Scan barcode
A review by lkedzie
Hell House by Richard Matheson
emotional
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.5
Hell house: like Hill House, but with an a!
The premise of Hell House is that of Hill House, where a diverse set of people, some with diverse supernatural talents, allegedly, go to investigate a haunted house of considerable repute. The similarity extends to the leader, a professor who occupies a sort of liminal space as both most skeptic and most believer, and his wife, who invites herself.
The differences mount quickly though, starting with how the all the sexual and romantic attraction of Hill, often overstated in discussion, are in Hell fully turgid and exposed, in a way that slips right past spicy and into something resembling explotation cinema. Mattheson, always with the screenwriter's chops, is at full form here. The horror scenes are visual and memorably scary, more than in Hill which can be frustrating in its uncertainty.
In fact, subtlety overall is not the book's think. There is a maxim about horror that it is about the problems that the characters bring into the setting that the get laid bare by the unnatural occurrences. In Hell, this is lampshaded. Not only is it unclear to the reader, it is unclear to the characters, and something worried over.
Both Hill and Hell are about the animus of the place, to the point that discussing this plot-central facet much further is full of spoliers. However, they both take this notion and run with it in opposite directions. This makes Hell less scary than Hill to me. This is a matter of your taste in horror however.
One thing is for sure: the creators of the Netflix series The Haunting of Hill House definitely read Hell House. The same goes for The September House. Curiously, this makes me regard the Nexflix series lower and Orlando's book higher.
There are three things that make Hell a weaker story than Hill. The first is not a fault, not really, but Hell operates as a much more conventional horror story. It does so well - again, Matheson is unimpeachable in his skills around this - but I find it harder to rate up with Hill, which transcends genre, with Jackson at the peak of her skills. The second is an artifact of history, which is that the decades in which the respective stories are set (50s for Hill and 70s for Hell) create a much less appealing mise en scene.
The third is the real issue here, which is that the opening of Hell is much weaker. Or maybe it is the characterization in general. Often the difference between good and bad horror is not the scary parts, but the interstitial material, how it makes you feel about these people and where it all leads. Hell takes a long time for it to create any sort of investment in the characters or their situation, introducing various interesting but dissatisfactory elements that lack trenchancy.
Hill is so far from that, so far, in a way that is superior to all other fiction, so it is a tough comparable. But I might have cashiered out were it not Matheson. It does get there, starting at about a fourth of the way in, but still the pathos is in the situation, more than the characters.
The upside to writing a more traditional haunted house is that Matheson is able to provide Hell with a satisfactory solve, something that others complain about Hill, and this keeps it in the highly readable category, but I was disappointed here. Not because Hell and Hill are comparable or it is a knockoff, but because Hell fails to live up to its high reputation.
The premise of Hell House is that of Hill House, where a diverse set of people, some with diverse supernatural talents, allegedly, go to investigate a haunted house of considerable repute. The similarity extends to the leader, a professor who occupies a sort of liminal space as both most skeptic and most believer, and his wife, who invites herself.
The differences mount quickly though, starting with how the all the sexual and romantic attraction of Hill, often overstated in discussion, are in Hell fully turgid and exposed, in a way that slips right past spicy and into something resembling explotation cinema. Mattheson, always with the screenwriter's chops, is at full form here. The horror scenes are visual and memorably scary, more than in Hill which can be frustrating in its uncertainty.
In fact, subtlety overall is not the book's think. There is a maxim about horror that it is about the problems that the characters bring into the setting that the get laid bare by the unnatural occurrences. In Hell, this is lampshaded. Not only is it unclear to the reader, it is unclear to the characters, and something worried over.
Both Hill and Hell are about the animus of the place, to the point that discussing this plot-central facet much further is full of spoliers. However, they both take this notion and run with it in opposite directions. This makes Hell less scary than Hill to me. This is a matter of your taste in horror however.
One thing is for sure: the creators of the Netflix series The Haunting of Hill House definitely read Hell House. The same goes for The September House. Curiously, this makes me regard the Nexflix series lower and Orlando's book higher.
There are three things that make Hell a weaker story than Hill. The first is not a fault, not really, but Hell operates as a much more conventional horror story. It does so well - again, Matheson is unimpeachable in his skills around this - but I find it harder to rate up with Hill, which transcends genre, with Jackson at the peak of her skills. The second is an artifact of history, which is that the decades in which the respective stories are set (50s for Hill and 70s for Hell) create a much less appealing mise en scene.
The third is the real issue here, which is that the opening of Hell is much weaker. Or maybe it is the characterization in general. Often the difference between good and bad horror is not the scary parts, but the interstitial material, how it makes you feel about these people and where it all leads. Hell takes a long time for it to create any sort of investment in the characters or their situation, introducing various interesting but dissatisfactory elements that lack trenchancy.
Hill is so far from that, so far, in a way that is superior to all other fiction, so it is a tough comparable. But I might have cashiered out were it not Matheson. It does get there, starting at about a fourth of the way in, but still the pathos is in the situation, more than the characters.
The upside to writing a more traditional haunted house is that Matheson is able to provide Hell with a satisfactory solve, something that others complain about Hill, and this keeps it in the highly readable category, but I was disappointed here. Not because Hell and Hill are comparable or it is a knockoff, but because Hell fails to live up to its high reputation.