>>24818973
>without remorse
>then started being nice to them
Years of working have made me too stembrained to explain in a well-written way so I'll just give you a bunch of bullet points.
- The townsfolk actually attacked because the girls were weird and a bit hoighty-toighty, not because of their alleged crimes. They didn't actually have any reason to believe the accusations beyond "vibes".
- The fact that the accusations were true is literary irony, and doesn't excuse the townsfolk's actions. The townsfolk themselves do not believe that their actions were justified.
- The townsfolk formed a mob driven by an atavistic desire to hurt and punish social outsiders, not out of any attempt at justice or self defense.
- Being part of an angry mob gave them a sort of socially conditioned drunkenness that allowed them to do things they would normally not allow themselves to do. Afterwards, once this drunkenness had worn off, they became afraid of what they had done and how they had allowed themselves to be swept along by the mob.
- Their fear of the girls that caused them to begin paying them tribute was the same fear that drove them to destroy the house in the first place. Their attitude towards the girls did not change, it was their attitude towards themselves that changed. This act of mob violence turned the townsfolk from concerned defenders of their community into cruel abusers of the socially isolated.
- The fact that the girls were actually murderers is ironic since it justifies the fear that drove both the mob violence and the later attempts at reconciliation. It's also ironic since the townsfolk could've investigated and arrested the girls in a just and civilized manner, but failed to do so due to their own inadequacies.
- There are no good guys or bad guys in this story. If you want stories with clear heros and villains then allow me to suggest some warhammer 40k books.

>I can't believe they
who are "they" here?

>>24819180
>who are "they" here?
I meant the author, sorry.

>>24819201
The author isn't trying to "redeem" the girls, she's presenting them in a neutral and nonjudgmental way which enhances the eeriness of the book. It is a horror story after all. The townsfolk being bad does not make the girls not bad.

>>24819180
I like books where things are left to interpretation, I just think in this case too many things were left to interpretation. I don’t understand where the story was trying to get at, what's the message here? Your post cleared my initial confusion about the way the townsfolk acted, but I still find the story itself to be quite “hollow”. I also don’t understand why Helen Clarke was so villainized when all she tried to do throughout the entire book was help out the girls.

>>24819216
>message
It's a horror book, I don't know that they generally have "messages" in an Aesop's fables kind of way. Maybe it's just not the genre for you. It's been a bit since I read it but Helen Clarke's issue was that she was to a large degree trying to use the girls as a bit of social triangulation. She seems to like the girls not for themselves but more because they're one of the few higher-class people in town. And if you read the initial scene where she brings the other lady to see the girls it comes across not so much as her trying to help them but rather showing them off to her friend like a pair of exotic animals. Rumours about large sums of money might've helped her interest too although I don't remember if she would've know about that. And ultimately she's unable to help the girls with the one thing they really need, which is protection from the mob.

Nobody in the book is purely good or bad, in everyone evil and selfish impulses sit alongside good and loving ones. The "message" insofar as there is one isn't some kind of succinct moral statement, but more about transgression and remorse, about the dangers and complexities of small-town social politics, and about how people compartmentalize their actions and how everyday kindness can exist alongside deep insanity and cruelty.

>>24818973
Merricat murdered her family because they were abusive toward her and her sister (her character is emotionally stunted from the abuse and displays numerous coping behaviors). The townsfolk destroy their house in an act of mob hysteria because they resent the Blackwood family for being wealthy (the parents were likely snobbish, building a large gated house intentionally excluded from the community, and their reclusiveness demarcates them as outsiders). After they wreck the house the townspeople realize the two sisters aren't what they thought them to be (i.e. they're not wealthy jerks who got away with murder distancing themselves from the community because of snobbery), feel guilt over their hysteria, and deliver food to them. The sisters aren't living in a castle like royalty but squatting in ruins as mentally broken shut-ins.

what boring writing based on this thread. o despise this kind of hollow contrivance that retards can appeal to "NO GOOD GUYS OR BAD GUISSE SO GOOD!!!"

>>24819414
It's not good because it's nonjudgmental, that's just an aspect of the book that OP seemed to be struggling with. Both amoral books like WHALitC and books with strong moral messages can be good, but you have to take the book as it is and not try to expect something from it that it's not trying to give. The book is good because it's good, it's well written and has a strong atmosphere and interesting characterization. I know you came into this thread with the intent of being a dipshit but I'm not at all trying to claim that a book that doesn't have a strong moral is better than one that does.

>>24819508
maybe ill respond to you later if the thread stays alive

>>24819414
You have to be 18 to post here.

>>24819664
I'm 42.

>>24820931
>being that intellectually immature in middle-age
Lol

>>24821059
I'm pretty sure I'm smarter and more well-read than you.

>>24819180
genuinely interested in the warhammer 40k recs thanks