Review of Whisper – Whisper Trilogy Book 1

WhisperSome time ago, I posted an article titled: Ghostly Grounds: Explorations Outside of the Haunted Houses of Film and Literature  In this article, I write about the creepy environments in which authors and filmmakers “build” their haunted houses. I have a large section dedicated to “the forest;” a very popular landscape of myth and legend, often harboring fanciful and horrific things – elves, witches, werewolves, and ghosts to name a few. Then I give examples of popular haunted house stories that include haunted forests: Evil Dead, The House on the Moor, and The Haunting of Lake Manor Hotel.

I wish I had read Michael Bray’s Whisper – Whisper Trilogy Book 1  before writing this article. It is the epitome of the “mysterious forest” archetype. I certainly would have included this modern horror novel in the article. There is more than wind stirring in the trees that surround “Hope House” – the subject of Bray’s book. Hope House is an historical abode built upon cursed grounds. There are presences lurking in the neighboring forest; perhaps as many as there are trees. One can only guess at the total. Likewise, one can only make guesses about their nature. Are they evil? What do they look like? (for they go unseen – in the beginning!)

These woodland entities make their presence known to Steve and Melody Samson, the newest homeowners of Hope House, not by sight, but by alternative sensory pathways. In the rustling of the treetop leaves, Steve hears whispers; whispers that eventually call out his name. Also, a certain “feeling” continually haunts both Steve and Melody. They feel as if they are being watched by multiple sets of eyes. For me, it is always scarier when spirits are felt before there is a direct confrontation; heard before they are seen. And this is what happens here.

The story of Hope House and its surrounding grounds unfolds in three different periods of time 1) The present time: a couple buys a house in the woods 2) 150-200 years ago – the construction of Hope House, built with slave labor on cursed grounds by an opportunist blinded by his own ambition 3) thousands of year ago – a cannibalistic tribe and a supernatural tragedy. Bray effectively juxtaposes these time periods. Never was I confused. Whenever a time jump occurs, it happens in just the right place. The storyline keeps on flowing while these jumps serve to heighten the overall suspense. These trips back in time reveal exciting clues and interesting back-stories.

There are interesting side characters in Whisper. There is a slimy real-estate agent with dark secrets, a drunken crone who knows things, a seemingly inconspicuous bartender (but things are never what they seem). All of these characters know things that our main characters Steven and Melody do not. What do they know? Read the book to find out!

The book has its flaws, some of which have to do with editing. There are some grammatical errors here and there. Aside from grammar issues, too often Bray uses “a smile” as a one-size-fits-all way of describing facial expressions. Characters seem to smile on every occasion – when they are arguing and when they are in turmoil. Then there are a couple of minor issues I had with some of the plot points. There are some areas that would benefit from further development. There are noteworthy events that find their place in the story and then stay put, never to resurface again, missing out on opportunities to establish a stronger link to the larger story. Also, some of the story resolutions are bit trite for my taste.

But overall Whisper is a good book. I look forward to reading the rest of the books in this trilogy. And here they are:  Echoes and Voices

 

Echoes
Voices

Review of Ghost Story – Book Vs. Movie

MBDGHST EC005

 

Old, distinguished men in elegant attire sip their brandy and tell ghost stories. A mysterious woman unbound by time haunts successive generations of boys and men. The deadly consequences of secrets buried long ago are only just beginning to surface. All this and more make up Ghost Story, a novel by Peter Straub and then later a film by John Irvin.

In past reviews when I have compared a book to a movie, I have used a pseudo-ratio to show how books benefit from a structural advantage. I call this the “200 page/2 hour reel” ratio. Simply stated, there is more opportunity for story and character development in a book than a film. A film based on a book is often forced to take shortcuts, usually to the detriment of the story. At the same time, it is nearly impossible for a film to lay out all of the plot points of a story-heavy book, unless we allow for a nine-hour film. (I guess that’s where a television mini-series comes to “the rescue.” Ah but this often backfires. But this is a subject for another article.) What does one do about such a dilemma? Let’s ask Let’s ask Lawrence D Cohen, the screenwriter for Ghost Story.

Cohen is a masterful screenwriter who first “came to prominence” for penning the screenplay for the 1976 film Carrie, a fine film based on a book by Stephen King. In Ghost Story, just like with Carrie, he skillfully paves the road that leads from the book to the movie. Cohen and Director John Irvin know the limitations of the film medium and wisely do not attempt to exceed them. They carefully carve out a simpler yet equally fulfilling story from Peter Straub’s behemoth book. It has been suggested that film critic Roger Ebert prefers the film to the book. If this is so, I might just agree with him. Mind you, I said “might!”

Ghost-Story-BannerAs I alluded to earlier, Ghost Story is a long book. Both in scope as well as style, it owes a lot to Stephen King, from its epic quality of plot intricacies to its focus on small town characters and their foibles. In particular, Ghost Story bears a strong resemblance to Salem’s Lot.  Hank Wagner from darkecho.com  describes this similarity quite well, presenting quotes from Peter Straub himself to back up his claims:

 

Numerous readings reveal how much the book owes to Salem’s Lot. Straub has publicly acknowledged this debt, stating that “I wanted to work on a large canvas. Salem’s Lot showed me how to do this without getting lost among a lot of minor characters. Besides the large canvas I also wanted a certain largeness of effect. I had been imbued with the notion that horror stories are best when they are ambiguous and low key and restrained. Reading Salem’s Lot, I realized that the idea was self defeating.” On reflection, the debt to Salem’s Lot is obvious. Both feature small towns under siege from the supernatural. In both, the terror escalates until the towns are threatened with destruction — Jerusalem’s Lot is consumed by purifying fire, while Milburn is decimated. In each, a writer’s arrival in town seems to trigger disaster. Both writers strike up alliances with young teenagers whose lives are ruined by the terror, Ben Mears with Mark Petrie and Don Wanderly with Peter Barnes. Both forge an almost parental bond with their young allies, replacing those lost parents. In both, the evil lives on — Ben and Mark end up on the run, while Don, after ending the threat of Eva, presumably goes off to face her evil aunt.


I would only add one more similarity – both novels feature a house that is a home or former home to the evil presences of these books. In fact, I need to make this addition, for these reviews are part of the Haunted House themed project and therefore, the stories I review must include a haunted house, even though most of the action in these stories take Ghost Story movieplace outside these houses. (For the record, I have found Salem’s Lot and Ghost Story on sites that list haunted house films and literature – so there!) But here is the take away – the story is too broad to settle on in with just a few characters at one location at a specific point in time.

 

Like with Stephen King’s The Stand and It, there are multiple characters with story lines that encompass more than a few pages. While the primary characters consist of the five old men that tell ghost stories (Collectively known as “The Chowder Society”), the writer/nephew of one of these men (Don Wanderly), and the “ghost” in her many incarnations, there are so many others – the promiscuous wife of one of the old men, the drunk plow driver, the cantankerous sheriff, thrill seeking teenagers, and on and on it goes. The story takes place in a snowy town in New York, but the book takes readers across the country as a large chuck of one of the plots (there are a few) unfolds in California. Oh yes, the town of Milburn has the obligatory haunted house. In fact there are several! The evil goes where it wants – haunting several abodes and businesses, including a movie theater that continuously runs the film “The Night of the Living Dead.” Several of the townsfolk fall prey to the evil. They become possessed, they become the objects of their worst nightmares; they die. And it doesn’t help matters any that a series of snowstorms shuts down the town. The people of Milburn are besieged on all fronts by so many forces.

I say, if you like Stephen King’s epic and character-heavy novels, then it is highly likely that you will enjoy Ghost Story as well. I know I did.

Now, how does one turn all this into a movie? By focusing on one central plot and abandoning the side stories. By letting go of most of the characters and centering only on a handful. And this work well, with a large part of the success coming from the suburb cast:

Douglas Fairbanks Jr      John Houseman                      Fred Astaire              Melvyn Douglas

ghoststorymen

 

It was the final film for Astaire, Fairbanks, and Douglas. Melvyn Douglas has so far appeared in two other haunted house movies that I have reviewed. (See The Old, Dark House and The Changeling.  Although I did not mention him in these articles.)

The film focus in on one plot – a young woman (as a ghost or whatever evil form you call it) returns from the dead to seek revenge on the four old men (Astaire, Douglas, Fairbanks and Houseman) who had killed her when they were young. This plot line occurs in the book as well but it is much more complicated. Normally when I do a book vs. movie review, I make a bullet-point list outlining the differences within each medium. I feel that is unnecessary here as I have already honed in on the most significant difference. Once that difference is understood and accepted (and accept it I do), an inventory of the nitty-gritty components of such a variance becomes pointless (In more ways than one: meaningless and “no bullet-points.” Get it?) The story that is portrayed is done with great care. It is better to minimize one’s focus to achieve a clear vision than to try and maximize the field of vision, only to achieve a blurry and unwatchable product.

As great as the book is, I find myself preferring the film (Or, I “might” prefer it to the book, as I said earlier). At times during my reading, I found myself lost in the tangled trails of plot. Yes, these trails do untangle and eventually lead you where you want to go, but still, it was a tedious experience at times. The film is straight forward and satisfying.

Not that I am against the complex – by no means. I enjoy books of great breadth and depth.

Perhaps such a comparison is unfair. It’s like comparing a plate of apples to a gourmet meal. It’s just that, as much as great as a gourmet meal is , sometimes I just want apples.

************************************************************

Thank you for reading this article.  I invite you to check out my latest book: The House Sitter
– A writer haunted a house with his own stories.

HouseSitterCoverForHHGroup