Jump to content

The Woman in Black by Susan Hill


Janet

What did you think of The Woman in Black?  

13 members have voted

  1. 1. What did you think of the book?

    • 5/5 - l loved it
    • 4/5 - I really liked it
    • 3/5 - I enjoyed it
    • 2/5 - It was okay but nothing special
    • 1/5 - I hated it
      0


Recommended Posts

TheWomaninBlack_zps785838ab.jpg

 

Welcome to the February 2013 Reading Circle for The Woman in Black by Susan Hill - apologies for the late start!

It is assumed that you have read the book before reading posts in this thread, as the discussion might give away crucial points, and the continuous use of spoiler tags might hinder fluent reading of posts.

 

Synopsis (from back cover)

 

Summoned to attend Mrs Drablow’s funeral in Crythin Gifford, Arthur Kipps, a young solicitor, journeys serenely to her tall, lonely house situated on the bleached salt marsh beyond Nine Lives Causeway.


He did not suspect that Eel Marsh House guarded the memories of a pitiful secret, nor did he understand - until it was too late - that the mysterious black-robed woman who inhabited its shuttered rooms exacted a terrible revenge.

 

Questions for discussion (please answer as many or as few as you wish)

 

1. Did you like the book?   What was it that you enjoyed?  If you didn't like the book, what were your reasons for disliking it?

 

2. The narrative is quite sparse and the characters few, did you find it easy to engage in the story?

 

3. What were your expectations when you started this book and were you proved right or wrong?

 

4. If you have seen the stage production, TV version or film of The Woman in Black, how did it compare to the book?
 

5. Was this the first book you've read in this genre/ by this author, has it encouraged you to read more?

 

6. One of the themes of the novel is fear.  Did you find the novel creepy – were you scared?

 

7. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?

 

8. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?

 

With thanks to Claire (Chesil) for helping me out with this month's circle.  :)

 

In an article in the Guardian newspaper, Susan Hill says:

 

 

I set out to write a ghost story in the classic 19th-century tradition, a full-length one. There have never been many, writers perhaps having felt the form would not stretch successfully. By the time I began mine, in the 1980s, full-length ghost stories seemed to have died out altogether. I read and studied the Jameses, Henry and MR, and Dickens, and I also had beside me the "bible" – Night Visitors by Julia Briggs (still the best study of the form).

9. If you've read any 'classic' ghost stories, how do you think this compares to them?

 

10. How successfully do you think Hill has captured the feel of the 19th century?

 

11. Do you think the book works well as a full-length novel, or in your opinion would it have been better as a short story?

 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Did you like the book?   What was it that you enjoyed?  If you didn't like the book, what were your reasons for disliking it?

 

I liked the book a lot. I enjoyed the slow pace and the whole Victorian gothic feel .


 

2. The narrative is quite sparse and the characters few, did you find it easy to engage in the story?


Yes I found that sparseness was an integral part of the story for me , it didn't overcomplicate everything. I was engaged with the character and the story within a few lines of the first page.  

 

3. What were your expectations when you started this book and were you proved right or wrong?


I had already seen the TV version back in the 80's so I knew it was going to be creepy. When I read it the first time (it was a re-read for the reading circle) I had not heard much about the book and didn't have any expectations really but was hoping it had the same atmosphere. I was not disappointed.
 

4. If you have seen the stage production, TV version or film of The Woman in Black, how did it compare to the book?
 

I have seen  the TV version and the recent film.  Both were different to the book . I very much disliked the film version. I would enjoy seeing the stage play sometime  I think.
 

5. Was this the first book you've read in this genre/ by this author, has it encouraged you to read more?

 

I can't remember reading any ghost story before this so yes to both questions.
 

6/ One of the themes of the novel is fear.  Did you find the novel creepy – were you scared?

 

Not scared really as  you know the main character survives because he is telling the story . But it has a great atmosphere, and the understated  calm Victorian way in which he describes events somehow make them all the more chilling. That was completely lost in the film version.
 

7. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?

 

No the plot is all straightforward and linear
 

8. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?

 

Yes, loved it!
 


.

Edited by vodkafan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Did you like the book?   What was it that you enjoyed?  If you didn't like the book, what were your reasons for disliking it?

I didn't like it too much - but that's mostly because I don't enjoy horror - and I read this as a curious experiment. So I'm not really the best judge of the book.

 

2. The narrative is quite sparse and the characters few, did you find it easy to engage in the story?

The sparse narrative was engaging - and I thought - required - to build the atmosphere and tension.

 

3. What were your expectations when you started this book and were you proved right or wrong?

The only thing I expected was to be scared out of my wits - thankfully I wasn't. I actually read at one go last night, and still managed to sleep fairly well - so I'm happy about that.

 

4. If you have seen the stage production, TV version or film of The Woman in Black, how did it compare to the book?

Haven't watched either. My partner though was intrigued by the cover on my book - it was a film tie-in edition - and I think he'll be getting the DVD soon - so I may watch it.

 

5. Was this the first book you've read in this genre/ by this author, has it encouraged you to read more?

Horror - I've read Stephen King's The Shining - and that scared me beyond everything.

This is only the other book I've read. I don't think I'll read any more.

 

6. One of the themes of the novel is fear.  Did you find the novel creepy – were you scared?

I think I'd already expected to be scared - and somewhere read almost as on onlooker - in a detached way - determined I wouldn't let it mess with my mind too much. I probably didn't do the book justice because of this. 

So I wasn't really scared.

 

7. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?

I don't understand why all those people - the caretaker, the inn-keeper, the others in town - continued to live there in spite of knowing about the horror and its consequences.

 

I was also was disturbed about the inclusion of the twist involving the death of children. It's disturbing enough when innocent people are killed - but doubly so when it is children.

 

Also, could someone explain how it is a Victorian Gothic novel please?

I felt it was set in a much more recent time, and I don't know what Gothic really is!

 

8. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?

It was an okay read for me - again I hasten to add, because of my relationship with all things horror, and not because of the book itself. In a detached manner I could appreciate the fine writing and the way the atmosphere was built. I also liked the narrator, especially when his interactions with Spider are described.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Also, could someone explain how it is a Victorian Gothic novel please?
I felt it was set in a much more recent time, and I don't know what Gothic really is!

I don't think it was necessarily Victorian - but I haven't managed to re-read mine yet (it's next on my 'to do' list!) so I can't exactly remember if the era was specified.   The wide(ish) use of electricity would suggest a slightly later period to me.

 

You can read more about what constitutes a Gothic novel here:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should say that it's been about five years since I read the book, and I didn't want to re-read it, but I do remember it, so hopefully I can still join in the discussion!

 

1. Did you like the book?   What was it that you enjoyed?  If you didn't like the book, what were your reasons for disliking it?

I did like it, but I'm definitely not a fan of ghost stories, so I don't think I was ever going to love it, but that's a failing on my part not the author.  I liked the quality of the writing, and I think Hill did a fantastic job of evoking the 19th century period through both the style and the dialogue.

 

2. The narrative is quite sparse and the characters few, did you find it easy to engage in the story?

Yes, because of the writing, it felt like I was reading a contemporary novel of the period, and I love stories that start at the end and the narrator recalls his tale from the past, which I find I tend to engage with at an early point.  I'm sure I remember reading at the time, that Hill wrote it both as an exercise for herself and as an example that could be used in schools to show how to write in the style of the 19th century.  I think she achieved that goal pretty well!

 

3. What were your expectations when you started this book and were you proved right or wrong?

I had been warned before I started it (as I don't like horror), that it was very frightening, and I shouldn't read it at night on my own, but I actually didn't find that to be the case.  Now, admittedly, I did read it in July, so there were no cold, dark nights to read it on (even in our British summer), but it still didn't scare me at all.

 

4. If you have seen the stage production, TV version or film of The Woman in Black, how did it compare to the book?

No, I haven't seen any, but then being a scaredy-cat, I think I'm more likely to be frightened by a visual interpretation of it, so I've particularly avoided them.

 

5. Was this the first book you've read in this genre/ by this author, has it encouraged you to read more?

It was the first ghost story I've read, and I've read a couple of others since, but I do tend to avoid them as I don't like them generally.  I've tried to read some of Hill's crime fiction for my book group, but again, I don't like the type of very realistic violent crime novels that she writes.  However, I was impressed by the writing, and I did read Howard's End Is On The Landing which turned out to be an absolute gem, and I adored it.  Her children's books have also been recommended to me, and I'm curious to read her sequel to Du Maurier''s Rebecca, Mrs. de Winter, so I will read some more in the future.

 

6. One of the themes of the novel is fear.  Did you find the novel creepy – were you scared?

As I've mentioned before, I didn't find it scary, but I think that's the way my mind decided to cope with knowing it was supposed to be scary, that I tried not to visualise it too much in my mind.  I think I'm my own worst enemy at scaring myself by over thinking and trying to visualise things that are far worse than anyone could have written, and I purposely distanced myself from the story while I was reading ito, to make sure I wasn't too scared.  Not sure if that makes sense!

 

7. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?

This is the only question I can't really answer.  I remember the overall feel and experience of the book, and I remember discussing it in my book group, and I'm sure there was something I brought up that I wasn't totally convinced by, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was.

 

8. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?

Yes, I did enjoy it, which surprised me, due to my dislike of ghost stories, and I think I would recommend it to others if they like 19th century fiction or ghost stories.  I did buy a lovely hardback copy for a friend for Christmas, as I know he likes reading that genre.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it was necessarily Victorian - but I haven't managed to re-read mine yet (it's next on my 'to do' list!) so I can't exactly remember if the era was specified.   The wide(ish) use of electricity would suggest a slightly later period to me.

 

You can read more about what constitutes a Gothic novel here:)

 

Thank you Janet - it says a Gothic novel has elements of horror and romance - I'd be interested in everyone's thoughts of on whether they they consider this to be a Victorian Gothic novel - and why. I think reading your views will help me understand it better :)

 

6. One of the themes of the novel is fear.  Did you find the novel creepy – were you scared?

As I've mentioned before, I didn't find it scary, but I think that's the way my mind decided to cope with knowing it was supposed to be scary, that I tried not to visualise it too much in my mind.  I think I'm my own worst enemy at scaring myself by over thinking and trying to visualise things that are far worse than anyone could have written, and I purposely distanced myself from the story while I was reading ito, to make sure I wasn't too scared.  Not sure if that makes sense!

 

It makes perfect sense to me chesil - and I wrote almost the same thing.

(Here's a hug from one scaredy-cat to another :friends0:   :giggle: )

Edited by bree
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Janet - it says a Gothic novel has elements of horror and romance - I'd be interested in everyone's thoughts of on whether they they consider this to be a Victorian Gothic novel - and why. I think reading your views will help me understand it better :)

Bree, you might find this interview with Susan Hill interesting - she starts to address the "gothic" issue in the first paragraph: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/feb/17/woman-in-black-book-club-susan-hill?intcmp=239 

 

It makes perfect sense to me chesil - and I wrote almost the same thing.

(Here's a hug from one scaredy-cat to another :friends0:   :giggle: )

Thanks, bree. :friends3:  I wondered if it was just something I did, my own coping mechanism. Glad I'm not the only one :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bree, you might find this interview with Susan Hill interesting - she starts to address the "gothic" issue in the first paragraph: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/feb/17/woman-in-black-book-club-susan-hill?intcmp=239 

 

Thank you for that link chesil - an interesting interview - and it cleared up a few things for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Also, could someone explain how it is a Victorian Gothic novel please?

I felt it was set in a much more recent time, and I don't know what Gothic really is!

 

 

I think I nominated the book, bree; I had thought it had a Victorian feel when I read it, and it was on the Librarything suggestions link on the nominations page, so I didn't go back to the book and look any more closely for clues.  Sorry :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 
Also, could someone explain how it is a Victorian Gothic novel please?
I felt it was set in a much more recent time, and I don't know what Gothic really is!
 
 
I think I nominated the book, bree; I had thought it had a Victorian feel when I read it, and it was on the Librarything suggestions link on the nominations page, so I didn't go back to the book and look any more closely for clues.  Sorry :(

 

Oh no Ooshie - I wasn't questioning its nomination - sorry it sounded that way :friends0:

I've seen it mentioned as a "Victorian Gothic" as well - but wasn't sure how it fit, after reading the novel.

 

In the link chesil shared above, Susan Hill clarifies that it is not gothic - and she aimed to "to write a ghost story in the classic 19th-century tradition".

I guess that is what made people put it the "Victorian" genre.

 

Please don't think I was questing its nomination - especially when I voted to read it :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no Ooshie - I wasn't questioning its nomination - sorry it sounded that way :friends0:

I've seen it mentioned as a "Victorian Gothic" as well - but wasn't sure how it fit, after reading the novel.

 

In the link chesil shared above, Susan Hill clarifies that it is not gothic - and she aimed to "to write a ghost story in the classic 19th-century tradition".

I guess that is what made people put it the "Victorian" genre.

 

Please don't think I was questing its nomination - especially when I voted to read it :)

That's ok bree, I was just being oversensitive suddenly panicking that I had led folk down the wrong path! :) *hug*

 

I want to reread the book before posting my thoughts, but should get the chance to read it in the next couple of days.

Edited by Ooshie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Did you like the book?   What was it that you enjoyed?  If you didn't like the book, what were your reasons for disliking it?

i did really like this book, i liked the overal feel of it and also the plot.

 

2. The narrative is quite sparse and the characters few, did you find it easy to engage in the story?

Yes, i really liked the ammount of characters. I thought that it made it easy to follow and to get into the story more.

 

3. What were your expectations when you started this book and were you proved right or wrong?

For some reason i had it in my head it was a long book and it really isnt! Also i thought it was going to be massivly scary but i have to say i didnt find it so!

 

4. If you have seen the stage production, TV version or film of The Woman in Black, how did it compare to the book?
I havent seen it yer, i will do but i like to read the book before watching anything about it.

 

5. Was this the first book you've read in this genre/ by this author, has it encouraged you to read more?

I dont normally read this genre as i thought it might scare me, but as this book didnt i think ill be reading more. Its the first book by the author that ive read but im going to read more!

 

6/ One of the themes of the novel is fear.  Did you find the novel creepy – were you scared?

I wasnt scared at all which i have to say that i was quite disappointed by!

 

7. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?

Nope!

8. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?

Yes very enjoyable i really liked this book.





 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Did you like the book?   What was it that you enjoyed?  If you didn't like the book, what were your reasons for disliking it?

I have read this before and I enjoyed it very much on both occasions.  I think it’s a great story and the writing is so atmospheric and descriptive.

 

2.  The narrative is quite sparse and the characters few, did you find it easy to engage in the story?

Definitely.  From the first page I was hooked.  I liked the sparseness of the language which I felt added to the spooky feel of the book.

 

3. What were your expectations when you started this book and were you proved right or wrong?

As I said, I’ve read it before so I wasn’t sure whether it would be as enjoyable the second time around, or whether some of the tension might be missing – but I needn’t have worried because it was just as good, if not better, on re-reading.


4. If you have seen the stage production, TV version or film of The Woman in Black, how did it compare to the book?

I saw the stage version in Bath a couple of years ago.   When I looked at the programme and saw there were only two cast members I thought they couldn’t possibly do it justice – but it was utterly brilliant and I would urge anyone who enjoyed the book – and who gets the chance to see it on stage – to go.  There was a third person on stage, but I don’t think she existed… 

 

It’s the second longest running play in the West End after Agatha Christie’s The Mousetrap – and with good reason!

 

I haven’t seen the TV series – or the recent film with Harry Potter Daniel Radcliffe.  I’ve heard that the film version changes the ending quite significantly – why do they do that?!   confused.gif  scratch.gif 
 

5. Was this the first book you've read in this genre/ by this author, has it encouraged you to read more?

I think this is probably the first ‘ghost’ story I’d read – at least, the first one that was meant to be scary – I’ve read books with ghosts in before.  Since reading it last time I read The Little Stranger by Sarah Waters, which I enjoyed.  

 

I had read Susan Hill before – I read Strange Meeting for English A Level (as a mature student) which was good, but nothing like this – and I’ve also read her non-fiction Howard’s End is on the Landing which I also enjoyed.

 

6. One of the themes of the novel is fear.  Did you find the novel creepy – were you scared?

I wasn’t scared, although I did think the story was creepy – and the ending made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up… both times.

 

7. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?

No!  :)

 

8. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?

Yes, definitely.   I’d been putting off re-reading it as I was worried it wouldn’t be as good second time round – or that I’d find it boring – but I needn’t have worried on either score.  :)



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it was necessarily Victorian - but I haven't managed to re-read mine yet (it's next on my 'to do' list!) so I can't exactly remember if the era was specified.   The wide(ish) use of electricity would suggest a slightly later period to me.

Having read the book, I'm not sure I think it is set in Victorian times.    Aside the fairly wide use of cars and electricity through the book (which, whilst they existed would not have been as commonly used as in the book), Kipps also makes reference to Victorians...

 

"The business was beginning to sound like an old Victorian novel..."

 

and

 

"Yet servants in Victorian England had, I knew, often been driven to murder..."

 

He also refers to the train taking him North as being the 'Sir Bedivere'.  Googling shows that this was built by the Southern Railway in April 1925.

 

:)

 

I had a feeling of the 1930s when reading it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

With thanks to Claire (Chesil) for helping me out with this month's circle.  :)

 

In an article in the Guardian newspaper, Susan Hill says:

 

 

I set out to write a ghost story in the classic 19th-century tradition, a full-length one. There have never been many, writers perhaps having felt the form would not stretch successfully. By the time I began mine, in the 1980s, full-length ghost stories seemed to have died out altogether. I read and studied the Jameses, Henry and MR, and Dickens, and I also had beside me the "bible" – Night Visitors by Julia Briggs (still the best study of the form).

9. If you've read any 'classic' ghost stories, how do you think this compares to them?

 

10. How successfully do you think Hill has captured the feel of the 19th century?

 

11. Do you think the book works well as a full-length novel, or in your opinion would it have been better as a short story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just finished this one. I'll answer the questions without reading the previous posts, as I don't want to be influenced by the other answers.

 

 

1. Did you like the book?   What was it that you enjoyed?  If you didn't like the book, what were your reasons for disliking it?

 

I liked it, but I didn't love it. It seemed somewhat superficial, and not detailed enough for my liking. I was very surprised when I saw it was just a touch over 200 pages, and I kept looking at the percentage at the bottom of my Kindle wondering how the story could be packed into so few pages.

 

I liked the darkness and the story, and the simplicity of it. A lot of stories try to pack too many twists and turns into it as a way of making it more interesting when often all they do is make it more confusing. Having said that, I expected there to be more to the story, especially from the way the main character led into his tale at the beginning, when his children were discussing ghost stories around the fire. It was like 'a couple of nights in a haunted house'. I was a bit disappointed that Arthur didn't stay at Eel Marsh House for a longer period. I also thought the ending was a bit abrupt.

 

2. The narrative is quite sparse and the characters few, did you find it easy to engage in the story?

 

While the depth of the story seemed to lack, I found the story quite easy to read and follow. There were no twists and turns, and it wasn't a complicated book. I know I said I wish it had more detail, but I suppose it's good that the author just told the story she wanted to tell, without any filler.

 


3. What were your expectations when you started this book and were you proved right or wrong?

 

I was expecting something a lot scarier and a lot more detailed. I thought the book would be about 400-500 pages, so it was very different to what I expected. I also couldn't get the image of Daniel Radcliffe out of my mind, unfortunately. I just can't see him as the main character.
 

4. If you have seen the stage production, TV version or film of The Woman in Black, how did it compare to the book?

 

Can't comment, as haven't seen either but while I was reading it I did try to imagine what the movie would look like. I'm surprised they made it into a movie actually; I suspect they must have had to flesh out the story a fair bit for it to be a decent length film? I'll get around to watching the movie at some point, no doubt, so I can see for myself. I don't get scared too much by books, but movies scare me easily, so I may need to watch it in broad daylight. :hide:
 


5. Was this the first book you've read in this genre/ by this author, has it encouraged you to read more?

 

First book I've read by this author, and I've read a few ghost stories (not many - The Drowning Pool and The Secret of Crickley Hall spring to mind). I wouldn't mind reading more of Susan Hill's work, but I wouldn't actively rush out to buy or borrow her books.

 

6. One of the themes of the novel is fear.  Did you find the novel creepy – were you scared?

 

The part I found most creepy was when he described the woman in black as having an expression of 'desperate, yearning malevolence'. That creeped me out a bit - it's the idea of malevolence, rather than sorrow being a ghost's driving force which is unnerving. Surprisingly I didn't find much else scary - not the noises in the house or the abandoned nursery. I suppose the mist covering the causeway was a bit scary, and I'm so glad Spider was rescued! :smile:

 

7. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?

 

No, I found it a very quick and easy read. I just wish there was more detail about the house, maybe more about the paperwork he found. I know the letters were covered in a couple of pages and said all they needed to say, but I just wish there was more to it.


 

8. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?

 

Yes, overall I liked it, though as I keep saying I would have liked something meatier.

 

9. If you've read any 'classic' ghost stories, how do you think this compares to them?

 

I haven't read any 'classic' ghost stories (aside from A Christmas Carol but I don't think that counts!), so I can't comment. I am surprised to read the the author considers this a full-length ghost story, when my main gripe is that it isn't long enough.

 


10. How successfully do you think Hill has captured the feel of the 19th century?

 

I couldn't tell which period the story was set in, though I knew it wasn't 'now'. The pony and trap gave it away, as did little things, such as Mr Bentley's dislike of the telephone. But aside from that, I don't recall too many references to the 19th century.

 

11. Do you think the book works well as a full-length novel, or in your opinion would it have been better as a short story?

 

To me it felt like a short story. I don't think anything could have been cut out to make it any shorter, without losing a great deal of the plot. How short does a story have to be for it to be a short story? Fifty or a hundred pages? If that's the case, I really don't think anyone could have condensed the story down to that length.

 

Just a quick question:

 

When Arthur first saw the woman in black at the cemetery, he also saw a row of children standing at a fence. Were these children the ghosts of the ones who died everytime Jennet had been seen?

Edited by bobblybear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I found that sparseness was an integral part of the story for me , it didn't overcomplicate everything. I was engaged with the character and the story within a few lines of the first page.  

 

Totally agree with this; it's good to read a book that has a simple and reasonably uncomplicated plot.

 

 

 

It was an okay read for me - again I hasten to add, because of my relationship with all things horror, and not because of the book itself. In a detached manner I could appreciate the fine writing and the way the atmosphere was built. I also liked the narrator, especially when his interactions with Spider are described.
 
I loved brave little Spider, and was so glad he got rescued out of the marsh.

 

 

 I love stories that start at the end and the narrator recalls his tale from the past, which I find I tend to engage with at an early point.
 
I like this as well, and I've noticed with many books that I've highly rated they have this in common. It's like a different kind of mystery - not 'where are they going to end up?' but rather ' how did they get there?' - which in my mind is a lot more interesting.

 

 

For some reason i had it in my head it was a long book and it really isnt!

 

Same here. I think that's the thing that surprised me most about the book.

 

 

I haven’t seen the TV series – or the recent film with Harry Potter Daniel Radcliffe.  I’ve heard that the film version changes the ending quite significantly – why do they do that?!   confused.gif  scratch.gif

 

Do you know what part of the ending they changed? I imagine that they've changed it so his son lives. I suppose it would be a dark way to end a movie and I can imagine it wouldn't sit well with many people (test audiences perhaps?). Still, if they are going to make a movie based on a book, they should really remain faithful to the story as told in the book!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J  I also couldn't get the image of Daniel Radcliffe out of my mind, unfortunately. I just can't see him as the main character.

 

4. If you have seen the stage production, TV version or film of The Woman in Black, how did it compare to the book?

 

Can't comment, as haven't seen either but while I was reading it I did try to imagine what the movie would look like. I'm surprised they made it into a movie actually; I suspect they must have had to flesh out the story a fair bit for it to be a decent length film? I'll get around to watching the movie at some point, no doubt, so I can see for myself. I don't get scared too much by books, but movies scare me easily, so I may need to watch it in broad daylight. :hide:

The part I found most creepy was when he described the woman in black as having an expression of 'desperate, yearning malevolence'. That creeped me out a bit - it's the idea of malevolence, rather than sorrow being a ghost's driving force which is unnerving. Surprisingly I didn't find much else scary - not the noises in the house or the abandoned nursery. I suppose the mist covering the causeway was a bit scary, and I'm so glad Spider was rescued! :smile:

Just a quick question:

 

When Arthur first saw the woman in black at the cemetery, he also saw a row of children standing at a fence. Were these children the ghosts of the ones who died everytime Jennet had been seen?

 

I watched the film yesterday and I have to say that I thought Dan Radcliffe did a decent job (although I didn't like the film adaptation at all - more on that in a second).

 

I think the film is probably scarier than the book - watching in broad daylight might be a good plan!  :giggle2:

 

Good point re: the children.  I just assumed they were children from the local school, but they may have been ghosts too.  Hmmm.  :ghost:  (Sorry, but I've never used that smiley before!)

 

 

T

Do you know what part of the ending they changed? I imagine that they've changed it so his son lives. I suppose it would be a dark way to end a movie and I can imagine it wouldn't sit well with many people (test audiences perhaps?). Still, if they are going to make a movie based on a book, they should really remain faithful to the story as told in the book!

As I said, I watched the film yesterday.   I know this is a 'no spoiler tags required' thread, but as I'm talking about the film I'll tag my reply in case anyone wants to try the film without being spoiled.

 

 

 

There is no 'storytelling' by the older Kipps to set the scene for the future action.

The film opens with three young girls playing in a nursery - they then go to three windows and jump out, killing themselves. 

Kipps (who is already married with a son!) is being warned about his performance at work - so he's sent to deal with the death and effects of Mrs Drablow. 

He meets Spider's owner, Sam Daily on the train - the man is friendly towards him.

When he arrives in Crythin Gifford, the hotel owner denies having received a booking for him - is very hostile towards him - and tells him to leave and go back to London.   The landlord's wife tells him he can sleep in the attic rooms. 

The townsfolk are also hostile towards him.

 

Some of the action at Eel Marsh house is as in the book. but one crucial difference is Kipps searching for, and finding the body of Jennet's son in the marshes.  He and Sam dig up Jennet's grave and place the dead child in the coffin with the dead woman in the hope that this will lay her to rest and stop her from causing the death of the village children.

 

The ending is the biggest change.   His housekeeper brings his young son up to Crythin Gifford - Kipps and Sam Daily try to telephone ahead to warn them not to travel but are too late.   At the station, Kipps greets his son and sends the housekeeper to buy tickets back to London - they're returning immediately.  As he speaks to Sam, the child wanders off.  Kipps looks round and sees the woman in black, and with that, a train comes.  He jumps on to the tracks to try to save his son and they are both killed.   The film ends with them reunited with Kipps' dead wife - they are all ghosts.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point re: the children.  I just assumed they were children from the local school, but they may have been ghosts too.  Hmmm.  :ghost:  (Sorry, but I've never used that smiley before!)

 

The only reason I thought that is because at the end when Kipps is told that a child dies every time the woman in black appears, he thinks back to the row of children at the cemetery. I just assumed they were all the ghosts, but I could be mistaken. I shall have to re-read that passage to see if it clears it up. Probably my over active imagination. :giggle:

 

The film sounds completely different, which doesn't surprise me. If they'd made it into a film, staying completely faithful to the book, I'd imagine it would be a real snoozefest. The atmosphere of the book probably wouldn't translate well without some adjustment. The ending sounds a bit silly, but that's probably only because I'm comparing it to the book. I'm sure I'll get around to it at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Did you like the book?   What was it that you enjoyed?  If you didn't like the book, what were your reasons for disliking it?


Yes, I enjoyed the book a lot.  I liked that the story is simply told without too many embellishments and felt that allowed me to feel the atmosphere more.


2. The narrative is quite sparse and the characters few, did you find it easy to engage in the story?


Yes, as mentioned above I actually felt that helped.


3. What were your expectations when you started this book and were you proved right or wrong?


This was the second time I had read the book and I had worried slightly that I might not feel the tension in the same way this time around, but I needn't have worried, I enjoyed it just as much.


4. If you have seen the stage production, TV version or film of The Woman in Black, how did it compare to the book?

I haven't seen either.  I had wanted to see the film, but now I know that it is so different I won't make any special effort.


5. Was this the first book you've read in this genre/ by this author, has it encouraged you to read more?


I have read a few Susan Hill books; The Small Hand, which is another ghost type story, and five of the Simon Serrailler series, a detective series I enjoy very much.


6. One of the themes of the novel is fear.  Did you find the novel creepy – were you scared?


Yes.  I actually had to stop reading it for a while half way through as something a bit creepy happened to me (a lamp I hadn't switched on was lit, and when I unplugged it it didn't go off!) and the thought of reading the novel afterwards was just too much for me :D


7. Were there any parts/ideas you struggled with?


No, I enjoyed it all


8. Overall, was reading the book an enjoyable experience?

 

Yes, very much so I thought.

 

 

9. If you've read any 'classic' ghost stories, how do you think this compares to them?

 

I have, and I did think it compared well.

 

10. How successfully do you think Hill has captured the feel of the 19th century?


To me, very well indeed.


11. Do you think the book works well as a full-length novel, or in your opinion would it have been better as a short story?

 

There was nothing I thought was extraneous to the story that could have been cut out, so I think it worked well as a novel.

 

 

When Arthur first saw the woman in black at the cemetery, he also saw a row of children standing at a fence. Were these children the ghosts of the ones who died everytime Jennet had been seen?

 

At first I had just thought they were local children being a bit ghoulish and watching the funeral, but like bobblybear that comment made me think they were the ghosts of the children who had died after Jennet's appearances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1

6. One of the themes of the novel is fear.  Did you find the novel creepy – were you scared?

Yes.  I actually had to stop reading it for a while half way through as something a bit creepy happened to me (a lamp I hadn't switched on was lit, and when I unplugged it it didn't go off!) and the thought of reading the novel afterwards was just too much for me :D

Oh, no wonder you were freaked out - that's very bizarre!   You were very brave to continue, under the circumstances.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, no wonder you were freaked out - that's very bizarre!   You were very brave to continue, under the circumstances.  :)

 

It was even worse because I was staying on my own in my parents house while they were away for a couple of weeks!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was even worse because I was staying on my own in my parents house while they were away for a couple of weeks!  :)

 

That is scary! :empathy:

 

Just watched the film last night (I admit I closed my eyes a couple of times) - it stays true to the essence of the story but takes plenty of liberty with the story-telling.

The opening scene was horribly horribly creepy.

 

And to answer one the new questions:

Do you think the book works well as a full-length novel, or in your opinion would it have been better as a short story?

I think the length of the book was perfect - there were never any "filler" bits nor did it lose the pace it set.

Well-written and well-edited.

 

And thank you Janet for this month's Reading Circle, and to you Ooshie for nominating the book.

Though I'm probably the one who enjoyed it the least - I am glad I read in a strange way - if that makes sense! :friends3:

Edited by bree
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...