For about the first half of the book, I had a hard time with it and I couldn’t figure out why. But I soon realized that because reading it the wrong way. As book deemed as something to be read if you want to learn about psycho killers in horror fiction, this was a poor choice–in my mind–as the psycho killer is no more essential to the story as Edward Cullen needing to be a vampire. This was a literary novel that used horror conventions to tell the story of small town paranoia. And it did it well.
I’m not going to get into some of the technical aspects other posts getting into because for, the most part, it comes down to literary vs. genre debate and a hypercritical eye of one examining the other.
What I will talk about is what this book does better than any horror novel I’ve read in a long time: atmosphere within the story. If you read enough horror novels, you start to see the tricks authors use to evoke an atmosphere of dread and/or terror in the reader. But precious few actually make that same atmosphere feel like the reality of the story. How many monster or psycho stories have you read which have a series of killings, but the town or city the story takes place in seems to run the same way right after a death as it did the start of the story. If anything does happen, it purpose is not to keep the town or city safe, but as a challenge that will pop up in the climax of the story. The Church of Dead Girls shows more of what would happen realistically if these events occur, and how that impacts the lives of the characters as well as progress of the story.
It is always stressed upon new writers to keep their stories “realistic.” I think many, including myself, think of that within the context of our characters and in the initial world building of the setting. But when we get into the middle of the story, we forget the actions of our characters don’t just impact he story, but the world within that story. The Church of Dead Girls is a great example of that and, while not the only thing, is something any horror writer can learn from reading this book.
Great post! This book is the favorite of a friend of mine and it’s been on my list to read for a long time. Your review makes me want to read it now. I’m always curious about what makes something literary, and even though I’m a genre writer, I strive for literary sensibilities in my writing. Thanks!
This is a very, very, large generalization but if I would to describe the difference between the two I would say Literary is all about character (internal momentum) and Genre is all about story (external momentum). When it comes down to it, a good literary novel doesn’t have to have much go on, but it has to affect all the characters and the story just naturally progresses from what ever inciting moment. Genre, while still needing a strong characters, won’t spend as much time on a character as it does on the progress of the storyline.
Thanks for your comments on my post (always reassuring to know that I’m not only in my observations). I like the realism you talk about here. I definitely agree that what made me actually care about what happened next and kept me turning the page was how the dynamics of the town kept changing and was so believable. Great observations. I stress a lot in my own writing to make the main and supporting believable but seeing how the town as a whole influences the tone of the story really helped me learn to look at my whole world instead of just the characters.
Great post. My favorite part of this book was the slow breakdown of society that Dobyns shows us. It reminded me of other books I read, but those books dealt with zombies, or the end of the world. In a small way, this is very similar because it’s an event or chain of events that leads to chaos within a small town. I thought Dobyns did well with that part. The other stuff I had a hard time with.