I am often asked about this book in relation to the Gothic novel. I believe there are questions set for exams along these lines but this seems to me quite wrong. If you look up Gothic Novel on Wikipedia you will see that THE WOMAN IN BLACK contains very few of the traditional - though not all essential - elements of the gothic novel. It has a ghost. It has an isolated house. But really there is so much more to the gothic novel than this and mine does not in any way fit the brief. So - as far as I am concerned this is NOT a gothic novel. You could do a useful exercise by taking the ingredients the gothic novel is supposed to contain and explaining how few of them are in THE WOMAN IN BLACK and therefore demonstrating that it is not a gothic novel and explaining why.

What it definitely is is a ghost story, a traditional ghost story which contains many of the elements used by such authors as Dickens.  It has a ghost in the proper sense. I take a ghost to be the recognisable vision of a person who was alive and is known to have died. It is not a monster, a vampire, a werewolf - it is the spectre of a human being.

The ghost should have a point, a reason for haunting its old places and appearing to people. If there is no purpose then there is no story. If it just drifts up staircases or walks through walls endlessly, without any apparent reason, there is no story. But my ghost has a reason to return and her reason is revenge for the loss of her child. She cannot let go, cannot forgive, cannot 'move on.'  She must go on and on haunting to extract revenge for the death of her son. This is a terrible fate.

Strange weather phenomenon are not essential to the ghost story but they add terrifically to the atmosphere... fog, high moaning winds, winter darkness, even snow, are all more likely to unnerve us than a cheerful sunny day. The isolated house and the people who are afraid to say anything about the hauntings are also traditional ingredients, as is the narrator who refuses to believe but is a rational bluff man of common sense, but who gradually comes to be afraid and unnerved by what he experiences. So THE WOMAN IN BLACK owes a great deal to the great tradition of the ghost story.

But avoid the use of the word Gothic except to show that this novel is not a gothic one.

Whether you are a student or a teacher you will find it very useful to read the Afterword I wrote to the Penguin Books edition of I`m the King of the Castle. I am often asked questions which are answered in it and school offices should be able to photocopy it for you (subject to the usual charges ).

It is a long time since I wrote the book and a great many things have changed. Some of those things do not matter but small things make a difference - for example, the boys call one another by their surnames (last names) - Hooper, Kingshaw, Fielding. This is what boys in Private schools did until fairly recently. It has no meaning other than custom.

But human nature does not change and it is the characters of the two boys, Kingshaw and Hooper, which drive the story. The setting is very important as many of the things that happen do so because of where the boys find themselves. But if they had been in a quite different place there would still have been a story about two boys who clash because of their mutually antagonistic personalities.

I am often asked if the book was intended to be about 'bullying.' This is a word I dislike. I prefer the more plain and meaningful word 'unkindness' which highlights exactly what bullying IS. I certainly meant the story to be about one boy`s unkindness to the other. One boy, Hooper, is unkind by nature and intinct. He is mean, cunning, manipulative and sadistic. Yet no human being is like this, especially not an 11 year old boy, without a cause and a reason. One of the most important things for you to work out is WHY Hooper is like he is and behaves as he does.

I have heard Kingshaw called a wimp. Does this mean a coward ? He is certainly a passive boy. But remember, he has been brought to a strange house in which there is already a boy of the same age. Have you ever watched an animal on new and unfamiliar territory in which there is already another animal ? The newcomer will be wary and anxious and if the one who dominates the territory starts any sort of fight or hostility, the newcomer will react by turning tail.

So, there are reasons why Kingshaw behaves as he does. He is not by nature a fighter.  He has a very dominating mother. He is on strange new territory. He is faced with a mean, spiteful and unkind boy who is king of his own particular castle.

When their roles are reversed, you will Kingshaw in a new light; in the wood, which is strange territory to them both, he comes into his own and Hooper is unable to be so easily dominant because he, in his turn, is nervous and uncertain.

The book is about the two boys. There are many scenes in which the conflict between them is demonstrated. You can make a list or a flow-chart of each self-contained scene as it comes, which you may find helps you to understand the way the novel works.

Now, one important thing to understand.

I wrote the book. But I was writing a story, a novel, not writing a sermon or a series of examples. If you find a particular meaning in the book, or a part of it, and you can show why, then you are right. But because you can find a certain meaning does not mean that I consciously put it there or intended it to be there, like a hidden object. As every reader opens the book  and starts to read, in a way they re-create the story for themselves. YOUR mental image of Kingshaw or of the house called Warings, for example, will not be the same as mine, or the same as that of the person next to you. It is yours alone. That is why reading is always a creative act. You don`t just take in the story you help to make it. In a way it is therefore harder to answer questions about books than it is to do maths - because in Maths there is a right answer and a wrong answer. In literature it is by no means so clear-cut and straightforward. If you think Kingshaw is a total coward for whom there is nothing to be said, I may not agree with you but you can argue that you are right from the text and because that is the way the story and the character seem to YOU. You are right. I am right too. Obviously, you cannot say to you, Kingshaw is 4 years old. He is eleven. That is a fact stated in the book. Some things are right or wrong. The book is set in the English countryside. That is a fact. But if you think about it this story could  take place in another country at a different time. Much would change but the characters of the two boys and the conflict between them which is the heart of the book would be the same.

In posts to come I will look at some of the details in the book. But I hope this has been helpful and made you think. I also hope you will try and remember that this was written as a novel for adults and not as an exam text for school pupils. I know you have to study it as an exam / course-work text but don`t let this put you off reading for pleasure in general. I had to examine texts for my exams too but I still love reading more than anything. It`s possible !