The Obscure Reading Group discussion

Here we can discuss not only the second half of Shirley Jackson's book, but the book as a whole.

How does it hold together?

What were its strengths and weaknesses?

What would you like to say about the usual suspects: plot, characterization, setting, theme, writing style, point of view?

Parts vs. Whole?

Humor? Horror?

Sue (I think it was) wrote in her review that she read where Jackson called this her favorite baby (book). Is Shirley Jackson being self-indulgent in this book, then, the readers be damned? Or is there no such thing for an author if at least one reader signs on and says, "Great book!"?

Is the sundial irrelevant, or a symbol?

Yvonne (I think it was) brought up the possibility of satire on Christianity. Father (Aunt Fanny's), son (dial?), holy spirit (humor?).

Final possibility for discussion: Do readers have a right to dislike a book simply because they can't stand a single character in the book?

Or whatever you want to say, ask, or wonder, in a stirring-the-pot kind of way.

Readers have a right to think anything they like about a book or an author. I was hoping the conclusion would justify the 1st half of the book, but it did not do that for me. The death of Mrs. Halloran by being pushed down the stairs was a poetic justice touch for me. There was ample reason for anyone in that house to want her gone, but my money is on Fancy. I really do believe she was a child prodigy psychopath. I knew as soon as Mrs. Halloran told her the "crown" would be hers when she died that she wouldn't last the night. With the collapse of civilization and no legal system, it is just a numbers game ending with last man standing from here on out.

Diane wrote: "Readers have a right to think anything they like about a book or an author."

Agreed. Maybe a better way to say this: Is it fair to dislike an author's book because you can't stand a single character in it?

Or perhaps that changes nothing. It's fair because the reader has sovereign rights to opinions. I wonder, though, how many authors would say it's fair. And poor Edgar Allan Poe. He'd have NO fans.

I guess that has to be up to the reader. I have loved some books that had one or more unlikeable characters, and disliked others that had none. And sometimes my sympathy lies with the villain. I actually halfway admired Fancy, she knew how to get what she wanted, lol.

I'm in the same camp as Diane. I've liked many novels with unlikeable characters and have no problem with it: unlikeable characters are sometimes more interesting than likeable ones. My issue with Jackson's novel is the vapidity of the characters. None of them stood out as being particularly developed or interesting beyond rather strange archetypes.

The novel seemed to have little overarching "purpose" other than perhaps to entertain, but it failed to do that with me. The only reason I spared it from getting 1-star is because some scenes were well-written and her other novels have proved she can, at least, write. Benefit of the doubt, essentially.

This novel was a really strange one...in a way, it's an interesting focus for Jackson to pick, almost a prelude to something like 'Lord of the Flies' but with some crazy adults in a big post-Armageddon house to-be! Perhaps a more interesting novel would have been the aftermath of Aunt Fanny's vision...if it even happened. Or not! That would have been yet more interesting, I think, as they've already worked themselves into this mind of being superior to those on the outside. If nothing changed, what then? I won't lie, I almost forgot the book was called The Sundial. It didn't seem like a very central aspect to the novel, only relevant near the beginning and then right again at the end? Hmm, Jackson, oh to probe your mind...

The sundial, as a title and as a unifying theme, completely eludes me.

Glad it's not just me! Seems like a very random metaphor for... something.

Are metaphors allowed to be random, though?

Ken wrote: "Are metaphors allowed to be random, though?"

I'd say no. Professors couldn't even allow a mixed metaphor, let alone a random or useless one.

Calling the literary geniuses among us. Explain the sundial as a metaphor, mixed or otherwise.

To me this book is just one long send up. Jackson is ridiculing the rich, the religious, religious fanatics, the shallowness of the townsfolk. The sundial is a metaphor for ignorance.

During the daytime, the sundial is only an approximation of knowledge and during the night it tells you nothing.

At first I was not overly liking what I was reading but I have grown into it a bit. At times it is pretty funny. There are some great lines. I am only 3/5 of the way through but it isn't horrible but it also isn't a favorite.

I agree with others here and think a reader likes what a reader likes.
This was a strange novel. As for this being Jackson’s “baby,” that wasn’t my comment. What I did include in my review was information I found in a GR friend’s review referring to why she wrote this book. Apparently Jackson had noted in her essays (or wherever) that novels of this type seem to be written from the viewpoint of outside the walls and she wanted to write one from within the walls. Of course, this is my summary of another person’s summary, but she is someone who is a Jackson completist.

Other than feeling deflated when I suddenly hit the end of this book, I sort of enjoyed this experience. I guess I wanted something apocalyptic to happen but that wouldn’t have fit for inside the walls.

Did anyone else feel a touch of Flannery O’Connor during Julia’s ride to the city that went so weird. The driver was out of another book entirely.

As for the sundial, I just looked up the definition to be sure I wasn’t missing some esoteric meaning. But no, it tells the time if there is sunlight. Lots of guessing possible but nothing obvious except that much of the important activity took place in fog or looking in a mirror. So why the sundial? I don’t remember why Mr Halloran Sr wanted it to begin with, part of his wish to outdo anyone and everyone else and be superior.

Sorry if I misquoted you, Sue. I thought your friend had said that Jackson admired this book more than her others. I do think authors play favorites among their own works, but maybe, like parents with their kids, they're not supposed to.

The car ride with Julia is a perfect example of a "set piece" nestled like a jewel on this corroded ring of a book in that it shined nicely. I quite enjoyed that little build up of suspense, convinced, from Jackson's reputation, that she was going to have this psychopath attack the poor girl. Creepy.

Then, poof. It was back to our regularly-scheduled nonsense.

I agree with Sue and others about being deflated at the end. But I realized just into the last chapter that there was no way Jackson was going to pull off a satisfying ending here. So I felt a big let down after a story that I otherwise pretty much enjoyed.

But ... after thinking about it yesterday (when I was too busy to come and comment), I realized I must be a fan of her writing. I'm like the one person in the family that actually likes the crazy Aunt. This book was a test of that, because I agree that it did not hold together at all!

I liked the humor but was majorly disappointed that she didn't play up the creepy parts. There was so much potential! But like Ken says, she'd take you there and then "poof," drop it.

I think she was just playing--just goofing around with this book (and perhaps with all of her books). I do not like being messed with as a reader, but I didn't feel tricked--it was goofy from the beginning.

My thought about the sundial was that it shows the time of day--the end is near.

But here's a quote. I'm not sure if it means anything, but someone else might have a thought!

“Mrs. Halloran, touching the sundial, moved her finger along a W and thought: Without it the lawn would be empty. It is a point of human wickedness; it is a statement that the human eye is unable to look unblended upon mathematical perfection. I am earthly, Mrs. Halloran reminded herself conscientiously. I must look at the sundial like anyone else. I am not inhuman; if the sundial were taken away, I, too, would have to avert my eyes until I saw imperfection, a substitute sundial--perhaps a star.”

Kathleen wrote: "My thought about the sundial was that it shows the time of day--the end is near.

But here's a quote. I'm not sure if it means anything, but someone else might have a thought!

“Mrs. Halloran, touc..."


A good quote, and the part where Mrs. Holloran thinks "I am earthly" serves nicely as a foreshadowing device. Earth to earth, dust to dust, she is going into the earth sooner than she thinks, following the Lionel train down the stairs (choo-choo).

The word play is reminiscent of the mortally-wounded Mercutio in Romeo & Juliet, who, in his last breaths, tells his friend Romeo, "Ask for me tomorrow and you shall find me a grave man."

Here's another positive part (I cannot defend the whole). I thought it a hilarious scene in Ch. 8 when Gloria looks into the looking glass and sees a naked Essex. The reaction of Essex is Jackson at her best.

Here's Gloria:

"'Essex, it looks like you, only you aren't dressed...you haven't got any...' Gloria turned scarlet and put her hands against her cheeks, but she did not sit back...

'You might try to get me into a lion skin or a pair of bathing trunks,' Essex said. 'I probably don't know there are peeping toms around.'

'You are...could you be hunting?'

'Hunting for what, in God's name?' said Mrs. Halloran.

'Almost certainly for a pair of bathing trunks,' Essex said. 'Couldn't I please stand behind a bush?'...

'It's such a beautiful country. Essex is gone; there are just soft hills and trees and that blue blue sky.'

'Thank God I am out of sight,' Essex said irrepressibly. 'I was beginning to have that feeling of being stared at.'

'Look,' Gloria said, 'oh, look,' and she laughed. 'It's changing,' she said, 'it's like a little painting of a landscape, and it's changing so I can see over the hill and through the trees and now there are people, very far away. 'They're...dancing, I think; the sun is so bright. Yes, dancing.'

'Dressed?' asked Essex, who was enjoying himself enormously."

Note that when Gloria first sees Essex revealed, "she did not sit back." She's so horrified, she needs to look closer.

Reading this back and forth badinage, I can't help but think it's Shirley Jackson, not Essex, who is enjoying herself enormously.

It's little set pieces like the Julia fleeing in a cab scene and this that gave some enjoyment to a book I otherwise rued.

I agree, Ken that it's Shirley having the fun.

I did enjoy the character of Essex. I actually enjoyed most of the characters, including Miss Inverness and Miss Deborah, especially at the party.

But interesting question you posed about characters. I tend to like them if I like the writing, and not if I don't. (A recent Paul Auster comes to mind where I hated both.) I've never cared if they're likable--it's fiction, so mostly I like them for their dramatic effect.

I read an interesting line from a writer the other day about characters: "What I forgive in a character is not necessarily what readers forgive in a character.”

I was the one who quoted Jackson in an article claiming that she enjoyed writing this book more than anything else she had ever done. That's why I think she was populating this novel with send-ups of real people she didn't care for. But who knows what was in her mind?
Another very strange scene that seemed to have no bearing on the action was the chapter where Aunt Fanny had re-created the entire apartment from her early childhood. We all know she was living in the past, but then she brought Fancy into the make-believe. And what about the similarity in their names? Could that have some meaning, that Fancy's future wouldn't be that different from Fanny's present? More questions than answers in this one.

That's brilliant about the names, Diane.

I wondered about Aunt Fanny's re-creation, especially when they said they'd let the windows blow out of the upper floors. I thought Fanny would be running up there to protect her special place, but no--another dropped storyline.

At one point, I thought we'd find out in the end that Fancy controlled everything through her doll house. She was quite the monstrous little thing!

Thanks for mentioning the Fanny/Fancy bit, Diane. I found myself tripping over the names frequently during my reading and then the sense of the story would be wrong. Although, given the twists in this story, maybe confusing the names wouldn’t have interfered as badly as in other stories.

The memorial apartment upstairs was creepy and showing it to Fancy as essentially a legacy was strange since it had no meaning for her at all? I was thinking Fancy would enjoy burning it!

Apologies for being late on this one - had to burn the midnight oil for the last 100 pages or so of the book. I have loved reading the discussion on here, and I must admit I feel a little better seeing the general feeling among the group. I wanted to dig in for allegories and came up completely short.

Ken, I loved your prompt about the father, son, and the holy spirit. I looked for it, I truly did. That would have somewhat rescued it in my mind.

I also loved the New York Times Book Review blurb on the back of my edition: "Jackson can summon up start terror, make your blood chill and your scalp prickle." I wonder if they are talking about Jackson as a whole or just this book, because I can't seem to tell. No chilling of the blood or prickling of the scalp going on here.

Alan, it is really disappointing to hear that blurb. One of my biggest gripes about this book is the marketing. It should have been marketed as humor, a "send up" as Darrin I think correctly labeled it above. Jackson really can make your blood chill, but while she plays with it a little, that's not her focus here.

263 goodreaders marked it as horror. 99 as gothic. Did they read it? Only 12 as humor. I normally have some faith in my fellow readers, but they let me down with this one. :-)

For me it succeeds as Shirley Jackson twisted humor, but only after I got over it not being frightening as I dearly hoped I would be.

I agree Kathleen. I must admit I was constantly waiting for a "gotcha" moment, one that never came. After the first discussion, when I tried to shift how I was looking at it, I enjoyed the slightest bit more. Either way, I will still get to her two other famous works.

I do like Shirley Jackson, her non-fiction more so than her fiction, but I have to say that had this book been the first of hers I read, I wouldn't have been encouraged to read anything else. A truly obscure book by a well known author, and for a good reason.

How coherent, how many thread are dropped, in the Alice books? There are many similarities and direct references to Alice in this book. Essentially all the characters in the Alice books are symbolic, literally flat or impossible to grasp with any sense of reality. The allusion becomes explicit with the wonderful, wild orgy of a party. It did make me think that that would be a great way to go out. If the world really was ending. And it all happens outside the House.

"I am doing all I can to make your party a success," Essex said, coming up to Mrs. Halloran on the terrace.

"All it lacks, actually," Mrs. Halloran said, "is the head of the Cheshire Cat looking down on us from the sky." She looked from the terrace onto the sizable crowd now moving more freely on the lawn. The sundial stood out clearly, since no one went really close to it, and it stood by itself, a small island, in the moving people. From the terrace the sound of voices was a little distant, murmuring, with now and then the clear round bellow of Mrs. Willow, saying, "The little bubbles tickle your nose," or, "The drink of angels, I promise you; fit for any king."

"If we had a Cheshire Cat," Essex said, pleased, "Mrs. Willow could be the Duchess."

"As I recall, the Duchess was under sentence of execution for boxing the Queen’s ears." Mrs. Halloran laughed. "Off with their heads!" she said.

Yes! It's funny I forgot the Cheshire Cat allusion, but were there enough allusions to Alice to make it obvious that was what Jackson was about? And who is the mirror (sorry) of Alice in this book, I wonder? There's a little girl, but she didn't catch anyone's fancy.

I don't know. I reread Alice in Wonderland a few years back and was wowed by Lewis Carroll's imagination. What's more, I was tickled by practically every character -- even the Red Queen! In this book, we could have used a hookah or two.

Ken wrote: "Yes! It's funny I forgot the Cheshire Cat allusion, but were there enough allusions to Alice to make it obvious that was what Jackson was about? And who is the mirror (sorry) of Alice in this book,..."

For me, it pointed to a way to look at the book. And there was all the mirror stuff. And scenes where people were lost, disoriented. But I agree. The characters in Sundial were less vivid--more sadly funny than nonsense funny. I didn't find them boring, but I didn't warm to them.

I was expecting horror, and found a puzzle--a maze. I laughed a lot. I pleasant surprise.

Yes, a few laughs here -- and there are precious few in this age and day.

Anyone else on the Alice in Sundial Land angle Ginny brings to the fore?

Nothing on the Alice connection, but did anyone else get that the nurse was reading Robinson Crusoe to Mr. Halloween on 3 different occasions?

Diane wrote: "Nothing on the Alice connection, but did anyone else get that the nurse was reading Robinson Crusoe to Mr. Halloween on 3 different occasions?"

Yes, I saw that. Poor man. Isolated in his own house. Cute auto-correct there. Appropriate.

Looking up Diane's point, I found a quote I had highlighted. Not really related, but it was worth a laugh. Evil, and jealousy, and fear, are all going to be removed from us. I told you clearly this morning. Humanity, as an experiment, has failed." "Well, I’m sure I did the best I could," Maryjane said.

Really, all the characters are islands. Do any every really connect with each other?

Yes, I enjoyed the Robinson Crusoe readings. I think it was the first time it came up, when she read the apropos: “if we had been kept onboard, we’d have all been safe.”

And I also laughed at that line about humanity, Ginny. This one too:
“’The experiment with humanity is at an end,’ Aunt Fanny said. ‘Splendid,’ Mrs. Halloran said. ‘I was getting very tired of all of them.’”

Finished. I have little to offer you about this obscure book. I guess the last comment by Maryjane says it all: “It wasn’t the plot so much, you know, it was the acting. I mean, it was so real you really got to thinking they were real people.”

It definitely wasn’t the plot, and I don’t agree that these characters were anything like real people.

I guess the joke is on us.

Sandra wrote: "Finished. I have little to offer you about this obscure book. I guess the last comment by Maryjane says it all: “It wasn’t the plot so much, you know, it was the acting. I mean, it was so real you ..."

I, too, wondered if that ongoing conversation between Maryjane and ... Arabella, was it?... was all "meta" as in meant to actually be commentary on the novel they themselves were in (two characters in search of an author).

Yes, Ken. And from reading even the littlest bit of information on Shirley Jackson’s life, I see much in this novel is autobiographical. In an interviews she remarked, "My grandfather was an architect, and his father, and his father. One of them built houses only for millionaires in California and that's where the family wealth came from, and one of them was certain that houses could be made to stand on the sand dunes of San Francisco, and that's where the family wealth went."

Also, “Jackson's maternal grandmother, nicknamed "Mimi", was a Christian Science practitioner who continued to practice spiritual healing on members of the family after her retirement.”

Interesting information, Sandra. Thanks. It does make this all feel more autobiographical, especially the forefathers and the house itself.

Sandra wrote: "Yes, Ken. And from reading even the littlest bit of information on Shirley Jackson’s life, I see much in this novel is autobiographical. In an interviews she remarked, "My grandfather was an archit..."

Well that is very enlightening, Sandra. I'm curious about her Life Among the Savages. It's my guess she mocks her own family as much as she mocked this one.

I taught an excerpt from “Life Among the Savages” to my high school students. It was excellent and funny and endearing. I read that it was largely autobiographical. I used the excerpt as a model to teach students how to write a autobiographical narrative. My students loved the story and had fun writing their own comedic stories. I saw that you were reading the book, Kathleen. I’m sure you will enjoy it!

I loved Life Among the Savages, and the follow-up, Raising Demons. I have just ordered LET ME TELL YOU, a book of collected essays and short magazine pieces. Her mocking and sarcastic humor resonates with me.

Thanks, Diane. I will have to add the follow-up book to my reading list.

Diane wrote: " Her mocking and sarcastic humor resonates with me"

Yes--me too! I think that really is the thing I like best about her. :-)

Life Among the Savages is on my list. Now I’m more motivated to read it.

I gave this book 3 stars because of the murkiness of the plot, but it was not a chore to read at all. The wit saved it for me, even though the characters were all unlikeable. Thanks to whoever nominated it, otherwise it would have remained obscure and unknown to me. I very much enjoyed this discussion as well.

I have to go star my review now. I held off until the polls closed (not that polls will matter much in coming years... but for now, yes).

I’m glad I read it too because I didn’t realize that there was this other side to Jackson’s writing, the sly, sarcastic humor, witty repartee. I’ll be watching for it in my future reading.

Diane wrote: "Readers have a right to think anything they like about a book or an author. I was hoping the conclusion would justify the 1st half of the book, but it did not do that for me. The death of Mrs. Hall..."

Diane, you make a good point about Fancy being a child prodigy psychopath. I was thinking sociopath. Maybe she is turning into a younger version of Mrs. Halloran?

I note there was not much mourning over Lionel's death after he fell down the stairs. Even Mr. Halloran seems more interested in hearing the bells ring than he is by the fact that Lionel is gone. To be fair, Mr. Halloran appears to exhibit signs of dementia.

Even though Jackson gives us clues that Mrs. Halloran pushed her own son down the stairs and Fancy, pushed Mrs. Halloran down the same stairs, I think there is the remote possibility that both occurrences could have been accidents.

There was no proof that either one of them were deliberately pushed down the steps. In Mrs. Halloran's case, the only evidence we have is Mrs. Willow's assertion that Mrs. Halloran was sure-footed. Even sure-footed people can trip in the dark. Especially, when they are juggling a candle, the wind outside is howling, and the end of the world is at hand. No one heard a scream. No one even heard her fall. All we have is the power of suggestion and the general distrust we have of the characters because of what they say and how they interact with one another.

It's also possible that the end of the world is not at hand. When the storm has passed, everything will return to *normal,* minus Mrs. Halloran. I find it curious that everyone believes Aunt Fanny's preposterous "visions" and plays along with the farce. I had a believability problem that Mrs. Halloran treated those visions as if she thought they were real. Perhaps she just did it because she was bored and for her own amusement.

One final note about Aunt Fanny's *visions,* ... Fanny stated that if everyone stayed in the house, they would be safe. Well, that certainly didn't pan out for Mrs. Halloran. She would have been better off facing the storm with the villagers. The fact that Mrs. Halloran died suggests to me that the end of the world was fabricated by Aunt Fanny. Apparently, the only end of the world is the end of the story with the death of Mrs. Halloran.

I love your thoughts, Cindy--so glad you shared them. And you have me thinking about a few things.

I lean toward the psychopath label to be put on Fancy, and probably Mrs. Halloran. But I think the whole lot of them were not "normal." That's why they originally made me think of the Addams Family.

From the other Shirley Jackson I've read, she likes writing about the nasty side of people (I'm thinking of The Lottery and We Have Always Lived in the Castle.) Also, once you take a step into believing these people are odd/ghoulish/on a different plane, it's easier to accept that they believe in Fanny's vision in a way we certainly wouldn't.

I like what you say about the only end of the world is Mrs. Halloran's end, and looking back now, I love that we never see any manifestation at all of Fanny's vision. Maybe they all believed it for their own selfish reasons--it certainly seemed that was the case for Mrs. Halloran, who wanted to be completely in charge in a way only shrinking her world could make her. And maybe Fancy was the worst, but maybe she was just saying out loud what the others were thinking, as children tend to do.

Cindy's comment on Fancy being a sociopath vs. psychopath made me look up the difference (which I didn't know, I'll admit here).

I looked here (you'll have to cut and paste, as GR disallows HTML links on their site):

https://www.mha-em.org/im-looking-for...

It's good to know, especially as regards certain Fancy politicians who have a penchant for... well, read the traits.