books, page 1 of 139

If you want to learn about the life of JG Ballard, there are plenty of sources. There’s Ballard’s own writings on the subject, which includes both memoir (Miracles of Life) and fiction (Empire of the Sun and The Kindness of Women), which might be grouped together as self-mythologising (which I don’t intend as a negative term). Then there’s David Pringle’s detailed chronology (currently spread across ten or so volumes of the Deep Ends anthology, and really in need of standalone publication), the John Baxter biography The Inner Man from 2021, and now The Illuminated Man: Life, Death and the Worlds of J G Ballard by Christopher Priest and Nina Allan.

When The Illuminated Man was first announced (at that point, it was only to be by Priest), I felt there was a certain amount of relief that Ballard would be getting a respectable biography, as Baxter’s book had attracted a certain amount of criticism (not least from Ballard’s daughters) for factual inaccuracies and a general misrepresentation of Ballard’s character (as, Edmund Gordon writes in a review of The Illuminated Man in The New Statesman, “a racist, sexist, mendacious creep, beset by alcohol problems and ‘psychotic tendencies’”—though that wasn’t the impression I came away from it with). This, then, was to be a more acceptable, hopefully more scholarly—if less gossipy (though it’s good to have both)—biography, presumably to be written with the collusion of Ballard’s estate (and, crucially, his daughters).

(I have to say that, at the time, I was quite grateful to read The Inner Man—always taking its speculations about Ballard’s psychology with the same grain of salt I’d bring to any biography. It was, for me, the first take on Ballard’s life I’d read that wasn’t by Ballard himself, and so was a welcome second perspective. Baxter had, for instance, clearly spoken to many of the other people involved, so that second perspective wasn’t only his own. And I couldn’t help feeling its dips into gossip and anecdote were a welcome contrast, a circus tent set up outside the crystalline pagoda of Ballard’s own powerful self-mythologising. Where else would I have got to read the story of Ballard buying The Who’s “Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere” and saying he preferred it played at 33rpm (as opposed to the faster 45rpm, presumably)? I even think Baxter’s might have been a biography Ballard would have enjoyed—had it, that is, been written about anyone but himself! After all, Ballard had good things to say about Baxter’s biographies of Steven Spielberg—“Baxter is a shrewd, witty and very readable writer”—and Woody Allen—“astute and entertaining”.)

Sadly, though, that idea of The Illuminated Man wasn’t to be. Priest fell ill and died before the book was finished. His partner (and, later, wife) Nina Allan has finished it but made two crucial decisions that fundamentally affected its character. First, Priest’s version of the book has been left unedited, even when some chapters clearly feel like they were written by a man of flagging energies. Second, Allan has taken this opportunity to write about Priest’s final illness and death in some detail. Which is understandable, considering what she and he must have been through, but I have to confess I skipped those chapters. The result is an unblended mix of straightforward biography and memoir about two different people. (In fact, the book makes most sense regarding the biographical chapters about Ballard as materials offered to support the memoir covering Priest’s illness and death.)

Christopher Priest’s portions of The Illuminated Man seem strongest, to me, in their critical comments on Ballard’s fiction. For instance, this:

“‘The Voices of Time’, we soon discover, is a story that does not give up its secrets. If there is a plot, an underlying purpose, it constantly evades the reader. Instead, every page, every paragraph, seems charged with meaning, never clarified, never given the benefit of cause and effect. The reader is cast alone. If obscurity is art, here we find it—but ‘The Voices of Time’ is not obscure.”

That’s the sort of thing I want from critical writing: it makes me want to return to the story, and gives me permission to feel confused as to what it’s presenting. Accept the confusion and bathe in the meaning, Priest is saying. Good advice.

Allan’s are (necessarily) the more complete sections, whether biographical (thanks to her interviewing the people involved where possible) or critical (her comments on Ballard’s final novels, for instance, make me want to give them another—or in some cases a first—go).

Towards the end of the book, Allan asks, of biographies: “Are we reading to confirm that our hero really was a hero, or to discover that they were secretly a monster?” For me, it’s neither. I never look for writers I admire to be heroes—certainly not saints—because that’s plainly only going to end in disappointment. What I want is to get a glimpse of the human being behind it all. Ballard was, both in interviews and on the page, an impressive man, but not the sort to ever admit to, say, playing The Who at the wrong rpm, which is, frankly, the sort of thing I want to read! The Illuminated Man provided a better example though, when Allan looks at a rare Ballard notebook for a novel he never completed (he destroyed all such preparatory materials once a book was finished). Seeing him, in his notes, trying out ideas and asking himself questions, feels like a wonderfully humanising moment, a side of him that never comes through in his interviews and writing.

As I say, I think of Ballard’s own writing on his life as self-mythologising, but I don’t mean to imply he’s covering up the truth; rather, he’s coming up with the version of events that best expresses how those events felt to him—how he experienced them, what they meant to him—which is a crucial difference (especially when those events are so intimately entangled with his fiction). We all alter the facts of our lives to fit an evolving inner story—unconsciously streamlining them to bring out the meaning they have for us. It’s only when it’s someone gets a proper biography written about them that this really comes to the fore. In a sense, Ballard’s version of his own life, as presented in both the novels and the memoir is the core of his whole body of fiction, which might all be understood as a complex response to traumatic events and times, an attempt to make meaning out of often disparate events, ideas, experiences. Having this myth brought up against the facts does not invalidate the myth, but emphasises its artistry.

Ballard himself provides an example. In Empire of the Sun, young Jim is separated from his parents for the duration of his internment by the Japanese; in reality, as Ballard admitted, he was with his parents the whole time. But, he said, he made the change because when he was in the camp, his parents were no longer the ones who had control over his life—they couldn’t punish or reward, and were busy being revealed as all-too-human beings, in a sudden change from their former lofty distance. They were, in a sense, no longer parents (just as Ballard was abruptly shunted into no longer being a child). Jim’s being separated from his parents in Empire, Ballard said, was how it felt, hence the myth, the fiction. (Thus also fitting it into the standard fairy tale trope of children thrown out into the wild alone.)

I don’t know if The Illuminated Man can really be a replacement for Baxter’s The Inner Man. At one point Allan castigates Baxter for presenting unattributed information, but on the same page (p. 199) she has a block quote that is itself unattributed. (Maybe that was a publisher’s error.) She mentions Ballard’s family’s unhappiness with Baxter’s book, which was in part due to his sometimes overplayed speculations on Ballard’s psychology, but Allan then goes on to speculate whether Ballard would have remained faithful to his wife, had she survived, which seems, to me, on the same level.

But that’s what biographies do. I only know Ballard through his fiction, interviews, and other writings, and I like to learn about his life as a sort of accompaniment to the writing. I’ll keep The Illuminated Man on my shelves, but it’s probably The Inner Man I’ll refer to first when I need to, if only because it’s in chronological order. (The Illuminated Man, for instance, has a chapter on Ballard’s novel Hello America after the one on The Empire of the Sun, and a chapter on the early Vermillion Sands stories after the chapter on Crash. If nothing else, this leaves out the connecting tissue: what was Ballard doing before and between these books?)

Ballard was evidently a complex man—that sort of fiction wouldn’t come from someone who wasn’t. In a way, his fiction arrived pre-analysed (though in a distinctively Ballardian fashion), and it begs for other takes, going deeper, and seeing things Ballard himself didn’t highlight. It’s an infinitely rich body of work—as, no doubt, was the man himself, and the myth he created.

I’ll end with something from Nina Allan on Ballard the man:

“…listening to him talk—the tone of his voice, the clarity of his thinking, the whole vast hinterland of memory and intellect that lies behind the words he speaks has an immediacy and power that exceeds any number of pages filled with third party speculation and literary analysis.”

But it’s good to have the third party speculation and literary analysis all the same.

The Hungry Moon (1986) was the first Ramsey Campbell novel I read, and the second horror novel I ever read. (The first was Salem’s Lot, and I chose The Hungry Moon to follow it because I wanted something similar but set in England.) It evidently impressed me enough to lead to a lifetime of reading Campbell’s fiction, but when I came back and re-read it a number of years later, I remember being disappointed, perhaps because by that point I’d come to expect something more from Campbell and found it lacking. But on this most recent re-read, I really enjoyed it, and I think this was because by this time I knew what sort of a novel it was and how to get the most out of it. How best, then, to approach The Hungry Moon? (Carefully!)

It’s set in the isolated Peak District town of Moonwell, which is known to get the least sunshine of anywhere in England (some feat), and is also the home of one of the oldest druidic ceremonies in the country, as every year the locals “dress” a deep, fifty-foot-wide pothole with flowers. But along comes a young Californian Christian evangelist called Godwin Mann (based, to some extent, on Billy Graham) who announces his intention to stop this pagan ceremony and reclaim both the cave and the town for God. As anyone who’s ever read a horror novel can tell, ending an ages-old pagan ceremony is always a bad idea, particularly if there happens to be something like a nuclear missile base nearby—and, of course, with Moonwell, there is. But Mann’s evangelistic preaching catches on with the locals, and soon most of them are converted by his brand of public confession, forced joyfulness, and self-righteous piety.

The novel’s main characters are among the few holdouts, including Diana Kramer, a teacher who recently moved from America but has roots in the area; Geraldine and Jeremy Booth, who live in and run a bookshop from a deconsecrated chapel; postman Eustace Gift, who has ambitions as a stand-up comedian; and Nick Reid, a reporter based in Manchester, whose main interest seems to be in Diana Kramer rather than the story of a small town caught up in a religious fever, but who gets trapped in the town as things take a supernatural turn. There are also Craig and Vera Wilde, a pair of ex-nudists whose daughter, Hazel, and her husband (a somewhat useless local builder and security system installer) live in Moonwell and convert, much to the Wildes’ dismay, and eight-year-old Andrew, son of Brian and June Bevan, who run a camping equipment shop, and who convert after June is the first resident to publicly confess—not so much to her sins as her husband’s—when she tells the entire town about Brian’s interest in pornography and the sex games he drags her into.

Mann descends into the cave to oust the pagan evil, but after he emerges somewhat changed, the town finds itself trapped in a darkness so profound it actually prevents people from leaving. Meanwhile, people on the outside start forgetting Moonwell ever existed. (And so it joins the long tradition of supernaturally/science-fictionally isolated communities from Midwich to Milbury.) Because, as it turns out, what the druids did many years ago was bring down a vast, godlike entity from the moon, in a last-ditch attempt to defeat the Roman invaders. Somehow, though, it ended up being trapped there, in that dark pothole, and now, no longer held back by the propitiating flower ceremony, it wants out—and, what’s more, it wants revenge on the entire human race for its centuries of imprisonment.

I don’t think Campbell has written a novel since with such a large ensemble cast (and only Incarnate before it came close), though when I think of blockbuster horror novels in general, I tend to think of them as having ensemble casts (Salem’s Lot and IT being prime examples, but I’m also thinking of the few random novels by the likes of Shaun Hutson and Skipp & Spector I’ve read). But, while this could have been a commercial decision on Campbell’s part—to write a novel more like the sort of thing the booming horror market expected—I suspect it was more likely something he just wanted to try for its own sake (he says in his afterword that The Hungry Moon was “my shot at an extravagant supernatural novel splashed on a large canvas”).

One of the things that works about ensemble-cast, multi-plotlined horror is the way initially isolated characters slowly come together once they realise the nature of what’s going on. But the trouble I had on my second read of The Hungry Moon, I think, is that the nature of “what’s going on” is too diverse to really add up to one thing. Aside from the re-emerged Mann being possessed by the moon-thing, and its trio of attack dogs roaming the town (keeping people from leaving, killing the occasional—very random—individual), there are a number of other supernatural occurrences which are of such a different nature, you start to wonder how Campbell is going to bring it all together. Geraldine Booth, whose child died, has a vision of his gravestone in Moonwell’s churchyard, glowing with its own light; Eustace Gift starts to hear his internal comedy duo Mr Gloom and Mr Despondency talking outside his house. These are storylines that seem to fit more into Incarnate, where people’s private dreams and fantasies become real. (Critic Simon MacCulloch sums up this aspect of the novel best when he says that, here, “a Lovecraftian extraterrestrial monstrosity plays the part of Incarnate’s dream thing as the embodiment of the predatory morbid imagination”. That phrase—“the predatory morbid imagination”—is a good summing up of the supernatural in a lot of Campbell’s writing.) And although Campbell does make these disparate elements fit, in the end, into The Hungry Moon’s overall story, I don’t think it’s quite convincing. Is the moon-thing here simply for revenge on the human race? If so, why does it toy with some people’s dreams and fantasies in this way? And, for that matter, why do its attack dogs kill a policeman who is clearly on its side, but not the people who oppose it? Even more, why, after decapitating the local priest (who was thoroughly against Mann’s form of extreme evangelism), does it reanimate his corpse? Reading The Hungry Man, you start to suspect these are great moments, but they don’t necessarily add up.

One way to deal with this is to say that the moon-thing, being an incomprehensibly inhuman entity, brings along with a whole lot of moon-lit weirdness, and it’s simply beyond our ability to understand. But that’s a bit unsatisfying, particularly as Campbell does provide us with a backstory for the thing (via a cosmic visionary sequence that, as he says in his afterword, may have been unconsciously influenced by the long vision sequence in Hodgson’s House on the Borderland). Ultimately, what the moon-thing stands for is nebulous, almost wilfully primal. Somewhat like the catch-all evil represented by the cult in his earlier novel The Nameless, it stands for:

“Everything we’ve been afraid of since we lived in caves, maybe since before we were even human. Everything we tried to believe we weren’t afraid of any longer.”

In other words… fear itself. It, and the darkness it brings, are “a way of trying to reduce people to a primitive state”. And while, on the one hand, that sounds like a vague reasoning intended simply to get the horror underway, on the other it’s saying something about the novel’s core theme, which is the extremes of religious belief and, as Campbell says in an interview in Samhain 2, “this drive so many people seem to have—to have the urge to question taken away from them, to be told what to think”. (Or as one of the characters in the novel says, “The only way to believe in God is let Him rule your life.”) An atmosphere of fear leads to the need for easy certainties, and that is exactly what a superheated air of self-righteousness provides.

This, then, is why I found the novel just what I wanted on my first read, unsatisfying on my second, but thoroughly enjoyable on my third: it works on two of the three levels you’d expect a good horror novel of this sort to work. On the first level, that of simply telling an engaging narrative with plenty of supernatural incident, it works, largely because of the believability of the characters, which is always a Campbell strong point. On the second level, the level of narrative cohesion, it doesn’t really work, because the supernatural incidents are so diverse, and don’t add up to the entity having some single, meaningful and comprehensible nature. (It’s set up as a thing that’s here “to destroy us all and feast on our souls”, but Campbell isn’t interested in the simplistic sort of kill-scenes this monomaniacal type of monster requires… But, how fitting that a novel called The Hungry Moon should have an absence in the middle.) So that leaves the third, more literary level, which is on the thematic meaning of what’s going on. And it’s here that everything works again. That headless corpse of a Catholic priest fumblingly trying to perform mass in a darkened church makes no sense in terms of the moon-thing’s plans for revenge, but as a symbol of what religion can mean—that very priest, when alive, complained about Mann’s version of Christianity being “The notion that you mustn’t think your way to faith”—it’s a brilliant little vignette.

The Hungry Moon is a big bag of a novel (Campbell himself accuses it of “trying to be too many books”, while Keith M C O’Sullivan in his book-length study of Campbell says it’s “a text that is brimful of ideas”): it’s got folk-horror elements, it’s got Lovecraftian elements, it’s got dream-horror elements, it’s got moments of kitchen-sink realism and psychological horror, as well as moments of visionary fantasy. It also has moments of comedy (some dark—like when Eustace has to joke his way out of a confrontation with the murderous embodiments of his own inventions, Mr Gloom and Mr Despondency—an idea that could, frankly, make for an entire Campbell novel), and satire (as one of Mann’s retinue, encouraging little Andrew to pray, says: “Remember, God likes to look down and see you on your knees.”). The thing is, it’s not any one of these things. If you come expecting a full-on folk horror, or a full-on Lovecraftian horror, or even a full-on monster-takes-over-an-isolated-town horror, it doesn’t quite work.

If you like Campbell’s work, you’ll find plenty of what he does done well here: moments where the supernatural blends seamlessly with the psychological, moments of sheer strangeness or weird awe, glimpses into very real-seeming characters struggling with both normal life and its extremes. Campbell’s penchant for tricksy dialogue is scarily suited to the cult mentality on display here, where believers take everything a non-believer says as an invitation to get the idealogical upper hand, simultaneously tripping an interlocutor up with their own words while making themselves feel superior, as with this sort of logic:

“There will always be people who don’t want to listen to what God has to tell us, and that means they’ll hear the devil and do his talking for him.”

And there is, of course, some seriously good writing:

…the dogs padded out of the dimness.

They stopped at the end of the corridor and lay down. The moonlight through the window of the cell gleamed in their eyes. They were licking their lips, which were wet with a liquid that the light turned black.

Campbell is, in my opinion, quite harsh on the novel in his afterword, when he mentions “the amount of naked absurdity the book tries to contain”. I don’t really know what he means by this as, in a way, the absurd is one of the forms of horror he does so well. If he means the fact that the supernatural incidents don’t really cohere into one meaningful explanation (as Joel Lane says, “The second half of the book plays havoc with every rational expectation”), perhaps the best argument in support of this is that it is, ultimately, just part of its satire on religion: if you think God works in mysterious ways, just wait till you see what this cosmic-horror moon-thing does.

The Sundial is Shirley Jackson’s fourth novel, begun in 1956 (following a couple of years of creative block, according to her biographer Ruth Franklin) and finished in July 1957. It was published to mixed reviews the following year.

The setting, like the two masterpieces that would follow it (The Haunting of Hill House and We Have Always Lived in the Castle), is a large country house, surrounded by a walled-in estate. This is the home of the Halloran family, who, as the novel begins, have just buried their only son, Lionel. Lionel’s wife, Maryjane, is convinced her mother-in-law pushed Lionel down the stairs. She shares her suspicions with her ten-year-old daughter Fancy, and soon the little girl is asking “Shall I push her? … Like she pushed my daddy?”

Whether she pushed him or not, Mrs Halloran now owns the house (her husband is still alive but feeble in mind and body), and says she’s going to eject as many of its inhabitants as she can: Maryjane will be given a small allowance and sent to live in an apartment in the city, though Fancy (who stands to inherit after Mrs Halloran) will stay; Fancy’s governess Miss Ogilvie, and young Essex, who came to catalogue the library, will simply have to leave. Meanwhile, Aunt Fanny—the aged Mr Halloran’s sister—will be moved into the house’s tower, with the implication that she’ll be expected to stay there.

They’re saved, though, when Aunt Fanny, after getting lost in the house’s extensive gardens and having some sort of agoraphobic attack (perhaps egged on by Fancy, though the girl denies being there), seems to receive a communication from her dead father, saying the world is going to end (“Fire and floods and sidewalks melting away and the earth running with boiling lava”), though everyone in the house will be saved, the lone inheritors of a new world, into which they will emerge “safe and pure”.

Mrs Halloran—as well as pretty much everyone else in the novel—accepts this, and allows everyone to stay after all: if she sends them away from the house now, they’ll be killed in the coming apocalypse, and she doesn’t want that on her conscience. It’s agreed not to tell anyone on the outside (and it’s perhaps notable of this misanthropic bunch that not one of them has someone they want to warn or save), but a number of people turn up by chance and are allowed to stay. There’s an old acquaintance of Mrs Halloran’s, Mrs Willow, now a widow and in search of some means of providing for her late-twenties daughters Arabella and Julia, who come along too. Seventeen-year-old Gloria Desmond, daughter of Mrs Halloran’s cousin, also turns up, having been sent for a holiday while her father is away. And Aunt Fanny decides to adopt a random man she finds in the local village—perhaps realising they have only Essex and the feeble Mr Halloran in the house, now—a man she pretends to recognise as (a name clearly made-up on the spot) Captain Scarabombardon.

They start making their plans. Aunt Fanny buys bulk supplies at random—food, medicines, umbrellas. Mrs Halloran issues a page of rules everyone will be expected to follow on the night before the apocalypse and that first new morning, including the need to look presentable: “I want to know that I am bringing with me into that clean world a family neat, prepossessing, and well-groomed.” She talks about “the good impressions we must create”, even though that new world will, supposedly, be devoid of people. The servants will be sent away the day before (to die with everyone else), and the villagers will be given an (unknown to them) farewell party.

The sundial of the novel’s title is the one part of the house that, because it has been placed off-centre, defies the otherwise perfect architectural symmetry. The dial bears an inscription, “What is this world?”, a quote from Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale:

What is this world? What asketh man to have?
Now with his love, now in his colde grave,
Allone, with-outen any companye.

If Jackson is asking “What is this world?” of the world she’s created in The Sundial, then it’s a world of casual backbiting, social power-play, and a constant, outwardly civil cruelty between the characters. And it’s one in which the “love” referred to by Chaucer is already absent, well before the “colde grave” comes to call.

All of the characters are here not because they love one another, but because they’re dependent on Mrs Halloran’s riches. And Mrs Halloran, whose one and only aim seems to be to own the house (“It is my house now, and it will be my house then. I will not relinquish one stone of it in this world or any other.”) presumably lets them stay not only for her conscience’s sake (she barely has one), but because she knows, if she ousted them and they thought they were going to die, they’d most likely force themselves back inside, and maybe get rid of her in the process. Rich she may be, but her riches are her only power, and they’ll surely mean nothing in the new world.

One of the things that means The Sundial doesn’t work as well as Jackson’s subsequent two novels, for me, is that it has no main character, no side to take amongst all these rather icy folk. Hill House has Eleanor, and Castle has Merricat. Neither is necessarily admirable (Eleanor is weak, Merricat a murderer), but both are very clearly, and relatably, human. There’s no one like that here. And not just because none of the characters is exactly sympathetic—that doesn’t matter—it’s because none of them is fleshed out enough. Mrs Halloran gets the closest, though largely because she’s the one in charge. But whereas at the start I felt that her believing in the prophecy was more by way of acknowledging a sort of social chess-move on Aunt Fanny’s part (to force her to allow everyone to stay), by the end of the novel it’s apparent she fully believes it, leaving me unable to work her out, as a character. She declares she’ll be queen of the new world when it comes, and buys herself a gold crown. Perhaps she, too, went insane, just more quietly? The rest of the characters (all but one) are too shallow to be much differentiated. When Jackson began bringing in new people—Arabella, Julia, Gloria, the captain—I couldn’t work out why, because none of them brought anything different to the story. Granted, Julia makes a break for it and tries to leave the house for the city, but it might as easily have been Arabella, or Gloria, or Maryjane.

The one exception to all this is Fancy, the ten year old girl whose self-absorption and lack of sentimentality made me think of her as a proto-Merricat (the narrator of Jackson’s last novel, We Have Always Lived in the Castle, with whom she shares a certain witchyness). Fancy is the one character with any life to her, and the one character to see through the ridiculousness of the prophecy, and the household’s belief that the world ending would be a good thing. What, she asks at one point, “makes anyone think you’re going to be more happy or peaceful just because you’re the only ones left?” And: “you all want the whole world to be changed so you will be different”, with the clear implication this isn’t going to be the case. Fancy herself, meanwhile, is the only one to actually want the world outside to continue to exist, even to go out into it:

“Who wants to be safe, for heaven’s sake? … I’d rather live in a world full of other people, even dangerous people. I’ve been safe all my life…”

Early on, I suspected the events of the novel were, really, driven by some witchy plot by Fancy. We know she has a very detailed doll-house, and at one point one of its dolls is found on the sundial, pierced by pins, voodoo-style—is she, then, actually manipulating all these events? If she really was present when Aunt Fanny had her anxiety-driven visions, did she in fact create them, as part of her aim of getting her own back on Mrs Halloran for pushing Lionel down the stairs? (I couldn’t help picturing Fancy, with her very detailed doll-house, as a stand-in for the author, who is herself playing with her own little fictional doll-house, with the Hallorans and co. as dolls—and just as lifeless as dolls, too.)

The thing is, Fancy appears in the first chapter, and briefly (and disappearingly) in the second, then is absent for most of the rest of the novel till the finale. And I suspect the reason for this is that Jackson might have sensed how quickly Fancy would have demolished all the other characters, and quite rightly taken over the narrative, making it into a very different novel (a better one, but evidently not the one Jackson wanted to write at that point). Fancy is the one living character among a host of the dead and the dull, and the basic notion of The Sundial just wouldn’t have withstood her little-girl pertinacity and self-interest. So, she’s left to reappear at the end, where she promptly assumes the dominance due to her, as though marking her place at the centre of a future novel (Castle).

Without her, the rest of the novel is episodic and patchy. It’s funny, yes, in a very dark, deadpan, Charles Addams kind of way, but the humour can never be anything more than witty, snipy lines, because none of the characters has enough character to support anything deeper. (You can’t joke about Julia, or Arabella, or Gloria, because what is there to joke about?) Elsewhere, chapters, or even incidents in chapters, feel like they might be better as standalone stories. A number actually suggest existing Jackson stories, such as Julia’s nightmare journey through the absurdly-named Fog Pass in the company of a sadistic and lecherous taxi driver (which could sit alongside a story like “The Bus” or “Paranoia” from Dark Tales). Jackson’s portrait of the nearby village as striving for an outward gentility while knowing its one and only attraction is a house where a child murdered all her family but one aunt (another detail that points to We Have Always Lived in the Castle), captures something of Jackson’s satire on late 50s America, and could easily have been a novel on its own. Incidents such as the Hallorans having to start burning books when Aunt Fanny’s supply-buying requires the library shelves for storage, or Aunt Fanny creating a duplicate of her mother’s house in the attic, or her getting lost in the garden maze, or the visit of a rival apocalyptic cult who are expecting to be taken to Saturn one day, and have had to renounce all metal ornaments—all these could be Jackson stories, and might have worked better standalone than here, in a novel, where they don’t really gel with anything else.

Jack Sullivan in The Penguin Encyclopedia of Horror and the Supernatural is much more positive about The Sundial, calling it “a quirky, brilliant tale of apocalyptic terror”. In it, he says, “Jackson pulled out all the stops… and was not afraid to switch tones abruptly.” (I’d say the tones don’t so much switch as wander.) And while I’d certainly agree “these are some of Jackson’s most intensely neurotic and unpleasant characters” (though without the “intensely”), and that the humour is “more sardonic and pungent than in any of her work to this point”, I don’t know if I can agree that this humour, as Sullivan says, “is irresistible”.

Perhaps if I’d read The Sundial before Hill House and Castle, I might have appreciated its dark humour more—but only because it provides a taster of what, in those final two books, is so well developed. It’s a further examination of her intense ambivalence about the idea of home. A quote from a talk she gave about the writing of Sundial is revealing about this theme in her fiction. Saying that her fiction, up to that point, had mainly been about people trying to get into some walled-off paradise they never attain (those nightmare journeys home), she decided to try writing something that starts within the walled-off paradise, only to find:

“I had set myself up nicely within the wall inside a big strange house I found there, locked the gates behind me, and discovered the only way to stay with any degree of security was to destroy, utterly, everything outside.”

In her creation of ten-year-old Fancy, who welcomes danger so long as it brings her people, Jackson had perhaps allowed a little kernel of herself to defy that sense of apocalyptic, agoraphobic dread which powers her final two novels. Fancy/Merricat—the wilful and witchy girl who lacks sentimentality and can push a grandmother down the stairs, or poison her family—is, perhaps, Jackson’s version of a survivor-character, her perfect embodiment of vitality in the otherwise dark and cruel world she creates in her fiction. The trouble was, the rather low-tension atmosphere of social backbiting and petty power games she created in The Sundial wasn’t challenge enough for the likes of Fancy/Merricat, and the girl had to be left offstage for too long.