Thursday, December 26, 2024

Punish the Sinners by John Saul (1978): I Got a Catholic Block

Busting out of nowhere in 1977 with his debut novel from Dell, John Saul had success immediately, watching as Suffer the Children hit the bestseller charts and sold millions of copies, thanks to an easy-to-remember name and a first-ever tv commercial ad campaign. Saul wrote his books fast, like in a month, so the publisher was always happy to have a new paperback original from him every year. With ominous, biblical-sounding titles and cover art featuring young women in grave danger (the remnants of the Gothic romance and evoking the twin icons of Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist), his dense, 400-plus-page books were marketed to and scooped up by teen girls and young mothers, who could identify most with the anxieties inside.

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.


I won't bother to rehash the plot, as the back cover gives it all to you, but really oversells it, making the novel sound like a real religious creepfest (cover art obviously a Carrie clone). In reality Sinners is plodding, melodramatic nonsense without any sense of atmosphere or urgency. One pseudo-event after another rather than a plot, one talking teenager indistinguishable from the next, one conversation between virtually non-existent characters after another, and cheating POV shifts to end a scene on some phony note of "suspense." 

You feel no jeopardy for the boring teenage girls who are killing themselves one by one (which only starts after some hundreds of pages) in a small, barely-described town in Washington state. You'll see the "surprise" twist coming; while the half-hearted ending is dark, it is not disturbing. Unlike the genre’s worst talents, Saul’s prose is serviceable and actually readable, but utterly devoid of wit, insight, observation, or conviction. The overall impression Saul gives is one of indifference.


I don't know how any experienced horror fiction reader would find any sustenance in this book at all; I do know that many people avidly read Saul while in their young teen years, and so recall him as a fond memory of an illicit behavior, reading-with-a-flashlight-under-the-covers kind of thing. Many of the one-star Goodreads reviews are basically, this scared me as a kid. But also many adults enjoy his stuff still. Which of course is fine, sure, but not for me, not for this blog, not for any recommendation I'd give.

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. 

In interviews over the years Saul has said that while he doesn't mind being considered a "horror novelist," he is no fan of the genre, either in fiction or film. No shit. John Saul is, simply, a supreme hack. And far from being a horror novel, Punish the Sinners is manufactured product, unit shifter widget, maximally conceived, designed, and produced to get readers to part with their money at the airport, the drugstore, the mall bookstore: exactly what I'd always assumed Saul's books were lo the past four decades. While it's a slight satisfaction to have my suspicions vindicated, it was no fun finding out first-hand.

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." 

John Saul retired in 2009 and was awarded the HWA Lifetime Achievement Award in 2023. 

13 comments:

K. White said...

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.

Robert Richards said...

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.

Unknown said...

My favorite by John Saul is "The Manhattan Hunt Club." It's not horror at all...suspense/action mostly. Kind of "The Most Dangerous Game" but set in the subways and tunnels of NYC, and it really captures the paradoxical nature of the NYC subways and tunnels: claustrophobic, while also being vast and seemingly infinite. It also kept my attention by having pretty accurate depictions of these places, including real locations that are not known to most people (ex. the "Freedom Tunnel"), which sets it apart from most NYC-set novels in that it doesn't just include the obvious locations. It's certainly the book I'd recommend to anyone who was considering checking out Saul's writing.

Will Errickson said...

Robert, thank you for your insightful reply. I did know about how he and his partner wrote the books, and that they only looked at other horror paperback covers without reading them to get ideas, but I felt my post was long enough as it was and so didn't go into it; appreciate you mentioning that. As a fellow horror collector myself, I definitely own books that I have no interest in reading, or outright dislike. Such is our curse!

Will Errickson said...

Nice to hear it, K.! He also knocks Laymon, De Felitta, and Blatty as well...

The Strange Storyteller said...

I read the Saul novel All Fall Down (US title The God Project) a couple of years ago while my father was dying and I remember my main thought being that it was crisp and readable but not anything more than that. It felt like something that a publisher would be happy to turn out because it ticks all the right boxes for a mainstream “horror” novel that you can read on a plane or just to pass the time and then forget about, having felt stimulated enough to not feel cheated out of your time and money.

The Fifth Dollanganger said...

Read Saul's first book. And then stop, because you've read all his books.

Graham said...

I read Saul's 2008 novel 'Faces of Fear' a while back and felt that for most of the novel he had a good thing going, there's a modicum of suspence, the seduction of an innocent into a decadent world in which changing one's appearance through plastic surgery is an easy decision to make as chosing what clothes to wear and it's all thrown away by a rushed ending. That said it was better than his earlier novels. Will I read it again probably not.

Craig said...

"Nathaniel" and "The God Project" have the distinction of being (nearly?) the only Saul novels to feature male protagonists. This made them a relief when I read them. I was caught up in the hype and buying every book every year. I haunted the paperback horror aisles at Waldenbooks growing up.
So much of his stuff was teenage girls talking to ghosts or being compelled by spirits. There was hardly any resolution. Was it madness or the supernatural? In a way, his books were a lot like the TV-movie horror schlock of the time: Resolve nothing and explain as little as possible, then presumably everyone will pick a satisfying answer themselves.

Front Toward Enemy said...

Good assessment of Saul. To me, he's kind of like Dean R. Koontz. He's not actually *bad* -- you can read him and won't be bored, but you're not going to be blown away, either. Koontz is a little more fun because he's a certifiable nut (thinks golden retrievers are angelic beings and various other bizarre beliefs), but Koontz also overdescribes everything until you want to scream (I swear that over 20 small-print pages of Intensity is a laborious account of a girl trying to untie a rope). Saul is straight-up plug-and-play: formula to the point that it probably fits a "every 20 pages such-and-such should happen" chart. A few creepy ideas, but all run through a vanilla "will it sell?" filter. At least, unlike Koontz, he can have a downer ending. Koontz just can't. It's not in him. Koontz killed off a protagonist ONCE, just to surprise his readers... but then he couldn't stand it, had the guy's kid invent a time machine out of a video game console, and go back and fix it so it didn't happen. Yep.

I've only read a couple of Saul's books, but every one in a while I try him again when I'm in a lenient mood. An ex-girlfriend really liked Nathaniel but I'm 0 for 4 on trying to get through it. I like the cover...

The main thing that irked me about John Saul was when Stephen King put out The Green Mile as a "serial novel" in multiple skinny little books (good novel, annoying gimmick), within a couple of months Saul had one out, too, same format. Everybody knows people are going to copy Stephen King, but... THAT shamelessly?

Robert Richards said...

Thanks. I'm starting to feel that collecting anything is a curse. I'm just a small step away from being a hoarder. I also collect vintage audio equipment and antique manual typewriters. I'm running out of space and my wife is running out of patience. She keeps asking, "When are you going to sell some of this stuff?" I don't answer, just keep silent, which equates to "I'm never selling it."

Robert Richards said...

I have every Shawn Hutson book in hardcover, and I don't know why. I think I have a problem.

Robert Richards said...

By the way, have you ever gotten over for your disdain for Laymon? :)