Book Review: We Have Always Lived in the Castle

• Author: Shirley Jackson
• Date Read: 4/13/23
• Rating: ★★★☆☆

Note: I typically add comments and notes on my Kindle while I read a book, but I completely forgot while I was reading this, which only took about three hours. I plan on sharing some of them throughout other reviews because it can convey my reactions better to some parts of a story. And I think I'm hilarious so you all will suffer through it.

Our story is about two sisters, Mary Katherine (Merricat) and Constance, and their uncle, Julien, who live on an estate in Vermont. The village people believe that Constance got away with murder because six years ago at dinner, four of her family members were poisoned. Therefore, the entire family is despised. They go about their lives in a perfect routine until their cousin Charles comes to visit and makes trouble for Merricat, who must deal with him and get their lives back to “normal.”

Since the summary is done, let's discuss what I liked. One of the best aspects of the story were the characters. Our protagonist, Merricat, is an 18 year old who behaves more like she’s 12, and practices her own type of witchcraft while fantasizing about living on the moon and all the villagers dying. Constance is an agoraphobe who spends most of her time tending her garden, cooking, and caring for her uncle. Finally, we have Uncle Julien, a man who is slowly dying, according to Merricat. He is obsessed with writing his memoir…with a main focus on the event of the majority of his family being poisoned at dinner and his niece being tried for murder. It’s quite the gaggle of interesting characters, and I felt drawn to them from the moment I was introduced to each of them. All of them were just so eccentric that it was like looking through the glass to gawk at the animals at the zoo. As the reader, I felt more like the villagers than anything else. I didn’t feel particular sympathy for any of them, but could only be astounded at their oddness and nonchalant feelings regarding their family member’s deaths.

Although I liked the others, I enjoyed Merricat’s character in general and as the narrator. She’s unreliable, which is one of my favorite tropes in a book. Discerning what is real in her narrative is one of the things that the reader must contend with. Besides that, I find her interesting because as the protagonist we are supposed to feel sympathy for her, but I actually detested her as a person. I love to hate characters, and I found myself frustrated with her childish beliefs and behaviors, but they were also hilarious in a way. Everything was so over the top it became somewhat comical. She was stuck in her own little world with her rules as to how everything should go. Jackson did a wonderful job at molding her character, and I found her very compelling.

Finally, the fact that it was more laid back and character driven was a bonus. There were long sequences of the Blackwoods just going about their day. Of course, Merricat is always up to something, be it with the upkeep of her magical barriers or running around with Jonas. In some other reviews I’ve read, they’ve critiqued this. Sure, the book could’ve been shorter without the day to day descriptions, but I’ve been reading a lot of action focused fantasy novels recently, and this book was a bit of a break from that. Getting to hear about their everyday lives was almost enchanting to me. As I said before, it’s like I was looking at them through a window. The fact that Merricat and Constance skirt around the topic of the deaths and only mention what truly happened towards the end adds to this. We are simply viewers into their strange lives, and as viewers, some things will remain unrevealed to us…but I also take issue with some of that because there were so many aspects of the poisoning that were not explained as thoroughly as I wished they were. At a certain point the readers need some kind of inclusion in it.

Now on to what I did not enjoy, starting with the mystery! The mystery of the novel, who killed all of the people at dinner, also catches your attention, but it wasn’t entirely a great mystery at all. There are some diversions that the author places with the intention to throw you off. Merricat was sent to her room without supper, how could she have done it? And Constance didn’t touch the sugar that was poisoned, and washed the bowl after the meal. But, it was fairly easy to discern who the real murder was fairly early on. Who could have possibly killed them all? Not Merricat with fantasies of villagers dying and prone to fits of anger. I believe that this is more of a “why-done-it” in comparison to a “who-done-it.” If you can recognize it was Merricat in the beginning, you can analyze her odd behaviors in an attempt to understand why she did it.

In a similar vein, one thing that will continually bug me about the book is the reasoning behind the poisoning. It's all well and good that Merricat is unreliable, but there are ways that I think Jackson could've elaborated on her motive. The reason the book presents is that she was angry about being sent to bed without supper. If her mental issues were so severe from abuse that she would commit mass murder over that, then it might be understandable. But there are no hints as to something besides that. The only thing I could possibly decide is that their father may have been abusive. Merricat’s responses to Charles essentially becoming more like her father throughout his stay appear to bring back hurtful memories, and she lashes out as a result. Her mental issues and symptoms give us a look into her mind about her thought processes about the murder. She is stuck to Constance, always concerned about her and never wanting her to go out. She engages in magical thinking about the barriers that she places to protect herself. She never truly expresses any guilt in the death of her family, and her attempts to be kinder to Uncle Julien are the only signs that she felt sorry that she tried to poison him. This unhealthy attachment to Constance and behaving like a child proves to create even more issues in the end.

My last problem is that I am conflicted about the ending. While the characters were engaging and amusing in the beginning, I take issue with the fact that there is no development in either Merricat or Constance. They only stick to their thinking about engaging with the outside world. The ending reinforces Merricat’s delusions and Constance’s anxieties. It is almost bittersweet. They attempt to keep up their “routine” in a destroyed house so that they can stay together rather than go outside, but the darker undertone is still present. Merricat has essentially trapped Constance, in a way, and Constance is okay in going along with it. They cannot possibly survive for very long in a decaying house after the fire and relying on the kindness of the villagers who once hated them.

Overall, I enjoyed the book. There were a few things that I think could’ve been explored more within the narrative, but the atmosphere and characters really brought me back around to liking it. Jackson has a way of making things come alive with her writing, and her strengths are in her characters and complexity of themes. Therefore, I would have to settle on 3 stars. It was an entertaining little read, and it’s been stuck in my mind ever since I finished it. Now I just have to watch the movie!