Book Review: The Doll Who Ate His Mother by Ramsey Campbell

Published: 1976

Synopsis: It was a freak accident. The man had suddenly stepped into the road, and the brakes had failed. Clare could only steer wildly, the car finally crashing into a tree and on to the kerb. Now her brother Rob was dead, silent in the passenger seat, slumped against the door. He died of massive head injuries. But there was something else, something that at first she couldn't uite grasp, that seemed inexplicable. His right arm was missing. Gone. Someone had taken it.

My Thoughts: Like most people who have read this book in the last 20 years, I was coerced to track down this book thanks to Stephen King's glowing review in Danse Macabre. During my search, I have encountered several very interesting interviews with him (including his contribution to Lovecraft: Fear of the Unknown) and have found his views and philosophies on horror fiction to be congruent with my own. He understands the unique insights and experiences that horror/weird fiction provides. He doesn't shy away from the fact he is a horror writer - he revels in it - something I respect and applaud in the face of literary genre snobbery.

So naturally, when by chance I happened upon The Doll Who Ate His Mother while actively searching for Ramsey Campbell books at the Brisbane Lifeline Bookfest, I was beside myself. It is this perceived kinship I felt for Campbell through media which is probably responsible for the fact I wasn't blown away by this book. Don't get me wrong, it was a very strong first novel but its didn't tingle all my horror-nerves simultaneously. I just created expectations it couldn't match.

The second disservice to the book comes from its blurb, which dulls the effectiveness of the first scene. Which is why I have no problems spoiling it here. The first chapter introduces us to the protagonist (kind of) Clare, who accidently kills her brother in a car accident. At the scene of the crime, a mysterious figure who was partially responsible for causing her to crash makes off with her brother's severed arm. This ghoulish act comes as a shocking reveal in the chapter, but is already given away in the first sentence on the back cover. But I guess it's a good way to sell the story.

As for the character of Clare, I called her a protagonist with the qualifier 'kind of" because, while she was a fairly well developed character, she wasn't a powerful force in shaping how the story progressed. She acted more of a witness or as a tourist in the story - listening to other characters stories and finding clues without actually deciphering them herself. This might not have been Campbell's intention as not every chapter was set through her point of view, but overall I felt she was the character the reader was supposed to identify with. She was also the absolute last character to piece together the mystery in a terrific climax to the story, which I won't spoil.

I enjoyed Campbell's writing style, especially when it drifted into hallucinogenic territory. Right in the beginning, Clare sees a line of babies walking along a rooftop, but when she looks back at them they have turned into cats. I've heard this style become even more pronounced in some of his later novels (which might also explain his admiration for David Lynch. Note to self: Do an Eraserhead review), and writing horror that drifts in and out of the realm of dreams and nightmares is, in my opinion, a noble pursuit.

It is not a difficult read to get through, sitting comfortably at 280 pages in small paperback. I am eager to read more of Campbell, though I'll probably indulge in his short fiction before picking up one of his novels again for no reason other than his short fiction has been so widely praised. It is definitely not the genre-shaker that King suggested it might be, but it is a worthwhile and enjoyable read.

3.5 out of 5 (though I only paid $2.50 for it at the book fair)

Book review: The Fog by James Herbert

Published: 1975

Synopsis: The peaceful life of a village in Wiltshire is suddenly shattered by a disaster which strikes witout reason or explanation, leaving behind it a train of misery and horror. A yawning, bottomless crack spreads through the earth, out of which creeps a fog that resembles no other. Whatever it is, it must be controlled; for whereever it goes it leaves behind a trail of disaster as hideous as the tragedy that marked its entry into the world. The fog, quite simply, drives people insane.

My Thoughts: A couple of weeks ago, armed with a copy of Stephen King's Danse Macabre, Tom and I made our way through the maze that is the Brisbane Bookfest looking for some classic, quality horror to add to our collection. This classic James Herbert book was on Stephen's huge index of must-reads, and we certainly weren't going to question the King's recommendation or turn away from the $2 price tag.

The Fog isn't quite what I thought it was going to be. The book starts off with an earthquake that not only decimates half a small town, but releases the deadly fog that will become, in a way, the antagonist in the story. The next few chapters montage a collection of different people's interaction with the fog and their subsequent reaction to it. Though the fog will cause insanity in anyone who comes into contact with it, the way that insanity manifests is almost never the same. Common seems to be a desire to harm yourself and others, but it seems that depending on your personal morals and personality, the perverseness and method you choose alters greatly. So when a priest goes mad he exposes his penis to his congregation, while a scorned poacher draws and quarters the man who'd had him arrested and the man's family. As the fog moves across England, these interactions are scattered through the main story, and I have to say these were easily my favourite bits. These vignettes held some of the most poignant interactions and emotions in the entire book, and to see these people progress from their daily life to spiralling into insanity was, in some cases, absolutely heartbreaking. Herbert certainly has a talent for creating, within a paragraph or two, an entire life for someone, and then decimating them in equal space. They rarely live on in the pages after their insanity sets in, but their role in the story is a heavy one, without them the main story wouldn't have the force it needs to impact the reader.

John Holman is the central character of the book and the first victim of the fog. Thanks to a blood transfusion for injuries he sustained in the earthquake, he not only recovered from the fog's insanity but became immune to it. Because of this he finds himself the most important man in England, and is soon working alongside the government to try and work out where it originated, what it is, and how they can stop it. Not only is the state of the country, or even the world at stake, but John's girlfriend Casey soon falls victim to the fog and it's up to him to try and fix things. While the smaller character vignettes are more traditionally horror (some of the scenes are pretty perverse and graphically violent) the main story featuring John soon falls into a more thriller/action story. It's a war story, but instead of being pitted against the Russians, or Middle Eastern forces, or the Chinese, their enemy is a yellowish dense fog that's drifting across the English countryside. So at the same time as being fairly conventional, it's completely unconventional, but the fresh and unique view usually dominates any expected reactions/actions/plot points.

If it wasn't for the fog victim's small stories I possibly would have found myself bored with this book. The writing was, for the most part, really tight and interesting, and the characters, dialogue and situations were well crafted, but I don't often enjoy sitting down and reading an action novel. Those small chapters of horrific content, and diverse characters were enough to pique my interest, but if you aren't a fan of the more action driven novel, then perhaps this won't be the book for you. The only other detractor in the story, for me, was the handling of homosexual characters. There were two, a female and a male, and both were featured within the small character vignettes, and both stories made me feel a little uncomfortable. Both tales focus on how unnatural or deviant their sexual interests are, the man (a teacher) is painted as some deviant sexual predator thanks to the old "gay men shouldn't be around children because liking dudes is totally the same as liking children" bullshit, and the lesbian, though her love story is touching, is driven to suicide because her girlfriend decides to "become normal" and turns her back on her shameful past. Is James Herbert homophobic? No, I doubt it. But the fact of the matter is, the only two gay characters in the book are painted as awkward, deviant, wrong and shameful, and whether that's because of the time that the book was written or because of the author's personal beliefs, it made me feel icky. But perhaps that's just me reading too much into a situation, or maybe I'm just overly sensitive about those issues. It wasn't enough for me to avoid recommending the book, but it was enough that I felt like I had to mention it.

There are a lot of things great about this novel, the atmosphere, the concept, the small character pieces, the relationship between John and his girlfriend, but there are also some negatives. This was James Herbert's second novel, and I think that shows, but it is also clear why this novel became such a classic and is admired by so many. So unless the addition of political/military action is enough to turn you away, I think this is a book that all horror literature enthusiasts should read and would enjoy.

3.5/5 miles of sickly yellow fog.

Academic mini-reviews - Zombies!

I spent 2011 researching and writing an honours thesis on the changing representation of the zombie in western films, so as you can imagine I read quite a few of the books on zombies available. Here are just a few of the books I read which helped formulate my research plan and provided hours of interesting philosophical, cinematic, and metaphorical debate on the subject.

Gospel of the Living Dead by Kim Paffenroth

my rating: 4/5

This book was an incredible look into the deconstruction of Romero's zombie 'Dead' series through a religious lens. Paffenroth's use of theological beliefs and theories in conjunction with zombie depiction provided an interesting and informative glimpse into modern America and commented on several aspects of today's society and religion. Bonus points were given for working Dante into the analysis.

The Book of the Dead by Jamie Russel

My rating: 5/5

A fantastically detailed look at the evolution of the zombie from its Haitian origins up to its most recent cinematic features. Jamie Russell distances himself enough to talk about the movies in terms of their technical and critical successes and favours, rather than simply talking about the ones he enjoyed the most, which I've found many other zombie film critics to do. As a student doing my thesis on zombies in film this book was indispensable, but it's interesting and entertaining enough to be read by a zombie enthusiast also. Chock full of film reviews and colour pictures of their release posters and film stills too.

The Cinema of George A. Romero: Knight of the Living Dead By Tony Williams

My rating: 3.5/5

This book examined Romero's film cannon (not simply his zombie films) with a concentration on the link between his work and literary naturalism, which was a lens I hadn't seen used in conjunction with zombies before. While the analysis on some of the films felt lacking and seemed more like a regurgitation of the events of the films, overall it was a comprehensive, unique and interesting view on Romero's style of film-making.

Film Review: Henry, Portrait of a serial killer (1986)

Directed by: John McNaughton

Starring: Michael Rooker
Tracey Arnold
Tom Towles

Synopsis: Based on the life and killings of Henry Lee Lucas famed American serial killer who now resides on death row in Texas. Its always the quiet ones. How many time have we heard this phrase used to describe a killer? Too often. Henry is the boy next door who just can't get the taste for murder out of his mouth. It all started when he was an abused child.

My thoughts: Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer is one of those films I think any horror/thriller enthusiast is expected to watch. Kind of like Night of the Living Dead, Silence of the Lambs and The Thing.  It just so happened that neither Tom nor I had gotten around to seeing this one, so we decided to finally cross this one of the list.

From the very first minute you're witness to the brutality of Henry, with a montage of 5 murder victims laying prone in the various surroundings while the sounds of their murders play over the top. The worst, perhaps, is the woman sitting half naked on a toilet with a bottle wedged deep into her eye. Though you only see the after-effects of the attacks, their screams for help and the squealchy or thunking sounds of attack were probably the most traumatic aspect of the film for me. The scene lasted so long, that Tom even asked me if this was going to be the entire film, and I have to say, if it was, I probably wouldn't have lasted longer than 15 minutes. Not because it would be slow/boring, but because I think it'd probably haunt me a lot more than actually seeing a man attack other people. I think there's something about savage amounts of gore or violence in film that makes it impossible to see it realistically, this opening scene however, doesn't let you escape the reality of a serial killer.

Though you do eventually see Henry actually kill people in the film, this motif of the sounds of the attack played over their image is repeated several times through the film, always inspiring the same reaction from me. I'd say this is the most successful aspect of the film, and probably one of the reasons the film has gone down as such a "must see" classic. The other factor in its success has to be Michael Rooker's performance, and the character of Henry himself. As the film moves from ghastly murder, to lunch at a dinner, to a quiet evening dinner with his housemate (and soon to be accomplice) Otis and Otis's sister (Becky), to murdering a man over a TV, Henry switches between quiet guy next door who is police and respectful to an apathetic brutal serial killer. This is one of the comments that always comes up when a serial killer is finally caught, so many friends/family/acquaintances say "but he's so charming" or "he's quiet but he was always so polite and helpful". Henry perfectly demonstrated how smoothly a man (or woman, no bias here!) can move between their two personas effortlessly and become all the more dangerous because of it.

So the basic premise of the movie is that it focuses on Henry and his relationship between Otis and Becky. Becky has just flown in after escaping from her psycho husband, and while she looks for work takes the spare room at Otis and Henry's home. While Becky bonds with Henry over their shared experiences of abuse at the hands of their parents, she experiences the "good" side of Henry, with him often coming to her defence when her brother makes sleazy passes at her. Otis, on the other hand, gets to meet the serial killer side, and quickly takes up the occupation for himself. Though Henry is the focus of the film, personally I found Otis far more disturbing. He's aggressive and perverse and he has no control over himself. While Henry is creepy because of his removed view of life as a serial killer (it's almost like it's a job to him), Otis is unable to stop himself once he gets going, and on more than occassion Henry has to discipline him like he's some kind of animal.

While I found the premise and the psychology behind this film fascinating, it fell short for me. Other than Rooker, the actors playing Otis and Becky were less than stellar. Both seemed new to the game and often had that focused look on their face when they recited a significant chunk of lines. The transparency of the acting definitely removed much of the atmosphere for me and was the greatest let down. Other than the acting I'm not really sure I can provide a reason for why this film let me down a little. Perhaps it's because there have been some incredible serial killer films released since, or maybe it's simply a little dated now, but I finished the movie feeling a little "meh" about the whole thing. This seems to be the opposite reaction to quite a few of the reviews on IMDB, but for me it was just...lacking.

While there was a serial killer named Henry Lee Lucas who did have an accomplice named Otis who had a relative (a cousin) named Becky, a quick google search suggests that much of this movie seems to be fabricated. That isn't a big issue for me, but for those of you who enjoy films that closely follow the lives of serial killers this may just be a deal breaker. Regardless, you probably should see this film, because it definitely has its place in horror/thriller film cannon, but be prepared to be a little underwhelmed.

3 out of 5 blood stained suitcases.

Happy 24th Birthday Tom!