Fiends - John Farris (Novel)

I'll be honest with you, dear reader, I'm having trouble starting this review. I'm tempted to tell you everything I know about Mr. Farris as a way to set the stage for my conflicting feelings about him, but as I began the task I realized that he's a difficult man to write about.

He's in his late seventies now, presumably not dead, although his Wikipedia page is rather unhelpful. If you were to go to a used bookstore right now and thumb to the "Also By John Farris" page near the front of whichever of his books you may find banished in the basement you might be lead to believe that his first novel was a shortish thriller/horror called "All Heads Turn When the Hunt Goes By" published in 1977. That would seem to make sense. His books would appear to fit nicely in the Horror genre, and a shortish novel is par for the course for an author's first book. There's just a small problem with that, though: by 1977 John Farris was already an established author, known for his Southern Gothic novels. His work actually spans back to the mid-fifties, having finished his first novel, Harrison High, (a fairly massive work tackling the then fledgling issue of crime committed by middle-class American youth) at the ripe old age of eighteen.

I guess what I'm trying to say--or at least cleverly illustrate--is that there's more to the professional Farris than a quick perusal of his work on the shelf will show. I could go on--oh, believe me I could--and tell you all about his various impacts in the industry (Stephen King practically wanted to be this guy when he grew up), but I think for my purposes that is enough. Obviously, reading a book or books by any given author is not enough to really "know them," but a reader will at least get a sense of the writer through their work. We understand a little bit about how they see the world, where injustice, excitement, and triumph lie on their personal maps, but with Farris I'm confused. One moment he seems filled with humanity, a great love for people, perhaps even a trust in people, the next moment he throws down a block of gory, detached, almost hateful prose as the characters we have grown to care for are torn apart without even the faintest feeling of sadness. On this page his politics seem conservative and rural, the next he is as liberal as a lesbian abortion specialist. Consider two passages, both from novels by Farris:

"That was a good summation you made at the school, Amy. You put together what we knew, and what we suspected, and what we hoped was true, you put it all together beautifully and it sounded good. But it wasn't the whole truth, because the truth is even more grotesque. We have to let it out though, Amy. We have to let it breath."

Do you hear the power of his writing? The simplicity and honesty of it? Now, the same man wrote this. The girl in the passage is fifteen, the man is in his thirties. They have never met before, but he knows who she is and is there to rescue her. She is wearing a hospital gown, so she is all but nude:

"[She] struck at him, then flinched when he brought his hand back. He kissed her instead, tenderly and with as much lust as he thought she might be familiar with at her age. [She] found this new approach confusing, shocking and indefensible, and as she grew slack in his arms gradually the kiss became a comfort to her. With his own eyes closed [He] readily lost awareness of her youth; the snug pressure of her uncovered c*** against his body was mature enough, even insinuating."

Ummm, what? Really? Really? That's how he's deciding to deal with this scene? Confusing to say the least.  Perhaps most jarring is his polar interest in literature and spectacle. What does he want these books to be? Page-turners? Allegories? Transcendent compositions? I'm really not sure. Some of the books are transcendent (and we'll get to one of those in a moment), but others...others seem only to exist as vehicles for action and weird ideas.

I realize The Fury was a big hit when it came out, but against his other books I'm happy to see the romp disintegrate into the past. It is a book I read then promplty disposed of mentally. It didn't touch me. It didn't even seem to try. I'm confused by its success, where so many other books of his are largely unknown.

I have no right saying this, as I know the man not at all, but I feel like even he does not have a clear vision of what he's trying to achieve. In this, I think, he is not so much an artist as a creator. There's certainly a connection between the two, but the difference (at least for my uses now) is that the creator creates in order to create, whereas the artist creates in order to have great art. Are his books great art? Yes, at least some of them. Is that the point? Maybe not.

This is much better than the cover of the version I have.

This brings us to one that was great: Fiends. The worst thing about it, regrettably, is the melodramatic title, but I guess that comes with the territory. As I read Fiends I was touched. Not just by the plight of the characters, though I was drawn in completely by them, by also by the possibility the art itself presents. This is art. Real art. Perfect as Horror, but equally compelling as pure fiction. Fiends is not about anything you typically find in a horror story, but there is a familiar sense to the creatures here. The huldufólk are from Icelandic myth, and are--as presented here--terrifying. 

This is an usual book. I've read a few reviews of it in which readers were disappointed, having expected something else. I'll tell you what you should expect going in to Farris' Fiends: nothing. Take the high road in your reading for this one. View it as a performance of writing and story-telling more than as some kind of packaged plot. Let our protagonist, the overweight, confident, and strong-willed Marjory, take you into her private self and through her nightmare journey beginning with the kindly--if confused--old man, Art.

This is a book to take in slowly, thoughtfully. That's not to say it isn't exciting or that it doesn't beg you to turn the next page, because it does. What I'm saying is that there is something here beyond the typical. Beyond trying to scare you or excite you or turn you on. I know I have a tendency to exaggerate the quality to work reviewed here, but I'm not going to apologize or even try to correct it when I say that I can't find the words to describe what I find so brilliant about this book. It is, to me, a secret gem buried in-between the passages. I only hope by giving instructions for reading that what I found in it will also reveal itself to you.

My final word to you on this is one I've expressed before: many of the best works ever created are not about what happens next.

-MA 07.08.2013

PS - And yes, I know I've talked about Farris before on this blog, but I chose not to refer to it as I've expanded my knowledge and feelings about his since then, and I feel that my review of Endless Night was inadequate to say the least.

Bag of Bones - King (Novel)

Those of you who know me may have wondered why Mr. King hasn't shown up on the blog yet. After all, I've read over twenty Steven King novels and enjoyed most of them immensely. I consider some of them to be among the best books I've ever read. What then, is the reason for my hesitation? There are actually several factors which have withheld me, and I think they are worth mentioning before continuing on.

King in 2012

The first is the challenge of selecting one. I could probably write a review that would excite and interest me (and hopefully others) about most of his works, but in the end the decision was maybe not as hard as I was making it; hint: I just chose my favorite.

The second roadblock to this review, or really anything by SK that isn't "The Eyes of the Dragon", is the level of vulgarity employed in the writing. I can understand the argument opposing mine, that it is not immoral to use vulgarity or profanity in the name of realism or even interest. I'm not going to try to dissuade anyone from that belief or put forward any guidelines for appropriateness; I'm a writer myself, and I know that some of what I write and consider within perfectly reasonable limits others might find disturbing or excessive or wrong in some way, so I will wisely leave those kinds of decisions up to the reader. However, I do want to offer a little food for thought: vulgarity is supposed to have an effect of some kind, am I right? There is supposed to be some purpose to it. Then what is the point of having virtually every protagonist, antagonist, and side character use profane and vulgar language as frequently as King does? It isn't realistic, for not every person uses strong language in their day-to-day life; it isn't effective, for the effect of the language is dulled and lost from overuse.

Okay, now that I've got that out of my system, I'd like to move on to the review itself without regard to what may or may not be considered appropriate in the book. Just be aware that there is a certain level of mature content in the book, which no one will stop you from blacking out if you so choose. Although some might make fun of you, and your local library might not appreciate it.

The superior cover of the book,
since later versions have pictures
from the TV adaptation. Ick!

As stated above, Bag of Bones is my favorite book by Stephen King. It is not, however, the one I found most frightening. Technically, it is a horror novel, and yes, it's scary, but King made a concerted effort with this book to do more*. I believe he has tried to do that throughout his career, with varying degrees of success, but with this novel he struck a beautiful balance between horror and heartfelt memoir. The book opens with a sterile, sad scene. We are quickly drawn into the sorrows and problems of protagonist Mike Noonan. Like many of King's leading men, Noonan is a writer of fiction. He has suffered a terrible blow in his life which summons him into a bizarre mystery. He finds himself shortly in his vacation home in a small town where the majority of the novel takes place. The story then begins to unfold in unexpected and terrifying ways. I won't go too deeply into plot-points, as discovering them yourself is much more rewarding, but it suffices me to say that the reader does not envy Mike, and it can be both instructive and chilling to put yourself in his position as you read. What might you do in his situation? How would you react to the ringing of Bunter's bell?

It is a complex tale, woven together with many different characters, beliefs, scenes, and dreams, but the complexity is kept in check with the simple first person narrative style. King has a penchant for large casts, some of his more epic novels have literally dozens of main characters, all of which get their own page time for primary POV, and that often works for him. Here, however, he sees the value in the personal. We stay with Mike throughout his story. There are other characters of interest, of course, but their desires are secondary to us. We like Mike. We watch Mike. We feel Mike.

It's not all great. Like any work, it has its failings. Not the least of which being how some of the necessary connections feel unavailable and forced, as well as some scenes not really focusing where the reader's interests are, but we overlook them.

Adventure, romance, terror, and emotion are all on wide display, but through the believable, quickly familiar lens of Mike Noonan. Here, it is the balance of genre as much as the writing itself that impresses and enthralls the reader. Here is a melancholy and beautiful story, relatable and harrowing; here is a bag of bones.

MA 2.4.2013

* I think it's important here to note that I do not have anything against "pure" horror. In fact, I'm not a fan of down-looking at genre fiction in general. I do not think that labeling something as "horror", "fantasy", or even the dubious "romance" means that it will not be good fiction or even good literature, it just so happens that many genre fiction titles are basically trash. The good ones, however, are not guilty by association. Bag of Bones has taken another road--and good for it--but there are many acceptable roads.