Customer Reviews

Shirley Jackson»s American Gothic

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

The author of this somewhat academic book feels as if Shirley Jackson's body of work have been underrated. He explains how she wrote, and that her work was more electic than most people think. Shirley Jackson is my favorite author, and WE HAVE ALWAYS LIVED IN THE CASTLE is my favorite book. Read this book and you will learn more about her humor, her characters, and her place in the future.

Hattenhauer's reading of Jackson's work is illuminating and persuasive. As a high school English teacher, I have used Hattenhauer's analysis of The Haunting of Hill House to help students identify and understand Jackson's use of unreliable narration. This survey is highly recommended for anyone interested in Jackson's body of work, which never ceases to surprise and challenge.

I was fortunate to study under Hattenhauer in an analysis of post modern literature.

He's genius. I will never read or see The Haunting of Hill House without sensing the understory.

Brilliant work, Daryl!

Based on the three positive reviews for this book, I went ahead and ordered it expecting a useful companion guide to the work of Shirley Jackson. Boy, was I in for a surprise! What a waste of 24 bucks! I knew that SJ's work was and is grossly underrated--in that I agree with Mr. Hattenhauer; but I never knew that her stories were "heteroglossic!" WTF does that mean? He never defines. I doubt that word is even in the complete Oxford English Dictionary! I doubt even Miss Jackson knew that she was writing "heteroglossic" literature. Did you know that she was also a "proto-postmodernist?" Neither did I, in all the years I've been reading her. I doubt that she did either. I don't think that Miss Jackson would have had the patience to put up with such non-sensical ivory tower "litera-babble" (Congratulations! You just made up a highfalutin' sounding word to impress your friends and confound your students--you are now qualified to teach in an institution of higher learning!) such as "interpellation by delineation"; "metonymic displacement"; "feminist discourse theory"; "heteroglossic multivocality." Funny how english teachers can't even write in english!

The ironic thing about this book is that SJ was known for her clear, lucid prose--the complete opposite of Mr. Hattenhauer's idea of writing. He ought to go back and re-read Miss Jackson's "Notes to a Young Writer!"

This book argues that Jackson deserves to be ranked with the best writers of her time. To make that argument, it analyzes Jackson's fiction on three fronts. It discusses her writing in the context of American literary history; it elucidates Jackson's use of techniques from a variety of styles, such as Gothic and comic; and it explains her themes, such as politics and psychology. For example, it shows the previously overlooked politics of The Sundial, and it analyzes the psychological theories Jackson used in The Birds' Nest.

But this is a book of academic literary criticism for academics. So if you aren't an academic, only the chapter about her life will be readily comprehensible. You won't understand the rest of it any better than you would a medical book for doctors if you aren't a doctor, a law book for lawyers if you aren't a lawyer, or a chemistry book for chemists if you aren't a chemist.

So if, like Jillian Beifuss, you haven't succeeded as a grad student in lit, this book is beyond you. And the blather by Jonathan Edwards exemplifies the problems you'll have if don't know **** from Shinola. Apparently named in honor of the famous bathroom fixture, John knows as much about higher ed as he does lit crit.

A full-length analysis of Jackson's subtle, disturbing fiction is long overdue. Hattenhauer's book, unfortunately, is a major disappointment. His interpretations are limited and overdetermined, he completely pathologizes the admittedly troubled Jackson, and (perhaps most alarming, given Jackson's fierce, dark wit) he seems to have no sense of humor. Moreover, Hattenhauer's style is so jargon-ridden it almost comes across as a parody. (And yes, I do understand and support the idea that literary criticism, like all academic disciplines, needs and deserves its own technical vocabulary; I also understand that books intended for academic audiences need not be "readable" in the same way as books intended for the general public.) I look forward to a better book about this wonderful writer.