The Woman in Black is a ghost story which tells the tale of Arthur Kipps, a young lawyer from London who is sent to the countryside to go through the papers in the house of the recently deceased Mrs. Drablow. The story is told by an older Arthur, who believes by recounting his tale of horror, that he will be freed from its burden.

I had a lot of problems with this book. First of all, the story really drags on. It probably did not need to go for the 160-odd pages of which it consists – especially since I know you can tell very terrifying stories in half, or less than half that many pages, (see H.P. Lovecraft). But The Woman in Black does drag on. You're constantly being built up to something scary that's about to happen... and when the "scary" thing happens, you're left wondering, "Wait, am I supposed to be scared right now?" Truly, the parts that were supposed to be scary didn't even get a rise out of me. Ooooh something bumped.... Should I have chills right now...? The other aspect that I didn't like was that you're constantly being reminded that Arthur is a logical, scientific London gentlemen who isn't given to country superstitions and the idea of ghosts. This reminder happens every few pages. We get it. Sadly, The Woman in Black ends up being just another run-of-the-mill ghost story. Not a lot of originality is in play.

What I did appreciate about Ms. Hill's writing, is that she at least has a fantastic descriptive style. She really knows how to set the mood. You can definitely feel and smell the sea fog rolling it. You can imagine yourself in the muddy, dank marshes on an early winter day. It's these instances of her writing that make the novel mildly enjoyable. It's honestly a shame that you don't get the effects of the horror that the novel promises.
Overall, I will probably give Susan Hill's other stories a try, but if I want to be scared... I think I'll stick to Lovecraft, August Derleth, or Stephen King. ( )

So, I read this as filler, inbetween my reserved library books as I was expecting to get really into it and finish it in one go. Didn't like it much, unfortunately! ( )

Some really creepy moments. Victorian in feel so be forewarned if that's not your kind of ghost story. If it is this is a great quick read.
( )

I wanted to like it, but my mind kept wandering through the audio. I had several false starts, then just gave up. ( )

This is one I struggle to rate (I'm struggling to rate a lot lately - often 3 feels unfair with something I've enjoyed, but if I stick to many into 4 I can't distinguish between just *how* good something is as much - oh well). 4 in the end because I think it is a very effective story - it's a pastiche of a certain idea of a Victorian ghost story, but it's written really well, with constant ratcheting up of the tension until a shocking, grim release right at the very end, with only the ending being a slight deviation from the usual quite gentle scares of Victorian horror. It fits what we imagine the cliches to be, but uses them well enough that it reminds you why they're cliches in the first place.

And... that's part of the issue I had with it. I think it cleaving so strongly to a particular idea of Victorian ghost stories creates some dissonance and makes it much more noticeable when it deviates. Notably there's motor cars and electric(? or piped gas?) lighting with running water even on a spit of land in the sea in the arse end of nowhere. I was surprised how much this bothered me - it must be interwar period but it just feels so strangely out of place in a story that otherwise wants so badly to be THE Victorian ghost story. I kept trying to pin down what era this could actually be, which was distracting.

The ending is another element to this - I'm hardly an *expert* on the genre in its 19th century form but in interviews she's cited Henry and MR James and the ending strikes me as much more... aggressive? Than either of those. Which is maybe unfair, just somehow it felt out of line from my expectations usually ghosts stick in one place, and the occasions they chase you are due to very specific "fair" actions that you take, eg taking a haunted object. A ghost killing your wife and child in a place hundreds of miles away years after just feels wrong and again that sounds unfair? But it's precisely because it otherwise works so hard to evoke our ideas of the Victorian style that it felt dissonant to me.

You shouldn't take this as too harsh a criticism - I did genuinely enjoy it and was glued the whole way through. It is really a perfect example of what someone nowadays imagines a Victorian ghost story to be, and avoids some of the boringness of the originals without ever upping the stakes like a more modern story might, trusting that its evocation of a sinister atmosphere will do the job (and it does). Plot wise, I really would have loved to know how on earth Alice Drablow lived and transacted her affairs, but ah well. ( )