Review of: We Have Always Lived in the Castle by Shirley Jackson

★★★★.25

My thoughts

I really enjoyed this book, its a really good gothic story overall. It's not the first book of Shirley Jackson's I've read, I think it might be my fourth at this point. I've rated all of them around 4 stars so its not a suprise that this one got that kinda rating from me too. It wasn't life changing or anything but i did enjoy it.

The 'twist' that Merricat was the one that killed their family wasn't really a twist for me, i could see it coming. That's not a bad thing though! It just means it's very well written and even though no one even suggests that she did it until the reveal, her behaviour is good foreshadowing and works well with the realisation that she was the one at fault. Her constant explanations of different poisonous plants can be dismissed as things she picked up from Constance prior but after we learn the truth they are cast in a bit of a different light. Her violent thoughts were pretty relatable at times but with the whole context they do sound a lot less like impossible fantasies and more like she's barely restraining herself from killing every single person in her life at all times. Wasn't really shocking but was well written, so I don't mind too much.

Uncle Julian's statement that Merricat died in the orphanage is really fascinating to me. I can't remember a single moment in the story where Uncle Julian speaks to Merricat directly. In the line he specifically calls her Mary Katherine so perhaps it means something like Mary Katherine, the young innocent girl, metaphorically died in the orphanage and Merricat has taken her place. He says 'she did not survive the loss of her family' which could mean that Mary Katherine did not survive the loss of her innocence but that Merricat did. I could be wrong but I find that such a small moment can be so interesting sometimes. Maybe this is just Uncle Julian not remembering things correctly again but well, who knows?

So. Charles. Obvious bad guy. Like clearly, he's a dick who wants to steal their money. That part's obvious and obviously bad. However, he is kinda right when he encourages Constance to leave the house, or tells her that Merricat hasn't been raised properly, or that Uncle Julian should probably be in a hospital. Like he's not completely wrong about all of that. It isn't healthy for them to stay cooped up in the house, just dwelling on the past all day. Merricat should have been raised differently since clearly she still has a much younger mentality than she should. While reading, she sounded maybe 14 to me? Not the 18 years old that she is, so clearly something went wrong there. Uncle Julian's obsession with the murder of his family isn't the best sign, and Constance is just enabling everything that goes on in the house and is very agrophobic, like unhealthyly so. So while Charles is a greedy guy, he also makes some very valid points about the way that his cousins have been living for these last 6 years. That last scene we have of him, he clearly is acting to some degree but that one line he says 'I've got to see her once more. I was the cause of it all.' That feels genuine to me. He's not directing that at the door, he's talking to the journalist behind him. I really do believe him when he says that he didn't mean for this to happen. He's greedy, obviously, but he does seem to hold some kind of fondness for Constance and he's not outright hostile to Merricat until she's hostile to him. I think he was being sincere in that.

That ending, huh? I saw an interpretation of it that talked about the feminist themes of the book and how the ending symbolised the victory and freedom of the women as the last intact area of the house was the kitchen and the basement, both traditional feminine spaces in the novel. In this interpretation, Charles represents patriarchy, which i can definately see. He's very traditional and attempts to take on the patriarch of the house role so I can definately understand this interpretation. Personally, I think the ending really cements this book as a tragedy. Constance, the more responsible, reasonable sister has finally fallen to her sister's madness and indulgence. While the two sisters are happy at the end, we as the readers can easily tell that it's not really a happy ending, objectively. They're completely lost to reality, isolated, and rotting away in a broken down home.

I found Merricat's perspective to be very immersive. I wasn't ever quite sure if she was narrating truthfully or not, which helps the atmosphere of the book immensely. Intersetingly enough, she read to me as a much younger girl, which I think could be indictive that Constance babied her all these years or that she never quite matured past the age she was when her family died. Her whimsical narration and dialogue really sweeps you away into a gothic wonderland and sets an excellent tone for the entirety of the story. She was very relatable and real at points, which I think is a sign of fantastic character writing. I found all the characters in the book enjoyable to read and Merricat's perspective and observations about them were an integral part of my enjoyment.

Jonas best charcter. Jonas only good character, actually. Worship Merricat? No. Worship Jonas the actual cat.

There's plenty of thoughts I have about the book that I can't quite express but instead of me throwing that word vomit out there, I'll give you this video instead. Overall the book was tense, immersive, enjoyable, and explored themes of witchcraft, feminism, classism, and family, in very intruiging ways. I highly recommened everyone to read this book, even if i did just spoil it for you.