Hell is for Women: A Review of Hell House by Richard Matheson

Hell House

Richard Matheson

hell house warner books


Oh, Richard…

I have read two Matheson books. This one was the first one I read a year or so ago, then I am Legend. I’ve seen pretty much every movie based on his books as well, but we’ll leave those to the screenwriters. In planning my critique of this book, I found myself comparing both the story and the writing style to The Haunting of Hill House and my distaste for Matheson’s need to explain the unexplainable with pseudoscientific nonsense that does nothing for the plot but distract.

I would like to first focus on Matheson’s writing style. As a graduate student writing my first novel, the “do’s and don’ts” of novel writing are frequently drilled into our heads. Matheson, presumably a successful and prolific novelist, breaks enough of them, that I can’t help but be annoyed. Maybe it’s a case of sour grapes or in this case little man syndrome, but I found myself frequently distracted by his head-hopping often occurring without warning in the middle of a chapter/subchapter. I highlighted the subchapter 2:19pm from the December 22,1970 chapter. In these seven pages, and without any warning we jump into and out of every character’s thoughts and emotions. It was bad enough to completely draw me out of the story. It happened a few times again, but by then, I was more frustrated with the telling of a story and not showing.

Compared to Jackson’s Hill House, there is a lot more action—making this novel a quicker read, no doubt, but the dread, the fear isn’t there. Why? Because we are told everything that happens. Jackson weaves elements into her writing that run like ghostly fingers up your spine, while Matheson throws a ball at you and says, “think fast”. Did anyone else notice how everything “seemed to” be happening? I wish I had counted the times someone seemed to see or seemed to feel or something seemed to move. Ugh. Not to mention the Edith saw, Edith felt, Fischer sat, Barrett ordered nonsense. I frequently felt as if Matheson wanted to take Jackson’s novel and “improve” it with more blatant sexuality/lesbianism, more evil action, and perhaps more depth to the characters? In my humble opinion, all he managed was a novelized and adult version of an episode of Scooby Doo.

And with that, let’s discuss the story itself. Filled with four characters emotionally strong enough to enter Hell House and live there for a week: The patriarch and impotent know-it-all of the group, Dr. Barrett, his lovely, sexually frustrated young wife Edith (yes…Edith…twenty years younger, supposedly attractive and her name is Edith), Florence Tanner—the also maybe young but if nothing else buxom former actress now medium, and the brooding but best in the world medium Ben Fischer. Wait, did I say emotionally strong? The thing is, Matheson, in his 1970’s male brain obviously felt that both women were there to be the victims of the house’s sexual depravity, to need constant saving and reassurance and the men, who actually did very little in the story were the heroes and at times victims of the women’s naivety.

Matheson played with these women like a cat with a mouse throughout the entire story. Sexualizing them in every way, writing them to be weakened by their ability to love and sympathize while the men could block that off and see everything clearly. Those poor closet lesbians/sexually frustrated, love starved women—always getting into trouble. I really hate that. As it is, Edith and Florence were the only two characters who actually did anything, the only two who braved the hell of the Belasco House. And they managed to do it with plump breasts and curvy hips. Now, that is something to talk about.

Alas, as pretty and sexy as they were, neither one could figure out the secret of Hell House or defeat it. Nope. It took the good doctor’s fancy science to weaken it a little and the world renowned medium to put it all together a la Fred from Scooby Doo and unmask the one and only culprit—old man Belasco! In his lead-lined room and his sawed-off shorty legs, he sat dead and waiting. And hey, you think Fischer was an amazing medium? How about a man who knew exactly how the afterlife works, who knew all about the scientific theories to come and how to thwart them. He knew how to kill himself in such a way that he would for sure come back to own that place as a ghost. It’s really too bad Belasco and Deutsch hadn’t met before their death’s, they could have hung out together and saved everyone the trouble.

I tried to overlook the sexism, I told myself the book is a product of its time. It was certainly fast paced with so much action, but I certainly never felt the dread I did in Jackson’s novel. This for me read more like a screenplay than a novel. But what really ruined it for me was the end. Just as in I Am Legend, Matheson feels the need to try to explain everything with some crazy pseudoscience. It’s the wrap up by Fischer with the tidy explanation that is truly so far-fetched it was hard to finish. I won’t give the ending away but honestly, I find it better to end a paranormal story by leaving it paranormal, leaving it open to the possibility that something is still lurking there, ready to get you. But, if you love wrapping it all up in a less than believable way and closing the book knowing that the evil has been vanquished, then by all means, enjoy.

I’ll just be over here, doing my girl thing, trying not to ruin it with my boobs and my need for romancing the ghost.


The Haunting of Hill House

A Review of The Haunting of Hill House

By: Shirley Jackson


I read this book before, in college (which was actually a really long time ago but who’s counting) in a class on horror literature. What I remembered about it, I think was the opening line—which is still one the best openers in any novel I have ever read and the rest came from that horrible movie with Owen Wilson and Catherine Zeta-Jones. So, I was excited to revisit it for this class.

My first impression, was “this seems a lot like Hell House” and I tried not to compare the two as I read. Instead, I focused on Eleanor and her strange connection to the house. Given that the entire book is written from her POV, it’s hard not to. And given that Eleanor is the only character who is written three dimensional, it’s easy to get inside her head (as frightening as that may be).

Often times, I found myself thinking about Jackson’s choice of title. The Haunting OF Hill House rather than Haunted Hill House or something similar. And I began to wonder if we were dealing with a ghost story at all. Here is what we know of Hill House: it was built by a lunatic named Hugh Crain and built deliberately off balance. Bad things happened to Hugh and his family. We know his daughters turned out similar to their father (and after finding his homemade book, one can’t be too surprised) and we know that the people of Hillsdale shun the place. But what we don’t know is what happened to anyone else who tried to live there. There is no proof of a haunting from within.

So, along comes Dr. Montague and his handpicked assistants to investigate. We know why he is there, we know that Luke was forced upon him. We are told that Theo has shown telekinetic abilities (but we never see any evidence of such during her stay at Hill House). We also meet Mrs. Montague who insists upon her own telekinetic abilities but again see no proof during her time at Hill House. The “hauntings” we do experience—and for a novel length piece, they are few and far between—all seem to be centered on or around Eleanor.

Eleanor, the child-like, sheltered, naïve woman who was invited to Hill House because as a child she was involved in poltergeist type activity. Eleanor, who looks to Hill House as her salvation, her escape from a world and family that held her back. Is Hill house haunting her or is she haunting it? I raise the theory of the latter. The house is a deformed creation doomed to suffer from the madness of its creator and in its monstrous form, draws those whose minds are as broken as its edges and angles. Eleanor falls in love with it and it, her. The two become one and it calls her home.

Eleanor, the perpetual child, finds a mother in Hill House and it, in turn, finds its soul mate. They are both the products of their creators and both slightly off.

Is there a ghost or ghosts haunting Hill house? I don’t think there is. I think it has an energy, I think most houses do. Hill House is haunted by those who are drawn to its unnatural energy. Those who are off-kilter enough to find comfort in its carnival fun-house mystery. The haunting is therefore done by the humans who inhabit it. Their energies working in a symbiotic relationship to cause horror.

The Haunting of Hill House was titled, I think, deliberately by Jackson because like many of her other works, this story is NOT a ghost story at all but a character study of the madness and power of the human mind. There is no need for the supernatural when we can do so much damage to each other. I think that is the message Shirley Jackson most frequently tried to convey in her works and manages to do so with a genius-level subtlety in this novel.

“What’s in the box, Poe?” A review of three short stories by Poe


Three Short Stories by Edgar Allan Poe


We were assigned a set of three shorts by Poe. These three represent some of his most famous stories and all have a theme: A crazy, unreliable narrator uses the story as a confession of sorts, a reasoning for his outrageous acts. All three of the narrators hide their murders behind a wall or in the case of the Tell-Tale Heart, the floor boards.

The Tell-Tale Heart: In this, arguably Poe’s most well-known short story, the unnamed narrator seems more interested in convincing us of his sanity than he does his innocence. Which is something we will see in the other stories, and seems to be a theme in much of Poe’s work. I tend to think that many of his tales have an autobiographical bent. Poe, like his characters was considered odd, unhinged, or straight up insane and his character’s protests often come off desperate, as Poe himself was to prove his talent and mental stability. This particular narrator admits to his wrong doing but states it was the old man’s clouded eye that drove him to murder. The constant look of it. But what I find interesting in this story compared to the others is that while nonchalantly telling his tale, if read carefully, we realize that he tortured the old man for days. I wonder if perhaps he was hoping to cause a heart attack and when it was clear that wasn’t going to happen, he went to extreme. Evidence of that is the complete unpreparedness of the narrator regarding disposal of the body and I believe it was that more than anything else that lead to him cracking. It was the dismembering and hiding the body parts that really unhinged him.


The Black Cat: Alcoholism drove this narrator to his evil deeds we are told over and over. He, again a nameless narrator, assures us that prior to succumbing to this disease, he was a mild, peaceful being who loved people and animals. In this story, I felt like Poe, who also was described as quiet and polite when sober but completely out of control the minute a glass of liquor passed his lips, wrote this from a familiar place inside himself. This narrator, like the previous one, shows no remorse for his actions but instead spends his time explaining his reasoning for what he did and how he was driven to it. For me, the theme here is alcoholism in general. He first cuts out the eye of his favorite cat (this time not a cloudy eye, more just a knowing one) in a drunken rage and from there, it’s as if he kills anything and everything that reminds him of his problem with temperance. While he acknowledges that he loses control when he drinks, he refuses to stop and rather than attack the cause, he attacks the reminders of it. His paranoia grows until he turns these reminders into almost paranormal forces that have to be stopped.


The Cask of Amontillado: This tale of pride, revenge and murder is also told in the first person point of view but we do get a name for our narrator. Montressor has suffered a thousand times over at the hands (or lips) of Fortunato but a recent insult is the last straw and he plans revenge. Montressor tells this tale from a date far removed from the incident and like his predecessors (at least on my blog), he too shows no remorse. Now, for me, this was the most interesting of the three. In this story, unlike the other two, we get to know the victim as well as the perpetrator. And Fortunato sounds like the rich asshole we all love to hate. The guy who thinks he is a big deal and that everyone loves him. (Use your imagination and see if anyone comes to mind…someone with a huge ego but little hands). I mean all Montressor had to do was feed the guy’s ego and string him a long with a cask of rare booze instead of a carrot. The whole time Fortunato is obnoxious. He makes a secret Mason’s sign and when Montressor misses it, he makes fun telling him he is no Mason. Monstressor shows him a trowel and disagrees. This was funny. In fact, Montressor makes many little quips and puns alluding to his plan for the loud mouth narcissist. This story was more amusing and more intellectual than the other two.

Unlike the other two tales, this killer had a reason I think many could relate to or at least understand a bit more. I also think there are autobiographical elements. Poe struggled with his contemporaries and critics. He bore their insults as best he could. I am sure there is some of his own unspoken desires in this story. Which I think is why he gave so much more personality to Montressor. Montressor was intelligent, funny and witty but most importantly sympathetic. Also, we don’t know what happened to Monstressor but we are not told he is in jail or has been arrested. For all we know, he got away with it.


I love Poe. His style is described as American gothic which unlike the paranormal elements of the European gothic, studies the darkness within humanity—the horrors of reality. These three stories are not my favorites of all his works and The Tell-Tale Heart has just been overdone. I’ve read it for every English class I have ever taken. But they were good choices for the psycho class (William Wilson would have been a fun tale to look at as well in this category). I think he was misunderstood in his time and I think he struggled with his own inner demons and that gave a life to his characters that many couldn’t appreciate until much later.

Batman: The Killing Joke

Batman: The Killing Joke


Let me preface this by saying that I do not read comics, I know nothing about the Batman universe or any superhero stuff. So, I will give both my thoughts on the reading, my questions that came up during the reading and what I managed to find in my research on it. I read it twice. The first time I read it, it was purely entertaining and I enjoyed it for the story it told. The second time, I looked at it more critically and became a little more jaded. Ultimately, I don’t know how I feel about it and after learning more about it and Batman in general, I’m just confused.

I enjoy origin stories so I was enthralled with the idea that the Joker was once a good guy and let a string of tragedies turn him evil. I understood his need to prove that he wasn’t just a lunatic, that he wasn’t any different than any other human being. His theory was it only took one bad day to drive anyone mad. I understood his motives more than I did Batman’s. I mean, I get that Batman wanted to stop the Joker from doing harm, but the whole impromptu visit to the asylum just to talk about their future was weird to me. I kept wondering what kind of relationship the two of them had anyway? I mean, he passes Harvey Dent in the asylum, you see him questioning the penguin, so why is the Joker so different for Batman than the rest? Why is he trying to make peace with him and why is he so sure they are going to end up killing each other as opposed to any of the other Batman “bad guys”?

I didn’t care for the naked pictures of Barbara Gordon and I felt like even a psycho like the Joker would potentially hold on to the love and loss of his wife and child. I had a hard time buying that he would or could be so vicious and disrespectful of her body. I mean shoot her, sure, but strip her naked (rape her?) and display her naked body for her father? I didn’t buy that from him. But I didn’t know, I didn’t know who she was or if there was more to her back story that I wasn’t aware of. So, I looked her up and was shocked to discover she was Batgirl and then after the accident, Oracle. And then I read up on the thoughts on this part of the story and found an interview Alan Moore did about tit. Turns out, he was even hesitant about doing this to her and asked a bigwig at DC about it and that person (a male) said “Oh why not, go ahead, shoot the bitch.” Suddenly I had a much bigger issue with this. I don’t think that kind of violence against women is necessary (unless it is) but in this story, it isn’t and it makes me think about other superhero stories. Men in these stories die. They are shot, they are thrown over buildings. Women in these stories are tortured, humiliated, raped, etc. But I digress.

One bad day…Batman (at least what I know from the films) also had a bad day that made him who he is. So, I can see where maybe (if he knows of the Joker’s past) Batman feels a strange comradery with this particular nemesis. They are mirror images of each other. Maybe Batman really does want to help the man. He sees the pain and turmoil that the Joker went through and thinks he is redeemable. Maybe Batman sees what he himself could have become and he can’t bare it. He wants it out of his mind and there can only be two ways to do that: heal the Joker or kill the Joker.

But let’s re-examine the idea that Batman does know Joker’s past. The Joker says he knows something bad happened to him (the Joker) once… “I’m not exactly sure what it was. Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another…If I’m going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!” So, if the Joker isn’t even sure what happened to him, how could Batman know? And if Batman didn’t know, it takes me back to my original question of why the hell does Batman just get a bee in his bonnet one day and goes to have a heart to heart with this crazy man, who as far as Batman knows is locked away in an asylum like the other enemies. So why is Batman so concerned that they will have to kill each other one day? Doesn’t he have the man locked away? Doesn’t he trust doing things “by the book” or that their “way works”? I had a really hard time liking Batman in this story. I mean who is he? Some bored rich guy just looking to stir things up? Is he the sane one? Maybe his bad day turned him into an narcistic, power hungry ego-freak. When he doesn’t have a victim to save, he starts something. I don’t know but thinking this story though, I’m not sure they made their protagonist so much better than their antagonist. Who’s the psycho here? I’m not sure.

Finally let’s talk about the ending. What happens at the end? I don’t know and apparently, no one else does either. I mean, one can assume that one killed the other but we all know both of them live on in other comics. Did the police show up? I mean, what exactly was the point of this comic? What in the entire scheme of things was the reason for this? One thing we learn in this program and craft books is to delete all the unnecessary stuff. Now, I don’t know how comics work, but from what I understand in my limited research is that different writers can come in and says “I want to write about this” and get permission and then they write it. It’s like that game we played in school where one person starts a story and the next picks up from there. Maybe that’s what happens in these stories. In which case, everything is important and nothing is. Kind of bleak final thought, isn’t it? Maybe that’s the killing joke. Everything in life is important and Nothing is.


(Not Much Joy in This) Joyride


By Jack Ketchum


While the book was a quick and easy read, I was a bit disappointed in it because it all felt so linear. A to B to C to D the end. I wanted some twists and turns or at least a surprise or two but got nothing. I arrived at the end of the book thinking “Hell, I could have written that, it wasn’t that complex.” And I suppose you don’t always need complexity for a book to be good. But it was just so predictable once it got going. And if that wasn’t the worst part, I lost even more of my enjoyment when I read the short “On Writing Joyride” at the end of the book. Jack Ketchum uses true life crime stories on which to base his fiction (and I learned that he does this a lot—I didn’t know) but it seemed like outright stealing when he described the cases he used for this story.

He describes the book La Bete Humaine by Emile Zola in which there is a scene with the antagonist wanting to kill his female cousin but manages at the last minute to tear himself away. He flees and finds himself on a deserted railway where he sees a figure with a knife bent over another person. He gets really excited because he sees someone doing something he has always wanted to do. Hmm, I mean this sounds extremely familiar, doesn’t it? Ok, you say, but what about the rest of it? Well then there is Thomas Braun a real life spree killer who shot/raped several victims while on a road trip and Howard Unruh who kept a diary of all the offenses he believed people committed against him and ultimately went on a rapid shooting spree in his own neighborhood. He even wrote the word RETAL (Retaliate) beside the names. He built a gate in front of his house, his shooting spree ended up in a standoff with police back at his own house.

What Ketchum did was take two true life stories and use much of the details in his own tale. Ketchum’s part in this story was to have the antagonist Wayne, who has homicidal fantasies, become obsessed with Carol and Lee the two star-crossed lovers, and kidnap them. He forces them to participate in his road trip killing spree. Wayne foolishly believes that they will enjoy it since he watched them kill her ex-husband. They do not of course and eventually become targets of Wayne’s unstable psychosis.

I found this whole thing difficult to believe. Wayne should be scary but for me, he was more of a comic book character to me. He came off as a slow and goofy caricature of a crazed killer. And Lee and Carole were so flat, I really had a hard time caring about them. Lee didn’t seem to be in love with Carole at all and I felt killed Howard more because he hadn’t liked him anyways. It seemed that the two were at the end of the relationship. Carole was more sympathetic as seen through the eyes of the lead detective on the case who had also been involved in prior domestic abuses between Harold and Carole.

I’ve read Ketchum’s Off Season and admittedly, I didn’t care for it either. I didn’t like the characters in it, couldn’t feel for them either. And there were times it felt more like a comic, an outrageous, unbelievable tale than a horror story. Also, I have met Ketchum in real life. He was at last year’s Stoker Con and will be at this year’s as well. He was a friendly enough guy and very down to earth and approachable. I am signed up to take a course he is teaching about using your past pain and hurt to make your own writing stronger/more believable. I hope I gain something from it. Had I read this book before signing up, I may not have.

Is it the worst book I have ever read? No. Did I hate it? No. It was ok. But this is the second book I have read of his that for me was just “ok”. It’s a simple and straightforward work and I couldn’t get into the character’s heads. When I pick up a book, I want to lose myself in the world that’s been created for me. This book (just like Off Season) just didn’t do it for me.


Se7en (1995)

Starring Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman


First and foremost, you must know that I do love this movie. I love the set-up, the grey, rainy atmosphere, the hardened but wise old detective and the new, reckless one. I enjoyed watching the creative nature of the murders and the sneaky clues left by the killer.

The first time I watched this movie (and I have watched it many times), I was shocked and somewhat confused when, just past the middle of the movie, the killer gives himself up. How could this be? The wise pro didn’t figure it out yet and the quick acting, easily angered rookie didn’t either. Also, there were still two more deadly sins to complete. What was he up to?

Kevin Spacey plays a psycho well, and his cryptic comments and passive aggression riles up Pitt’s rookie as they drive to the site where the killer promises to show them more bodies. The ending chain of events is just as shocking and unexpected as the off-formula killer turning himself in. In case you haven’t seen it, I won’t reveal anymore. I was taught that when ending a novel, go for the unexpected BUT make it an ending that the reading will think about and say “of course, it couldn’t have ended any other way, why didn’t I see that coming.” Se7en accomplished that.

I was also taught to be real with the reader. Don’t expect them to buy something so outlandish that it could never happen in real life or if a fantasy, something that breaks the rules of your world. And therein lies my critique of Se7en. These murders are so elaborate, the clues hidden away so that it takes multiple trips to the scene and a thorough search before finding them. Some murders were planned out at least a year in advance and many required much surveillance, research and money. Yes, money—there is that whole “how does the serial killer have so much specialized equipment at his/her disposal?” question again. What do these movie/novel killers do for a living and if it is a full-time job, when do they have time to see to all their complex, meaningful crimes?

And the end. The end required an almost ESP level of forethought. Even the most meticulous killer could not have pulled that off. This guy had to understand the psychology of the detectives potentially even BEFORE he started killing. As I said, this guy’d been planning this for some time. This is my problem with a lot of movies and novels about killers. And can you imagine the level of self-control this guy had in order to do these murders in the way he did. Do psycho’s have that kind of control?

My other issue is with Gwyneth Paltrow’s character Tracy. Is any spouse that completely and unconditionally understanding? Does she ever get upset or angry? Why is she so good? I couldn’t find her realistic, and because she seemed so flawless, I couldn’t like her which resulted in a little less impact on me in the end. Same for Pitt’s detective. He never really showed a softer side, he was the macho cop know-it-all the entire time. His relationship with Freeman’s older, almost retired detective was so formulaic you wanted to smack Pitt upside the head and say “would you fucking listen to him for once in your damn life, punk? Haven’t you seen these movies, don’t you know your attitude is going to fuck everything up just as he is trying to retire without a bad taste in his mouth?”

But it is fiction, it’s meant to first entertain. It does. The writer wants you to be intrigued by the unique MO of the killer. We are. Did it do its job? Yes, it did. So who am I to complain about the unrealistic abilities of the a super genius murderer? Just someone assigned to critique a movie that I have always loved—because it entertained me and the murders were pretty cool.