Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I was impressed by this book. It had a strong beginning and thought it would end that way - atmospheric horror and hopelessness!

The story reminded me of (view spoiler)[The Howling and Let's Scare Jessica to Death (hide spoiler)].

I don't think any other time period would have worked. Living through the Depression could excuse the reason for (view spoiler)[not "giving away" the pigs and having no choice but to accept the inheritance (hide spoiler)].

The setting could only work in a rural small town in the South - especially on a Plantation! (view spoiler)[I thought the creatures stemming from the after-effects of slavery was a most interesting twist! (hide spoiler)]

His nightmares of his days in the war perhaps in a way "saved" him to keep "sane" as he faced (view spoiler)[the transformation of Eudora (hide spoiler)] and as his current surroundings began to crumble.

Jennifer wrote: "I believe that we are going to use this thread to talk about it.

Did you all feel the heat and humidity while reading this? I loved the place in history it takes place in. [spoilers removed]"

I was thinking - and do in settings and time periods pre-days - how did anyone survive without Central Air?

Yes, the WWI references expanded the atmospheric feel to this story.

Whitney wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "I believe that we are going to use this thread to talk about it.

Did you all feel the heat and humidity while reading this? I loved the place in history it takes place in. [spoile..."

I actually read a book by him called [book:The Lesser Dead|20893407]
which I thought was excellent. It takes place in 1970's New York.

Sometimes I think our "modern" times do not lend themselves to our old nightmares.

For instance I went and saw the movie Kong, it takes place in the 70's at the end of the Vietnam War. It is the perfect setting. Moving the story to now or almost now, well....it would not have held the same magic.

That is what this book had, a sense of magic throughout it.

The Lesser Dead

Cathie wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "I believe that we are going to use this thread to talk about it.

Did you all feel the heat and humidity while reading this? I loved the place in history it takes place in. [spoile..."


They had fans and open windows.....

I think I read a review endearingly poking at Buehlman for doing what horror movies do (i.e., have the character do exactly what they're told not to do). Ignore the advice in the letter mentioning his inheritance, go into the woods, etc. And yet, none of this bothered me in the least bit because I felt like Buehlman made that advice seem paranoid or irrational. I mean, what would make anyone believe any of that?!!

One wonders if this couldn't be read as a bit of a morality tale, as well...

Does anyone know if any of this was based on historical places or individuals? Sounds from this interview (which I just looked up after typing the question), that it was not so much based on any one specific place or person:

How could you not do what the couple did? It all made perfect sense. Should I ever inherit a large gothic ish property, Part of me wants to keep it and to see it and to live in it, despite any misgivings....

Yeah, but if you see (view spoiler)[pantless young boys in the woods (hide spoiler)], just get out of there, ok?
:p

I thought it was handled really well. So many horror movies have the 'young couple who sank all their money into the house so they can't leave" scenario. In this case, there was so much more that prevented them from leaving; no money in a depression, ruined academic reputations that prevented them from getting work in more populous areas, their 'elicit' affair. And, it is the south. A (view spoiler)[a pantless weird kid living in the woods isn't all that strange. (hide spoiler)]

As much as Buelhman had an obvious affection for his characters, it did come off as something of a morality tale. Something I was planning on bringing up when we were discussing the end of the book.

For this who have read at least half, (view spoiler)[what did you think of the transition into the horror realm? Did it seem like these were two different books? I thought the pigs created a good through-line from the normal to the supernatural, but I'm wondering what I would have been anticipating if I hadn't already had an idea of what was coming. I think maybe a Southern Comfort or Deliverance type situation. (hide spoiler)]

I was erring on the side of caution on Jennifer's behalf... Just sayin.

When I first read this, I really had no idea about (view spoiler)[the twist and the transformation (hide spoiler)] It really just snuck up on me.

(view spoiler)[the pig incident should have set off more warning flags than it did, it was bizarre, but I felt like, oh, that was strange, what kind of church is that, will there be rattle snakes next? (hide spoiler)]

Oh and the (view spoiler)[kids with no pants, that freaked me out more than anything, so if I see one linging around my Gothic mansion, well....I will just make sure all the doors and windows are open (hide spoiler)]

I didn't see it as two different books, the emotion and feeling and my attachment to out couple stayed the same.

I also appreciated that the author sis not shy away from (view spoiler)[ the issue of slavery, and the after effects of it (hide spoiler)]

I thought the scene in the general store was powerful.

I just realized that this book fits one of the Chaos Reading challenges, (view spoiler)[a book "where one of the characters suffers from hypertrichosis" :-) (hide spoiler)] But how to claim the points without a spoiler...?

Is anyone still catching up? I'm tempted to stop spoiler tagging things at this point.

I would love to hear what other think.

Are we all done yet??

I think it's safe to declare that spoilers will be freely tossed around from here on. Reader beware!

Back the morality tale idea. I definitely got the "sins of the fathers" aspect that Buehlman mentioned in the interview that Marc linked to, but it also seemed like there was a hint of judgment on Frank and Eudora's behaviour as well. While the morality of the time certainly would have frowned on their actions, I didn't get the idea that Buehlman did, so I'm still wondering if I'm reading that right.

The things that stood out to me are Eudora's barrenness, which was presented almost like a divine judgment, with Frank declaring that his "name is dying" because of it. There's also Frank's insecurity about whether Eudora's sometimes compares him unfavorably to her husband, which is related to doubts about her complicity regarding Hector.

Her showing up at the end with Savoyard's feral child seemed a fairly literal way of saying that this was the only family that they deserved. Would it be a stretch to apply that to the entire nation?

I can't really remember whether the people in town were very judgmental about Frank and Eudora--were they? If not, it seemed more like they're guilt was the over-riding factor and the author was punishing them for the sins of the fathers. It's an interesting dynamic where the undead/lycanthropes are tied to a historical atrocity like this (or, maybe I just don't read enough horror... ?). There also seemed to be intimations that Frank harbors a bit of the snobbery/racism of his slave-owning ancestors (I think it was Eudora who actually brings this up in reference to his book project, but it might have been someone in town, too... ).

I hadn't really thought of the barrenness as a kind of divine judgment, but it fits. They seem like a cursed couple. And while it's not like the town is hunky-dory prior to their arrival, things certainly go downhill relatively fast after their arrival.

Applying it to the nation? Hmm... would that be like literally saying our past will come back to eat haunt us?

I didn't find the town to be judgmental of Frank and Eudora, but I believe they told them they were married. I think the town had bigger issues to worry about.

I found the whole pig sacrifice at the church was powerful. The perfect mixture of pagan ritual and Christianity. Then again at the Church later, with the desecration of the graves.

I agree, Jennifer--the ritual and the desecration were very well done and rather disturbing. I thought pacing and tension were handled very well in this book.

Any fave characters?

I thought maybe he went a little heavy-handed with the sex scenes--agree/disagree?

Yes, the sex stuff was a little...not needed , but that's me. I actually really liked Eudora. I also liked the the one guy, can't remember his name, he was a surprise, the guy riding on his bike howling at the moon, lived in the creepy cabin...

I'd forgotten just how much I liked Eudora until you mentioned her. Bike-riding-howler-at-the-moon was also my fave, but I can't recall his name and I had to return the book to the library. It looks like a movie adaptation is in the works, but no studio info yet...

For a poet, the way he handled the sex scenes and some of the repetition seemed a little sloppy, like maybe he was writing down to his audience. Is that unfair?

Anybody read his poetry? Thoughts on how this book compares to his other horror novels?

I read The Lesser Dead, which I thought was excellent. It deal with a different kind of transformation and takes place in 1970[s New York.

I recently heard on some podcast someone talking about how sex scenes in most fiction, especially American, tend to be a door closing or a zoom out to curtains fluttering in the breeze; despite the fact that how people approach sex can reveal a lot about them. In that spirit, I was thinking back on the sex scenes (to which I confess a little "not again" eye rolling at the time) and what they might reveal about the characters. They certainly do show that their relationship isn't apparently based on their mutual love of literature. It also shows how their playfulness extends into their intimate relationship as well. Also, their sex is transgressive, given that they are unmarried and that they left town amidst career and reputation destroying scandal. Does that make the (just a tad disturbing) sex at the old plantation just an extension of existing transgression? Anyone else have any insights?

The slightly crazy taxidermist guy was Martin Cranmer (I bought an e-book, convenient for looking up names) my favorite character as well. He reminded me of Dolphus Raymond in To Kill a Mockingbird, who drank cola out of a paper bag so people could explain blame his transgressive behavior (having mixed race kids) on whiskey.

I was assuming that Martin had some special arrangement with the Look-a-roos that allowed him to stay so close to the river. I loved his reveal. Can we get a short story covering his history, please?