Thoughts on The Hobbit (the movie)

Carpal tunnel syndrome has kept me off the computer except for what I had to do for work, so I am late in continuing with my “Hobbit”-related posts. Since the movie has been out for over a month now, I will dispense with issuing alerts against spoilers and will assume that you’ve either seen the movie, or don’t mind spoilers, or you won’t continue reading this particular post.

So, to get a few things out of the way:

  • It was 20-30 minutes too long. Did the fights have to be so extravagant?
  • It is for teens and older (much violence, and its length tries the patience even for oldsters like me).
  • Martin Freeman was terrific. He was a perfect Bilbo.
  • How does a round door work, exactly? Do hobbits have a special magic to make a single hinge hold a door without needing daily adjustment?
  • I had a sense that I’d seen far too many wargs in the space of 3 hours.

I think Jackson did not do unforgivable violence to the heart of the story, for which I am grateful. I will particularly single out for praise the scene where Bilbo must act to escape the goblin mines, when the option to kill Gollum, who stands between him and the passage out, seems to be the only possibility. The camera stays for a long moment on Gollum as he looks, unseeing, toward the invisible Bilbo, and the moment is prolonged enough to let Bilbo, and us, see the pitiful side of Gollum, and so allows us to see and feel the pity that motivates Bilbo to take a chance on leaping over Gollum. That was well done. Amid all the crash, smack, ow, boom, erg, oof, argh, and whatnot of the action, I’m not sure I would have noticed if that critical incident hadn’t been done thoughtfully, but I’m certainly glad that it was.

It partly makes up for the over-the-top absurdity of the dwarves’ battle to escape the goblins.

The filling-in of the Necromancer story and the White Council with Saruman the White wasn’t objectionable, and the expansion of the role of Radagast was kind of fun. It made me regret that the movie wasn’t suitable for young folks because they would have loved the hedgehogs and the hare sled in Radagast’s scenes. Kids would have loved the dish-throwing at Bag End, too.

The movie could have been suitable for kids and adults both, if it had been less enamored of the fighting. Really, where’s the sense of building up to something? There is a battle in the climax, when there’s a dragon hoard to fight over, not to mention Smaug’s attack on Lake Town, and is Jackson going to make that battle last an hour and deaden our senses with an assault even greater than in Hobbit part one? And of course there will also be the wizards’ assault on the Necromancer at some point, so there will be a tremendous amount of hurly-burly for the viewer to get through. But I suppose this is what Jackson specializes in now; in the LOTR he acquired his audience of those who come for the battles, and he is loath to change direction now. Perhaps in a future installment he’ll throw Radagast’s rabbits into the fray and we’ll get to see bunnies slaughtered by Sauron. Now that’s entertainment.

The Hobbit’s ancient beginning

As I was setting forth into rereading Chapter 1 of The Hobbit, I started getting a sense of … remindedness. What was this chapter reminding me of?

The first sentence, “In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit,” is very direct and brisk in getting to the story, and right after that you expect should follow something like “…named Bilbo Baggins. One fine morning as he stood by his door…” etc. But that is not what happens at all. We are told what the hole looks like and what a hobbit is, and that “the Bagginses have lived in the neighborhood of The Hill for time out of mind,” and who his parents were, and even a bit about his Took ancestors. And all this preliminary background is finished off by a very firm placing of the story in a legendary past:

By some curious chance one morning long ago in the quiet of the world, when there was less noise and more green, and the hobbits were still numerous and prosperous…

Aha! Now I know what it reminds me of: the opening of “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight,”  which first looks far into the past — at the momentous event that caused a chain of consequences leading forward in time to the (still in the legendary past) event of the story that will be told. That is, it begins with the siege and assault of Troy and its smoking ruins, leading to Aeneas’s founding of Rome and the spread of its civilization until Felix Brutus, banished great-grandson of Aeneas, becomes the founder of Britain. All of this has nothing materially to do with the story of King Arthur’s court that the poet goes on to tell. It runs counter to common storyteller advice to start the story as quickly as possible.

Why begin the story of Sir Gawain with the fall of Troy? And why put in all that beside-the-point stuff about Belladonna Took and the Old Took and the gossip about a long-ago Took ancestor taking a fairy wife? (I have a German language audiobook of The Hobbit that, in fact, leaves all that out.)

Well, it makes the story being told part of a larger story: in the case of “Sir Gawain,” part of the story of England, and in the case of The Hobbit, part of the larger world. That bit about young Tooks running off and having adventures is the beginning of that idea, and throughout the whole story of The Hobbit Bilbo is discovering the greater world, which is not yet called Middle Earth. This is a way of proceeding that was evidently instinctive to Tolkien, as can be seen clearly when we get the entire Lord of the Rings story which itself is just one part of a much larger story.

This placing of a story in a larger context also gives Bilbo and Sir Gawain heroic predecessors and heroic standards to measure themselves by. Throughout the novel Bilbo repeatedly either brings up the Old Took, or the narrator does.

At the end of “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight” the narrator comes around again to where he began:

Thus in Arthurus day this aunter bitidde,
The Brutus bokes therof beres wytteness.
Sythen Brutus the bolde burne bowed hider fyrst
After the segge and the asaute was sesed at Troye

[Thus in Arthur’s day this adventure happened
Brutus’s book thereof bears witness
Since Brutus, the bold man, came hither first
After the siege and assault was ceased at Troy]

So after giving the big picture, then narrowing in to focus on one event (Gawain’s “There and Back Again” quest, like Bilbo’s), at the end the view expands again to the larger context. It is somewhat reminiscent of the conclusion of The Hobbit, when Gandalf reminds Bilbo of the larger context of his adventure, saying “…you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!”

The Hobbit (the movie) U.S. release day approaches…

Everyone who cares, and a lot of people who don’t, are aware that the Peter Jackson movie of ‘The Hobbit’ is about to be released in the US. It’s a week away, and I’ll probably be in the theater to see it on Friday unless something unexpected prevents me. I have misgivings, though.

This is what I expect:

The casting will be terrific, good actors all around. (Not a hard prediction, since we have already seen Ian McKellen as Gandalf, Andy Serkis as Gollum, Cate Blanchett, and Hugo Weaving; plus the trailers have shown us Martin Freeman as Bilbo, and the actors playing the various dwarves. I love ’em all.

The location will be great. Stupendous New Zealand landscapes. Ah.

The sets will be fantastic. The props and costumes will be convincing and beautifully detailed.

But the script. O, I fear, I know, something will be terribly amiss.

I don’t know what that will be. But what I learned from Jackson’s LOTR movies was that he will sacrifice character, even sense, to add such interpolations as Aragorn falling off a cliff into a river and being rescued by his horse (Why? Can’t Jackson see the difference between drama and blithering silliness?) And there is tragic, proud Denethor, who decides to kill his son and commit suicide rather than fight to the end — one of the most dramatic and suspenseful situations in the Battle of Minas Tirith. For some reason Jackson thought it was improved by simply making Denethor a raving madman. Cheapened again.

I have no objection per se to making changes when adapting a novel to a movie. All I expect is that the changes make sense. It’s almost like Jackson doesn’t understand what he’s read — and I know he’s said in interviews that he has read the books, unlike many Hollywood producers and directors who will hire people to do the reading for them.

[Personal gripe of lesser importance: it’s too late now, but why don’t the actors know how to pronounce “Gandalf” consistently?]

Anyhow, in honor and anticipation of “The Hobbit” release, I will reread The Hobbit: the book, and reflect on the story as I experience it again, starting tomorrow.

Honeysuckle Cottage (P. G. Wodehouse, 1925)

What? P. G. Wodehouse… ghost story? Are we maybe in an alternate universe? Should we allow… [lowered voice] comedy?

Think of it as something light and refreshing after the challenging perplexities of Henry James. Purists will not allow “Honeysuckle Cottage” into the genre, but … OK, I will.

We begin with Mr. Mulliner, a regular and well-known raconteur at the Angler’s Rest, who has a limitless supply of relatives about whom he can tell a tale, and this evening’s tale is about his cousin, Mr. James Rodman, a writer of sensational mystery stories, i.e., “revolvers, cries in the night, missing papers, mysterious Chinamen, and dead bodies — with or without a gash in the throat.” James learns that an aunt, Leila J. Pinckney, writer of romances, has passed away and left him her home, Honeysuckle Cottage. Nice! No sooner has James moved in, though, than a strange influence seems to be exerting itself, causing him to insert romantic, sentimental heroines into his work-in-progress. Where he intends to have the hero’s door open and a dying man fall in, gasping “Tell Scotland Yard that the blue beetle is –” and then expiring, he writes

Then the noise came again, faint but unmistakeable — a soft scratching at the outer panel … he tiptoed to the door; then, flinging it suddenly open, he stood there, his weapon poised.
On the mat stood the most beautiful girl he had ever beheld … then with a pretty, roguish look of reproof, [she] shook a dainty forefinger at him.

It is, of course, the spirit of the dead aunt, haunting the cottage and spreading her baleful, romantic influence over her nephew, slowly driving him, not insane, a la “Turn of the Screw,” but to an extreme of soupiness. Will James escape the creeping sentimentality — or will he be inexorably drawn into an engagement with the sweet, wholesome girl who shows up on his doorstep?

You can find this story in Meet Mr. Mulliner, and probably a number of other collections. And if you haven’t read anything by Wodehouse, you should not stop at that book, but go on and read Right Ho, Jeeves (1934), Code of the Woosters (1938), Joy in the Morning (1946), and The Mating Season (1949) — and as many others as you can get your hands on. Enjoy!

P.S., for an excellent introductory essay, see “What Ho! My Hero, P. G. Wodehouse” by Stephen Fry, here.

The Turn of the Screw (Henry James, 1898)

Everybody’s heard of it. The title is intriguing and mysterious and memorable. But, oh… Henry James… I read “The Turn of the Screw” in college and was surprised and disappointed by the dullness of it. Then, after I read James’ The American, I swore never to touch anything by him again.

Fast forward some decades: OK, well, I thought, maybe time had effected a change and I should try “Turn of the Screw” again. I heard somewhere that no young person could properly appreciate James. You had to be seasoned by age to really get his work. Um-hm.

On to the story, then. A young woman (we never learn her name) tells us how she was hired to be governess of two orphans who live at their uncle’s country estate, under the care of some servants, while he lives permanently in London. Her first-person narrative describes how she arrives and takes charge of young Flora and Miles, giving clues, at the same time, that all is not right with her, in terms of mental stability. Her attraction to the children is intense: Miles is “incredibly beautiful,” he has a “positive fragrance of purity,” he is “something divine,” and she feels a “passion of tenderness” for him, etc.

She walks the grounds of the estate in the evening, fantasizing about meeting a handsome man and then she sees an unfamiliar figure standing on the battlements of the house’s tower, staring at her with disturbing intensity. She immediately wonders if the house has a mystery of Udolfo or a hidden relative kept in confinement.

In a passage that calls to mind “The Tell-Tale Heart,” the narrator says:

There were hours, from day to day — or at least there were moments, snatched even from clear duties — when I had to shut myself up to think. It was not so much yet that I was more nervous than I could bear to be as that I was remarkably afraid of becoming so; for the truth I had now to turn over was, simply and clearly, the truth that I could arrive at no account whatever of the visitor with whom I had been so inexplicably and yet, as it seemed to me, so intimately concerned. It took little time to see that I could sound without forms of inquiry and without exciting remark any domestic complication. The shock I had suffered must have sharpened all my senses; I felt sure, at the end of three days and as the result of mere closer attention, that I had not been practiced upon by the servants…

Her concern about being nervous and her belief in her senses being sharpened are surely a deliberate echo of the mad narrator in Poe’s story; she also invites comparison to Northanger Abbey‘s Catherine Morland — if Catherine were prone to actually making herself see and believe in characters from her beloved gothic horror novels.

She sees the man again, and becomes convinced that he is a ghost, and then she sees another ghost, becomes convinced the children see the ghosts but pretend not to, and constructs a horrific but only vaguely-hinted-at plot of the ghosts to take possession of the children. It is a complex narrative and cannot be quickly summarized while doing full justice to the chain of events.

The story has a reputation for being ambiguous — that is, creating doubt whether the narrator is mad or the ghosts actually exist. But it seems to me that James carefully gives us all the evidence that we need in order to know that the narrator is deluded. The cleverness of the story is in letting the narrator herself tell us, unintentionally, that she is out of touch with reality.

Some readers find this story psychologically thrilling. I still find it to be trying, and somewhat of a bore. Give it a shot, and see what your reaction is. It’s subtle; if you prefer to imagine your horrors into a story, this is for you.

What is a ghost story?

The ghost of Caesar appears to Brutus

The angry ghost of Caesar appears to Brutus

Looking for a definition, I found in the Oxford Companion to English Literature that a ghost story is a narrative that has as its central theme “the power of the dead to return and confront the living.”

This definition captures the heart of this kind of story, but it leaves out such supernatural creatures as demons, witches, and other spectral creatures that aren’t the returned dead. The Oxford entry goes on to cite “Green Tea” as an example of a ghost story, and yet it must be pointed out that the demonic monkey is certainly not a ghost. I would group stories of ghosts and demons together as “ghost stories.”

Should Poe’s “The Tell-Tale Heart” be considered a ghost story? I was inclined not to, and then my husband pointed out that it is all about the dead returning to confront the living — albeit in a psychological sense. So yes, it can be encompassed in the genre, I think. (Who would want to exclude such a terrific story, if you didn’t have to?)

Guilt is one of the powerful drivers of a ghost story. The ghost may return to avenge its murder (as “The Tell-Tale Heart”, Stevenson’s “The Grave Robber”, Le Fanu’s “The Familiar” and many others). Or the ghost may be the guilty party, tormented and driven to reveal its crime (Le Fanu’s “Madame Crowl’s Ghost”), or simply tied to the scene of its crime as punishment. Sometimes the ghost, who when alive was guilty of terrible crimes, continues to commit his evil deeds as a malevolent spirit (“The Judge’s House” by Bram Stoker; “Count Magnus” by M. R. James).

There are ghosts (fearsome but not malevolent) who warn of impending death (Le Fanu’s “The White Cat of Drumgunniol”; Dickens’ “The Signalman”) — similar to a banshee, although in the Le Fanu story, at least, the spirit cat differs from a banshee in that it began to haunt the family as the result of a deadly crime and continues to haunt the innocent descendents of the perpetrator.

More discussion of what makes a ghost story, and what the ghost story implies, to follow.

Green Tea (Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu, 1869)

It’s been a rough week, in terms of having time for blogging. I’ve still been reading new stories, but haven’t written about them. A ghost story or two each night… I’ve had some unsettling dreams, and one story in particular (“Madame Crowl’s Ghost” by Le Fanu) I would not recommend to anyone else for that time slot right before sleep. It is interesting to notice how potent the subtleties of a ghost story can be.

So! Moving along now. Setting is so important to a ghost story, isn’t it? Darkness is perhaps the most common and important ingredient for fear. We can’t see what’s there. We imagine… and we can imagine things that we fear the most, even if we don’t fear them in the daylight. But there are other parts to setting: castles, old houses, uninhabited houses, wilderness or waste (see Blackwood, or Edwards’ “The Phantom Coach”)–wherever there aren’t a lot of other people around, because we become much braver about the supernatural when we have company.

How about on a bus? Seems unpromising. But just read “Green Tea” — I swear it has the most chilling scene you will ever read, when the Rev. Mr. Jennings is the last passenger still in the vehicle, going home at twilight. Yes, I’m going to quote it, and you should stop here if you think this will spoil it for you:

The interior of the omnibus was nearly dark. I had observed in the corner opposite to me at the other side, and at the end next the horses, two small circular reflections, as it seemed to me of a reddish light. They were about two inches apart, and about the size of those small brass buttons that  yachting men used to put upon their jackets. I began to speculate, as listless men will, upon this trifle, as it seemed. From what centre did that faint but deep red light come, and from what — glass beads, buttons, toy decorations — was it reflected? … these two luminous points, with a sudden jerk, descended nearer and nearer the floor, keeping still their relative distance and horizontal position, and then, as suddenly, they rose to the level of the seat on which I was sitting and I saw them no more.
My curiosity was now really excited and, before I had time to think, I saw again these two dull lamps, again together near the floor; again they disappeared, and again in their old corner I saw them.
So, keeping my eyes upon them, I edged quietly up my own side, towards the end at which I still saw these tiny discs of red.
There was very little light in the bus. It was nearly dark. I leaned forward to aid my endeavor to discover what these little circles really were. They shifted position a little as I did so. I began to perceive an outline of something black, and I soon saw the outline of a small black monkey, pushing its face forward in mimicry to meet mine; those were its eyes, and I now dimly saw its teeth grinning at me.

Augh! And, as it becomes clear, it’s not a real monkey, but a spectral one, and it’s here to stay with poor Rev. Jennings.

And, let me conclude, that green tea, curiously, did not then have attributed to it the healthful effects that it now does.

Wandering Willie’s Tale (Sir Walter Scott, 1824)

Pursuit and capture of a Covenanter

Pursuit and capture of a Covenanter

This one was new to me, and it’s a fine tale. Sir Robert Redgauntlet, 17th century Scottish laird under Charles II, is an enthusiastic persecutor of Covenanters (Scottish Presbyterians, see this):

Glen, nor dargle, nor mountain, nor cave, could hide the puir hill-folk when Redgauntlet was out with bugle and bloodhound after them, as if they had been sae mony deer. And troth when they fand them they didna mak muckle mair ceremony than a Hielandman wi’ a roebuck — it was just “Will ye tak the test?” — if not, “Make ready — present — fire!” — and there lay the recusant.

Steenie Steenson, tenant of Sir Robert and a favorite piper of the laird, is not good at managing his money and is two terms behind in his rent. Called to pay, Steenie knows he’d better come up with the money or flee. Redgauntlet is not a man anyone cares to anger, “for the oaths that he swore, and the rage that he used to get into, and the looks that he put on, made men sometimes think him a devil incarnate.”

Steenie borrows the money and goes off to the castle to pay up. He is taken to see the laird, who has with him his pet monkey, humorously named Major Weir (his namesake was a notorious wizard). Unfortunately, after he’s handed over his bag of silver to Sir Robert, and before he’s received his receipt, the laird, ill with gout and kidney stones, has an attack. The scene is striking and horrible enough to quote:

Sir Robert gied a yelloch that garr’d the castle rock. Back ran Dougal — in flew the livery-men — yell on yell gied the laird, ilk ane mair awfu’ than the ither… Terribly the laird roared for cauld water to his feet, and wine to cool his throat; and Hell, hell, hell, and its flames was ay the word in his mouth. They brought him water, and when they plunged his swollen feet into the tub, he cried out it was burning; and folk say that it did bubble and sparkle like a seething cauldron. He flung the cup at Dougal’s head and said he had given him blood instead of burgundy; and, sure eneugh, the lass washed clotted blood aff the carpet the neist day. The jackanape they caa’d Major Weir, it jibbered and cried as if it was mocking its master; [Steenie’s] head was like to turn — he forgot baith siller and receipt, and downstairs he banged; but as he ran, the shrieks came faint and fainter; there was a deep-drawn shivering groan, and word gaid through the castle that the laird was dead.

Steenie is called to account for the overdue rent by Sir Robert’s heir, arriving from Edinburgh after his father’s death — and there is no witness, and no record of the payment, and no sign of the silver itself. It would be criminal to summarize the entire story, because it would ruin the reading experience. “Wandering Willie’s Tale” is found in many anthologies of ghost stories and is also online at Bartleby’s. The Scottish dialect should pose little difficulty, as most words can be understood simply by pronouncing them aloud, and context should suggest the meaning of the rest. But if you need to look up, say, yett or tass, go here and third down on the right is the Scots dictionary.

The Legend of Sleepy Hollow (Washington Irving, 1820)

Ichabod Crane meets the headless horseman

Ichabod Crane meets the headless horseman

I was jotting a list of ghost stories to read in October — or revisit, if a favorite — and for that purpose I also found a short history of the genre. It seems that Washington Irving’s “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” is a landmark in the early development of the ghost story. (That’s not to say that supernatural stories haven’t been around for a much longer time, of course.) I’m not going to worry about definitions yet, and I’m perfectly happy to start with such a famous and favored tale.

This is a leisurely story that takes its time at the outset to establish a vividly drawn setting — Tarrytown and nearby Sleepy Hollow, a farming community on the banks of the Hudson, its population descended from the original Dutch settlers:

Some say that the place was bewitched by a high German doctor, during the early days of the settlement; others, that an old Indian chief, the prophet or wizard of his tribe, held his pow-wows there… Certain it is, the place still continues under the sway of some witching power… The whole neighborhood abounds with local tales, haunted spots, and twilight superstitions… including the apparition of a figure on horseback without a head.

Ichabod Crane is not a native of the area, but came there from Connecticut to serve as schoolmaster. I delight so in the picture that is drawn of him that I’ll quote that, too:

He was tall, but exceedingly lank, with narrow shoulders, long arms and legs, hands that dangled a mile out of his sleeves, feet that might have served for shovels, and his whole frame most loosely hung together. His head was small, and flat at top, with huge ears, large green glassy eyes, and a long snipe nose , so that it looked like a weather-cock, perched upon his spindle neck, to tell which way the wind blew. To see him striding along the profile of a hill on a windy day, with his clothes bagging and fluttering about him one might have mistaken him for the genius of famine descending upon the earth, or some scarecrow eloped from a cornfield.

We get to know him in his professional aspect as the schoolmaster who doesn’t spare the rod on young scholars who displease him (the “little, tough, wrong-headed, broad-skirted Dutch urchin, who sulked and swelled and grew dogged and sullen beneath the birch”); who befriends those students  with mothers or sisters who are good cooks and generous with food; and who is an enthusiastic consumer of ghost stories during long winter evenings, and a firm believer in witchcraft, the supernatural, omens, and awful portents.

By the difficulty I have in refraining from quoting from nearly every paragraph, I hope it is apparent that there is much pleasure to be derived from the story in the way it is told, in its witty language and vigorous images.

Ichabod falls in love with the farmhouse and wealth of a prosperous farmer, Mynheer Van Tassel — er, with Van Tassel’s lovely daughter Katrina, “plump as a partridge; ripe and melting and rosy cheeked as one of her father’s peaches.” And in his courting he is edging out his nearest rival, the roystering Brom Bones, athletic, skilled in horsemanship, and mischievous. Likable as Ichabod is, as an entertaining character, his designs on Katrina are not an outcome to be hoped for: he fantasizes about selling this beautiful, bountiful farm for a good sum after Katrina inherits it, and striking out west.

On an autumn day, Ichabod receives an invitation from Van Tassel to come that evening to a party, a “quilting frolic” with lots of food and merrymaking. Needless to say, he attends, and along with the food Ichabod gets a full helping of hair-raising ghost stories among the men. And then… he has to go home in the dark. LOL.

OK, most of us have an idea of what happens in the climax, because the story is just part of the season. And yet few people have actually read it. The story is readily available — go take it off the shelf or check it out from the library or download it onto your reader. Like “Betsy Murphy,” the story that I remember my father telling me when I was young, “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” will only scare the very young, and that scare will be pleasurable. Adults will find a sophisticated and funny story, in entertainment value well worth the reading.

Season of Mists and Hauntings

When the days are getting chilly and the nights long, I start turning to ghost stories. The time has to be right: it must be dark outside, and fairly late, and I in bed, with one bedside light. And then, in the quiet, I open an M. R. James volume, or Le Fanu, or Blackwood…

The earliest story I can remember being told as a young child was a ghost story. My father would sit down on the bed and I’d request the story by name: “Tell me ‘Betsy Murphy’!” My father told it in first person, as something that had happened to him, and as I remember it went like this:

“Well, I had to walk home in the dark one night, and as I was coming across a field I came to a fence and there were some turkeys sitting on top of the fence. They were so tame that none of them flew away when I came up; they just sat there and looked at me. And I thought one of them would make a good dinner and I took the largest one and tucked it under my arm and went on toward home. And just as I was getting close to the house, that turkey looked up at me and said, ‘You’ve carried old Betsy far enough, haven’t you?'”

Usually, that was the end, although sometimes my father added that he dropped the turkey and ran. But he loved to deliver that final question with menace, although there was always a hint of a smile, too, and he plainly thought that was the proper conclusion.

The story fascinated me, I guess, because I was never quite sure of my own attitude toward it. Betsy Murphy was not a cheery Disney-style talking animal; she made me uneasy, and yet she hadn’t done anything terrible, exactly — she had just talked. Every time I heard the story, I considered again the scene: the dark, lonely field and the preternaturally tame bird sitting on the fence, looking back at my father.

From my adult standpoint now, the story seems to be about witchcraft, and I would guess the story is very old, certainly not original to my father. It seems allied to those European tales of witches who could transform themselves into animal shapes to work harm on their neighbors or consort with other demonic beings.

“Betsy Murphy” still has that uneasy mix of understated fear and humor that I found in it as a child, when it gave me chills but not nightmares. Sometimes I laughed at the end; sometimes not. For a story that took only a minute or two to tell, it nevertheless had an element of ambiguity that made it more than a tale quickly told and forgotten.

I’ll be revisiting some favorite ghost stories and looking for some new ones during October, to keep me entertained in the late hour before sleep.