Talk:The Fall of the House of Usher

Plot summary

Shouldn't there be a plot summary of some kind? In this article, only the Roger Corman adaptation is summarized.

I don't see any basis for the assertion that "This is perhaps the first instance in modern litearure of a story in which an inanimate object is depicted as possessing sentience or a soul": the house of Usher isn't depicted as sentient or having a soul, as I recall (though I'd gladly rethink this if someone can find something from the story that's pertinent) and objects have been depicted with souls, animal, vegetable, and mineral, from time immemorial. - Nunh-huh 05:26, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can you point me to a story before Usher in which an inanimate object has a soul in the natural world (as Usher, The Overlook, Rose Red)—in other words not anthropomorphizing a building or machine ("The Little House", "Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel", "The Little Engine That Could"), animals (many fables); in which the objects are not simply containers, or substitutes, for human actors or emotions?

The dryads and hamadryads of Greek myth, the river-gods such as Cephesus, and the vegetable soul of the mandrake come to mind, but if you are asking for specifically a "Short Story", the collection that more or less defined the form in 1837, Nathaniel Hawthorne's Twice Told Tales, contains a story "Edward Randolph's Portrait" that contains a painting that is at least as ensouled/possessed as the House of Usher in 1839. I'm curious about the attribution of the "soul" to the House (building). What in the text supports it? - Nunh-huh 06:16, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Aside from the attribution I placed in the main article, Lovecraft wrote:

"Usher, whose superiority in detail and proportion is very marked, hints shudderingly of obscure life in inorganic things, and displays an abnormally linked trinity of entities at the end of a long and isolated family history -- a brother, his twin sister, and their incredibly ancient house all sharing a single soul and meeting one common dissolution at the same moment."

-- Cecropia 16:04, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but even knowing Lovecraft postulated this "soul", I don't see anything in the text (of Poe's story) that really suggests it. I suppose a reread is in order. I've always thought of this short story as using a version of the "pathetic fallacy", attributing human emotion to inanimate objects. - Nunh-huh 20:02, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Having read it relatively recently my impression is that the close parallel of 3-way decay (brother, sister, house) and simultaneous destruction is what Lovecraft saw and Mabbott was impressed by. I'm not sure I would have drawn the same conclusion if I hadn't read de Camp and Lovecraft pointing it out first, but it doesn't seem unreasonable. Left to my own speculation I would probably more thought of Miss Havisham and Satis House. -- Cecropia 20:35, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikisource

Someone should aply whatever formatting is necessary to link to the wikisource full-text of FotHoF.

Done. --Urbane legend 00:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Adaptations

The section Film Adaptations and Influences contains a detailed passage describing differences between the film and story. While this is interesting, the author makes no reference anywhere here to which film version they are talking about !!!!

It would also help if we could perhaps have a disambiguation page created to differentiate between Usher the Poe story and perhaps the films.

The Simpsons

Doesn't the simpsons treehouse of horror ONE (i think?) parody this partly, with a house that disappears after the inhabitants leave? Saccerzd 19:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. I don't know if it's a parody but I'm not very familiar with the original. --Kizor 19:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Mad Trist

I have proposed merging the article for The Mad Trist into this article. I don't think it will ever be more than a stub and, frankly, it's not notable enough to have its own article. Any thoughts? -Midnightdreary 17:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Relevance

This seems like such an important story and deserving of a really great article on Wikipedia. However, I'm questioning the relevance of a large portion of this article that only serves to make it really long without much substance. Roderick Usher's library is not necessarily relevant to an encyclopedia article and it really doesn't amount to much more than a list (no analysis, etc.). Also, the allusions from other works? I hate them and they add nothing (plus many are often speculative). So what if the Simpsons made an Usher reference? Let that be on the appropriate Simpsons page or bury it on the Edgar Allan Poe in television and film article which was made, really, to take the extraneous junk out of decent articles. Anyway, I'm curious to hear if other people agree with me rather than just ripping it all out just because I personally don't like it. Thoughts? -Midnightdreary 15:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like some input on this. I've done a pretty decent amount of rearranging and added an Analysis section. I'm worried about the list of Roderick's library (still) being irrelevant despite taking up so much space. I'm also curious about the Literary significance and criticism section. I think some of that info can now be squeezed into Analysis, and the rest thrown out as not particularly notable (and unreferenced). Any thoughts? --Midnightdreary 16:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh... still no one reading this, eh? --Midnightdreary 01:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

--- Well I can hardly blame you for not waiting 12 years for a reply; however, I'm very sad to encounter this page without the listing of Roderick's library. I can't speak to its length or accuracy as it's been removed apparently without being posted here on the talk page for easy reinsertion into the page. Just a note for future editors, it's my opinion that such a listing is relevant and necessary. It could serve many functions, one of which would be to ascertain the sources of occult writings Poe thought worthy of including in this story! I'm not sure what could have been meant in the discussions about these works being 'unreferenced' as they are all in the text of the story. Lecky333 (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

If you'll look, the comment above is not solely about Usher's library. The "unreferenced" comment clearly refers to a "Literary significance and criticism" section, which undoubtedly was guilty of being original research. I'm sorry you feel that every edit must be preserved on the article's talk page. I would recommend looking at the article history instead. The listing in question lasted until February 2011, when it was tagged as original research (see here). Cheers. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Your response is well thought out, directs me to the history (I didn't know where to look) and corrected my assumptions about what was in the removed section. A perfect response. How do you feel about adding only the first section of Roderick Usher's Library back in? Only the listing of books and the notes below, not anything from the Literary significance subsection or that person's interpretation or opinion. Lecky333 (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you clarify how a list of the books/authors in the story adds to an encyclopedia article? Versus just seeing the same list in the story itself? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's how I think it adds to the article. (1) Are the books real? How would you know? Wouldn't the encyclopedia entry be the perfect place to look for the answer? I don't think most people would have any idea if the books are real or if Poe invented them. You probably recognize Machiavelli's name but most of the books and authors are pretty obscure. A second point under this reason is that all the books in the library are real except the Mad Trist of Sir Lancelot Canning, which Poe made up for this story. So, if you only knew that the Mad Trist was made up you could easily assume the rest of Usher's books were made up as well. (2) Why does Poe mention Usher's Library at all? It's a brilliant little collection of occult lore and supernatural tales. Thomas Mabbott wrote an essay about the Library linked here, maybe you could use that resource to help determine if it belongs here. (3) It indicates Poe was familiar with these books and didn't just haphazardly toss them into his story, they add to the story. The library is an entire paragraph and Poe was extremely intentional about having everything in a story add to the "single effect" of the story as he mentions his review of Twice-Told Tales. (4) Ease of access, this goes to point 1 as well, if you just google something in French or Latin not knowing if it's real you could easily fail to find it. It's really easy and convenient to have that list accessible with the links to the authors or the Wikipedia entries for those stories instead of searching individual titles. Plus, the collection is from 43 CE to the 1770s. Overall, I definitely see how that original entry used original research inappropriately but I doubt the actual list itself takes away from the overall article or makes it excessively long. I think it belongs here instead of in its own Wikipedia entry. A whole separate article for Rockerick Usher's library, I don't know, maybe you think that's better? Btw, in The Belphegor, a demon possesses the main character who is named... Roderigo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecky333 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, dear, an entire separate encyclopedia article just for his library would be absurd, in my opinion. I would still suggest that WP:UNDUE is relevant here. As you say, it is merely a single paragraph in a longer work and that does not automatically merit inclusion, lest we have to include information on every other paragraph as well. Perhaps a link to the article you mention added in the external links section would suffice. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Roderick Usher's library, etc.

I have moved the section on Allusions and References to other works of Art (or whatever it was called) into a subsection of Analysis along with Usher's library. I have simplified it a bit and removed some unsourced speculation that a line of Poe's was inspired by a painting of Fuseli. I'm not convinced it's 100% the way to go, but I'm worried about how much undue weight this section is being given compared to more important encyclopedic aspects of the story. Feel free to disagree. I think more clean up is needed, and I will probably soon merge the article on The Mad Trist into this section as well. --Midnightdreary 12:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

--- I was looking for the books mentioned after Usher's verses and before Madeline's death. In the paragraph beginning "Our books..." All of the titles and authors in this paragraph are real, and I personally believe they merit a section of the page as "Usher's book collection is a diverse assembly of occult lore and supernatural tales drawn from across two millennia." ~ quoted from Dana Gioia & R.S. Gwynn in the footnotes of The Art of the Short Story. pg 716. I would even suggest that some enterprising Poe fan should not only update this Wikipedia entry with Ushers 'library,' but also go ahead and create an account on a website that contains reading lists (goodreads for example) under the name Roderick Usher and add all those books to his read section, and update his progress on the imaginary Mad Trist. I sincerely hope that whatever 'removal of cruft' editing discussed here and below was not simply removing the list of books Poe actually chooses to include in the actual story! --Lecky333 (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

incest

i thot it was agreed upon that the relationship was @ least supposed 2 be incestuous. the family has a history of incest as evidenced by the passage: "I had learned, too, the very remarkable fact, that the stem of the Usher race, all time-honored as it was, had put forth, at no period, any enduring branch"; in other words, that the entire family lay in the direct line of descent, and had always, with very trifling and very temporary variation, so lain."

so y "possible"/"potential"/(sumthin like taht, i 4got) theme of incest? y the uncertainty?75.45.213.230 22:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)tilde

Even with that quote, which is a great one, it's still not clear. It could just mean that everyone else in the Usher family had not survived long, suggesting that Madeline and Roderick were the last of the Ushers (hence the "fall of the house"). I'll try to find sources to further discuss this. --Midnightdreary 20:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Allusions in other works

This list has gotten out of control. I will look into cutting this into a very much smaller version, discussing only notable allusions. It's become cruft and is really detracting from the more serious, encyclopedic parts of this article. Boo. --Midnightdreary 20:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ken Russell's 2002 film

Ken Russell wrote and directed the 2002 film The Fall of the Louse of Usher (imdb). It is described as "an amalgam of several Edgar Allan Poe stories, and a mixture of comedy, horror and musical genres", which probably means that it can't rightfully be included in the "Adaptations" list. Or could it? — Loadmaster (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This list of adaptations will never be complete. I wouldn't put too much effort into it - the Allusions section will be the first to go, with Adaptations next, just based on the lack of reliable sources and notability. But, if you think this particular film is notable, it's probably less of an Adaptation (because it is not adapting the story) and more of an Allusion anyway - at least, in my opinion. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mashed up sentence?

The following line from the analysys section has an extra bit by accident I think (the crow flies at midnight)

"But Poe's version of Gothic literature is a biased one because it is fundamentally the crow flies at midnight hyperbolic -- horror is here so intense that it verges on the grotesque

Grammar is not my strong point, so I may just be missing something but it reallu does not seem right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.244.144 (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You caught some old vandalism that no one removed. I've removed a few sentences anyway because they were unsourced. -Midnightdreary (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Allusions in other works

I had removed the section on "Allusions in other works", which was eventually reverted. The list has grown massive and it seems to qualify as cruft and trivia. The entire list remains unsourced and nearly all of them are violations of the policy on original research. I was planning on making this article the next focus for me to reach GA status, which it would certainly not pass with this section. Any reason it should all stay?

As a side note, I made the same observation some 15 months ago without a single response. Users with an interest in this article are encouraged to response to reach consensus, rather than just taking action if they disagree. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you were right to clean out the cruft. There was no attempt to include items on the basis of any kind of notability. For example, a single joke reference in The Simpsons shouldn't rate a mention (whereas the episode where they parodied Poe's "The Raven" at length would qualify). --Folantin (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, shouldn't a few things like Usher II by Ray Bradbury, for example, be linked to in here somewhere? I mean yeah, kill the cruft, but that doesn't mean there are NO allusions that are notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.48.152 (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we can entertain the idea, but we have to ask how to distinguish cruft from notability. I'd recommend that if we can't source it to a reliable, third-party, published source, it just isn't notable. Thoughts? --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia articles, but this article about Edgar A. Poe's "The Fall of the House of Usher" was of special interest to me because the Usher House or mansion located in old Boston was owned by my 5th great grand uncle, Jonathan Williams from 1720 to a date I have not yet determined. Jon Williams, Sr lived from 1673 to 1737, and he probably bequeathed the house to his son, Jonathan Williams, Jr., who lived from 1699 to 1788. The latter had no surviving children. According to a book in my possession, Days and Ways in Old Boston, edited by William S. Rossiter (BostonL R.H. Stearns & Company, 1915), the original house, called a mansion in the book, was built in 1684 in a pasture as illustrated on page 96 at what was in 1915 the corner of Tremont Street and Temple Place. From the wording in the book, it was located in what is today Boston Commons, and probably near the present-day Boston Commons Visitors Center. It was not located on Lewis Wharf along the bay front; the source given, an A.I.A. Guidebook is incorrect.

I am David G. Sox and I can be reached at chesahbinu@comcast.net. SoxResidence (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Location of the House of Usher in old Boston

I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia articles, but this article about Edgar A. Poe's "The Fall of the House of Usher" was of special interest to me because the Usher House or mansion located in old Boston was owned by my 5th great grand uncle, Jonathan Williams from 1720 to a date I have not yet determined. Jon Williams, Sr lived from 1673 to 1737, and he probably bequeathed the house to his son, Jonathan Williams, Jr., who lived from 1699 to 1788. The latter had no surviving children. According to a book in my possession, Days and Ways in Old Boston, edited by William S. Rossiter (BostonL R.H. Stearns & Company, 1915), the original house, called a mansion in the book, was built in 1684 in a pasture as illustrated on page 96 at what was in 1915 the corner of Tremont Street and Temple Place. From the wording in the book, it was located in what is today Boston Commons, and probably near the present-day Boston Commons Visitors Center. It was not located on Lewis Wharf along the bay front; the source given, an A.I.A. Guidebook is incorrect.

I am [redacted] and I can be reached at [redacted]. SoxResidence (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Since I posted this last night and made edits to the article, I have discovered that the location of the original Usher mansion really took up three city blocks of modern Boston, and perhaps part of the southwest corner of the Boston Commons. I had assumed the house was in the Commons area since that remains undeveloped except for park vegetation and pathways. I overlooked that the urbanized Boston of today looked entirely different 200-300 years ago. Based on a further reading of my source, Days and Ways in Old Boston, and several maps and drawings in it, I have determined the Usher property on which the mansion was located is approximately bounded in modern Boston by Tremont Street to the northwest, Washington Street to the southeast, Avery Street to the south and Winter Street to the north. This same source also suggests that the house was not demolished but relocated to South Boston, so it is also possible that it was later relocated to Lewis Wharf as a tourist attraction. Finally, the correct citation is Walter K. Watkins, "An Historic Corner, Tremont Street and Temple Place" in Rossiter, William S., Days and Ways in Old Boston, Boston: R.H. Stearns & Company, 1915, pp. 91-130. SoxResidence (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)SoxResidence

The connection to this story is solely speculative, if not apocryphal. As such, this is pretty trivial and I wouldn't overthink this. --Midnightdreary (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Tarn... or lake?

In a couple instances, the word "tarn" is used, I changed it to "lake". User:Midnightdreary, quite properly, requested more thought on the matter. Here's my take.

It is true that Poe used "tarn". This is partly because that sort of thing was the style back then, and partly because Poe is Poe, I guess. However, here we're trying to communicate to the reader the gist of the story, and using an unfamiliar word interrupts that. In our article on Antony and Cleopatra, we wouldn't say "In Act I, Antony arrives at Cleopatra's palace riding an armgaunt horse", since "armguant" is a word unfamiliar to the reader, notwithstanding that it is the term Shakespeare used. (If we were quoting from Shakespeare (or Poe) that'd be different. But we're not).

A tarn is a lake. Looking it up, it appears that it's a lake formed by a certain peculiarity of glaciation, but it doesn't look any different from other lakes formed in other ways -- at least, I don't think it does. (Even if it does, that's very peripheral to the story). If the article was involved with geology, or if it was important to the story that it was a glacial lake, that'd be different. Herostratus (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

My feeling is that unless there's some way in which it's an important distinction that it's a tarn specifically, we should use the word that our readers are more likely to immediately be familiar with. DonIago (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright. The other editor hasn't weighed in, so it's 2-1 for "lake" even assuming he's still pro-tarn. I'll go ahead and change it back to "lake", subject of course to further discussion if desired by anyone. Herostratus (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Assume nothing. I've followed this discussion but do not have strong feelings on the matter. My initial revert was only in response to the edit summary that said there was no reason to use the term when, in fact, there was at least one. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Madeleine the strong one destroyed by the house

It appears as if Madeleine,before her illness, was the strong and sound one of the siblings. Her death now leaves the sickly and weak Roderick as the last and perhaps final represenative of a family that never was able to produce lasting branches. It seems as if the house is destroying the strong and lifefull. Note the speculations about seemingly dead objects, not least the house, having some conciousness - and perhaps agenda.

Hello. Please remember that these pages are not intended to be discussion boards for the topic of the article, but opportunities to discuss improving the article. Without a source for the above information, it is merely a personal opinion, and it is not relevant here. Thanks. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge publication history

Even though the publication history is significant information, I don't know if it deserves to have its own section because it is only four sentences long. Would it be reasonable to merge it with Sources of Inspiration and rename the section to History and Inspiration (or maybe just a terse "History" would do)? Haunted by a ghoti (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"Publication history" is a pretty common section for literature articles and is expressly recommended in the article template for WP:NOVEL, which includes this article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I did not realize that there was a style guide, thank you for bringing it to my attention. MOS:NOVEL states that if there aren't any interesting details with the publication history, it would be a good idea to merge it with a "Background" section. I've tried to find additional details about the publication, but I couldn't find anything notable. --Haunted by a ghoti (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Remember there is no deadline. Just because we do not have much information now does not mean that there isn't the possibility for more. Certainly, there are reprints, Poe's later edits, notable illustrations, etc. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Breaking into?

The Fall of the House of Usher § Sources of inspiration says (emphasis added):

German writer E.T.A. Hoffmann, who was a role model and inspiration for Poe, published the story "Das Majorat" in 1819. There are many similarities between the two stories, like the breaking into of a house, [...]

Could someone who knows German check whether that should be "breaking in two"? The Fall of the House of Usher § Plot mentions a house's breaking in two, but not a house's being broken into. —2d37 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't have time now to read through (or even do a deeper search than look for 'two'), but the English version of the Hoffman story is available here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/31377/31377-h/31377-h.htm#div1_entail . (Having never read Hoffmann, this is now on my virtual bedside table or future reading). --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. I just changed it to "breaking of a house". I assume that's right. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

J O BAILEY, "WHAT HAPPENS IN 'THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF USHER?'"

After reading the various comments about whether the House has a soul, I offer the following observation: J O Bailey, in the article cited in the subject line, suggests that the House is alive and that it is a vampire with a soul which feeds upon Madeleine and Roderick, ultimately killing him. Bailey's excellent article can be found in the journal American Literature, volume 35 (1964). 192.154.183.50 (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Metaphysical identity

"Metaphysical identity" as used in the lede and justified by source "2" is unintelligible. Makes no sense, at least not as metaphysical is described in the relevant WP article. Just because a critic once coined a synesthetic phrase doesnt mean that it is good encyclopedical practice to use it unless can be explained. 62.92.48.66 (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC).

The House

This was added to the page without sources. Normally, this kind of interpretation would need a reliable source

The House

In Roderick Usher's view, the house in which he and his sister reside is itself alive and even conscious. This, he feels, arises from a metaphysical synergy borne out of the arrangement of the constructed architecture and the plantlife and natural growth outside. His opinion is not wholly corroborated by the narrator's observations, however unusual occurrences that the narrator relates do seem to indicate the house changing in ways reflective of the metaphorical House of Usher, i.e. the family unit.

A prominent example of this is found in the way the mansion's Chekhovian crack suddenly widens to the point of splitting the house apart, directly following the deaths of both remaining members of the family and the dissolution of both the twin-sibling unit and thus the collapse of the familial House of Usher. As such, even if the mansion is not regarded as a conventionally sentient character in the story, its presence as the setting is dynamic in such a way that makes the backdrop a shifting metaphor that parallels both their lives and deaths as their final days play out. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

"As his twin, the two share..."

Kind of a weird sentence tharsaile (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like another editor has changed that. DonIago (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)