J.G. Keely's Reviews > The House on the Borderland

The House on the Borderland by William Hope Hodgson
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
84023
's review

really liked it
bookshelves: horror, supernatural-horror, fantasy, reviewed

Read, write, and study books for long enough, and you'll eventually start to recognize how stories work. You'll find yourself saying things like "Oh, this character's going to die soon because the author just resolved the ongoing tension they had with the hero" or "Ah, the mysterious stranger must actually be the orphan child of the Baron that people keep talking about". To people who don't know how to do it, it seems like a magic trick, but the only thing you need to do is pay attention to details and to ask yourself "where is this story going to go next?", and it becomes surprisingly obvious.

Anyone who has read one of those endless 'Cthulhu collections' which contain one story by Lovecraft, two by the editor, and the rest by nameless authors knows that horror stories are particularly prone to follow certain patterns. If the character finds a big, carven stone gate in a cave, you can bet he's going to go in there and discover some weird, ancient stuff. If the old farmer won't let him see the barn, you know there's something bad in there.

And at first, reading The House on the Borderland, one of the all-time classic works of supernatural horror, I thought I had things pinned down pretty well. We ease into a familiar old 'evil creatures' story for the first third, with our main character getting more and more weirded out by all the strange things happening around his old house. However, if you'd asked me to predict the rest of the book based on the beginning, I wouldn't have come anywhere close.

Suddenly we're wrapped up in time and dimensions, in a kind of grand metaphysical horror that seems to be completely removed from everything that happened before, and it's only at the end that it all finally comes back around and the reader is able to piece together just what has been going on.

Usually, early, influential works in a genre are fairly straightforward--often, they are fumbling, as the author tries to figure out what it is they are trying to say. Hodgson's story, on the other hand, is more wild, imaginative, and unfettered than any modern horror tale I've read. It really stretches the limits of the reader's comprehension, and leaves behind many intriguingly incomprehensible images.

It is sometimes a bit slow-going, though nothing like the plodding repetition of his other well-known book, The Night Land . Indeed, the whole setup of House on the Borderland plays much better into Hodgson's habits as a writer. Hodgson was a weird dude, and he's at his best writing unstable, unsettling characters rather than idealized heroes and saccharine romance.

There is also the problem that some of the horror elements seem a bit silly. Of course, if you saw them in real life, in the flesh, they would be terrifying, but Hodgson isn't always able to bring home to the reader the pure weirdness of it, to shake us up enough that we are able to see it with fresh eyes. That's something every great horror author must be able to do in order to be effective, particularly in the early parts of the story, where seemingly normal but odd things are slowly building to a head. However, many of the ideas and images Hodgson gives us are perfectly unsettling on their own, without any need for an intermediary.

If I was ever concerned that the supernatural elements I put into my period horror stories are 'too strange for that era', I clearly need not worry. No one is going to out-weird Hodgson any time soon--nor, I think, do any other living writers provide much of a threat to his well-earned reputation.
81 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The House on the Borderland.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

April 1, 2013 – Started Reading
April 7, 2013 – Shelved
April 7, 2013 – Shelved as: horror
April 7, 2013 – Shelved as: supernatural-horror
April 9, 2013 – Shelved as: fantasy
April 9, 2013 – Finished Reading
April 10, 2013 – Shelved as: reviewed

Comments Showing 1-6 of 6 (6 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Moira (new) - added it

Moira 'Suddenly we're wrapped up in time and dimensions, in a kind of grand metaphysical horror that seems to be completely removed from everything that happened before, and it's only at the end that it all finally comes back around and the reader is able to piece together just what has been going on.'

Sold!


message 2: by Kyle (new)

Kyle Sounds great! Though, I did find myself surprised when you said, "Usually, early, influential works in a genre are fairly straightforward--often, they are fumbling, as the author tries to figure out what it is they are trying to say." From your general tastes, I would think you prefer the early influential works and generally find the works they inspire unimpressive.


J.G. Keely Moira said: "Sold!"

Haha, well, as long as it doesn't ruin it now that you're expecting to be surprised.

Kyle said: "I would think you prefer the early influential works and generally find the works they inspire unimpressive."

It can really go either way. There are some examples, like Matheson's 'I Am Legend', which was the prototype zombie story, or E.R. Burroughs 'John Carter of Mars' series, the prototype for adventure sci fi, where there were a lot of ideas in play, but the way the authors handled them were so awkward and unsure that we had to wait for later authors to come along and perfect that blueprint.

I'd actually put Poe into a similar camp: I find much of his horror very narrow in concept, and repetitive in imagery, and think it wasn't until later authors that supernatural fiction began to blossom into broader and more intriguing explorations. Likewise, Bram Stoker's Dracula is a bit of an unsure mess, as a book, though it's certainly influential.

So it depends: sometimes an author innovates a new genre because he possesses a whole vision which he is able to set forth, and sometimes that author only gets out half the idea, and it is up to later writers to complete what they started.


Beyond Birthday "Anyone who has read one of those endless 'Cthulhu collections' which contain one story by Lovecraft, two by the editor, and the rest by nameless authors knows that horror stories are particularly prone to follow certain patterns. If the character finds a big, carven stone gate in a cave, you can bet he's going to go in there and discover some weird, ancient stuff. If the old farmer won't let him see the barn, you know there's something bad in there."

Can I marry this paragraph? That's pretty much the Lovecraft template: main character goes willingly to his own doom; has plenty of chances to leave creepy town (Dunwich and its likes) but stays because his curiosity gets the better of him.
I like Lovecraft a lot, but after reading 3 or 4 of his stories, it's as if I read them all.
And I still kept reading them.


J.G. Keely Ten said: "I like Lovecraft a lot, but after reading 3 or 4 of his stories, it's as if I read them all."

Yeah, I think he gets too much credit in horror circles--there were a lot of better authors doing the same thing at the time, and even some beforehand, like Blackwood, Machen, Chambers, and Bierce. Compared to them, Lovecraft's writing just doesn't hold up.


Athanasius I thoroughly concur. Lovecraft gets the attention he does because he died young and had a stalwart cabal of friends like Wandrei, Derleth, Smith and others, who went to great lengths to have his work brought to light and remembered. Taken on its own merits, his work is lacking, and I'm unsurprised he never received any accolades during his own lifetime.


back to top