I took the book from her, and the pen, and opened Silent Riots to the title page. I signed my name, trying to remember the last time I’d signed one of my books, trying hard to recall how long it had been.
“Not the sort of thing I usually read,” she admitted, “I mean, it is rather explicit. A bit grim for my tastes. But, even so, I thought it was quite well written. Poetic, even.”
Horror fiction has enjoyed any number of stories involving a discovered text, or diary hinting at the horrible fate that befell the writer of the tale we are about to read. The House on the Borderland by William Hope Hodgson is one of my favourites. Not only is it set in the west of Ireland, but Hodgson’s story manages to describe its narrator’s increasing desperation convincingly, before throwing the equivalent of everything and the kitchen’s sink in terms of mythical eschatology right at the reader. It is intimately written (poor Pepper), while also managing to be ambitious in its scope. Cut to a hundred years later and Mark Z. Danielewski’s House of Leaves managed to repeat the feat, introducing us to three distinct narrators, with their individual texts interwoven on the printed page.
Caitlín R. Kiernan’s novel opens with yet another ‘editor’s note’, revealing that we are about to read a manuscript by author Sarah Crowe, a genre writer who committed suicide following the events described.
With that established, Sarah’s arrival at the Wight Farm, located near a large and distinctive red oak tree is described in diary form. She has travelled from the south all the way to Rhode Island to get away from her past and maybe, just maybe, actually write a book that will get her publisher off her back. Unfortunately she has been suffering from writer’s block, is still traumatized by what happened to her lover Amanda and is starting to suspect that she has nothing left to write. Instead of working on a new novel, Sarah begins to explore the history of the Wight Farm, discovering that the previous tenant an academic named Charles Harvey, hung himself from the oak tree outside. He had been working on a history of the farm and its eerie history, with a number of mysterious happenings over the years seemingly connected to the area.
Sarah’s isolation is rudely interrupted by the arrival of Constance, a local-born artist who has returned home from L.A. It appears the landlord is hoping to squeeze as much rent out of the property as possible. Constance actually knew Charles Harvey and happens to believe in all sorts of occult phenomena, explaining to Sarah that she believes ghosts are phantom projections through time of past, or future events. Initially exasperated at having to share her new home with a stranger, the two women grow closer even as the red tree sitting outside their home inexplicably becomes more menacing. Over time they both witness a series of strange phenomena, including missing time, sudden nausea, dislocation, vivid dreams and yet neither can bring themselves to leave the Wight Farm. As Sarah continues to study the increasingly erratic writings of Charles Harvey, she finds herself following in his footsteps into madness.
I chose this book as it was mentioned in the King of Nerds article that inspired this horror novel glut I have embarked upon. As it happens I have read Caitlín R. Kiernan’s writing before. Some years ago a friend gave me a lend of her debut novel Silk. I was not a fan. The Red Tree was nominated for this year’s World Fantasy Award so I wondered whether I would enjoy this more.
This has to be one of the most defensive books I have ever read. It reminded me of Woody Allen’s Stardust Memories, particularly the sequence where he attacks the critics of his films. Sarah Crowe rails against her own critics, both in the media and on amazon.com comment threads, while despairing that maybe she is just a hack. She peppers her conversation with literary quotes and references, the book quoting liberally from Lewis Carroll’s Alice novels and Edgar Allan Poe’s The Narrative Arthur Gordon Pym. The absolute low-point for me was when she repeated a memorized passage on Francis Bacon that she read on Wikipedia (Irony!).
It is the humourlessness of Kiernan’s writing that I find most disagreeable though. Chalk this one up as another negative review.
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 2, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Jason
Your review actually makes me curious about the book. Is it as bad as… Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight?
I wish you a lot of luck in finding a novel that’s truly scary. 😀
November 3, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Emmet
Jason – not at all, I still prefer Kiernan to Meyer. It’s faint praise, but I actually liked that Poe and Carroll were referenced. I just think she overdid it.
November 3, 2010 at 12:57 am
Mike
I’m glad I inspired you to give the book a go but sad you didn’t enjoy it too much. You seem to have fixated on the author as character and author as author dichotomy which is definitely a valid complaint, but an aspect that didn’t bother me. I do wish you’d expand upon your “It is the humourlessness of Kiernan’s writing that I find most disagreeable though” comment, which I thought was interesting. Humor, while not necessarily a bad thing, is not something I really look for in a horror novel.
November 3, 2010 at 9:32 am
steviemonkey
I think the author as the character as the author can be acceptable when it’s not a medium for overt commentary on your own literary criticism. I find it a little self indulgent. I think that when author as character works effectively it’s the subtlety of the knowledge and experience that comes through.
In terms of humourlessness, I’m not sure it’s the lack of ‘humour’ per se, that Emmet is talking about – I too wouldn’t not expect a horror novel to be giving me belly laughs. But it’s the lack of emotional intelligence, and ability to manipulate the emotional experience of the reader. A good book is one that ballances emotions, and some of the best ‘serious’ novels are ones that can make you both laugh and cry, this is a more realistic. Whereas I think the problem here is that the author is taking herself a little too seriously.
Just my opinion though, and such is the beauty of subjectivity!
November 3, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Emmet
That is what I meant. For me humour extends not only to, say, a comic tone, but to the ability of the author to distance themselves from the material. In essence humour for me can also mean not being too emotionally invested in the work itself. The narrative is not meant to take itself so seriously.
The alternative smacks of poor fan-fiction and mary sues, with the author-insert enjoying a level of privilege within the plot denied to the writer in real life.
This was why I mentioned House of Leaves in the review. Not only is the material similar to The Red Tree – complete with the curious font of the ‘found text’ – it actually did make me laugh (when not scaring the bejeesus out of me). The interviews conducted by the Navidson wife with academics about the house for example were very amusing, particularly when Gloria Steinem comes on to her. Danielewski had the measure of the book he was writing, he knew when to strike a balance between horror and light comedy. It makes for an overall more enjoyable reading experience.
November 11, 2010 at 10:33 am
Mike
A bit late, but I thought the “curious font” was courier new and was used to emulate the fact that the found text was written on a typewriter.
I loved House of Leaves but found the text began to get in the way of the narrative to the point where it actively disrupted my reading and enjoyment of the novel. However few sensations can top sitting down and deciphering the message hidden in the Whaltestone Letters; it was chilling.
November 11, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Emmet
Hello Mike, thanks again for dropping by.
See I felt the opposite, I caught myself chuckling when I was rotating the book to read the spiral text on a public train. After I finished laughing and thought about it for a moment, Danielewski’s gimmick becomes a disturbing insight into the mind of the man scrawling that nonsense on to the page.
Whereas Kiernan’s typed print facsimile just made my eyes hurt.