Rating: 6/10
This is a very short book, therefore my review will also be rather short. I had first heard of Kealan Patrick Burke through reviews of his story Kin. At some point I followed him on Instagram and that is where I came across The House on Abigail Lane. Let me first say that I think the cover of this book is gorgeous. It has the appeal of almost like an 80s VHS tape (not in the literal way of My Best Friend's Exorcism, but in a subtle way), just a classic horror appeal. And as anyone who knows me will probably remember, I love a good haunted/creepy house story. It's my favorite horror subgenre. I read this book late October/early November, and something about it just didn't do it for me. Like, the premise was interesting, a house where all sorts of strange events happen throughout the decades? That's really cool. But, I think it was the way it was written that really put me off. When I say this, I don't mean that the writing itself was off-putting; in fact, Burke's writing felt very accessible. It was relatively plain, but not bad or overly simple. Like, for example, Clive Barker and Anne Rice have kind of complex, flower-y writing (kind of a dumb way to describe it, but I think you get the point). Burke's writing has a Stephen King feeling in that it's kind of blue collar? Like, it makes sense, anybody can read it and understand what is happening. I say this in a very positive way! I think that overly-complex writing has a tendency to detract from horror because you spend half of the story kind of trying to parse out what the author is talking about. It doesn't have to grow on you, you can just pick up his work without the threat of a literary headache. Likewise, the dialogue you get occasionally is also very realistic. It feels true to form, as if someone is actually speaking.
When I say I don't care for the way that the book is written, I mean I didn't care for the way the story itself was composed. The book is a work of fiction, but it is meant to read as a work of nonfiction, a sort of account of the activity within the house over time. I read the book, and I don't really feel like I gained any actual knowledge of the house. All I know is that weird things happen in the house and thats it. It has something to do with a specific dude's dreams I guess? But why that dude? This book could've been much longer and it would've been much better off for it. If the 95 pages of this book were a sort of 'part 1' to a much longer book wherein we actually learn why things are happening in the house or if we were able to see things through the missing people's POV, this book could've been awesome. As it is, it just really fell flat. Can you imagine how much more compelling it could've been if we actually got to see things through the eyes of those who vanished? What we got was like fictional speculation. I'm personally not a huge fan of unsolved mysteries, I like some exposition. This goes doubly for works of fiction were literally anything goes. I don't regret reading this book, I mean it's very short so like it wasn't a long read. I think fans of unsolved mysteries would probably love this book. You really get all of the things you would get from any nonfiction book about strange occurrences. It is fictional, but I think it would really appeal. I will definitely try another book of his in the future, but this one just wasn't it for me.
(If I might recommend some further reading, if you enjoyed the premise of this book, but not the 'nonfiction' aspect, perhaps try The House that Fell from the Sky by: Patrick Delaney.)
Comments