the reading pleasure. The same applies to the deeper levels of showing a person's character and motivations. The writer can build multiple levels of meaning into the same words and symbols, but at the same time must avoid the unintended inferences.
If I say a person sits on a chair... you visualise something. If I say: A woman leans on the arm rest and slowly eases herself down into the cushions. Suddenly the pain disappears from her face. I've given you much more detail - but now you might have more questions... what have I left out? And why?
And then there's the other unknown: the reader may or may not read thoroughly and will always bring personal experience into the reading. Leaving the popular formulas aside, even the most accomplished author can never know how the book will be received.
Very interesting stuff here, hartfire! Thanks! You make great points and share helpful information as always. I can only imagine a writer's challenge as far as that 'not helping the reader out' aspect. For what it's worth, I often enjoy that 'left-hanging-in-mild-confusion' feeling that authors have left me in.
(I read a biography about Shirley Jackson -- it mentioned her surprise at how her "The Lottery" was received. She seemed to have not expected such a backlash.)
The backlash! Amazing how many great classic novels have a forward or preface from the author talking about their reactions to the backlash when it was first published. DH Lawrence, Victor Hugo - the list is very long. It warns me that no matter what I eventually come out with, I must be prepared for anything. Perhaps the hardest part is that to write well requires absolute honesty, laying bare the gizzards and guts, the offal, not just heart or brain or bones - it takes all parts to make the whole. Anyway, I shall bear in mind that you enjoy being left hanging in mild confusion. ;-)
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 23, 2016 9:21 AM MST
I'm afraid the titles are somewhat unappealing, but her main characterisations are both mysterious and convincing. Not to mention unusual. If you read them, I hope they bring you many hours of forgetful happiness. If you like them they should do, as there are 15 books in 5 series with one coming in May of next year. :)
WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH 