boring

cherry

Aug 14, 2025

this book is on almost every "best of gothic horror" list on the planet, so maybe my expectations were too high

it's certainly gothic, and jackson executes her narrator's disordered, childish mind with a lot of skill. the house and its surroundings are vividly sketched. reading it is like looking into one of those super detailed miniature dioramas you find at museums. when i was finally done, i asked myself why i enjoy gormenghast but not this. there are way more similarities than i would've guessed when i first started

my tentative conclusion is that gormenghast takes me into the minds of many weird little characters, but in castle, i was stuck in one POV i didn't enjoy at all. the narrator is ungodly annoying to read. the repetitiveness does convey her adherence to routine, but it draws out the pacing so much that it punctures rather than amplifies the horror tension. (for me. clearly it worked for other readers.)

S A+2

5 comments

⌘ Enter to post

rose8 months ago

i tried to read this twice and thought similarly! her short stories seem a little bit stronger

cherry8 months ago

i'll check them out, i usually think horror works better in short formats anyhow

mimishifolia8 months ago

Nice review, I agree. I found this work of hers super weak and don't understand the praise it gets.

steerpike8 months ago

Haven't read it in a while, but I remember thinking the genius came from the routine, setting, and narrator's voice all becoming almost cozy by the end, and then having to be a little bit horrified at myself for taking some kind of comfort in the murderer's little world. But I can certainly see how that is a tough line to walk that doesn't hit for everyone. And appreciate the Gormenghast comparison.

cherry8 months ago

yeah i had a hunch the whole time i was reading that it would hit really hard for people who weren't me--it's not a bad book at all, in fact it's really good, but i just never clicked with it and you *would* appreciate the gormenghast comparison