Well, of course, I want to read and discuss this book with you Ginny, how fascinating it sounds!

Count me in!

Ella! how wonderful, I thought you might, it's right up your non fiction alley. It's not a new book but it's very powerful, and I think, frankly, you all will be stunned. I have read it and I longed to have somebody to talk TO about it.

I will put up the link to her short story The Lottery in the heading and any others of hers I can find, so people will be more aware of who she was and what she wrote.

The recent movie The Haunting is taken from her The Haunting of Hill House.

ginny

I loved Shirley Jackson and have read everything she ever wrote. Will try and track down a copy after first checking the library.. So count me in on the discussion.

Stephanie!! How wonderful, anybody who likes Shirley Jackson will be floored by this book and I believe it will make you appreciate her more, if possible. I can't wait for April!

Those of you who are not familiar with Shirley Jackson, read The Lottery in the heading and, if intrigued, we can put you on to some of her other stories, and books, they are all , each in their own way, different, and she is one author and this is one biography, you really should not miss.

ginny

I can remember finding "Life among the Savages" when my sons were small and being so grateful that someone else had problems with how to deal with children, life and a husband all at once.

Yes, I'd love to know more about the author of The Lottery and the reviews/descriptions look particularly good. Count me in. I'll look for the book.

ö betty

Betty!! Oh super, you won't regret it, I have longed to have somebody to talk to about it.

Welcome aboard, I hope to exorcize some of my own private demons with this read (don't let that scare anybody now! hahahaha)

ginny

The local library is digging out this book for me. Said no one had checked it out since they computerized, and the book is in a storage building. Will pick it up next week - gosh hope I don't forget what it's all about by 4/1!!

Is it OK if I lurke.

Bill H

Have ordered the book. Our library does not have it and is not interested in ordering it. So.. Amazon had a used copy available and I ordered it. There are two more used ones there when I last looked.

Our local library is not particularly user friendly. It is a branch of a county library and the home library has most of the good stuff. This chief librarian is also a difficult person and that makes the library even more unfriendly. Sad, but true.

Ginny

Ordered the book from Half.com or Amazon - I can't remember. Got it in a couple of days and read it. Fascinating. I'd like to join you.

Harper!! Welcome, welcome!

Isn't it SOMETHING? We are delighted to have you, I am going to enjoy this one!

Have you read anything of hers?

Steph, that's a very bad thing in a librarian!

ginny

Ginny - Of course I've read The Lottery. Many, many years ago - and can remember every word. That was one of the most affecting stories - no the most affecting story I've ever read. I'm sure I've read some of her other short stories, and saw the old Haunting of Hill House movie (I didn't like it). I'm going to read the story - I'll like it better. I've got all of her writings - at least I think all - in three volumes that I ordered from somewhere. Now that I know her better, I'm going to dig into them. Thanks.

Haunting of Hill House is good, not so the movie. The Lottery still occasionally will cause me nightmares. Such a mind that could write it.

Read "A Letter from Jimmy" this morning while brushing my teeth. How does she do that? A woman's whole life story in two pages. Amazing.

Isn't she good, Harper? And hist, April 1 draws near, how Jackson would have loved that coincidence.

I think we might want to stagger this book out and take it in parts, read a little at a time, what do you al think? Then we won't be overwhelmed by having to discuss the whole thing at once? Sort of a Read Along With Mitch kind of thing which we do here so well.

I've got the paperback and it's 280 pages, 4 weeks into 280 gives us 70 pages per week, do you all think you can do that?

So let's do Chapters 1-7 for the first week and 8-12 for the second, and 13-19 for the third and 20-End for the fourth.

I'll get her photos up and the schedule in the next few days. Nobody should miss this book!

ginny

Ginny - Sounds good to me. I got started on the book and read it right through, so for our discussion, I'll reread those 70 pages. This will be fun.

Hi Ginny, I don't have the book yet, as I'll be getting a copy from the Library, probably will get in another week or so. Am busy with Edna St. Vincent Millay's life at the moment. Could Shirley Jackson's be as complex, as sad, as fascinating - I could go on with endless adjectives, but suffice it to say I'm looking forward to this book and discussion very much!

Yes, I think we need a schedule of discussion so that we can all be reading and talking about the same time period in her life.

Oh super ,Ella, I believe you particuarly will enjoy Shirley's life tho am not sure she equalled Edna for....outre behavior. You know Shirley died at 45, I expect? A life cut short, too soon.

Yes, we are working on the heading and it's about to go up but it's the first 7 chapters for the first week, and as Harper has noted, they go very fast, indeed.

Nothing to it!

So glad you'll be with us, I hear the St. Millay is fabulous!

ginny

I just received my book yesterday and am looking forward to reading it and joining in the discussion. I have always been fascinated by "The Lottery." I was involved with a dramatic production of it at my university in the 1960's.

One of the blurbs on the cover of the book has caught my attention. It says, "Shirley Jackson was a rich and strange creature indeed . . . - a complex, gifted and tragic woman. . . - a true storyteller, with a rich and haunted imagination."

I think that looking into the life and mind of a writer will give great insights about her writing. Well, today I start reading about Shirley Jackson.

Ginny, thank you for offering this discussion!!

I'm going to try to get the book out of the library. Hope I can find it easier than I found "A Trial By Jury".

I am currently reading the book. It is amazing. The writing is poor, but I am so engaged with Shirley already, it does not matter. Usually I am picky, but all I feel is the involvement with Shirley and her great heart and mind.

My library had a copy - and because I volunteer there, I get to have it for 30 days! Then I can renew if no one else has it on reserve. I'm SO delighted. Can't wait for the discussion to start!

Love the blue, although I suspect I will stick to boring old black and white. Zooming around in the book.. This woman feels so real to me. I was just in another discussion about a writer and never felt the attachment that I do to Shirley.

Just got started on the first few chapters. Shirley Jackson was a fascinating woman. This is gonna be fun.

Harriet

Monday is the big day. I am taking notes. I get so excited about this. Shirley Jackson was amazing.

Did destiny miss a trick? Shouldn't Shirley Jackson have been born on April Fool's Day? The mismatch between the temperaments of Shirley and her family was that-t wide.

Geraldine's main goals in life were "social position and wealth" and adherence to polite conventions.

Shirley had a few other ingredients in HER mix. To start with, I was fascinated by the claims of her clairvoyance and psychic abilities. From the descriptions in the book, I visualize her childhood world as kind of akin to the atmosphere of the movie The Sixth Sense? Anyway, I'm trying to grab a handle on this ESP thing as much as I can from the first 74 pages. Oppenheimer writes on p.21:

"What are the links between creativity, madness and psychic awareness? Where does one leave off and the other begin? In Shirley's case, it is enough to know that she herself--although she had her share of mental problems in her life--never considered her psychic experiences a part of them."

Shirley herself wrote about characters who "saw" what was invisible to others in her books. "I could see what the cat saw," said one of her characters. A fictional resolution of her real life experiences?

I think I HAVE to accept the contentions about Shirley's psychic abilities because if not, than I have to doubt the research Oppenheimer did. Since I've only just started the book, I'm gonna go the WHOLE way with Oppenheimer and her opinions right now.

Someone in another discussion commented about how the advent of the telephone made things tough for biographers because it eliminated the heavy letter writing that had always been so helpful in reconstructing a biography. Shirley didn't seem to leave a heckuvalot of dated letters, and lots of the opinions the author formed of Shirley was apparently from interviews with people who were close to her. If those varied, then it looks to me like Oppenheimer injected the slant of her OWN conclusions.

So maybe that's an unavoidable procedure if anyone chooses to write a biography about a subject who doesn't supply a large store of personal letters in her own words? What do the rest of you think?

Then we learn that Shirley, from childhood on, right along with her clairvoyance, had the ability to "see reality" right through the conventional layers of hypocrisy. What a sad joke on a little girl from an upward mobile society family!

I see her as a most unusual, imaginative child...tossed into an extremely prosaic, restrictive environment.

Harriet

In the midst of a lot of chores this morning (what have I been doing for the past few weeks, I wonder) I stopped by the computer - MISTAKE, MISTAKE!! I'll never get my work done!

So this post will be short!! But I will be back when I've earned my room and board - Hahaha

Quickly - I'm so happy, Ginny, that you made this remark: "Let's face it, there are people with worse childhoods, what is the effect on a child when the parents for whatever reason, reject a part of who the child is? "

My feeling exactly! This author stretched the truth here, stretched the mother and daughter relationship out to where to the two of them are practically enemies - opposite poles. Shirley is a strange child, she's a loner, stays in her room by herself, finds nothing in common with other children. What would do if you were the mother of such a child?

I would attempt, as Geraldine did, to bring out other qualities in my daughter.

Shirley's parents had many faults - well, who doesn't? They were bigoted social climbers, but I had the feeling that the mother tried to help Shirley, more than this author gives her credit for. This child was very insecure, had no self esteem whatsoever and it would have helped had the mother found qualities in the child to admire, rather than to criticize.

Will be back later, Ginny!

HI HARRIET! I do want to comment on a few things you said, but must get busy and accomplish a few things before I can play!

Poor Shirley and Poor Geraldine. They each had wonderful qualities, but not to be related. I felt sorry for both. Like Ella, I think that Geraldine really thought she needed to draw Shirley out.. Shirley was a hard child to deal with. From the first chapters, you can feel the determination of "Its my way or no way" She was born knowing what she needed to do with her life. This is a rare and unusual quality in most of us. Actually I have a lot more problems understanding the Stanley attraction. When he gets drawn in on the college level, I simply cannot see the attraction. My thoughts on him are "Why would she want him" But it is clear that she did above all else. The book seems to have a lot of drawing of conclusions by the author that escape me. Shirley had true writing talent and seems to have had it from a very early age. The esp thing is spooky, but I think she sincerely believed in it. Am not sure why it was so important to her, but I do wonder if some of it is to make the little girl feel special in the eyes of all. The pictures do not seem to portray the girl the author describes more or less constantly as unattractive.

Will stop in to give my impression of Shirley as a child and it is a very mixed bag! Harriet stated that she was "IMAGINATIVE" - and that's where I believe much of her "psychic" abilities lie - in her imagination.

When I was a child, I was very shy and kept to myself - do you know I believed I had flown - as a bird!!! Yes, yes, I did and I told my family so and I believed that for awhile (at times I still do). It provided a laugh among my sisters, but I believed it was true. Why did I believe that? Was it my imagination or was there something in a story that was read to me as a child that fed this illusion?

I'll never know, just as I believe we don't know where Shirley's psychic abilities start and end.

Shirley states "I will not tolerate having these other worlds called imaginary" and proceeds to give us examples of time lapses, deja vu, etc. - but I'm not convinced! It's much more fun to have an imaginary world than a real one and to be able to put yourself to sleep with such characters as the mind can invent.

Of course, it was wrong for the mother and grandmother to invade her privacy; but Shirley was treated, in some ways, very special in that family, given the largest room which was beautifully decorated and her best friend, Dorothy, observed that Shirley "ruled the roost" in her home, she could pressure her mother at times into buying her what she wanted.

Shirley was not abused by her parents that I can see in this book; it is a normal relationship of an adolescent daughter and a mother. I had many "tiffs" with my daughter and those clothes she insisted on wearing, etc.etc. It is and was normal behavior.

Geraldine's main flaw in Shirley's view - well here, allow me to quote from page 35 in which a character in HANGSMAN is modeled after Geraldine:

Her main flaw as seen through Shirley's eyes, however, is her weakness, her ineffectuality. And perhaps that was what Shirley hated in her mother more than anything. Not her occasional cruelties, not the fact that she nagged, criticized, even berated her daughter at times, not that she tried to force her into a mold obviously not made for her, but simply that she was weak and, finally, unable to protect her daughter from pain. Cruelty, Shirley understood; she knew she had a streak of it herself.

And it continues - but who among us would have been able to protect Shirley, or our own children, from the pain of feeling left out, left behind, not being the best student or the most popular?

I couldn't protect my shy daughter from that - she took after me in that respect and I knew she would neither be the prettiest, the most popular, or the best student. I knew beforehand the feelings, the emotion, the envy my daughter would encounter and I could not protect her from that. Hey, it's the pain all children go through!

The author hints at abuse by an uncle - it is not a fact!

But I am rambling on here -

I believe with Stephanie that this author is drawing a lot of conclusions with little facts in order to make this biography more interesting to the reader!

Oh, yes, we must get to the LOTTERY soon - what a fascinating discussion that will be!!

Will return later.



;

I think that Shirley without the writing talent would be at least one child in every single classroom in the US. The writing is what separated her. I think that almost all bookish children have something that they consider special. I thought that I could talk to my beloved horses and that they could talk to me ( and only me). Yes Shirley could have had a better family for her, but her life was not bad. I also am uncomfortable about the author continually seeming to speculate about Shirley suffering some sort of sex abuse. I simply dont see it. She does not react that way. She had a very very special way of looking at life, but many authors do. I love the book. I love Shirley, but I dont agree with the author many times.

Good Morning All,

Lately, I have an interest in more nonfiction. When I saw this discussion, I could not resist. I am getting my book today from the library. I have only read The Lottery. Still, I would like to know about the woman behind such stories. I know nothing about her life.

I may not comment, but I will have my book to read along with everyone.

HATS

Ella, I thought your "flying" story was endearing. If you didn't fly as a child, you sure do fly now with all of your intellect and energy. Too bad we ALL couldn't have known each other when we were little kids.

There was a rocky, craggy "lifted" hill of land in back of our neighborhood playground. I played there often. Some rock conformations were "palaces," Others were dungeons or dragon's lairs. Sometimes I chipped the shiny minerals off the rocks and kept the jewel-like pebbles as treasures. I would've been glad for the company of a friend who could "fly" the terrain.

Ginny, I agree with what you said about Shirley and books. Shirley needed parents who valued books, gave her lots of them and enjoyed talking about the ideas in books with a child. Even if she was going through pain from other children, if her parents listened to her ideas and talked to her some, wouldn't her life have been easier? By the way, it wasn't me that said I was sorry for Geraldine, because I'm not sure I am at this point.

I don't hold Geraldine's shallowness against her, or her lack of intellectual capacity, or even her inability to shield Shirley from pain...because, who can do that effectively? My grievance is that she didn't have enough love to expand her definitions of what was acceptable in a child, when she saw that HER child wasn't meeting her original expectations.

About that big room of Shirley's? Were her parents hoping to raise her to enjoy the good things in life, as befitted a princess who would eventually marry well? I wonder, was that their way of "doing their duty" by her?

So far everyone seems to be "down" on Oppenheimer and her scholarship, but when a subject leaves only a small amount of direct sources, what's a biographer to do? Shirley Jackson was an orphan of the communication age. She lived after telephones, and BEFORE email. I think anyone who has any anticipation of being written up by future generations better start saving the old hard drives of all of their discarded computers, because that's where future primary sources may be located.

I couldn't agree more about the reason for the attraction between Shirley and Stanley. He gave her a first dose of appreciation. Yet, at this point, having read only the first seven chapters, I still feel there's a kind of cold blooded quality to Stanley's devotion. Usually, a guy who wants a "candy" girl on his arm to lend prestige to himself looks for a glamour girl. But Stanley's idea of a prestigious woman was an intellectual with superb writing gifts. So poor Shirley was undervalued again, appreciated by Stanley mostly for her gifts of mind and intellect, but not loved for who she was intrinsically, apart from her mind.

Yay, Hats! I'm thrilled to see you. Missed you a lot.

I had some phone calls while writing up my comments. We've gotten lots of new posts since I started typing. Be back later to respond to more of them.

GINNY (#41), in the photos I don't see any ugly duckling as a child. Shirley looks like a princess of an "Easter Parade" in the 1922 picture. Yes, in her youth she appears to be tall and a bit plump, but never ugly. However, the last picture that the book labels as a "haunting study" looks like it came out of the movie "Misery" - a bit frightening. As for Geraldine, she looks better in the retirement picture than in the bicycle one. Perhaps she and Leslie were at their happiest time of life without the stress of work and children. At least they were doing what they loved the best - socializing.

ELLA (#45), I totally agree with you in that I don't see an abused child - only one that is misunderstood. She was a child with an incredible imagination. (By the way, as a child, I, too, thought I could float in the air and often had awareness of future events. Perhaps there is some psychic ability in all of us.)

BETTY (#46), When I was young, a neighbor had what everyone said was a "nervous breakdown." She couldn't go to work or take care of her family. She only wanted to stay in bed. She didn't want to eat or see anyone. She got over it and then later had a second breakdown. Looking back, I think that she must have been severely depressed. Then we see severe depression today in the case of Andrea Yates in Houston.

As for Shirley, she might have been depressed, but was functioning and had a social life. Openheimer says (p.45), "Her spirit was bruised, but far from dead." It was at that time she set a goal to write a thousand words a day. "She was honing the discipline that would stand her in good stead her entire life."

I think that the reason for Shirley's sense of loneliness is best described on page 33. Rochester was a place where Geraldine could bloom, but not Shirley. It was a place of constriction and conformity, unlike the West with its open spaces and rugged individuality. Oppenheimer quotes playwright Thomas Babe who describes the Rochester area. "There was something mean about that stretch of the country - nothing to encourage or reward you if you had any imagination or ambition. . . The life of the imagination seemed wicked to them. At times, writing was a desperate act."

STEPHANIE (#44), I think that Shirley was attracted to Stanley and his group because she was able to express herself in anyway she wanted. Oppenheimer says (p. 70), "This was true freedom; they were throwing off the chains of repression, represented by Shirley's parents, and forging a brave new world."

IN CONCLUSION (for this posting), I am intrigued by Shirley Jackson and hope to read many of her works. To date, I've only read "The Lottery." I just received a copy of "The Haunting of Hill House" for which I've only seen the movie version. Then I'd like to read "We Have Always Lived in a Castle," which is referred to by many as her masterpiece.

After reading Jonathan Lethem's "Monstrous Acts," I want to know WHY he thinks Oppenheimer's "Private Demons" could have been called "Little Murders." I think that our book is going to get more interesting and revealing as we go.

I have my book. How in the world could a mother say her daughter "was an unsuccessful abortion." Such cold, cruel and heartless words that a daughter could never forget. What in the world was Geraldine thinking! Yikes!! I don't think any child could forget those words or not be hurt by them.

HATS

I have waited to post because I've got such a full plate right now I wanted to take a little more time to get my thoughts organized. But I see that isn't going to happen THIS week, so I'll just throw out a couple of my reflections.

I always like to know going in just where authors have done their research. Oppenheimer has done a good job documenting at the end of the book where her ideas have come from, and she certainly tells in the book who she is quoting as we go along. But I always have to be cautious in driving a stake in on the childhood recollections of people as being "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." My sis and I are two years apart in age, and we have totally different recollections of events, not only differing recollections but also the interpretation of them. Simple things as an age difference, and one's own temperament as well, can make it hard for anyone else to know exactly what is the truth. When my sis and I talk about these types of conflicting recollections, neither of us is inclined to change our belief. Thus I always look a little askance at "children's" recollections and tend not to think they are necessarily true.

I know a biographer has to synthesize what he or she finds in the sources and come up with a balance. For the reader it can be very interesting and may be good, juicy reading. But it is still, for me at least, NOT necessarily definitive.

And furthermore, I think the whole household was a little kooky.

I've finished the book, found it very interesting and now am re-reading it.

Oh, this is fun - a lot of new posters, did all of you read the LOTTERY and discuss it in Ros's last class? Did you agree with most of us that it was about a ritual, a sacrifice, a tradition, perhaps, that the villagers kept alive from past centuries to appease the Gods?

And now the author, Shirley Jackson, tells us it is about the Jews! And, right away, I said to myself of course!

It's about EVIL, killing innocent people, evil! In our lifetime, Germans killing other Germans, Poles killing other poles - man's inhumanity against its own species.

Shirley talks about evil in this book (look in the Index under evil; there are many sources listed that are not in these first chapters); however on page 18 we read that Shirley believed "people were flawed and carried evil within them."

Is it in all of us, or some of us? And is it always evil to kill? Could you kill?

Shirley had just encountered anti-Semitism at college, which the author tells us had a major impact on her life and her writing. And she had just met the love of her life - it apparently happened very suddenly - I can't remember how they met; however, both Stanley and she knew they had found their true love. Shirley, rudderless, found a rudder; Stanley found a pupil, a follower, someone he could educate, someone who was worthy of his education.

And she ran up against anti-Semitism in a big way when she fell in love with Stanley; a brash, intelligent, analytical Jewish boy from Brooklyn and an emotional, lonely, creative girl from a middle class country-club type girl met and fell in love.

What a story huh?

Ginny asked why, if Shirley is intelligent and there's no question about that, did she flunk out of Syracuse University. She had no Stanley there to get her through - no leader, no inspiration, no reason to graduate. What would Shirley do with a college degree? She had no career expectations!

That's my answer without going back to the book.

What do the rest of you think?

I do believe that Stanley and Shirley were mad for each other. She just fell into a relationship of approval and that probably helped her, at least in the beginning. A failed abortion.. That is such a terrible statement for a Mother... and yet,,, I know several adults who were just tht. I knew their Mothers when we were young and abortion was against the law and knew the attempts and the despair in being pregnant. So.. the failed abortion is a stupid thing to tell your child, but could be quite literally the truth. Hard on both Shrirley and Geraldine. Shirley and her witchcraft are strange to me. I waver between believing that she actually thought she could practice this and the belief that she knew exactly what she was saying and making herself out to be something that interested her.

I think that Shirley was creative and intelligent, but the intelligence was based on certain criteria. I dont think she would have done well in school. Too much of a contained atmosphere. Different sex children are often treated quite differently by parents. I know my Mother was a boy person and my brother lived quite a different life than I did. I suspect Geraldine was like that. Besides I think that for Geraldine, looks were truly important( stupid, but people do that) and Shirley disappointed her. She wanted to live through her daughter another life and never got a chance.

I see Shirley Jackson as very creative. I think Stanley fell in love with her intelligence and creativity. When his friend gave him her story about suicide, Stanley became very excited and said, without seeing her, this is the girl I am going to marry.

While Stanley loved Shirley's creativity, I think she loved him for his strong character. I remember that more than anything Shirley hated Geraldine's weakness. I found Shirley's journal entry very interesting.

"I DO NOT WANT TO FALL IN LOVE WITH STANLEY. i WANT STANLEY TO FALL IN LOVE WITH ME AND HE HAS. BEFORE GOD, HE HAS! NOW I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT WITH HIM--HURT HIM, MAKE HIM UNHURT, WATCH HIM BURN HIS FINGERS...AND ALL MY LITTLE WEAKNESSES TURNED TO STRENGTH," she gloated darkly.

For some reason, I find Shirley just as frightening as her mother, Geraldine. Maybe Shirley needed to feel strong because of the way her mother treated her. I had to ask myself is it better to be strong or weak? I guess the best person is made up of both characteristics.

HATS

Sorry to be so late in joining the discussion. Shirley's "non-acceptance" by her mother certainly colored her life. I thought it was very telling, and true, the quote on pg. 73 from Dr. Robt Seidenberg: "I find one thing -- kids want to please their parents. This is what tears them apart." He was refering to prejudices, but this surely can be construed to how Shirley's personality evolved. To be a square peg in a round hole...I'm sure deep down Shirley or any child in that situation, thinks that the parents are right, he or she is wrong and fights against that their whole life. Would set the stage for withdrawal, feelings of inferiority, etc. As for the witchcraft, might Mimi have had a hand in this? She imbued both Shirley and Barry with thoughts of the mind's ability. Also, she obviously admired Edgar Allan Poe, had his complete works and read to the children from them. Such interesting insights from all here. Hope I can keep up.

Hi Marylin.

I wonder why so many people are driven, at some point in their lives to become what they hate most? For instance, I've heard it said that a boy who has witnessed his father beat his mother up, has a high probability of becoming a wife-beater himself in later life.

Shirley wasn't such a great student and had flunked out of one college herself. Yet, she delivered SUCH a stinging rebuke (p.74) to a (former) friend in a similar position who hoped that he might find a summer job with her father. Where did that come from?

As Marylin pointed out, there must have been a time when Shirley identified with and admired her parents. Perhaps it was when she was very young. Remember the picture of Shirley and her brother Barry in front of their California house? Shirley wears a huge bow and rests her hand on the dog's head. She must have been less than five years old. Yet, in five years a child can absorb the seeds of family values very well. Later those seeds may be rejected, but they're still in the child's personality just the same.

It's as if Shirley BECAME her parents when she dealt with that unfortunate friend who was in much the same bind that Shirley had been in a few years before. She probably wrote him all the negative, put-down things she had heard, and defiantly ignored, from her own parents. But was there SOME part of Shirley that suspected all along that her parents had the right handle on things. and she didn't? Was she testing out the way the world looked to her parents, and more importantly how SHE appeared in their eyes?

When Shirley looked at that boy through the eyes of her parents, she HATED him and felt no compassion for him at all. Is that how she believed, rightly or wrongly, that her parents felt about her? Or did Shirley hate HERSELF so strongly that she identified with her parent's philosophy when she saw a boy who represented many of her own beliefs?

That incident was such a strange, contradictory phenomenon.

I've got to do several small posts today, as my computer keeps crashing!! Yesterday, I wrote a long post with responses to several of you. Just as I was finishing....crash! It had been so long since I lost a post that way that, for a minute, I couldn't believe it. Then, as I'm sure you heard, I let out a "nooooooooooo!!" Anyway, with fingers crossed, to the book.

First, let me add to others' ideas on Ginny's interesting question of Shirley's perplexing, poor performance in school. Yes, Shirley was intelligent, but in some respects, I see her first as an ARTIST, with all the eccentric baggage that implies. Also, to the extent that school is a social institution and given that Shirley's schools were mostly her parents' choices, it becomes easier to suspect that Shirley's intellectual abilities were more apparent outside of school.

I realize my comment about Shirley's eccentric behavior as an artist is based on a stereotype and I want to acknowledge that. There is other evidence about Shirley's eccentricities, however, so maybe this stereotype fits.

----------------------------------------

Has anyone else noticed that we are calling the subject of this biography by her familiar first name, Shirley? That's a departure from most (but not all) other discussions, so I wanted to bring it up. Why do you think we're calling her "Shirley" instead of "Jackson"?

Betty

The division of labor of Stanley and Shirley amazed me. I think she really did shy away from confronting him about many things. We called her Shirley.. Well yes, I feel as if we are discussing a woman down the street from all ofus. Shirley was a real human. She wrote with joy and determination. She nurtured her children, not conventionally but truly with strength. She lived an ordinary life in many ways and then produced the amazing remarkable books that surprised the world. I feel very close to her. Wish I could have known her, helped her in any way. Understood her better perhaps. Yes, I think we all think of ourselves as friends.

Good morning.

Harriet, regarding the stinging rebuke to the friend. This is not surprising. I suspect Shirley was not a nice person a lot of the time. If you are constantly 'put down' from birth, you would have no self esteem, you hurt, and therefore you hurt others. Perhaps that made her feel a little superior. This wasn't the first instance. On p. 36, it was stated that after being moved to Rochester when she was 16, she showed a cruel streak particularly to one girl.

Betty, this is my first discussion, so I'm not sure what was done in previous discussions, but in the first seven chapters we are dealing with a child and young adult who I, at least, really feel sorry for. Could this account for the Shirley instead of Jackson?

Stephanie, as for Shirley defering to Stanley, we are talking about the 1930s here, way, way before Gloria Steinham. I can remember this was still the norm in the 50s. Thank goodness for the 90s!

What wonderful ideas all of you have brought to our discussion. I agree that Shirley was thought of as a possession, a "trophy" by Stanley; however, if she had not met him what would have become of Shirley? Would her life have been better or worse?

Or as our author states - "Not everyone was always sure whether meeting Stanley was Shirley's greatest fortune or her worst calamity."

I would argue that Shirley may not have been as productive if she had not married Stanley; he encouraged her writing constantly, kept her at it. What would have been the alternative for her - certainly she could not have gone home to her parents which would, or might have, put her into the psychiatrist's office again (I believe the book intimated that she went to one after she flunked out of Syracuse).

Stanley "filled up the empty spaces, made her laugh, told her what to think and she accepted it all with a kind of stunned gratitude."

No one has commented on Shirley's statement that the story - THE LOTTERY - was about the Jews? True? False?

How do you understand the statement Shirley made on page 72?

Well, I thought it was fascinating. When I first read The Lottery, I felt very disturbed. Now, knowing that it is about Anti-Semitism, I am anxious to read it again. It seems that she did not tell everyone the why or meaning of this story. She took a friend into confidence and told her. I am wondering why did she feel the need to keep the meaning of the story hush,hush?

"SHE ALWAYS REFUSED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION PUT TO HER BY THOUSANDS OF READERS, "WHAT IS 'THE LOTTERY' ABOUT?"--BUT TO A GOOD FRIEND SHE CONFIDED THAT IT HAD, OF COURSE, BEEN ABOUT THE JEWS."

HATS

Now, I am thinking she didn't tell people 'The Lottery' was about Anti-Semitism because Shirley tended to see the majority of people as evil. So, she must have seen most people as full of hatred. How unfortunate that she could not see that the majority of people hated Anti-Semitism. I think she tended to see the glass as half-empty rather than half-full.

HATS

Did the book ever establish if Shirley and Stanley raised their children as Jews? If they did, I can well imagine Shirley dwelling on the dangers of anti-Semitism. She certainly might have maintained a vigilance toward anything that might endanger or victimize her children.

The Lottery was written in 1948. World War II was over, and the exposure of the Nazi concentration camps was a recent and shocking blot on the face of civilization. The timing was logical for a story about the horrors of scapegoating and the dangers of people mindlessly following inhumane rituals.

Still, I'm not completely comfortable with the explanation that The Lottery was entirely about the Jews. Shirley Jackson had a few issues with persecution and victimization on a personal level all of her life. I know she told a friend that The Lottery was about the Jews, but she had quicksilver emotions, changeable and volatile, and it may be possible that she said one thing on the spur of the moment, and then changed her mind at another time. I wonder, and this instinct could be ABSOLUTELY wrong, if anti-Semitism was too narrow a venue for Shirley's mistrust of the world. Seems to me that in her heart of hearts, she distrusted most EVERYONE. She wrote at one point: (p.40)

"i thought i was insane and i would write about how the only sane people are the ones who are condemned as mad and how the whole world is cruel and foolish and afraid of people who are different."

Her forte in writing was about outsiders. She identified with the dispossessed and their thinking. Browsing the internet, I found this quote by Shirley Jackson from the July 22, 1948 issue of the San Francisco Chronicle about the theme of The Lottery. .

"I suppose, I hoped, by setting a particularly brutal ancient rite in the present and in my own village to shock the story's readers with a graphic dramatization of the pointless violence and general inhumanity in their own lives."

Contradictory?

I just feel the whole business about Shirley's original motivation for writing The Lottery doesn't hang together quite right to me. I don't know which, if any, of her statements is true. I wonder, did she?

The Lottery is a short, easily flowing story. If anyone hasn't read it, and wants the opportunity to come to a personal opinion, here it is in its entirety.

The Lottery

Harriet

I can imagine I know the two words you used -- and thinking of you saying them made me think how satisfying it would be if I could say them to my ex! I hooted and hollered right in front of the computer just thinking about it.

I dont have the book but I have read some of her stories...somewhere I still have my copy of the Haunting of Hill House and The Lottery is in an anthology of some sort I bought years ago.

However it is not the story that haunts me as much as the radio play about it I heard and I have no idea how long ago that was. It was the most haunting and disturbing piece of work I ever heard. Just thinking of it makes me go chill. In fact it was so disturbing I almost didnt read the story itself. And when I did it affected me again. I cant bring myself to read it because my memory of it is still strong.

It was a dark world that thank goodness I never knew. While I loved mysteries and still do this was different. It was as if I had fallen into a dark pit full of snakes and I had no way out. It was an idea I simply could not fathom but was so glad I could put it down and look upon the sanity of my own life and be grateful.

Whether it is about Jews or not doesnt matter to me. What haunted me was the fact that anyone could write about the ultimate cruelty with such conviction. I felt sorry for the writer that she could see the world in that light and reading all the comments of her own life I can see why she could do this.

I hope it is all right if I stop by and read what everyone has written. anna

Just a thought..after reading some of the posts..isnt it odd it is the mother who is the victim ? anna

The letters. I keep wondering about them. Was this Shirley as she thought her Mother wanted... or was this Shirley as she pretended to be...or possibly Shirley as she really thought she was.. I am baffled by the letters. She never lost the need to want her Mother to love and approve of her. That is so sad.. Inside Shirley was always a little girl crying to be loved and treasured.. The lottery had great impact, but I agree that Shirley said different things to different people. I think it meant a lot of things to her. Of course she was an extraordinary writer and that shines through in that very clearly.

ANNA - delighted you have put in an appearance and as we go on to other chapters, those of us who read about Edna Millay's life may see a parallel in Shirley Jackson - at least, some aspects of it, although Edna never had children. But let's keep that in mind.

The LOTTERY would have made a great radio show - one that must have been very frightening for you to have remembered it.

Yes, Ginny, how could the same person write books with such opposing themes? Shirley was complex and was two, maybe more, personalities; however, her children brought her great happiness as we shall see later in the book.

For that reason alone we should, perhaps, be grateful for Stanley - he was the only person that may have married her, have seen her creativity and encouraged it.

I'll be interested, Ginny, in why you end up hating Stanley.

HARRIET - both Stanley and Shirley gave up any pretense to religion and, I'm sure, none of the children ever went to church. I can't give you page numbers here but Stanley's parents, particularly, resented his marriage and disowned him, refused to see him, until the first child appeared. What grandparents could resist?

BETTY AND GAIL: I'm sorry about your divorces although you both seem to feel it was the right thing. Has it left you bitter about men in general or about marriage? Would you marry again? Or have you?

I have only read a little way into Chapter eight, but so far, I don't like Stanley either. For one thing, he is unfaithful. He knows his infidelity hurts Shirley. He doesn't seem to care. I think he likes to see her jealous side. Maybe that is his insecurity showing.

I think they had physical fights too. When a man is physical with a woman, I always tend to feel sorry for the woman. I am trying to learn that it's possible for a woman to physically abuse a man.

HATS

1. Ella, yes, I married again. But a VERY different kind of guy! We're going on 27 years.

2. IMHO, the Lottery is about pure evil and how easily it can grip us, either singly or collectively, and how easily it can be rationalized. Why did she say it was about Jews? Maybe at the moment she had something sticking in her craw about discrimination against the jews....but I feel she really doesn't limit evil to only that.

3. We call her Shirley because the book called her Shirley. We are more evaluating her as the person Shirley rather than the writer "Jackson", which we would probably call her if our critiques were on a less personal basis.

Ella, if I had stayed married, I might have become "bitter about men in general or about marriage." My current study of and interest in cultural restrictions (sex roles) are about both men and women. Just think what Stanley missed by relegating the care of children to Shirley!! And think what a burden it was to live during a time when a wife's professional accomplishments couldn't be seen to bypass a husband's accomplishments....or it might bring on comments about who was the "man" in the family. Is it any wonder that Shirley wrote at the kitchen table and Stanley had a "study"?

Betty

I think Stanley's other women were weapons. He seemed to make too obvious a mention of them and always made sure Shirley knew who they were. That is disturbing in a person. I agree.. The Lottery struck me as pure evil. I read it quite young and remembered just recently that I thought that this was written by a person who has lost her way.. I was amazed when the family books came out. The two stories were so terribly far apart in direction. I still think of her as two people.. One who wrote The Lottery and the other serious books and the lighthearted one who wrote about her family. On the differences of Shirley and St. Vincent Millary. I loved Shirley all the way through the biography.. I disliked The poet at the end of the book. She came off to me as totally wrapped up in ego and self. No time or effort for anyone else.. Only wanted to fulfil her own desires.. Mostly sexual.. I still love the poetry but not the person.

I am beginning to like Shirley too. I like the fact that she loves her children so much. I think she must have been a wonderful mother. Shirley had the ability to enjoy her children. She seemed to become a child herself, to enter their world. The housework did not come first. I think playing with her children came first.

When my children were small, I worried so much about the dirty diapers, about clean sleepers and rompers and whether every toy was picked up before family or friends came over to visit. I had the wrong priorities. I think Shirley had hers in order. Finally, before it was too late, I did learn to enjoy playing, being a child again with my boys. I am glad that my sons and I are still able to laugh and play.

Thinking of Stanley, I don't think he enjoyed the children. Not in the way Shirley enjoyed them. He comes across, to me, as so orderly and organized, almost like a military man.

I think Stanley's good point was his ability to keep Shirley focused on her writing. I might be repeating Ella's thoughts.

HATS

I just finished reading Chapter 8. I can join the ranks of not liking Stanley. Being an intellectual and speaking one's candid thoughts is one thing, but purposely hurting the one you love is another. It is in Chapter 8 that Shirley shows her pain. Stanley had been her savior. Now she realizes that some philosophical ideals , such as sexual freedom, can hurt when they are real.

We also see her terrified of insanity. She says, ". . . he stopped taking care of me and my one security is gone and it's not that I was basing my security so much on him as it was that I thought he was so good and I was so alone and helpless and only learning to be practical and needed something real which is now gone and all my world is unreal..."

Well, back to reading the rest of the chapters for this week. This has been a great discussion so far.

I constantly wonder about Stanley and Shirley. I cannot imagine flaunting an affair. I would be a widow if that had happened in my life. Shirleys love and great joy in her children is lovely to behold. I was too involved in keeping them safe and clean, etc. I enjoy my grandchildren more.. i have learned to stop and play and simply enjoy. I envy the fact that Shirley entered into their world so readily. What a gift.

The discussion has been slow today. Is everyone reading? I posted earlier on Chapter 8, then got a chance to complete Chapters 9 and 10.

We see that Stanley and Shirley had both verbal and physical fights. In addition, we discover that Shirley regards housekeeping "a giant waste of her energy, and she did as little of it as possible." (P.90) Moreover, she finds the political discussion carried on by Stanley and the boys boring. She wrote the following about them and anyone else connected to political activity: "I would not drop dead from the lack of you - - My cat has more brains than the pack of you." (P.90). Even her part-time jobs were boring.

Then Stanley had the brainstorm to escape to the woods for a year of writing. It was at this time that Shirley finally became a published writer with a short story in "The New Republic". It seemed that their year of exile had worked. Even their friends thought that they "were both on their way and life was good."

It all sounded that life for Shirley was finally going to be happy and productive. I know that I was happy for her.

Then in Chapter 10 we see her as a "hands-on mother" and Stanley as a "hand-off father." But Shirley seemed to accept that she was on her own as for as the children were concerned. The children even grounded her and gave her the balance that she lacked from Stanley.

It was Stanley, however, that pushed her into being a successful writer despite the fact that he was controlling and unfaithful.

Oppenheimer then gets into descriptions of Shirley's stories. "It was Shirley's genius to be able to paint homey, familiar scenes. . ., and then imbue them with evil - or, more correctly, allow a reader to see the evil that had been obvious to her all along. . ." (P. 101)

I liked what Oppenheimer wrote on P.103. "As time went on, she drew more and more on her own wide store of fears for her stories, from the specific - dentists, closed spaces, overhangs, traffic - to the general - chaos, loss of identity, disintegration. . . Her stories broke down the barrier between reader and author so the reader himself felt the icy touch of panic, the sense of unreality." I just can't wait to read more of her stories and novels!!!!

At the end of Chapter 10 we see that Shirley is starting to have phobias that made her hate going out. "She was convinced that she was going to be killed by something dropping from a building." (P.109)

Well, tomorrow I'll try to finish up through Chapter 14. I'm anxious to see where all of this is going.

I think the dinner parties would make me feel uncomfortable. The parties don't seem fun at all. If there were a conflict, it could be considered a good party. Stanley seemed the type of guy who liked making others uncomfortable or pushing their buttons.

I have the hardback version.

HATS

OK.. Ginny, I have the hardback version as well. I am reluctant to admit it, but it does look as if it is Stanley who first pushes Shirley into writing. I think once she started she needed no other help however. The Lottery seems to have been close to a spontaneous outpouring, which fascinates me. Can you imagine something that good being written that fast? Housework.. well why didnt they hire someone to clean occasionally. They did seem to be big earners , although it got spent as fast as it came in, I guess. The author seems to have something of a mind set about Shirley and her illnesses. Enough so that the next time I am in Washington, I plan on going to the Library of Congress and see if I can have access to her journals, etc. There has to be a reason why the author is so deadset on Shirley needing Stanley to survive. If she really had trench mouth, she was truly ill and it was not in her head for heavens sake. I still maintain she was a good mother. She knew about the important things from a kids point of view..

In certain ways, Shirley's and Stanley's marriage was symbiotic. Each of them always seemed to believe that there was a genius in the family. The only problem was that BOTH of them were convinced that the genius was Stanley. Maybe that's why Stanley got the private study and the uninterrupted working time?

Shirley was Stanley's special kind of trophy wife, a brilliant writer with a tremendous desire to please and defer to him. I think he NEEDED the admiration and permissiveness she gave him in their private life. Stanley had his own private demons and Shirley's belief in his value may have provided a partial antidote to the after-effects of Moe, who had been such a critical, unaccepting father. In return Stanley encouraged and admired Shirley's writing, provided a frame of structure for her to work within, and...he also forgave what Shirley, courtesy of her OWN mother, perceived as her flaws.

What were those? She was overweight, not a model housekeeper, and unorganized in her personal habits. I think she was GRATEFUL for his tolerance in those areas, and in return she didn't launch a serious challenge to his infidelities and major, big-time selfishness. She may have secretly felt that Stanley was ENTITLED to the first, despite the pain it gave her, and not seriously noticed the second. Remember the scene where Shirley pregnant, is huffing toward home carrying heavy bags of groceries and the daily mail? Stanley darts out of the house, takes the mail from her, and goes off, leaving his pregnant wife to continue carrying the heavy stuff? When THAT occurs, it takes a well established pattern of priorities in BOTH partners.

I think Shirley may have really felt that the qualified approval and love she got from Stanley was acceptable, part of her normal pattern of marriage. After all, had she gotten more from her own parents? What period of her life had presented a loving, accepting atmosphere that she could measure her marriage against?

I think that someone who has spent so much of her life in an atmosphere of disapproval may lose the ability to distinguish abuse when it occurs, and just be overly grateful for the crumbs of love that come her way. It's possible to veer between the extremes of anger and venality at the world's wrongs, and too much gratitude for small signs of love.

Harriet

Will post more on Thursday, but wanted to comment on a couple of issues raised. In Chapter 6 it was stated that Stanley as an adult was a proud, militant ATHEIST who took pride in his Jewish background. And then somewhere (I think, but I can't find the quote right now) that June was pleased to be made one of the children's Godmother, but not when she learned that Shirley never had the child baptized.

As for the parties, I can't imagine them. Where were the children during these parties that included lots and lots of alcohol and fighting and heavens knows what else?

Confession time. I had never read The Lottery and did not know that Shirley Jackson wrote it before this discussion. Thank you for the clickable - I have now read it. Chilling. I read Life Among the Savages when it came out (45 or 50 yrs. ago?) and have remembered it and Shirley Jackson all these years from that one book, and was drawn into this discussion on that basis. I never have been too much of a short story reader, perfering novels of various types. What an eye-opener this bio is!

Harriet, Oh Harriet, I do believe you have struck a chord. The abuse pattern is certainly there and I did not attach enough importance to it. Stanley and Shirley had neurosis that matched. Having had a brother who fit that pattern with the last lady friend, I know it is horrifying to watch. I think the people involved actually revel in it however. There is some strange psychiatric thing called "folie au Deu" or some such. Means that the two of you are fine away, but together problems arise. I have never been a pill taker, so dont know what the results of the amount of pills they took would have on them. However Stanleys inability to remain faithful started in college and I dont think they started the pill thing until much later.

In the book, I enjoy reading the brief sketches of Shirley's short stories. I have only been introduced to The Lottery. I would enjoy reading more of the stories. Maybe The Lottery is the most disturbing one. The others don't sound so bad.

I bet some wonderful writers walked through their home. Ralph Ellison? Wow!

Hats

Well the Lottery is scary, but so are the rest except for the two about the children. We have always lived in the Castle made me have nightmares for a long time. One of the few over my lifetime .. Thomas Perry is the other author who did that to me. Life Among the Savages and the other one are marvelous. Funny and loving and whimsical and not at all like the Shirley in the other type books.

I came from a totally nonreligious family, yet my siblings and I had godparents. It wasn't until many years later, when I grew old enough to even think about religion, that I became aware that Godparenting was in most cases closely connected with one's church or denomination. My godparents had no role in my life or my upbringing, but my mother thought it sounded good to designate someone a "godparent." For me, she designated her best friend, after whom I was named. Since my mother had 4 sisters that she was very close to, I'm sure my mother never intended to have Gail raise me or be involved with me if she died. Gail lived half way across the country, and I only saw her once in my life, tho' she and mother did exchange Christmas cards yearly. I think "Godmother" was more an honorary title for Gail -- honoring her friendship.

Shirley's thinking may have been somewhat along those lines.

The parties. Well I admit that in college and shortly thereafter, I was a very active participant in Theatre and the arts. We did our very best in that beatnik 50's to be as different as possible. To be callled weird was so important to us.. Our parties were very drunken and very oneupmanship.. Sarcasm was treasured. We were so obnoxious.. but mostly just young..

It surprised me that people wanted to go to the location in the story. I never thought of it as a "real" location. If it were a real place, I would not want to visit it.

Some people thought of The Lottery as "perverted." I must not really know the definition of "perverted." I think the story is disturbing and shocking but perverted? I don't know. Can the story be thought of as perverted?

I could not believe how quickly Shirley wrote the story, The Lottery. She wrote it in two hours! She hardly needed to edit it. I think she had a gift for writing.

Six cat are a bunch of cats! That's strange too especially knowing that Shirley did not know how to keep a house clean.

Her witchcraft ideas or whatever keep coming up. That makes me really uncomfortable. I can't imagine having a mother who loved voodoo dolls and familiars. It's all very strange.

Someone liked to watch tv. Not much furniture but a huge tv!

Hats

I don't know if Shirley's behavior matched agoraphobia precisely. Loosely, it did. Fear of losing control in front of others, fear of embarrassment in front of others out in public places.....so one stays home. Strictly speaking, a phobia has to be based on UN-rational fears, a fear only in the mind. In Shirley's case, she had already experienced personal pain at the hands of the village, so her fears were not entirely groundless. She did give into them, however, and let them interrupt normal daily functioning. Hers was probably a run of the mill anxiety disorder. Or, at least, from the information in this book, that's my best guess.

When in California, I worked up a real fear of driving in the Bay area freeway traffic, so I avoided it. I couldn't really say I reached the panic disorder or phobia stage because my fears were based on real experiences.

Betty

Ginny - in answer to your question of what did I think of The Lottery -as I said, chilling. Was wondering if I would have had the same reaction if I had not read it after reading this bio of Shirley. I did read The Haunting of Hill House. I also got and started the book of Shirley's material that her children just made available. I think it said that some were unpublish, some untitled, some undated, etc. I didn't get through the book - maybe I'm just not into short stories.

I keep thinking of the children in this household. Wild parties, poor nutritional habits, and it must have been a little more than a 'dusty' house when someone couldn't sleep on the sofa because of the stench of cat urine.

Oh how I feel for Shirley. She must have had absolutely no self-esteem and truly couldn't have been happy. Thank goodness she did have the children and was devoted to them. Such a talent....

Personal note - we welcomed our 5th grandson (1 granddaughter) into our family Wednesday!

I am just getting back from a week's hiatus and in reading all of your comments I have this to say - we all look at Shirley and Stanley differently and I can't help but believe that it is because the author, Oppenheimer, writes about the couple in such varied ways, e.g. (I always get a kick out of typing that as it is my initials, haha) at the very beginning of Chapter 8, 3rd paragraph, a friend, June, says that Stanley was "very good about not interfering, respecting her writing and her ability, making suggestions that were just suggestions, never pushing. He was very admiring.

In the paragraph above I read that Stanley's crowd brought Shirley into contact with such a diverse array of people - which Shirley digested and used in her stories! Would she have met these people on her own - I would argue not! Stanley's friends are boisterious, intelligent, witty extroverts. Where would Shirley have met those kind on her own?

Yes, Malryn, they both were on drugs but I'm not sure that we are at those chapters yet in our schedule - (having just completed reading and discussing Edna St. Vincent Millay, who was on drugs of all type - uppers, downers, alcohol, even morphine )- I wonder if all creative people need drugs to sustain them, which, of course, doesn't do anything at all except to shorten their lives.

Harriet stated "Shirley may have really felt that the qualified approval and love she got from Stanley was acceptable, part of her normal pattern of marriage" and I agree with that. She had never known much approval or love from anyone and may have felt that what she got from Stanley was the real thing - she never had a friend to confide in did she? To compare what a normal marriage and normal relationship between husband and wife should be? I don't recall that she did!

Someone, was it Ginny?, asked if Stanley is still living and I'll answer that now (although it's in the book). Stanley died at the age of 55, not even surviving Shirley by five years.

I must review more of the book before posting again but I do have the sense, after reviewing all of your comments, that we differ in our opinions of Stanley only because the author is disorganized or confusing. First, Stanley is so good for Shirley, for her self-esteem and his approval, which she had never experienced before and next we read just the opposite. What are we to believe?

What chapters are we on?

I feel very divided about Stanley, but I do agree that part of that is definitely the writer of the book. Some of my most favorite college professors were not particularly nice people.. But they were compelling speakers. I do wonder if that was what Stanley was like. He attracted a wide variety of people. Shirley did seem to have several friends. June seemed to be one. The witch talk is baffling. Was it a joke? Did she truly believe? She seemed to be comfortable with certain aspects of witchery, but never made an attempt to contact any other people who claimed to be witches. I would think you would want others that felt like you did to reinforce your belief. Possibly not or possibly she simply loved to pull peoples legs.

No, Ginny, I've never read any of Shirley's books, just the story - THE LOTTERY. In fact, I had never heard of Shirley Jackson before Ros's course. Had the rest of you?

Shirley's carelessness in the raising of her children disturbed me more than Stanley's affairs (which Shirley tolerated); often the children were dirty, unkempt. There was an incident in which a guest went in to see one of their babies and the child was covered by coats, hats, etc. Another time friends were asked to keep the children and the first thing they did was give the children a bath and wash their filthy hair, etc. Poor housekeeping would not have bothered me as much as neglected children.

Shirley had a dual personality and enjoyed this aspect - I think the very fact that she was frightened of going out interested her and she wrote of these fears in her stories. In much the same way, she used her witchcraft; she loved to impress people with stories of her abilities, but other times she laughed at it and made fun of the people who believed it. And as the book points out time and time again she would split her personality into distinct parts in her books.

But she could be very funny and I would have liked that side of her - "Whenever I am very very mad at Stanley, I go into his study and move one of his ashtrays one quarter inch to the side." Hahaha And laughing when Stanley dropped the turkey on the floor - it is funny, it happened at one of our family Thanksgiving dinners and some laughed and some didn't! Interesting that.

As we have all said before, she is a very complex character and I don't think I would have liked her or understood her and definitely would not have felt comfortable at their parties where each - host and hostess - were sarcastic in their attempt to outdo each other, their attempt to find a pigeon to pounce on, their critical and challenging conversations.

Her first book -"THE ROAD THROUGH THE WALL" - must have been somewhat autobiographical - years later she told her daughter Sally:

"The first book is the book you have to write to get back at your parents; the book you always had in you. Once you get that out of your way, you can start writing books."

Not particularly to get "back at your parents", but I agree with her that if most of us could get past that first book (wouldn't it be about situations in our own lives?), then we would be free to write well or, at least, to write.

She is a fascinating person - the fact that she can write humor and write of such horror! How many other authors can we name that touch her in that aspect?

Shirley had an old house with fourteen rooms, three children, six or more cats, and a dog. She divided her time between mothering her children, catering to Stanley's whims, attending to the supernatural aspects of her life, and writing. I think it's a miracle that she got to the writing.

Fourteen rooms? It's not surprising that she couldn't keep that huge old house clean while the three children, six cats, and a few assorted ghostly spectres were actively inhabiting it. Her husband must have consumed a lot of her time on a daily basis also. He kept Shirley busy with multiple bits of his personal minutiae that he expected her to take care of for him. From keeping him stocked with pens to stoking his massive ego, the impression I get is that Shirley was responsible for all the small, annoying details of Stanley's life with which he didn't care to be afflicted. Yet she had her own methods of fighting back.

Oppenheimer writes that Shirley tended to acquire cats that were all the same color because Stanley, no cat lover, couldn't "grab hold" of how many pets they actually owned as the look-alike animals ran about. Seems that Shirley must have derived comfort from the uncritical affection of her fuzzy cats, but her toilet training skills left something to be desired...hence the stench of urine in her sofa cushions.

The bills? I can't imagine Shirley and Stanley just refusing to pay their bills. I visualize them both cheerfully buying...toys for the kids, wine and appetizers for their next party... and then discovering at the end of the month, with chagrin, that they've run out of money before they've paid up their bills. Oppenheimer says they regularly exceeded their income. If they acquired the unfortunate habit of jamming the excess bills into a drawer for future payment, the stage would be set for Geraldine to play the Lady Bountiful role and trek to their local stores to pay off their debts.

As a couple, they were not fiscally responsible or adult in their habits. I wouldn't attribute the lax finances to Shirley alone. All of this doesn't excuse the standards by which they lived, but I was fascinated trying to figure out how a life-style that had these problems could possibly evolve with two literate, highly intelligent adults.

Mal brought up an interesting point about Shirley's drug use. Of course any drugs can be abused illegally, but if Shirley had actually been prescribed Thorazine, an anti-hallucinatory medication, by a doctor, it might indicate that her private fears about mental instability had some valid justifications?

Harriet

Carelessness about money is a disease. I had a brother, who never ever could cope with how to pay bills. He bought as he wanted and never seemed to connect it to actually paying. I think that Stanley and Shirley did this. The house would have defeated me.. And the four children as well.. And Stanley who was probably enough mess for an additional two or three children. I dont notice consistancy in the care of the children. None of the children complained about being ill kept( at least not in the book). Would the friends have possibly been saying what the author wanted to hear? The pictures of the children did not look unkept either. I am just so suspicous of the authors conclusions on children. And the complaint about the cats.. having had several cats at one time in my life.. Well I had a mother in law who hated cats and if you asked her, she would tell you my house smelled awful. If you had asked my mother who loved cats, she would have said, she smelled nothing.. So I would have to hear that from everyone before I would have put it in the book. I think that the dirtiness was some sort of symbol to the author.

My thoughts exactly.

I think Shirley truly enjoyed and had fun with her children. I feel her first priority was not to become a woman like her mother. She wanted her children to be happy and carefree. She did not want them to miss their childhood. I believe a part of Shirley remained childlike, and this is the part that made her a good mother.

I don't see Stanley as a good father. To me, he seems selfish. Maybe Shirley had faults, but I think she loved to give of herself. Her openheartedness makes me forgive her for an unkempt house. When my children were small, there were many days when my house would not have won the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

I am ending chapter twelve. As I read further into the book, I hope to hear more about what the grownup children had to say about their mother and father.

Hats

Having just finished Chapter 13, I thought I was behind on my reading. Now I realize that we were only doing up to Chapter 12 this week. Oh well, next week starts in the morning.

I find it disturbing that this loving, caring mother, who in Chapter 12 (paperback, page 135) was "fiercely protective of all her children in their dealings with others outside the house" and who "didn't want the environment acting on her (Sally) in ways that would kill her, reduce her, stifle her spirit" could be the expectant mother that regularly consumed drugs and alcohol in Chapter 13. She no doubt continued smoking also. I realize that medical research on the effects of these substances on the fetus wasn't available in the early fifties, but I still find it upsetting. I would like to know if her use of drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes affected her children in any way.

I remember my first homecoming football game after my 1966 graduation from college. At a party after the game, a good friend, who was very pregnant, drank quite a bit. Shortly after midnight she went into labor. They always joked about what an easy delivery it was. Years later it was no joke. Her alcohol consumption during pregnancy was the cause of her son having many problems as a "slow" learner in school.

GINNY and HATS, you both made references to the TV. Even though Stanley and Shirley were determined to be "intellectuals," TV was something new in the late 1940's and they were probably curious of this novelty. I don't even know what people were watching then. We didn't get a TV until sometime in the 50's. The old ones were very large with a very small round or oval screen. I slightly remember my cousin having one.

Another aspect of Shirley's life that I find interesting is their continual entertaining. As unappealing as most of us seem to find their manner of having fun, Shirley and Stanley must have enjoyed socializing as much as Geraldine and Leslie. This is despite the fact that their social levels were totally different.

I also find it interesting that Shirley was always trying to give Geraldine a "rosy picture" of everything. (P. 135 - Chapter 12)". . . her feelings for Geraldine, and to a slightly lesser degree Leslie, were so hopelessly scrambled, the good with the bad, that sorting them out was next to impossible. What she wanted was their approval, and being Shirley, she wanted it with an intensity that did not fade with time. Unfortunately, it was the one thing she could not get." I can personally relate to this sadness in Shirley's life. One often overachieves to get approval. She seems to be drawn to people to which she feels a need to please - to people that are critical of her.

GINNY, this has been an interesting discussion. Do you think it would be possible to follow-up with a discussion of a couple of Shirley's novels??? I have already received "The Haunting of Hill House" and "We Have Always Lived in the Castle" and can't wait to start reading them.

I haven't time this morning to delve into the new chapters for this week, but have read all the recent posts and I find it interesting that many of you seem to be defending Shirley. Is it because we are all women or because we admire an author?

Actually, if she was a neighbor or someone you knew slightly (not an author) what would you be saying about this woman who is a poor housekeeper whose children are dirty and do not seem to have had their hair washed in weeks, sloppy in her habits and dress with little self control or esteem, and from whose house loud, boisterous, drunken parties can be heard?

Furthermore, she wins very little sympathy from me for her lack of parental understanding. There's unlimited children who came from much worse home environments than Shirley and made it through life very well and did not blame their parents for their "adult" behavior.

One of the posts I read (I get this far and cannot remember who said what) remarked that neither she nor Stanley behaved as adults. AMEN!

Way back.. yes I would have liked to be a neighbor to an unkept sort of slovenly housekeeper. She sounds to me like a good Mother who did well for her children. Not being a writer would not have changed my mind. I have lived next door to Mrs. Perfect with the very very clean boring children and watched her turn up her nose at my menagerie of dogs, cats, hamsters, etc, etc. I was once told that she did not ask me for baked goods for some bake or another, because I had too many animals to be clean.. And oh horrors,,, I read all the time and never did all the civic stuff.. But... I loved my husband and children, laughed with them, went off to play and rode my bike with them , was the den mother and a room mother and in my spare time, taught baking and bread making classes. I liked my life and hated my Mrs. Perfect neighbor.. Later her husband left her for a much nicer woman and to my horror, I was secretly glad.. Shirley was a human.. too involved perhaps in her witchcraft, but a full and complete human.

I think we defend Shirley because she was a mother who loved her children. I don't believe that she was totally neglectful. I don't think her children ate baked beans and hot dogs every night. Every mother has been too busy at one time or another to cook. That's why we eat out! There are times when you just grab a pizza. This is reality.

I sympathize with Shirley because her mother disapproved of her, her father-in-law disapproved of her, and her husband, Stanley, knew her insecurities but seemed to work at making her feel more insecure.

I haven't read about the drugs yet.

Hats

Betty and Mal, the biography talks about instances from childhood onward when Shirley claimed to have seen creatures that others couldn't see. It's unclear from the book, at the point that I'm reading, whether she said this "for effect", or truly believed it. She seems to have thought about insanity quite a bit and she wrote about it in her notebook also. Shirley wrote at one point earlier in the book:

"i thought i was insane and i would write about how the only sane people are the ones who are condemned as mad and how the whole world is cruel and foolish and afraid of people who are different."

I'm just now beginning to read about some drug use. There's a brief and not too clear description of a beginning involvement with "uppers", tranquilizers and alcohol in Chapter 13. It's only a short paragraph.

I've always felt that every working woman needs the equivalent of a devoted wife in her life.

Harriet

I just started reading about the drug and alcohol use too. A part of me feels sorry for Shirley, but another part hates the fact that so much drinking and drug use went on around the children and during her pregnancy. So sad. I think it shows that Shirley was a deeply unhappy woman. Maybe her only joy was found in her children and writing.

When Laurie was hit by a car, that was really sad. I didn't understand how easy it was for Shirley to blame her child first. I think if one of my boys had been hit by a car, whether wrong or right, I would have immediately been very angry with the driver. Finally, there was a lawsuit.

I felt very sorry for Moe Hyman who loved his grandson so much. Mr. Hyman had seen his son, Stanley, hit by a car too. It seems that he could not separate one event from the other.

Hats

My brother was hit by a car when he was eight.. He was coming home from across the street at my aunt's. He survived but was cripple for life. Amazingly enough,, my parents never blamed the driver. He was not speeding and my brother just darted out. They got a settlement from the insurance company and paid the medical bills, which were horrible. He spent almost a year in various hospitals. My mother was initially angry at my brother because it was so clearly his fault. My aunt always blamed herself. In truth it was a simply accident with bad things happening.

Betty, the pages that I used to draw my conclusions about Shirley seeing and hearing things that others did not were the last four or five pages of Chapter l.

Those pages had a mix of interpretation by Oppenheimer and references to characters in her later books that Oppenheimer implied were alter-egos for Shirley herself. The innuendo was that Shirley saw and heard things invisible and inaudible to others.

You know, the more I read, the harder it is to get a definite handle on the personality of Shirley Jackson. As Ginny pointed out, it's increasingly hard to figure out how much is interpretation by our author and how much is truth. I was impressed by all the contradictory personality traits Ginny came up with during a careful hunt through the book.

That quote from Sally Hyman is something to think about.

More later...

I remember reading that Dexadrine is a dangerous drug. It is addictive and will also raise your blood pressure. It was prescribed for many years as a diet aid..I also remember the early 60's when all sorts of well meaning doctors prescribed all sorts of pills to all sorts of housewives.. I think Shirley was in psychic pain good deal of the time and the pills blurred things. I also think that Joanne is still fighting back.. Just exactly like Shirley fought her Mother.. Sad, but true.

Mal, what a remarkably good observation!

Why didn't Shirley have a room of her own to write in? Her first house was 14 rooms and her next Bennington house had 20 rooms. Why did they want such large houses? And why didn't Shirley claim a bit of turf for herself?

Unless she didn't want to shut herself away from the children behind a study door a la Stanley?

Harriet

Mid-century women who did what was expected in being 100 percent responsible for their children, whether they had "outside" jobs or not, and who did not claim and name rooms as their private spaces were not subconsciously wanting to be victims. Stanley's sense of entitlement was not brought on by anything Shirley did or could have done.

Betty

Malryn.. I really resonated with your post. I think that Shirley was very much a child of her era and that unconsciously she did expect to be second to everyone. I had not thought of all of the rooms before, but it makes sense. I also think that being near Stanley was like breathing for her. I think the need was great.

"...wanted to be a victim," was what Mal wrote and I was responding to the word "wanted." Shirley may have expected shabby treatment, as Stephanie wrote, but that's different than wanting it. When Virginia Woolf addressed the sense of entitlement men had (and the world/society had for them) when they claimed private spaces to work, she was focusing on the culture at large that forgets that women could benefit from the same entitlements/opportunities men owned simply by being born.

Women may not speak up, may not frown, may not divulge a reaction, may not have a reaction, when they do not share in the benefits men have, but it's rare, rare, rare for a woman to want mistreatment. "wanted to be a victim" was the only thing I was responding to.

Betty

Was Shirley an "abused" child? Hmmmmmm

Maybe we are not reading the same book? Her mother was critical, yes, perhaps overly so (we don't know that - I was often critical of my teenage daughter!), but we couldn't be closer now.

What is an abused child?

BETTY - that was a fascinating post! You should publish some of your case histories (with identities anonymous, of course) and how you dealt with them; perhaps someone who needs therapy (but can't afford it) could benefit from the book.

Good point, yes, if only Shirley could have gotten angry at her mother, I can see it would have been a great help to both! She should have shouted that neither one of us is happy with our relationship - "I'm not the pretty and perfect daughter and you are not the loving mother" - so let's accept that premise and see if there is anything we can agree on and perhaps a little love or friendship will creep in.

Somewhere in the book her mother did visit her and there was a need on both their parts to keep in touch.

There was something there if only they could have got beyond their expectations.

You must have had great satisfaction from the timid client you helped and I would like to hear more. But that is off the subject of our book; however, Shirley would have benefited from help such as you could have given! Thanks for telling us the story.

Good Morning,

I like the two photographs in the heading. For me, these are the picture of the "true" Shirley. I believe Shirley truly loved writing, and I believe she really loved her children. To the best of her ability, she was a good mother, and she was a wonderful writer.

Hats

oH Hats.. That is so true. I too believe that writing and the children were the things that made Shirley happy. I think the love with Stanley was there and overwhelming, but I am not sure it made her happy. Her parents influenced her life as most parents do. Shirley just never seemed able to understand that she did not have to please them all the time. Sad.. But I know that I did a lot of that myself when younger. Pleasing a parent is primary to children and hard to throw off as an adult.

Your words made me cry. How brave you are.

Oh, I love that idea, Ginny....listing Shirley's assets and liabilities. That's one of the great mysteries of life, though, isn't it.....why some of us feel fortunate and some of us don't, no matter what the assets and liabilities. I guess that's where personality, family, support system, role models, etc., make a difference....but primarily personality? Maybe? (I guess I'm presuming that most of us would list more assets than liabilities for Shirley, therefore, the mystery.)

I do that all the time. I mentally list "the good stuff" when I'm feeling down or when the bad stuff makes too much noise. The good stuff always outweighs the bad and, as I get older, I take less and less for granted. That's something young people don't get to do, yet, haven't lived enough life to know what to appreciate.

----------------------------------------------

I keep thinking of Ella's perfectly said "now, hear this" assertive anger from Shirley to her mother.....and Shirley's inability to be angry or truthful with her mother....her tone was always upbeat and happy, even when things were falling apart, remember?

So, I was thinking that the only place Shirley told the truth....how she saw the world...was in her dark stories. She could say, angrily, THIS is how I've experienced the world. Her mask of upbeat happiness, so well practiced with her mother, was written into her other stories and she could turn them out quickly, when needed.

Maybe that's good, that she had at least one place to be real. On the other hand, oh, my, if this is how she experienced the world...evil lurking just beneath the surface....how sad.

Betty

p.s. Mal, I missed your post, somehow. I'm so glad you told us all that. I feel like I've known pieces of it here and there, but not a whole picture. You and I have many experiences in common with a major disability and choice of husband....and need for healing. My heart goes out to you. And thanks for helping us understand Shirley Jackson.

Malryn, has your post disappeared? I wanted to remark on it and now I can't find it? Thank you for sharing that with us, we must have had a blip on the internet, it does happen and people's posts disappear, I myself keep copies of my own prose just in case something like that happens.

There has been a remark made in the Sugggestions for SeniorNet discussion that the technicolor colors some of us use in our posts are hard for some browesers to read so I'm reverting to black and white so nobody misses one IOTA of my stuff! hahahahaha Just FYI.

---

Betty, what wonderful points!

So, I was thinking that the only place Shirley told the truth....how she saw the world...was in her dark stories. She could say, angrily, THIS is how I've experienced the world

I agree, it's amazing how powerful her stories ARE even a few words throw you immediately into another world and Stephen King said the same thing of his own writing and remains a staunch supporter of Shirley Jackson. Stephen King is not a lightweight either, has written books on literary criticism and said once that writing was his own psychiatrist, let him get out what demons tormented him within.

Betty said , the bad stuff makes too much noise.

Right, the bad stuff we always have with us, and when it makes "too much noise," love that, we tend, depending on how we feel that day or what has gone on in our own lives, we sometimes let it get the best of us, I agree. Shirley seemed to have a lot of BAD NOISE in her life, and coming relentlessly from the one person who should have been able to see the list of assets and over come it: Geraldine.

Where is the list of books Geraldine wrote?

But I also have children of my own and I know how hard it IS not to say something....and it infuriates them for MOM to buttinsky, I just wrote my youngest son who holds down a fabulous job in a famous engineering company and who has just been offered another stupendous job in yet another famous company and corrected his spelling!!??

He wrote back irritatedly that it was the recruiter who had contacted the company and misspelled, not him, but in THAT letter he misued/ misspelled another word, and so relentlessly MOM corrected that, too.

It looks like I could learn from Geraldine's experience to stifle, doesn't it?

But you worry, as a parent, you worry, even THO you can't do what they are doing you still fuss, and you still worry, but don't get me wrong, I hope and pray I'm no Geraldine. I guess they will write books and we'll find out! hahahaha

It's a thin line to cross, being a parent, it's not an easy job, humor helps, directed at oneself.

Any last thoughts before we move into the very last pages? Have asked Pat W to try to find any of the Hyman children, she's remarkably good at that, would like to hear from any of them if we could.

ginny

Shirley is beginning to aggravate me in this third section of the book. There's too much Geraldine in her. It's human, and a parental thing to correct a child in the hope that he will consider a path that we believe is beneficial for him, but to do it again and again, and STILL again when the correction is not bringing results? Does that help or torment?

Don't remember the page, but somewhere in the book it was stated that Sally had not finished a family meal for a loooong time, many months, without being sent to her room for some infraction before the meal was finished. That's big time rebellion from Sally, but that's also big time REJECTION from Shirley and Stanley. Maybe Shirley should have considered a change of tactics?

What was it that Sally was rebelling against anyway? Wouldn't you think her parents, who were a lot smarter than Geraldine, might have tried to get to the root of that business? If Shirley had told of such an incident in her OWN childhood, it would have fit in perfectly, don't you think?

Also, when Shirley and Stanley flaunted their outre lifestyle in front of Bennington, they left their children vulnerable to the penalties of harrassment by "townie" schoolmates. Their youngest, Barry, was so accustomed to being harassed that "to this day he carries a stick in his car." (p. 182)

Shirley and Stanley COULD have chosen to live on campus. They were the only Bennington faculty members who braved the tight Yankee prejudices of the town. Perhaps Shirley should have given more careful thought to the environment and schools of her children?

Harriet

The not living on campus was interesting. If Shirley had wanted to participate in the town, it would have made sense, but she definitely did not. She needed to be in a separate place it seems like. The children might have been happier in the atmosphere of the college. Hard to tell. I am off to Amsterdam and will be back on the 3rd of May. Floriad and tulips,,, here I come.. Throw away camera and all.

Have Fun, Stephanie!!!!

Hats

In the end, I felt very sorry for Shirley. Did any one love Shirley? Of all the children, I think Joanne cared the most for Shirley. When Shirley went through agoraphobia, I felt that Joanne tried to help her. Shirley picked Joanne to go and stay with her parents. Joanne came back, I think, understanding what horrors Shirley had lived through with Geraldine.

Surprisingly, by the end of the book, I had less anger towards Geraldine. I did not see her letter as totally negative. She wanted her daughter to fix herself up. That's not a bad thing. I think, within her heart, Geraldine wanted to take the right steps as a parent, but sometimes children can only remember our negative words. Maybe this gives them the right to go on with negative behavior.

If I am angry with Geraldine, I have to admit anger towards Shirley because Shirley, in some ways, became like her mother. If I understand Shirley, I have to understand Geraldine. It's difficult, but I have to do it. Like Shirley, I still remember the words, "failed abortion." Those words make me sick to my stomach.

Thank you Ginny, Ella, Harriet, Betty, Mal and all of the other posters for giving me a better understanding of the book and myself.

Hats

I felt ambivalent about the whole book. At any given page or chapter, you could argue in favor of or against any of the members of this family.

Overall, and to contradict you, Ginny, I came to the end of the book feeling that Shirley must have been very difficult to live with - for her children and her husband. Of course, her husband was useless to her and to himself, utterly useless. Shirley had done the housework - what would have happened if she had left some of the chores to him occasionally - did she try?

But she was so moody, hard to understand, unpredictable, untidy in both her home and herself and I am not one to criticize a home where things are scattered every which way, but dirt I cannot tolerate, and she was dirty in her habits, at least, I came away with that impression. Her daughter, Sally, certainly never understood Shirley - quoting from page 248:

I think she (Shirley) was made really nervous by the fact that she fought Stanley and she fought the world and fought her parents to be true to herself, and then it soured....She got the four kids and the big house and the smart husband and she went crazy anyway...... .. it wasn't enough.

She was just an unhappy person and we could count the reasons until the cows come home and debate them forever, but would we know the real Shirley - NO, as Shirley never knew herself, had no idea what she wanted. She was just destined to be unhappy and who could have satisfied her??

The whole family is a bit screwy!!! The parents are taking drugs, sharing them with their children (pg.253) and yet when they find out one of them tried marijuana they were furious. Doesn't this sound odd to anybody?

Regardless of Stanley's affairs, they had a measure of happiness together (what the author considers happiness I guess) for on pg 261 and in 1965 (when did she die, I must look that up) Stanley and she are in NYC and Stanley gushes with pride over Shirley. After her death for the first time anyone knew of, Stanley wept over his wife - "He had lost the most important person in his life forever." (page 274)

Thanks, Ginny, for suggesting this book and I have enjoyed it, although I must be truthful and say it's not on my list of best biographies - hahaha!

But enjoyed, as always, the comraderie of a group discussion. Thanks to you all!

As the book ended, I was more frustrated, not less.

When Shirley died, at first Sally thought that her mother was trying to play a sadistic "who can scare-ya the most" game to get revenge for the terror of Sally's suicide attempt a few weeks previously. "We used to do that kind of mother-daughter stuff," said Sally.

Really? WHO was Shirley? Was she "the heart of her home, the great throbbing core?" Or was she an anguished emotional cripple who could turn on her loved ones in an instant? Or both? Shirley's true reaction was just as horrifying to me as Sally's statement. "In a letter to Joanne, Shirley had mentioned Sally's suicide attempt casually; she had not taken it very seriously." p. 268.

After Shirley died, Oppenheimer wrote this contradictory passage:

"His (Stanley's) sense of responsibility was strong...but child-rearing had never been his talent. In the end, Stanley opted out, sending Barry to a private school. The Hyman family was effectively disbanded." p.276.

. Stanley remarried, an obvious solution to his helplessness. Yet didn't he cut off his old life and his fatherly obligations a tad abruptly? This responsible father left the country, traveled with his child-bride... courtesy of Shirley's literary earnings, I bet... and shifted off his youngest child, Barry, to a residential school.

I don't read of any particular provisions that Stanley made on behalf of the very needy Sally or Joanne. How old were those girls anyway when Shirley died? Maybe they needed a little TLC? Did Stanley do anything to help them out from their mother's literary earnings? Had Shirley thought to make any provisions for her children in case of her death? You could fit all the stability of THIS family into a thimble.

When Stanley died suddenly, his second wife apparently got everything, and most of the personal mementos of Shirley were scattered and lost to her children. It also turns out that Stanley had been playing a nasty game with all his children, frequently disinheriting and then restoring them in his will in order to exert his power over their personal lives. One of the kids, I forget which, who was currently resisting Stanley on some issue or other. got caught by Stanley's sudden death. He had to endure forever his father's rejection, disapproval and disinheritance, written into the will, and differentiating himself from the way his father treated his siblings. What a trauma!

I bet the money from Stanley's estate was mostly the proceeds from Shirley's writing also. I wonder how Shirley would have felt about one of her children being disinherited with money that SHE had essentially earned. I wonder how poor, jealous Shirley would have felt about HER money and belongings winding up with the second wife?

Sooo sad.

I still have just as many questions about the true personality of Shirley Jackson as I did at the beginning of the book. There are so many contradictory statements in Private Demons.. Also the time sequence of events in Shirley's life gets me rattled. There's such a lot of incidents that are vaguely described as happening "a few weeks later", or "the following year." I find myself lost in space through a large part of this book, unable to form a time line in my mind of what happened when, and to whom.

I have enjoyed the discussion and all of YOUR marvelous commentaries much more than the book itself. The book presented contradictory puzzles, but all of YOU have been a genuine joy.

Thank you, Ginny, for bringing the very puzzling, complex and gifted Shirley Jackson to our attention. You've been wonderful.

Harriet