Thoughts on Nate Kenyon’s “Sparrow Rock”
I just finished reading Nate Kenyon's latest novel, Sparrow Rock, a story of a group of high school kids who find themselves trapped in a bomb shelter by accident just as the end of the world arrives. Reads the official synopsis from Nate's site.
The novel has received excellent reviews at multiple sites, and I think the praise is well-deserved. Kenyon has produced a fast-paced, engaging tale of survival. This is the second book I've read by Kenyon. I read Bloodstone some months back as a sample of a first novel, but have yet to get to a post on it. I thought it an excellent tale as well, and I will keep his work at the top of my list from here on out.
Spoilers ahead! If you haven't read the book, you might want to read this later.
What I found most interesting about Sparrow Rock was Kenyon's choice of point of view. The tale is told in first person, and while it's not all that rare, I wondered immediately why Kenyon made that choice. And about half-way through, I reached an "ah-ha" moment.
Pete, the main and POV character, is trapped with his friends, but there's one friend he's particularly close to: Tessa. Pete killed his abuse father years earlier (yes, the guy deserved it) and Tessa helped him recover his sanity after the incident. Summing it up like that, I'm sure you can guess why Nate choose first-person. Tessa is a figment of Pete's imagination, and to have told the story any other way would have ruined her part in the tale.
I'm not a big fan of alternate personalities in stories. It think it can and has been done well--King's The Dark Half, where you know pretty much from the get-go. But I also think it's an over-used device across the board--movies, TV, books. But here, Kenyon pulls it off and in such a way that it adds value to the story without feeling trite or cliché. A big part of my turn-off to the alternate personality is that too often the reader is kept in the dark until the end, where the big reveal relies on reader surprise to "It was me all along!" The story hinges on the fact that the reader doesn't know until just the right moment, and if the reader knows too soon, the gig is up and the book gets put down or the TV gets turned off. Blech. Enough already.
However, Sparrow Rock doesn't hinge on this. Tessa is an intricate part of how Pete behaves, but she is not a key part of why he survives. And she definitely played no part in the events that lead up to the apocalypse. She's just an aspect of his character hewn from the trauma of killing his father. She's a part of what makes him interesting, a key to his internal conflict.
I recall the exact moment I realized she was imaginary. The kids all vacate the shelter's bedroom when they discover a huge mosquito that had been feeding on one of them (disgusting and awesome!). They run into the shelter's dining area and lock the door, and Pete realizes that Tessa is missing. He busts back into the bedroom, kills the mosquito, only to see Tessa standing behind the other kids in the dining area. In that moment, I realized that only Pete ever spoke to Tessa. None of the other characters ever acknowledged her presence, but they did respond to Pete at times as if he'd lost his mind, usually just after he had spoken to Tessa.
Pete acknowledges later in the narrative that she's imaginary, and part of his coming to grips with killing his father is to abandon her as a support system. She helps him survive, she's harmless to the others (in fact, early on Pete talks about how she helped change bandages on one of the other kids), and she helps the reader understand just how broken he is. I think, in the end, Pete's survival is all the more merited because he's not only fought the crazy, postapocalyptic bugs, but because he's had to work though an issue he had resigned to living with long before the story starts.
I highly recommend this book to anyone looking for postapocalyptic horror. I can't wait to read more of Kenyon's work. He's definitely earned my respect as a writer.
Why Character Matters
I just finished reading Edward Lee's The Golem. This is my first encounter with any of Edward Lee's work. I believe every author should have two chances, so Ed Lee has one left. To me, the book read like a first draft, but I'll get to that.
We don't see the golem used much in popular fiction. I can only recall one instance where I've seen it used--an old episode of the X-Files called Kaddish. Lee brings the reader a modern version of an old Jewish folk tale based on Judah Loew, a 16th century rabbi who created a golem to defend a Prague ghetto from anti-Semitic attacks. Lee brings the folktale to life with vibrant rituals and an exploration of a dark sect of Kabbalah based on Kischuph. The story revolves around the small town of Lowensport, Maryland. In 1880, a group of Jewish refugees from Prague, led by the evil rabbi Gavriel Loew, construct two golems to defend themselves from the attack of the Conner clan, a local group of settlers lead by an ex-military deserter. The story is told in parallel with the present-day tale of Seth Kohn and his girlfriend Judy, who move into the old Lowen mansion and find themselves in the middle of a plan by Gavriel's great-great-great grandson to resurrect Gavriel as a golem and--you guessed it--take over the world, or at least small part of it.
I think the book presents an interesting bit of folklore, but aside from that, I didn't find much appealing here. I don't know if this work is representative of Mr. Lee's style (I'll have to read another to decide), but I had difficulty in getting into the book because of the language. The book is riddled with adverbs, which isn't necessarily a problem in and of itself but Lee uses them to such an extent that I found myself struggling to visualize much of anything in the book. For instance, twice in the work Lee uses the word 'paranoically' to describe two different characters.
"Of course!" But then [Judy] looked paranoically behind her. (pg. 24)
And
Czanek looked paranoically over his shoulder again. (pg. 52)
In both instances, Lee provides the action (the showing)--both characters look over their shoulder. The reader sees what the characters are doing and the context provides the tension. What does the word 'paranoically' bring to the reader? The reader is bumped from the story with such an awkward word. These are two instances, but they are representative of the work's style. I found myself jostled from the story with almost every turn of the page. This is what made the book feel like a first draft. I think the language could have been cleaned up and more appropriate description put in to help draw the reader deep into the story.
In addition to the language, I struggled with some key things Lee chose to focus on in the story. The reader gets two pages describing the video game Seth wrote and sold to make his millions, but the game itself has very little to do with the storyline. The reader also gets a lot of time spent on Switchgrass, the local cash crop, but again, other than providing a setting for characters to hide in, the Switchgrass and its use as a biofuel has little to do with the story. Whats more, the way the reader finds out many of these details was bothersome. Judy, being an ex-college professor, seems to know a bit about everything. Whenever the reader needs an explanation, or even when the reader doesn't, Judy pipes up to give details. Yet, when she's walking through the Switchgrass, the reader gets a strange gap in her knowledge:
Watch for snakes, she recalled the remarks of the man from the state. This new path was barely shoulder width. Did ticks live in switchgrass? No, she didn't think so. (pg. 194)
We get pages of infodump from this character, but when it comes to something as trivial as ticks, she seems at a loss.
So, style aside, is there a good story here? It's interesting in terms of the ritual and folklore of the golem, but I found myself struggling to care about what happened to any of these characters.
First, the 1880 story centers around a group of black-magic Jewish refugees (evil guys) locked in a struggle the Conner clan, with a group of local settlers led by an ex-military deserter and his cohorts (evil). I found neither side appealing, so I had no one to root for. Both sides wind up wiping each other out, leaving a single golem. I found nothing redeeming in the people on either side of this conflict. I initially had some sympathy for the Jewish refugees until it became clear that they were ousted by their own people in Prague because of their adherence to Kischuph. So while there's some satisfaction in having a bunch of bad guys kill each other, there's no one left at the end that I cared about.
The present-day story centers on Seth Kohn and his girlfriend Judy. Seth is a game designer lost his wife two years earlier and struggled through a bout of alcoholism. His girlfriend is an ex-college professor who struggled with crack addiction. They met in rehab. But when the story opens, both have recovered, Seth has made millions on his video game, and they buy Seth's dream home near Lowensport, Maryland. These people have everything, so I also had trouble sympathizing with either of them. During the course of the story, Judy falls off the wagon and gets raped several times by local drug dealers as part of the plot to recover Gavriel Lowen's head from the mansion, but by the time this all happens I, as a reader, have already disconnected from her as a character.
Compare these two with the main characters in Nate Kenyon's novel Bloodstone. Billy Smith is an ex-convict, guilty of drunk driving and manslaughter. Billy is paired with Gloria Johnson, a heroin addict and hooker. These are sympathetic characters at low points in their lives, victims of circumstance to a degree. The reader cares about Billy, who has done his time but still lives burdened by the guilt of his crime. The reader cares about Gloria, a victim of drug addiction who, at the start of the story, is near the end of her rope. We cheer them on, we want them to get better.
Overall, I think The Golem provides little in the way of a good writing or good story telling. But I have to admit, if this book is ever made into a move, I will watch it. I think there are some visually stunning scenes: the Kischuph ritual of golemancy, the dynamiting of the mill, and of course the murderous mayhem inflicted by the golems. I have a deep love for horror movies, and I'm much more forgiving of story in exchange for the visual appeal.
I look forward to giving Lee's work another chance. If you have suggestions of what is representative of Lee's writing, post a comment. I'd love to hear from you!
One Helluva Ghost Story
I just finished reading Tom Piccirilli's A Choir of Ill Children--for the second time. I read it back in February and decided that to do it any justice, I needed to set it aside and reread it. It's not an overly complex book, but I'm not used to the Southern style. The last book I read that felt stylistically similar was Faulkner's As I Lay Dying--over fifteen years ago.
The first thing that I noticed is the uniqueness of every character. I was familiar with the book prior to reading it, and had an admittedly biased expectation that at least some of the characters would be backwater rednecks. Piccirilli, however, invests each character with a distinct personality that I don't believe fit any stereotypes. Further, I expected at least some of the dialog to have poor diction. Again, I was totally wrong. Most of the dialog uses good diction--Piccirilli makes very prudent use of "ain't"s throughout, for which I'm grateful.
But--why did I have those expectations? As a reader, I'm not sure I would have ever noticed the very subtle use of regional dialect. As a writer, however, I noticed it because I often fail at capturing dialect or using it properly. Reading Piccirilli's book has made me aware that my failure comes in large part from personal bias. I'm born and bred mid-west; I've lived in Ohio my whole live, though I've been fortunate enough to travel to many states and abroad. But still, part of me connects southern dialect with uneducated, not through any conscious decision, but simply from my experiences (or lack thereof).
But the characters presented in A Choir of Ill Children are anything but uneducated. They lack formal education, but are full of the knowledge and experience life offers in such a setting. We're told as much in one section where Thomas, the main character, reflects the fallacy of his father who built schools for the county:
The schools sat empty until the storm and wind damage wore them away inch by inch. You couldn't blame the people of Potts County just because the board of education hadn't offered any kind of a useful curriculum. Chemistry in a tube wasn't pertinent. The wheel of the universe didn't turn when the cream went bad. Logarithms, geometry, and algebra did not apply to the height of the river during flood season. (p. 24)
So throughout the story we find characters who speak with very little regional dialect, which I believe helps the reader see them as honest people and not just a collection of rednecks.
So if these aren't rednecks, who are they? Piccirilli presents a truly unique and memorable collection: a biker obsessed with fencing, a pair of drug-addled film students, a monastery dedicated to The Flying Walendas, backwater granny witches who fight to stave off storms, a child molester and the ghost of one of his victims, and a mute girl who appears from nowhere. There is also Thomas, heir to a huge house, a sizable family fortune, and The Mill--the town's only sustainable business. The story is told from Thomas's point of view, in present tense, with calm clarity and deep inquiry into the events that surround him.
Thomas also has three brothers, which I hesitate to count as more than a single character, conjoined at the frontal lobe, sharing a pineal gland, and at times speaking as one although each has a distinct voice as well. Ah, this must be the backwater, uneducated redneck of the book. Well, no:
Sebastian is full of malice, Jonah with regret, and Cole speaks of love and nothing but love, no matter how hideous his words. (p. 1)
Interesting. Or how about:
My brothers speak as one, each mouth working like a pipe organ, playing a different portion of their communal speech. It's the way that the brain works. The "ch" goes to Sebastian, along with the glottal noises, "uh" and "ooh," "ing," names of foreign countries and pronouns, anything that brings the teeth together.
Jonah gets the hisses, the "ph" and drawn-out orgasmic "eeeeeee," titles of symphonies and sit-coms, all the poetry.
Cole is left with the growls and hard consonants, the adverbs, numbers following ten, dirty words, colors, sweet nothing, and every predicate. (p. 5)
Now that's one (or is it three) intriguing character. So what's this guy sound like when he speaks? Just a sample:
Jonah's up there already beginning to squawk and croon, the poetry pouring into the air. "For where she lies, my swept drifted spirit follows, the course unmatched and not known, nor cared for, whether it dies or is kept..." (p. 22)
And again, later, Thomas describes Jonah's poetry as he tries to woo Sarah (one of the drug-addled film students):
His sonnets have poorly stressed syllables but the meaning is worthy. He has talents that would have meant something a century ago. (p. 90)
So very clearly this, the most deformed character in the book, is not a redneck but a complex character who is more than capable of the full range of human emotion. This is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting and challenging characters I have ever encountered in horror. I think Piccirilli plays against the reader's bias, particularly in this case, to develop interesting characters that the reader can relate to.
Later in the story, Velma Coots (a granny witch) tries to convince Thomas to give some of his sperm for a brew to stave of a storm of souls. Their brief dialog is follows, with Thomas speaking first:
"What the hell do you want from me?" I ask.
"Jest a little blood and vinegar, there, in the pot."
"Vinegar?"
"Some of yer seed."
"My seed?"
"Sperm."
"You've got to be shittin' me." (p. 51)
I call this out to because Velma Coots's diction, a backwater witch, has minimal dialect--just two words of improper English: jest, and yer. Even this woman's dialog is kept relatively clean, letting the reader focus more on what's being said than how it's being said.
Another example of fine dialog is found when Thomas speaks with Abbot Earl of The Holy Order of the Flying Walendas, a man who used to drive a bulldozer for Thomas's father. Abbot Earl wants to discuss Lucretia Murteen with Thomas, a prominent nun of the order who the Abbot was once intimate with. Thomas tells the Abbot he has nothing to be ashamed of, and Abbot Earl replies:
"And I'm not, to be sure. But it's also true that she's been acting...reticent lately. Perhaps a bit taciturn. She refuses to tell me what's bothering her. I'm afraid that these troubles are actually making her consider leaving us." (p. 86)
Once again, through using words like "reticent" and "taciturn", Piccirilli shows the reader that this man is not just some dumb redneck who runs a strange cult of acrobat worshipers. The word choice gives the reader a sense of depth to the character.
The last character I want to touch on is Darr, a biker who has a couple run-ins with Thomas. On their second encounter, Darr and Thomas come face-to-face, and Darr asks Thomas a question:
"You know what I simply cannot stand?" he asks me.
"I'll play along since this has the structure of a rhetorical question. What is it that you cannot stand?"
"Fencing."
I clear my throat. "Fencing?"
"Watching fencers who have no notion of the hardcore reality behind the art form. They think it's a sport, the damn fools. Or worse, some kind of performance they're putting on for their mamas, like ballet or synchronized swimming. It was never meant to be a sport. You've got to have convictions to live with the blade. Belief. True belief, that's it, that's what I'm talking about. But those players, they might as well be shooting hoops or sliding into third base. They never embrace the...the tenets, the ideology behind that discipline."
"I can't say that I have an opinion one way or the other."
"Trust what I'm tellin' you. No matter how much training they go in for they always got that swashbuckling bullshit fantasy going on in their heads. No way around that for most of 'em. They feel gallant sashaying around with their Musketeer sword, lunging after each other on the mats, shouting in French like it means somthin' special when they can't even pronounce the words. With those silly helmets on over their faces, you shouldn't be caught dead in one'a them, and the machines buzzing when they tap each other on the chests." (p. 119-120)
Now clearly this biker has not only been exposed to fencing--something most would consider an upper class sport--but he's put the time into contemplating the sport and how it relates to him. This, and the subsequent dialog, give Thomas (and the reader) a unique insight into this biker character:
Not only does Darr expect the world to handle itself but he's also got high hopes for the logic of his assertions to eventually come to validity all on their own. Maybe he's talking in metaphor. I wonder if this is some vague attempt at intimidation. (p. 121)
Is that a threat? How does one respond to a man like this? I think Thomas's reaction reinforces Darr's character by matching closely what most people would think.
I have one more section of dialog to call out. Whether Piccirilli meant this to reinforce the idea that the people of Potts County are anything but uneducated, or whether he simply meant it to be funny I can't say. But to me, it works well in both ways. This is an exchange between some minor characters in Leadbetter's, the local bar. One character, Verbal Raynes, was recently left by Gloria, a woman who has decided to return to her husband Harry. Gloria and Harry left for a second honeymoon, and left their kids with poor Verbal:
"No wonder she and Harry are lookin' so sprightly these last couple weeks. I thought it was just 'cause they were heading to the Caymans, but--"
"The hell's the Caymans? That near Gainesville?"
"Western Caribbean, a peaceful British Crown Colony known as the Cayman Islands."
"What?"
"Consists of three islands just 480 miles south of Miami. The Grand Cayman, Cayman Brac, and Little Cayman."
"Goddamn!"
"Me and Deeder went down there once, few years back, after the insurance settlement came through for when we caught the game warden illegally tapping our phones."
I found the interjection on the Caymans funny and revealing. These people don't all just sit around the bar drinking (well, maybe most of the time) but have been exposed to the world at least enough to know that there's a bigger world out there.
The last thing I would like to touch on is the story itself. I said I had to read it twice, and I believe this will be a book I pick up every year or so to reread because I have trouble understanding exactly what the story is about. And I realized why on the second reading. Piccirilli poses so many story questions, using a setting and characters that feel like a fevered dream, that I struggled to keep track of what all the events meant. But on this second reading, I realized that not all the events are necessarily important to the story. Piccirilli admits as much in the last chapter, where Thomas reflects on the events and goes through all the unanswered story questions and dismisses them in one way or another. Normally, I would say that it's bad form to leave major story events unanswered, but in this case I can accept it. I think many of the unanswered events serve to build the characters and setting and need no explanation. But the risk is overwhelming the reader with questions and not satisfying them at the end.
This is one helluva ghost story.

