Supernatural Fiction Readers discussion

The late James Herbert (1943-2013) became the number one bestselling novelist in the U.K. with the publication of his first book, The Rats, in 1974; and he held that position throughout a decades-long career that saw the publication of some 23 books. All of his fiction focuses on the uncanny and supernatural. Haunted, published in 1988, is his 14th novel, and introduces the character of paranormal investigator David Ash, who appears in two later novels as well.

This will be our thread for discussion of this month's common read of Haunted (and any continuing discussion thereafter). So have at it (and remember to use spoiler tags where they're needed!). :-)

Thanks for the bio, Werner. I'm looking forward to the discussion!

Looking forward to it too, Deb! I expect to start reading the book a few days late, in order to finish the one I'm reading now; but since Haunted is relatively short, I know I'll easily finish it during this month.

I guess I'll start the discussion.

As a writer myself, a couple of questions pop up right away. First, how do the members of our group feel about prologues? There's been much debate by authors, readers, and agents about whether novels should include them. (I happen to like prologues myself.) For me, the prologue of Haunted (and it's interesting that the author doesn't call it a prologue even though the next chapter is called Chapter One) sets up the emotional wound that David will carry into adulthood. So, do you like the prologue and/or prologues in general? Another debated topic is the use of present tense. Any thoughts on a present-tense opening?

What does everyone think of David as a person? How do you feel about the author's choice to make him a character with a clear alcohol problem?

IMO, it's up to the author whether or not a novel needs to begin with a prologue; it depends on what purpose the prologue is going to serve in the overall structure of the whole work. In the only novel I've ever finished writing, I didn't use a prologue, because there was no need for one. In my novel in progress, I do include one, which provides essential information for the set-up of the situation. (And it's worth noting that, in some novels that don't have a beginning labeled "prologue," the first chapter is logically distinct enough from the following narrative that it actually is a prologue without using the term.)

For me, the same thing applies to present-tense narration; it's a judgment call for the writer as to what best fits the needs of a particular narrative. We usually think of past-tense narration as the "normal" mode; in that frame of reference, use of the present tense imparts a special, "you-are-there" immediacy. (I used to think I wouldn't like present-tense narration and that it would come across as awkward and gimmicky; but I've found that it doesn't.)

Here, I think both devices work very well. To me, this prologue was very intense and gripping; and it provides a crucial insight into the character that couldn't be given to us in any other way. The use of the present-tense narration there greatly heightens the intensity, making us move right along with David, experiencing exactly what he does. (And the author underscores the unique nature of this powerful experience by reverting to third person in Chapter 1.)

An unlikable or even evil protagonist is generally a deal breaker for me in fiction (though there are exceptions that test the rule). But I don't find David unlikable so much as flawed, which isn't the same thing. And he's flawed in understandable ways, that grow out of his internal conflict between a rigid rationality that he cultivates vs. a repressed awareness of a beyond-rational dimension to reality. (That conflict, of course, is Herbert's theme here, and the key to his message.) David's drinking is a symptom of this (and it would be strange and unrealistic if he didn't exhibit some human symptoms and coping mechanisms for internal stress). Like his friends, we deplore his drinking and want him to stop it, but we don't (or at least I don't) despise him and view him with contempt for it. That's just my personal take on these questions!

I so agree about the deal breaker evil protagonist. I just stopped reading a mystery that interested me because the pro was sarcastic in ways the author probably thought was funny, but to me felt hurtful. I'm down with flawed, though. I love Emma Woodhouse even though Jane Austen said she was probably the only person why could like her.

I also like the prologue for the mood it creates as well as the way it sets up David's vulnerability. The prologue also highlights his curiosity and determination. I think if I woke up in the middle of the night as he did, I would bury my head in the quilt rather than investigate as he did. I guess an investigator was born that night. Then, too, the author has established story questions. Who is the sister exactly? What happened to her? When will we find out? So, I would say the prologue does a lot of work in preparing the reader for the story to come.

I believe the movie also started with the prologue. (I first came across the movie before I knew there was a book.)

I've never seen the movie adaptation myself! When a person has experienced both a book and a movie version, though (in either order), it can be fascinating to compare and contrast them.

By now, I'm into Chapter 30, and expect to finish the book on Monday. I'll plan to review it the following Friday.

One Goodreads reviewer characterized the book as "predictable." Perhaps I'm showing my relative lack of familiarity with haunted-house fiction per se; but I definitely did NOT find this story-line anything resembling predictable. The plot twists like a pretzel in a way that I didn't expect going in, nor even after reading a good ways into the text. Personally, I found the development unique, and highly effective. What do the rest of you think?

Another reviewer essentially took the position that, since Shirley Jackson already wrote the definitive ultimate culmination of haunted-house fiction in The Haunting of Hill House (which we also read as a group common read some years ago), any further exploration of the theme in fiction is basically pointless. Having read the Jackson book and having nearly finished this one, I disagree completely. IMO, the two treatments of the motif are nothing alike; Herbert's is not a stale rehash of the older book. (In general, I'm skeptical of any claim that ANY author can so completely exhaust the range of innovative possibilities for any motif or sub-genre that forever after no other writer should touch it. I would say there are as many possibilities for innovations and different literary visions in any motif or sub-genre as there are writers to write them.) Does anyone else have any thoughts about this?

You can watch the movie for free here if you'd like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ozUc...

Thanks for sharing the link, Alex!

Werner wrote: "By now, I'm into Chapter 30, and expect to finish the book on Monday. I'll plan to review it the following Friday.

One Goodreads reviewer characterized the book as "predictable." Perhaps I'm showi..."

I'm with you, Werner, on both counts. I do not see how anyone would characterize Haunted as predictable...and that goes for the movie as well, which follows the book fairly closely except for trimming much of the Institute plotline. I especially take exception to the notion that since we have The Haunting of Hill House, we need no more haunted house books. That's like saying after Lassie Come Home, we're done with dog novels. Not!

Sounds like you really enjoyed Haunted. Are you planning on reading The Ghosts of Sleath? It's a real page-turner (even more than Haunted), but the climax was a little violent for me.

Deb, I definitely did enjoy Haunted! I'm still debating the question of the star rating, but it'll be in the high range.

Right now, my to-read shelf has 399 books (I'm trying to make 400 the new impregnable Maginot Line, beyond which nothing shall be allowed to penetrate --but past performance doesn't guarantee I'll have much luck with that!). I'm also juggling some 17 series already (not counting those I'm up to date with). So I'm not readily inclined to commit to reading a whole trilogy at this time. (But if I'd see The Ghosts Of Sleath at a yard sale, who knows what may happen? :-) )

If anyone's interested, here's my review of Haunted, posted last night: www.goodreads.com/review/show/1408627539 . I wound up giving it four stars.

Werner wrote: "Deb, I definitely did enjoy Haunted! I'm still debating the question of the star rating, but it'll be in the high range.

Right now, my to-read shelf has 399 books (I'm trying to make 400 the new i..."

Yikies! 399 books! I think I'd have nightmares of menacing books fighting above my head.

If you do end up reading Ghosts Of Sleath, I'll be very interested to hear what you think. I'm glad you liked Haunted. I'll find a spare moment in the next day or so to read your review.

Cheers.

Cheers to you too, Deb! (Compared to some of my Goodreads friends, my TBR shelf isn't that daunting. One friend has 14,980 books on hers --no, I didn't make that up. :-) )

Is anybody besides Deb and I taking part in this read? It's perfectly okay to read the book and follow the discussion without commenting, if you don't have anything you want to say; I'm just curious! (Okay, we could say "nosy." But "curious" sounds nicer. :-) )

I read it years ago and a few times since - the movie starring Aiden Quinn does not do it justice. But I am reading House of Dead Trees right now and it is amazing so I cannot join y'all for this one. Sorry. :)

No problem, J.C.; that's why all of our common reads are voluntary! Since you've already read it (more than once), though, you can feel free to chime in on the discussion whenever you want to, even if you aren't reading it right at this moment.

Hi Werner,
Really enjoyed your review. I think we had a similar take on David's complex character and the relevance of this novel. For me, though, some of the inserted flashbacks interrupted the narrative flow. But I loved the atmosphere of the haunted mansion and the careful layering of suspense. Here's my review: http://bit.ly/1MkH1v8

Thanks for hosting another great read!

You're welcome, Deb! Glad you liked my review.

Do you have a link to your Goodreads review of this book, so I can officially "like" it? (I already read it at the link above, and like it unofficially. :-) )

Hi Werner,

I didn't post my Haunted review to Goodreads as I usually would because I'm including it in a ghost novel review anthology I will be publishing soon. Since Goodreads was bought by Amazon, I assume Goodreads now owns reviews just as Amazon does. Am I wrong about that?

Deb, sorry I didn't reply to your question sooner! I was recently offline (for the most part) for over two weeks while we had family visiting from Australia, and I'm only now gradually working through the mountain of Goodreads notices in my inbox. :-(

Your question is a good one, but I'm not a lawyer and can't answer it definitively. I don't know whether Goodreads or Amazon claim to "own" reviews people post there (though considering the source, that kind of claim wouldn't surprise me).

That said, my understanding of U.S. cpyright law is that the author of any work (such as a review) owns the copyright interest in that review, though he/she may sell or delegate it. An Internet site may allow you to post the work there, but they don't magically acquire ownership of it by doing so, any more than a magazine would if you posted it there. (I don't know that U.S. courts would necesaarily enforce the written law on behalf of an ordinary person against a claim by a deep-pocketed corporation, but that's another question.) I've allowed one of my Goodreads reviews to be reprinted in a print periodical, and I know that one Goodreader (Manny) has self-published an anthology of his Goodreads reviews. To my knowledge, Goodreads/Amazon has never raised any assertion of their own "ownership" in either case. (Don't know if this helps, but I hope it does!)

Wow! Thank you so much, Werner, for your answer. That makes me feel more confidant. I had been starting to remove reviews but now I think I won't. And I went ahead ahead and put up the Haunted review: http://bit.ly/1QsyU09.

By the way, I read a compelling book that made me think of you--not supernatural, but one of the pov characters was named Werner. It's the Pulitzer winner All The Light We Cannot See. Have you read it?

No, Deb, I haven't read that one, though I've heard of it, and read reviews. That character is supposed to be German; and although it's a very uncommon name in this country, Werner is a fairly common first name in Germany and the Scandinavian countries. (I'm of Swedish stock --born in Minnesota, where such names are a bit more common, and named after my father, Eric Werner.) It comes from the old proto-Germanic tongue, and (freely translated) means "defending warrior." :-)

Just finished "liking" your review; glad you posted it!