dylanarmitage's review against another edition
dark
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
jinni's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.75
navardareads's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
angemc21's review against another edition
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.5
Alright in the middle but you have to plough through the end!
mike_brough's review against another edition
3.0
Hokum. Mostly well-enough written but:
a. The portrayal of the British Royal family was clumsily handled.
b. The romance was straight from a Mills & Boon paperback.
c. The protaganist is an annoying b@st@rd.
But, most importantly of all in a horror novel, especially one involving ghosts and evil entities, I was never actually scared.
a. The portrayal of the British Royal family was clumsily handled.
b. The romance was straight from a Mills & Boon paperback.
c. The protaganist is an annoying b@st@rd.
But, most importantly of all in a horror novel, especially one involving ghosts and evil entities, I was never actually scared.
fragwai's review against another edition
5.0
He always keeps me hooked from the very beginning. He really is a fantastic horror writer.
longlegpatrick's review against another edition
1.0
I don't rate books unless I read them through fully, but if I can't get to page 40, something is wrong. My partner bought this for me from a charity shop as a surprise, not knowing it was the third book, but it doesn't seem to really matter.
My first issue is pretty much straight away, page ten, we're told about how David Ash is "such an attractive man," though he has stubble this particular day and the character describing him usually prefers her men clean shaven, the stubble makes him sexier. The main character is always "that one exception", aren't they?
Secondly, page 32, leave it to a man to describe a woman as hating her body when they get older though they still miraculously always look good for their age. One of the very first descriptions we get of this woman's body, minus her hair, is her breasts had "lost their lift" oh no! Not her once perky breasts! At least her legs were still good though, right?!
This is the part in question:
Breasts that had been full since puberty had lost their 'lift', and her tummy bulge seemed a little more prominent than only a few months ago (the tightness of the waistband in her skirt and slacks gave independent testimony to that!). But her legs were still good, if slightly heavier round the thighs. For a woman in her mid-forties, she was in good shape overall, even though her hair-
blah blah blah
I just can't take this seriously because it's another "middle aged people look surprisingly good for mid 40s! Oh and there's sexual tension."
Let's not forget that David Ash, though incredibly attractive, is also dark and mysterious and broody because he has childhood trauma and also a bit of adulthood trauma and he will never ever talk about.
It's the cliche characters for me.
My first issue is pretty much straight away, page ten, we're told about how David Ash is "such an attractive man," though he has stubble this particular day and the character describing him usually prefers her men clean shaven, the stubble makes him sexier. The main character is always "that one exception", aren't they?
Secondly, page 32, leave it to a man to describe a woman as hating her body when they get older though they still miraculously always look good for their age. One of the very first descriptions we get of this woman's body, minus her hair, is her breasts had "lost their lift" oh no! Not her once perky breasts! At least her legs were still good though, right?!
This is the part in question:
Spoiler
Kate studied her naked body in the full-length mirror mounted on the back of the bathroom door. The glass was steamed up just enough to blur her image, but as she turned sideways for a different view she sighed, not in despair but in rueful resignation.Breasts that had been full since puberty had lost their 'lift', and her tummy bulge seemed a little more prominent than only a few months ago (the tightness of the waistband in her skirt and slacks gave independent testimony to that!). But her legs were still good, if slightly heavier round the thighs. For a woman in her mid-forties, she was in good shape overall, even though her hair-
blah blah blah
I just can't take this seriously because it's another "middle aged people look surprisingly good for mid 40s! Oh and there's sexual tension."
Let's not forget that David Ash, though incredibly attractive, is also dark and mysterious and broody because he has childhood trauma and also a bit of adulthood trauma and he will never ever talk about.
It's the cliche characters for me.
rosekk's review against another edition
1.0
I've really liked some of James Herbert's books. The first one I read really appealed to me, so I went through a phase where I'd pick up every book I found of his in charity shops. Some of those purchases have been well worth it. Some have not. This is definitely one of the latter.
It feels as though he's forgotten how to write, or gotten lazy. I'm sure some of his earlier work had better prose. Everything in this was over described, with pointless tangents that added no flavour to the story. The dialogue clunky, with jumps that bore no resemblance to the flow of real speech, and odd affectations that failed to bring across the characters' natures. The characters themselves were flat and unlikable. David Ash didn't appeal much to me in the first book, and though he's a bit more humble in this one, his nature hasn't improved enough to make me really like him. He still feels a bit too much like he was designed to seem cool to teen boys in the 90s. The main female (the love interest), is perfectly OK in context, but annoying when considered as a character; she's brainy (as showcased by her job, but nothing she ever does or says), and is somehow supposed to be sexy and demure all at once: virginal, in spite of being given a colourful sexual history. Again, she seems designed to appeal to an immature, male (straight) audience, with no effort to make her realistic. Perhaps the most annoying thing (which I assume is what made it 'contraversial' at time of publication), is the story's use of real-life people and events (mainly political leaders of the most vicious stripe, violent but unexplained events, and a very negative/accusatory version of the British Royal Family). I would have been OK with that, but the real-life events were used purely for shock value, and not handled with any kind of sensitivity or respect. Likewise, the people were name-dropped for similar reasons, with no real attempt to either make them feel like real people or turn them into larger-than-life versions which would have been interesting. The global conspiracy they were meant to be part of never made much sense. The supernatural/horror element also didn't link particularly well with the real-world political stuff (other than that it meant gory things happened to bad people), so none of the real-world stuff actually heightened the tension; in fact, the ill-fitting mash of thriller and eerie horror worsened both. I managed to read a 600+ page book in a day, because I read the first 200 pages properly, and gave up and skim-read the rest. I slowed whenever the book seemed like it was picking up or getting to an interesting bit, and read properly until I lost my patience with it again.
The book was not all bad, though. This book referenced one of Herbert's earlier (far better) series, and I appreciated the Easter Egg. I was also somewhat invested in the horror element of the story. Although it was fairly standard haunted-castle fair, and I could predict the broader sweeps of the plot, I was interested enough in seeing how the detail played out. I just wasn't interested enough to tolerate the stuff I didn't like.
Overall, there were elements of a good story buried among dodgy writing, frustrating characters and a mis-matched plot.
It feels as though he's forgotten how to write, or gotten lazy. I'm sure some of his earlier work had better prose. Everything in this was over described, with pointless tangents that added no flavour to the story. The dialogue clunky, with jumps that bore no resemblance to the flow of real speech, and odd affectations that failed to bring across the characters' natures. The characters themselves were flat and unlikable. David Ash didn't appeal much to me in the first book, and though he's a bit more humble in this one, his nature hasn't improved enough to make me really like him. He still feels a bit too much like he was designed to seem cool to teen boys in the 90s. The main female (the love interest), is perfectly OK in context, but annoying when considered as a character; she's brainy (as showcased by her job, but nothing she ever does or says), and is somehow supposed to be sexy and demure all at once: virginal, in spite of being given a colourful sexual history. Again, she seems designed to appeal to an immature, male (straight) audience, with no effort to make her realistic. Perhaps the most annoying thing (which I assume is what made it 'contraversial' at time of publication), is the story's use of real-life people and events (mainly political leaders of the most vicious stripe, violent but unexplained events, and a very negative/accusatory version of the British Royal Family). I would have been OK with that, but the real-life events were used purely for shock value, and not handled with any kind of sensitivity or respect. Likewise, the people were name-dropped for similar reasons, with no real attempt to either make them feel like real people or turn them into larger-than-life versions which would have been interesting. The global conspiracy they were meant to be part of never made much sense. The supernatural/horror element also didn't link particularly well with the real-world political stuff (other than that it meant gory things happened to bad people), so none of the real-world stuff actually heightened the tension; in fact, the ill-fitting mash of thriller and eerie horror worsened both. I managed to read a 600+ page book in a day, because I read the first 200 pages properly, and gave up and skim-read the rest. I slowed whenever the book seemed like it was picking up or getting to an interesting bit, and read properly until I lost my patience with it again.
The book was not all bad, though. This book referenced one of Herbert's earlier (far better) series, and I appreciated the Easter Egg. I was also somewhat invested in the horror element of the story. Although it was fairly standard haunted-castle fair, and I could predict the broader sweeps of the plot, I was interested enough in seeing how the detail played out. I just wasn't interested enough to tolerate the stuff I didn't like.
Overall, there were elements of a good story buried among dodgy writing, frustrating characters and a mis-matched plot.
tarrant's review against another edition
4.0
Excellent horror that probably touches on every phobia and conspiracy theory.