The Obscure Reading Group discussion

In the first half of the book, what struck you about the plot? the characters? the writing?

Is this genre writing or genre-bending?

What does the book remind you of?

And where do we go from here in the second half of the book?

(These are just a few starter questions. Feel free to add your own "What the -- ?" questions, or be bold and make a few pronouncements about this sunny book.)

I’m not sure what this book reminds me of, but since you asked I am more aware that it does make me think of something. Could it be an Oscar Wilde madhouse play?

I’m enjoying the general craziness of the situation, the general acceptance of Fanny’s vision of her father and the Apocalypse, and all of the various characters. Can’t wait to see what happens next.

My first thoughts was it reads like a play or screenplay. As far as it reminding me of another book, not really. Jackson was an atheist right?
It comes across loud and clear that she was a non-believer.

For me definitely genre bending. It verges on science fiction , horror and paranormal. Jackson is so good at genre bending.
Do you think her writing is a result of her alcoholic state a lot of the time. Or was she a talented lady whose books are steeped with physic games?

I'm still baffled by the number of characters. And their similar names too, no less. Jackson isn't a bad writer but a lot of time has been spent so far on wildly disorientating dialogue sequences with too many involved at once. Intrigued to see where the whole story goes though.

I am enjoying the dark humor, the tongue-in-cheek (where else?) stuff, but admit that I, too, am put off by the excess and, to my mind, unnecessary characters.

Though it's too soon to say, I also sense that something is lost in not being more serious about the possible "scary" angles. All of that is usurped by Aunt Fanny's ridiculousness and the equally ridiculous reaction to it by others.

Weirdly, I'm sensing subtlety in the humor aspects and a lack of subtlety in plot development, which seems hamfisted, as if the author doesn't much care.

So... at this point I'm enjoying some of the lines and descriptions more than the story itself, which borders on silly.

I have to agree with Ken on this one. I am loving the witty dialog, but find myself reading for those wicked comments and thoughts instead of plot. The only thing the least bit scary to me is 10 year old Fancy, a little psychopath in the making. I find the whole story so far absurd, but it is entertaining so far. I have no idea where this is going.

I also agree with Sue on reminding me of an Oscar Wilde play. I am not a Jackson scholar, but have read both her non-fiction books about her family life in Vermont. She did have an irreverent sense of humor, so maybe this book is her attempt to figuratively "push someone down the stairs".

Oh, I love that last line, Diane. Could very well be!

I was reminded of Oscar Wilde too, but in the last chapter, or maybe the one before, I started to get a distinct Addams Family vibe. Anyone else?

I felt some early creepiness--especially in the scene where Fanny gets lost on the path and ends up with the statues. If anyone has read The Haunting of Hill House, there is a scene with statues there this reminded me of. She wrote Hill House the next year, and she definitely left off the absurd and went with the creepy there.

Carol wrote: "My first thoughts was it reads like a play or screenplay. As far as it reminding me of another book, not really. Jackson was an atheist right?
It comes across loud and clear that she was a non-beli..."

Interesting thoughts, Carol. I did get a kick out of Essex trying to fit in with the True Believers by spouting lines like "Eternal damnation attends us," so that was definitely irreverent.

I would think the alcoholism only hurt her abilities, but agree she was definitely playing some games!

Wasn’t her husband a screenwriter? And if so didn’t she edit his work?
That may be why I get those vibes.

Jackson is leading us down the garden path , formulating her next book and experimenting with the reader.

Sometimes alcohol enhances an opus of works, but eventually the desired effect is lost.

Kathleen now that you mention it it does have an Addams Family feel. Lol Now I am trying to figure out Gomez.

It’s too early yet to get a handle on Mrs. Willow and the girls, Julia and Arabella. But Cinderella comes to mind in a sick way, but of course they are all playing parlor games. I am waiting for the seance and ouiji board.

Matthew Ted wrote: "I'm still baffled by the number of characters. And their similar names too, no less. Jackson isn't a bad writer but a lot of time has been spent so far on wildly disorientating dialogue sequences w..."

This seems to be the main criticism of the book for now, and I tend to agree. I can keep track of the characters, but only just. For me, the issue with these types of books (and I really must emphasize for me, as others interact with them differently) is that they hinge on a premise. The "it". The thing that we are avoiding, the thing that gives us the uneasy feeling in the pit of our stomachs. This becomes a pro for the book, meaning that I will give it a long, long time to unfold. Perhaps even the entire book (as I will do in this case). But lord help the impression it makes on me if that "it" doesn't unfold properly. Then, the pro swings and becomes a massive con.

I have been trying to figure out where we are going from here for a bit now, and I think I have some ideas. I haven't read anything but The Lottery by Jackson before, and so I am curious if this is all headed toward a Jim Jones event.

Alan wrote: "Matthew Ted wrote: "I'm still baffled by the number of characters. And their similar names too, no less. Jackson isn't a bad writer but a lot of time has been spent so far on wildly disorientating ..."

I read The Haunting Of Hill House, now there is a psychological book that weighs on the mind. This book might be Jackson’s outline for that book , working out all the bugs in this book .

I’m enjoying all your comments. It seems to me that Jackson is writing from a writer’s notebook she may have kept of “possible odd characters.” Certainly there’s an abundance of bizarre people. What do you make of the way Jackson leaves the narrative and gives pages of details? For example pages 70-76 in my paperback edition—the story about Harriet Stuart. Isn’t this what beginning writers do, unable to find an integral method of incorporating the back story? Mind you, I am only on page 79 so maybe by the end of the first reading, it becomes clearer.

Ken wrote: "What does the book remind you of?..."

Perhaps Lewis Carroll? Laugh-out-loud social satire, mixed in with truly terrifying scenes and characters. Even a couple of "through the looking glass" scenes. Not at all what I expected. Aunt Fanny's first vision--definitely a nightmare. She is propositioning Essex for sex (is that why he is there? Es sex?), when she is abruptly outside with Fancy. (The novel is filled with abrupt and disorienting scene changes.) Aunt Fanny reaches to the marble statues for support, and they are warm, and the grab at her. While Fancy runs away. From the illustrated edition I mentioned before:

Does anyone have some thoughts on the significance of the sundial and the Chaucer quote? From The Knight's Tale:

To you, my lady, that I love the most:
But I bequeath the service of my ghost
To you aboven every creature,
Since that my life ne may no longer dure.
Alas the woe! alas, the paines strong
That I for you have suffered and so long!
Alas the death, alas, mine Emily!
Alas departing* of our company! *the severance
Alas, mine hearte's queen! alas, my wife!
Mine hearte's lady, ender of my life!
What is this world? what aske men to have?
Now with his love, now in his colde grave
Al one, withouten any company.
Farewell, my sweet, farewell, mine Emily,
And softly take me in your armes tway,
For love of God, and hearken what I say.

I don’t have a comment on The Knight’s Tale quote but I do want to add that I am enjoying reading this in a “what’s coming next” way, without holding it to scrutiny for anything else at the moment. I’m letting it play out and then I will decide what I judge it to be. Also, I wonder about Essex as a screwball (and sexy) Greek chorus, often spouting these odd lines off to the side of the action and the story.

The illustrated edition page that you shared is beautiful, Ginny. I'd love to see it, but I doubt my library has one. Thanks for sharing it.

Ginny wrote: "Does anyone have some thoughts on the significance of the sundial and the Chaucer quote? From The Knight's Tale: To you, my lady, that I love the most:
But I bequeath the service of my ghost
To you..."

Ginny, thank you so much for sharing the passage! I have no educated guesses, but I always have thoughts. :-) Here are a few things that come to my mind.

The first Mr. Halloran, Fanny’s dad, became rich suddenly and decked-out the house with all kinds of things, including the sundial. He placed it off-center on the lawn, perhaps for a touch of imperfection to remind himself of his poorer past. Maybe in life, he knew enough to question the value of material things, and maybe in death he was sure. What good is all of this stuff to me now that I’m dead?

I think the “what asketh men to have” is the key. There is a stark contrast drawn at multiple times in the story between the townspeople and the Halloran’s.

And along the lines of the “severance” from others, isn’t it interesting that Old Mrs. Halloran had that dream about having a house all to herself (that turned into a gingerbread house the kids ate!). She is the foil here.

What I don’t understand though, is in his initial revelation, he leads Fanny to believe they’ll be safe in the house while all around them suffer. My guess is they’ll be in for a big surprise--maybe what he’s really trying to teach them?

Ginny wrote: "Ken wrote: "What does the book remind you of?..."

Perhaps Lewis Carroll? Laugh-out-loud social satire, mixed in with truly terrifying scenes and characters. Even a couple of "through the looking g..."


Illustrations like that can deck out any book in style. Love it!

Re: the characters. I've noticed that certain characters will seem to rev up as "key" (e.g. Fancy), then almost disappear entirely. It's odd and makes one wonder: "On purpose or just sloppy?"

Ken, maybe she does lose interest in some characters temporarily and look for reactions and ideas elsewhere. I wonder if she could be creating as she goes, adding the new characters because she can, not for any purpose since they don’t appear to further whatever the plot is. I guess we’ll have to wait a while to know.

Hi all, just arrived at chapter six and I decided that’s far enough along to indulge in reading your observations. Everything I’ve thought about it so far has been named, and I agree, except that my poor overloaded bandwidth was having such a hard time, initially, keeping track of all the characters and who they are to each other that I resorted to making an annotated list. Which helped.

Based on “The Lottery,” I guess I expected this one to be similarly ominous & horrifying, but so far all I get is silly. So I decided to settle in and enjoy the humor — at least that’s something. Oh and loved the brief passage exploring the question of beliefs. (P33 in my paperback edition)

Yvonne wrote: "Hi all, just arrived at chapter six and I decided that’s far enough along to indulge in reading your observations. Everything I’ve thought about it so far has been named, and I agree, except that m..."

I'm not sure which passage you mean, Yvonne. Could you quote up a few lines?

In the spirit of parts winning BIG over whole (so far), here's a part I chuckled over -- the initial description of Mrs. Willow, an otherwise unbelievable character who is accepted in unbelievable ways by Mrs. Horror-an.

"Mrs. Willow was a large and overwhelmingly vocal woman, with a great bosom and an indefinable air of having lost some vital possession down the front of it, for she shook and trembled and regarded herself with such enthusiasm that it was all the casual observer could do at first to keep from offering to help."

"'And you have gotten older, Orianna,' she said, entering, 'how glad I am! The older we get ourselves the more we like to see it in our friends,' and she smiled amply around the room, as though prepared with only the faintest encouragement to gather them all to her bosom, that repository of lost treasures, and cherish them for having grown older every minute since they were born..."

I noted this quote, which may be the one Yvonne is talking about:

“The question of belief is a curious one, partaking of the wonders of childhood and the blind hopefulness of the very old; in all the world there is not someone who does not believe something. It might be suggested, and not easily disproven, that anything, no matter how exotic, can be believed by someone. On the other hand, abstract belief is largely impossible; it is the concrete, the actuality of the cup, the candle, the sacrificial stone, which hardens belief; the statue is nothing until it cries, the philosophy is nothing until the philosopher is martyred.”

I'm a little late to the thread, but hello everyone! This is certainly a strange novel so far. I've read 'The Haunting of Hill House' and the Penguin small mint collection 'The Missing Girl' by Jackson, the latter proving to be brilliantly eerie. With this one, as a few of you have mentioned, I have no idea where it's going. I'm wondering if in fact nothing will happen at all, and it'll instead be a type of character study on those who believe the world is ending and they are the "saved" ones...but what exactly will Jackson have to say about this mindset? I, too, am loving the witty dialogue, though I do think sometimes she wastes valuable pages on these exchanges that ultimately don't add an awful lot to the plot.

For my part, I am choosing to read this as a farce, so that I can enjoy the circus without worrying about what Shirley Jackson intended. I am very curious about the second half of this novel, and whether the world really will end for everyone else. Personally, I wouldn't want to restart civilization with any of these characters. I wouldn't even want them in my house. It is also more than a little odd that Lionel was murdered by his mother, and there is absolutely no one who mourns him, not even his wife and daughter. A couple of comments have made me think that he was no great loss.

Diane wrote: "For my part, I am choosing to read this as a farce, so that I can enjoy the circus without worrying about what Shirley Jackson intended. I am very curious about the second half of this novel, and w..."

I am taking this tack too, to read it as a farce for now, but from my previous Shirley Jackson reading, I expect the unexpected. She did write funny memoirs I haven't read yet-- Life Among the Savages and Raising Demons.

I read Jackson's Hangsaman that left all kinds of plot points hanging, so it wouldn't surprise me if we didn't see Fancy again, but somehow I think we will. We had a hint of her in the doll found with the pins in it.

So far I'm finding it an enjoyable combo of weird, dark and sarcastic, with a through line of social commentary regarding the haves and have-nots.

I’m with you both, Diane and Kathleen. Wondering where we are going but enjoying the trip.

I'm also out here, feeling more confused about where this could be going than anything else. Some interesting thoughts from you guys that I need to mull over as well. I'm finding this isn't like anything else of Jackson's I have encountered, there is too much silliness at this point for me to feel any sense of foreboding.

These are certainly some monstrous people, but since Lionel was one of them, I don't imagine he deserved more than he got in the way of grief. There isn't anyone likeable among them. I laughed at Diane's comment about not caring to be among the surviving if these are the people you'd be surviving with. Have to agree.

I'm going to go ahead and get started on the 2nd half. Should be interesting.......

Diane wrote: "For my part, I am choosing to read this as a farce, so that I can enjoy the circus without worrying about what Shirley Jackson intended. I am very curious about the second half of this novel, and w..."

In all the confusion of characters and plot holes, I forgot all about the opening moments where references are made to Lionel being pushed down stairs. In the beginning, I thought that was the mystery to unwind. Maybe not.

Lionel being pushed stays clearly in my mind, though much else in the story has not. And I admit to the mistake of also reading Ken’s poetry and “This is Happiness” by Niall Williams. Ken’s poems are so much better to read and enjoy than “The Sundial.” And Williams’ novel is a delightfully Irish tale. So I am hardly motivated to read the second half of Jackson’s book. I loved “Life Among the Savages,” The Haunting of Hill House,” and “The Lottery,” so I will put aside the poems and Irish flavored prose at some point.

I’ve begun the second half. I’ll save my comments.

I made the big push and finished. I'll save my comments for Discussion #2.

P.S. Thank you, Sandra.

Diane wrote: "Personally, I wouldn't want to restart civilization with any of these characters. ..."

I don't think anyone has mentioned yet the obvious parody of Christianity, and the "chosen people". Aunt Fanny has a vision from her Father, and if the chosen ones will stay in the Father's house and obey the rules, they will be the only ones saved from the destruction of the world. Of course, the second group of chosen ones, the space ship metal-fastener-free people, are equally absurd. I was reminded of the Bob Dylan song Talkin' World War III Blues:

Well, the doctor interrupted me just about then
Sayin’, “Hey I’ve been havin’ the same old dreams
But mine was a little different you see
I dreamt that the only person left after the war was me
I didn’t see you around

Well, now time passed and now it seems
Everybody’s having them dreams
Everybody sees themselves
Walkin’ around with no one else
Half of the people can be part right all of the time
Some of the people can be all right part of the time
But all of the people can’t be all right all of the time
I think Abraham Lincoln said that
“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours”
I said that

Great points, Ginny! I did think of the parallels between Christianity and the “father’s house.”

Ginny wrote: "Diane wrote: "Personally, I wouldn't want to restart civilization with any of these characters. ..."

I don't think anyone has mentioned yet the obvious parody of Christianity, and the "chosen peop..."



In the name of the Father, no son, and any holy spirits, that went right over my head!

I had slight interest but it's waning fast. Not doing too much tomorrow so might push to the end too. I just can't figure out what Jackson is going for and the amount of characters is honestly getting ridiculous, never seen anything like it. Hill House, if only her subsequent book, is leagues above this, quite the jump in skill.

Matthew Ted wrote: "I had slight interest but it's waning fast. Not doing too much tomorrow so might push to the end too. I just can't figure out what Jackson is going for and the amount of characters is honestly gett..."

My feeling exactly, Matthew Ted. Perhaps there is a reason this one has remained obscure.

Sara wrote: "Matthew Ted wrote: "I had slight interest but it's waning fast. Not doing too much tomorrow so might push to the end too. I just can't figure out what Jackson is going for and the amount of charact..."

Not that we ever want "obscure" to be synonymous with "of poor quality." Jude would have to file for a title change and, last I checked, Thomas Hardy was otherwise occupied.

Jude was obscure (Hardy said so), but I have never thought of the book as obscure. It was taught in my high school and I read it again in college. People always knew about it and many, many considered it Hardy's greatest work (including me).

The dictionary defines the word obscure "not discovered or known about; uncertain". This work is definitely not well-known, which I think is the way the word is being used for the group...it might also be "of poor quality" and that, I was attempting to say, might explain its obscurity.

I'm sorry to see so many are not enjoying this as much as I am. Perhaps it is one more for die-hard Shirley Jackson fans, who would probably not agree about it being of poor quality. :-)

I like having all the characters, They add to the fun house feel of the story--you're hit with one odd viewpoint after another.

And it's not like it's all for no point. She's making observations about society, about how different people might react if faced with the end of the world.

Just wanted to throw out a differing assessment. :-) I'm happily on to the next chapters, wondering what weirdness I'll confront next.

Kathleen wrote: "I'm sorry to see so many are not enjoying this as much as I am. Perhaps it is one more for die-hard Shirley Jackson fans, who would probably not agree about it being of poor quality. :-)

I like h..."


Fear not! I will say a few words for the defense next week!

Ken wrote: "Fear not! I will say a few words for the defense next week!"

I always look forward to your words, Ken--in defense or otherwise!

I'm enjoying it too, but completely understand why others may not. I agree with Sara that there may be a reason this is "obscure", especially among Shirley Jackson fans. I think the discussion of the second half of this book may get rather lively.

I have not yet begun the second half and I am hoping it saves the day. I did not say "poor quality", Ken did. I was thinking more in terms of its not being popular, because, frankly up to now it is weird and all over the place. I always reserve my final judgment until 1) the end, or 2) the moment at which I cannot take anymore of a book (haven't reached #2 with this one yet).

Perhaps the fact I have read little of Jackson’s work has left me with no real expectations for this book. I have read The Haunting of Hill House and I think The Lottery.

Matthew Ted wrote: "I'm still baffled by the number of characters. And their similar names too, no less. Jackson isn't a bad writer but a lot of time has been spent so far on wildly disorientating dialogue sequences w..."

Why do you think Jackson created so many characters with names that are similar? It makes it confusing. It's sometimes hard to tell one character from the other. Sometimes Mrs. Halloran is Mrs. Halloran and other times she's Orianna. I have to remind myself that Orianna is not Miss Ogilvie.

Ginny wrote: "Diane wrote: "Personally, I wouldn't want to restart civilization with any of these characters. ..."

I don't think anyone has mentioned yet the obvious parody of Christianity, and the "chosen peop..."

Ginny wrote: "Diane wrote: "Personally, I wouldn't want to restart civilization with any of these characters. ..."

I want to comment on the parody of Christianity and the "chosen one" portion of your post. Aunt Fanny has been "chosen." And, yet, on her shopping trip, Aunt Fanny "chose" a stranger in town to come back to the house with her and Miss Ogilvie. The "Captain" expected to be grilled regarding his past and asked about his references. He was ready to lie. It completely confused him that Aunt Fanny didn't care if he had references or not. It seemed like a twist on Christ asking certain people to give up their families and careers to follow him.

So is the house like a safe house, a type of Noah's Ark that collects "chosen" people? They will be saved from the flood of doom and destruction. They collect canned goods instead of animals. They burn the books to make room for food.

And then there's the scene with the other doomsday cult group. It's almost like they are rivals or opposing gangs. One group can't tolerate the other group's beliefs because one group would have to give up too much of their core beliefs to accomodate the other group.

There was a discussion about how the members of the rival cult gang are not to wear anything with metal fasteners so they can join the Saturn folk when they land on Earth. Metal somehow interferes with the ability of being able to depart with the Saturn aliens. The "metal" references reminded me of how the Amish frown on using buttons because they are too worldly and decorative. I think Jackson is poking fun at cults and religions.

Someone mentioned earlier about Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, the looking glass, etc. We have a scene where a mirror is taken off the wall and someone named Gloria has a "vision." We also have a scene where a picture window breaks for no apparent reason. Instead of walking through the "looking glass" the glass itself shatters. And what happened to the mirror that was taken off the wall? I'm guessing it was put back.

Finally, there's the doll that Aunt Fanny buried in the maze. The doll ends up on the sundial with pins stuck in it. Was the doll a pin cushion originally and not just a toy? Or is this Jackson's take on a voodoo doll. Since Aunt Fanny was in the maze, did she dig up the doll and place it on the sundial? Or will this clue/omen be another false passage in the maze--one that leads the readers to nowhere in particular.

For some reason, Arabella and Maryanne think the doll was in Fancy's collection, but I don't think so. If they put the doll in Fancy's doll house, will she notice it? Or will the doll never be mentioned again?

Perhaps the remainder of the book will make everything clearer. Somehow I doubt it.

Cindy wrote: "Ginny wrote: "Diane wrote: "Personally, I wouldn't want to restart civilization with any of these characters. ..."

I don't think anyone has mentioned yet the obvious parody of Christianity, and th..."

Good questions all, Cindy. I don't think Jackson in any way wanted to draw positive Biblical parallels between the "chosen" in this house and, say, the chosen in Noah's ark. The one similarity is how they are animals -- mostly selfish, vain, and superior to the "great unwashed" in town.

Jackson works hard to give readers plenty of reason to dislike most every character (confused or not) in the book. Positively takes glee in it. Somehow I think that's part of her grand plan, if you can perceive any plan, grand or not, for this book.

Cindy wrote: "Finally, there's the doll that Aunt Fanny buried in the maze. The doll ends up on the sundial with pins stuck in it. Was the doll a pin cushion originally and not just a toy? Or is this Jackson's take on a voodoo doll..."

Oh, I think it is definitely a take on on a voodoo doll. Not surprisingly, there are several suspects that would want to stick pins in Fancy's doll of her grandmother. Including Fancy herself.

This reminded me of the houses within the big house. Fancy's doll house is a replica, with all the characters. Aunt Fanny has a complete replica of the apartment where she was born and spent her fondly remembered childhood. This novel is like the repeating reflections in mirrors placed at an angle to each other.

Great questions. I think this novel is like a maze, a puzzle. A challenge. I don't think Jackson is laughing at the reader, but instead, running ahead and teasing "catch me if you can".