But me, personally? I was never once interested enough in one of his paperbacks to pick one up, not with babies and dolls and cribs on the covers (very Mary Higgins Clark, no thanks). Working in bookstores used and new from the late Eighties to the late Nineties, I bemoaned the popularity of his work, even though I hadn't bother to read him. To me, all of his books looked, as is said today, mid. There were countless copies of his derivative-looking titles always around, jamming up the horror section, all read to tatters in the used paperback exchange I worked at in college, and later, upscale hardcovers for those eager and solvent enough to drop twenty-plus (!) bucks on his reheated hashwork.
Saul's books seemed to me fodder only; not truly horror fiction in its grand tradition, just disposable tchochkes for the less adventurous reader. And now that I’ve read one, let me tell you: my impression was absolutely correct. A duller, drier, more inconsequential book I have rarely read in the decade and a half that I've been keeping this blog. Punish the Sinners (Dell, June 1978) was Saul's second paperback original; maybe he got better, maybe he got worse. I'll never know, because I don't care. And although I have a few of his early paperbacks in my collection—these days, I do kinda appreciate the cover art—I'm in no hurry to read another.
This is the type of "horror" that my blog is a reaction to and against. While better writers sold fewer books, Saul's sold in the millions (and probably still do). I've always wanted to find the forgotten and the overlooked, the authors lost in the shadow of their lessers, shine a light on those who were worthy of rediscovery—not simply tread the same old worn-out ground of yesteryear's dusty bestsellers. Nobody needs to be told to read John Saul, and I rue horror fan pages on Reddit and Facebook and social media elsewhere in which his books are still recommended to innocent readers not around during his peak popularity and thus ignorant of the poverty of his imagination.
This kind of by-the-numbers banality is what the splatterpunks were rebelling against in the mid-Eighties. What any good, thoughtful horror writer of any stripe should be against (King rightly lambastes him a couple times in Danse Macabre). The folks spearheading the Dell/Abyss line also had to have Saul's books in mind as they stated in their manifesto.
Sinners exists in some netherworld, some purgatory, of the
undistinguished, a gray rock of a novel that requires no imagination or effort on the part of the reader. Two bloody characters walking
towards each other on the street of the small town at the "climax" was about the only unique, vaguely interesting moment in the whole 400-page slog. Oh, right, almost forgot, there's a graphic priest orgy, too, which Saul attempts to use as shock but in his slow-witted manner only manages to lazily disgust.
To sum up my feelings about this novel—in case you couldn’t tell!—I will quote from that other musty old tome, the biblical Book of Revelation: "So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of My mouth."
2 comments:
Hee~! Oh, I loaaaaaaaaaaathe Saul. My parents had that exact cover of "Suffer the Children" lying about when I was a kid. Tried reading his "Nathaniel" and it was just BAD.
Rereading "Danse Macabre" right now and I just came across the first of King's knocks against him.
John Saul's novels are by-the-number because he was essentially a co-author. His long-time partner (now husband), Michael Sack, did the outlines and Saul wrote the narratives. John Saul was really a trademark for a writing duo. I don't see how any writer can create anything worthwhile by just fleshing out someone else's one-dimensional sketch. This type of writing is what led to a decline of some of the more popular genres and subgenres which began with an original creative spark. Look what happened to the Mafia novel following Puzo's success. Publishers wanted more and so created a cheap, trimmed-down blueprint and hired hacks to write the books. Saul was hired to to fill a need for more books of the Stephen King kind. He had never read King, so he and his partner went to a grocery store's book section and read the backs of some of King's books and distilled the descriptions down to a formula of "children in jeopardy with some kind of supernatural possibility."
I collect John Saul novels. I have all but one in hardcover and most of them in paperback. However, I'm not a fan of his writing. I'm a horror fiction collector, so I have plenty of books in my collection that I refuse to read. I did devote some time reading Saul because I genuinely wanted to like his work. The one good thing I realized is that he got better over time--not good, but better. His later, direct-to-hardcover books of the early 2000s are shorter and more tightly plotted than his earlier paperback originals, and the prose is more direct and less melodramatic. He evolved rather than devolved. As far as positive things to say about his work, that's all I have.
Post a Comment