Boards Book Club: The Little Stranger ***Plot Spoilers***

Eliot Rosewater

I hope people don't me setting up the book discussion thread! So what did ye all think of Sarah Waters' book?


I was up 'til half 1 in bed last night finishing it off. The last 100 pages were exiting, or at least my desire to unravel the mystery made it so. I wasn't expecting Faraday to emerge as suspect number one! But then, thinking back, certain pieces did slot into to place. Faraday was generally missing when the supernatural presence was at play. He started visiting Hundreds without any real reason. He was always angry when he saw Caroline acting like a commoner and not living up to his expectations of Hundreds.

It was his dream of drifting towards the Hall while Caroline was conducting the final set piece set of her life that really ignited my suspicions. And he certainly had motive: it became very clear at the end that he greatly desired ownership of Hundreds, a remnant of his childhood infatuation. In fact, it seemed to me that he was marrying Caroline just to get the manor. And this is why his supernatural being had to kill her: her refusal to marry him marked an obstacle to his aim. Just as Mrs Ayres illness was an obstacle to Caroline marrying him and, thus, this aim. Just as Rod's secretive management of the house was an obstacle.

In the end he is successful. His attitude towards Hundreds in the final chapter is that of an owner. "The downstairs rooms I tend to keep shuttered. The second floor has been giving me some anxiety lately: there are holes appearing in the roof..."

But the final paragraph is really fantastic, within the context of the mystery. The last words really hit home. "If Hundred Hall is haunted, however, its ghost doesn't show itself to me. For I'll turn, and am disappointed - realising that what I am looking at is only a cracked window-pane, and that the face gazing distorted from it, baffled and longing, is my own."

Within this "theory", is there a connection between the acorn that Faraday stole as a child, that was burnt in his family's fire, and the burn marks that appear in Rod's room before the fire?


This is merely plot analysis, and is to ignore the other elements of the book: the peculiar writing style, the class-consciousness, the portrayal of post-war England...

Denerick

Thats an interesting thought actually. Will stew that over.

I stayed up very late last night to finish this. I have to say that I’m rather impressed by the book. Wasn’t expecting very much from it, and was reluctant to commence reading, so it was a nice surprise to find out that is was so good.

I mentioned the germ of a little theory I had to Eliot in a PM yesterday, so I’ll rehash it here. Essentially there are two narratives at work– the irrational and the rational. What is most interesting about this book was that for every strange event supposedly perpetrated by this supernatural figure, ‘The Little Stranger’ (Susan), as it were, there was a wholly reasonable and rational explanation for it. In Dr. Faraday we have the articulator of this rational dissection, a refusal to allow the mind to be overcome by the supernatural. Whatever doubts he has are partially obscured by the sheer nature of the events. Every event is and can be rationally explained. But as he mentions to Seely, it is the cumulative impact of these events that worry him and leave him plagued with uncertainty. Ultimately he remains sceptical to the last, the final couple of pages showing him in the house, alarmed yet relieved to find what he feared was an image of a ghost was but only his own image reflected through shattered glass. I’m inclined to lean more to this narrative as it is perfect for maintaining the realism I so crave and also for allowing the tension and ambiguity of the novel to assert itself. It also allows you to accommodate the doubt that Faraday himself has to deal with. I suppose it makes the novel interactive, as opposed to dictatorial and tyrannical... In this interpretation Waters allows you, the reader, to come to your own conclusions free from the imposition of a ‘straight up ghost story’.

The irrational narrative is much more compelling and interesting (Isn’t it always!) Faraday is necessarily aloof from the house and the goings on of the malevolent little stranger. Furthermore the actions are entirely internally consistent – the ghost/poltergeist/thing is a ‘family taint’ after all. Therefore it stands to reason that the little stranger would consume the family wholly and incrementally; first taking out Rod, leaving him insane. Next taking the mother, forcing her to suicide. And ultimately Caroline, plunging to her death ‘by accident or design’. Though Betty and the other housemaid were affected and certainly aware of this presence, it did not malevolently pursue them, as they were evidently not the intended victims. The presence is a hangover of a dark force, the remnant of the tragic spirit of the long deceased little girl.

Which narrative is the ‘true’ one is rather irrelevant in the grander scale of things. What matters is that the family really believed they were haunted. This book has shades of ‘The Turn of the Screw’ by Henry James. After reading that short novella, we are left to conclude that asking whether the ghosts were real or not was rather beside the point. With the Little Stranger we have a glimpse of a decaying family living in a decaying house hailing from a decaying class. Their madness is the beauty and horror of this book, for what it is worth.

I’d give this 8ish out of 10. I was surprised how much I came to enjoy it. On a technical level I found the writing to be fluid and enjoyable, even if some of the male characters lacked testosterone. But the ultimate guide to whether a book is good or not is if you found yourself reading it with interest and curiosity, and demanding to know more. Under this measure of performance, ‘The Little Stranger’ was an unmitigated success.

Eliot Rosewater

I like that.

I suppose the novel does have a lot of loose ends and it does remain, to the end, quite ambiguous. But I think your point is good: that whether or not supernatural forces are at play is immaterial in terms of the wider commentary on the post-war demise of the landed gentry. Even so, it's not hard to rationalise the occurrences as being the product of unstable minds. (This is a mathematician's approach to the book!) The only unjustifiable thing is, perhaps, the writing on the wall.

The doctor being so rational and, as you say, at odds with the family as regards his general approach to the problem, serves to increase the readers excitement, I think. We want to find out exactly what's going on (that is, what the author knows) but looking through the lens of a doctor, we are very much held back. When I read it I was thinking "when will the doctor break down and admit the supernatural, and reveal the truth?"

Denerick

Yes, Waters was very clever not to give in to the temptation to allow Faraday have such a breakdown. That would confirm once and for all, beyond doubt or ambiguity, that an evil spirit was at work. That ambiguity makes the novel, I think.

Couldn't the marks be explained as they are earlier in the book? They could actually have been the childish scribblings of the child Susan, only noticed because of the damp which thinned the wood? This would explain Mrs. Ayre's suicide (The ghosts of her dead child, in her head at least, coming back to haunt her)

Denerick

Just discovered this mental disorder - could explain the ghost as a delusion - how the delusion/'infection', to use Roderick's words, could have spread from every family member... Shared Pyschotic Disorder

Wikipedia is useful for many things!

Here is an excerpt:

Wikipedia wrote:

In a well-publicised case in the United Kingdom, the condition was one of two possible diagnoses of a Swedish woman, Sabina Eriksson, who stabbed a man to death after he took her into his home, offering food and shelter. Eriksson had just been released from police custody following an incident on a motorway which grabbed news headlines. Caught on camera by a police documentary filmmaker, her twin sister ran into the path of an oncoming articulated lorry, sustaining severe injuries. Eriksson then immediately duplicated her twin's actions by stepping into the path of an oncoming car; she survived the impact. The defence counsel in the ultimate murder trial claimed that Eriksson was a 'secondary' sufferer of folie à deux, influenced by the presence or perceived presence of her twin sister — the 'primary'.

Eliot Rosewater

Hmmm ... this book has moved an Arts major to look at science articles: now that's an achievement!

Denerick wrote: »

That ambiguity makes the novel, I think.

I read an article on The Guardian about the book, and I believe some people really disliked it because of the ambiguity. I, personally, think the ambiguity worked because it left even the question of whether there was a supernatural presence there unanswered. If, on the other hand, Waters had confirmed the supernatural presence, but left the detail (such as who it was) out, it simply would have been frustrating.

It's rather interesting that the whole genre to which the novel belongs is a matter of interpretation!

Denerick wrote: »

Couldn't the marks be explained as they are earlier in the book?

That's true!

Procasinator

I have finished the book, and quite enjoyed it. I'm considering a second reading, to see if some clues were littered throughout.

The author does leave a lot ambiguity, but the implicit suggestion that Dr. Faraday was the cause of the supernatural events rings through the most for me.

I currently only have access to an iPad, so I'll leave a more lengthy reply to Monday.

Procasinator

I skimmed some of main events again, and to me, it appears that the suggestion Dr. Faraday is the culprit (or "ghost") completely unbeknownst to himself is highly likely. Which of course is no surprise, as the author points as such herself, while still leaving enough ambiguity to make you question and ponder what really happened.

I believe the most dominant explanation of the house going on can be explained by the conversation between Dr. Seeley and Faraday: that he had loathing so deep in his subconscious, and so powerful, that it extended and manifested itself in the physical world.

The loathing Dr. Faraday felt was mostly of himself, and in particular, his class. There are many clues to him hating his class: He was ashamed of his parents, and did not want people at college to see them; he remarked with Graham that he was not suitable for either the gentry nor the working class, and was not liked by anyone; as Eliot pointed out, he got angry at Caroline for acting like a commoner; Caroline pointed out herself (and I paraphrase) "All this time I thought you hated us - it sounds more like you hate yourself?".

I believe Caroline, towards the end, had figured out Faraday. She remarked numerous times on how he would always claim how she was tired, and how he would like to keep her tired. Even move her up the barred up nursery. She knew she had to leave Hundreds, and it's conceivable that the only reason she agreed to the marriage, or was interested with Faraday at all, was to get away from the house. She was noticeably surprised when he mentioned that when they were married he could move in, as she had just assumed they would leave Hundreds.

Another thing that stands out that many of the characters remarked that it was like the house knew all their weaknesses, and was using them against them. Not coincidentally, I would argue, the person who knew their secrets the best was Faraday. He had intertwined he life so much into the families that he was almost part of it. He knew of Susan. he knew of Roderick's problems. He saw first-hand how stressed he, and the family was. Faraday was the only living being besides the family themselves who knew enough to the family taint.

I could go on and on, there are so many things that point to Faraday being the source. He delayed the Baker Hydes from leaving before Gyp bit Gillian, though he did not know why. He found himself obsessed with Hundreds. He never offered to take Caroline out of the house.

I think a throwaway remark by Caroline best summarises it. Faraday was talking about how Betty might be playing tricks, as the families problems only begun after she arrived. She responded (paraphrased again) "You may as well say that the problems didn't start until you turned up".

TL;DR: Sorry for the unstructured brain dump.

metrovelvet

My favorite detail in this book is the clocks stopped at twenty to nine just like Ms. Havisham's. From then on I think I was predisposed, or had already decided I was going to like this book.

However I am confused about something. I know it starts out at the end of summer, with blackberry picking, and we do eventually move onto a winter with references to frost and snow. But I cannot tell over what kind of time period this all takes place. Is it one year or more than one?

The ambiguity was not satisfying because all of the possibilities were weak. I was left thinking it must have been a poltergeist because the possibility of it being Susan was nil and the possibility of it being Faraday was also unlikely. So there I am, thinking aw ffs a poltergeist?

It couldn't be Susan because in the gothic tradition, ghosts are there to seek vengeance on the living, but Susan has no cause to seek vengeance because she died of natural causes. Also- Mrs Ayers biting herself in the nursery. Faraday, while unlikeable, untrustworthy, and with motive is also unlikely. The nasty presence in the house was there before he arrived according to Betty. And while he did want to send the family into exile via the medical institution, or by killing them off, ultimately this proves a useless means as the family have cousins who will inherit the house anyhow.

While I am usually a sucker for an indeterminate ending, I found this ending badly put together. It would have been much better if there were several possibilities that were strong rather than two which were weak. At the same time, the book tries to talk about something that is most unfashionable to talk about, and that is evil. You can't even mention evil at a dinner table or it is some quaint notion that belongs with the hicks in the southern states. And evil is uncomfortable because it can't be rationalised away, as we see Faraday try to do. At the same time, I feel no greater insight into the nature of evil after finishing this book.

I like the interplay between the gothic genre and naturalism as well as the tips of the hat to Turn of the Screw, Dorian Gray, The Yellow Wallpaper, The Fall of the House of Usher, Jane Eyre, and a number of other Victorian and post victorian literature, but I'm not sure how successful the plot it. However the atmosphere is terrific and the narrative certainly kept me hooked.

Thumbs up and 8/10 for me. Great read but doesn't make it on the ones you have to read before the apocolypse.

Procasinator

metrovelvet wrote: »

Faraday, while unlikeable, untrustworthy, and with motive is also unlikely. The nasty presence in the house was there before he arrived according to Betty. And while he did want to send the family into exile via the medical institution, or by killing them off, ultimately this proves a useless means as the family have cousins who will inherit the house anyhow.

I don't agree here. I re-read that scene, and while Betty was scared in the house, she did not complain of a nasty prescence. She complained about how creepy downstairs was, and how quiet it is. Later on, she mentions nothing used to happen downstairs but now things move around, noise is made, etc. upstairs. It's a stark difference in my eyes between the isolation she suffered in the beginning, to the active influence over the house later.

It's my opinion that in the beginning, Betty was scared of the house due to it's size and creepiness (it was often dark, very quiet and desolate in her quarters). It is later when events start to turn (Gyp biting Gillian) that she believes there is presence of something else.

The house appears to abandoned and not worthy of repair. Dr. Faraday mentions that no one wants it, and in fact, a wall was built to block the view as the people in the new houses found it creepy. Years have passed in the final section, and he still visits the house. Even if there are cousins (can't remember reading it), the likelihood they would want the house for themselves, or would demolish it for building, seems low. It appears Dr. Faraday has the house to himself; he is the only one that is brave enough to go into it (as he often does).

neveah

I have to admit I never finished this book! I didn't like it at all! I thought it took way too long to get into the story, the first interesting thing that happened was when the girl got bitten by the dog, but after that it got boring again and I was waiting for something else interesting to happen, eventually I just abandoned it, so sorry fellow book clubbers
Looks like I was the only one not to enjoy the book.

I haven't see any more about the next read. Will there be one?

Denerick

neveah wrote: »

I haven't see any more about the next read. Will there be one?

What, the Eliot, Denerick + 3 book club? Doubt it

Procasinator

Denerick wrote: »

What, the Eliot, Denerick + 3 book club? Doubt it

I'm only a number! :P

But yeah, this wasn't as successful as hoped. The number of people discussing the book in the end was paltry (was really Eliot, Denerick + 2 :P) and without a clear structure laid out for discussion, it appears these type of threads are more likely to become a collection of reviews instead.

Saying all that, if someone were to suggest in the forum "I'm reading X book I'm and creating a discussion on it on this DATE", I'd probably do it again. I'm sure the having a self-appointed host/leader would be a benefit.

It's a pity it didn't work, as it is nice to have a discussion about a just finished book with people who have just done the same.

Eliot Rosewater

Procasinator wrote: »

It's a pity it didn't work, as it is nice to have a discussion about a just finished book with people who have just done the same.

Ditto. In fairness myself and Denerick didn't really address anything said by anyone else..

It also depends on the book. Ideally it'd be one that is conductive to discussion.

But I like your dictatorship idea. I suggest Skippy Dies for next month. Lots of people have already read it. Unless it's not a book that can be discussed at length?

Procasinator

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I suggest Skippy Dies for next month. Lots of people have already read it. Unless it's not a book that can be discussed at length?

I haven't read the book yet (but had planned too after seeing general praise for it), so just tacked it on to an order there.

With it getting glowing recommendations in the Man Booker thread, you are probably right that a lot of people from this forum will have read it.