PBB Book Review: "House" by Frank Peretti and Ted Dekker

I'll state from the outset the prejudices I had, when I started the book. One: I love well-written, creepy Christian fiction, generally. I'm a Stephen King fan, after all. Two: The reason I love creepy Christian fiction is because of Frank Peretti, who is one of my favorite Christian novelists. I started reading his books as early as the Cooper Kids adventure series (though I like the original cover designs more than the updated ones--they almost have more of a "pulp" feel) in fifth and sixth grade, and have been a fan of his novels ever since, especially "The Oath," which blew my mind a little in high school. So I'm predisposed to liking his work, even when it's a little, well, goofy. Three: The reason I included the word "generally" was because I'm not as much a fan of Ted Dekker, whose smash hit "Thr3e" left me feeling rather let down by the contrived and rushed ending.

There you go. Now that it's on the record.

When I heard that my favorite (non-British) Christian novelist and my not-so-favorite Christian novelist--still, the top two names in Christian fiction--were collaborating on a new supernatural thriller, I was guardedly excited. When I saw "House" on the store shelf and read the cover blurb, I was even more excited.

Basic scenario: Two couples travelling through the dark backwoods of Alabama are both stranded at an "inn" run by strange and somewhat unnerving "country folk." Suddenly, they find themselves trapped in a deadly game by a faceless killer who gives them "house rules" and tells them that unless they deliver a dead body--any one will do--by dawn, they'll all die.

I repeat: This is a Christian novel. Such a hardcore horror storyline is a rare thing in this genre.

I will say, without giving anything away, this is a CREEPY book. At times, it's Stephen-King-creepy. Because of this, some readers--even readers of the authors' previous work--may actually find it too disturbing.

It's also a quick read, or at least it was for me. I don't know if it's the writing style, the layout of the book, or simply that it was a "gripping page-turner" or some other reviewer cliche. But I read 320 of the 370 or so pages in the first night. And I didn't read it nonstop, either. I did stay up until 1 a.m. reading it, though. (Wouldn't suggest that, either. *shudder*)

So, basic stats: quick/easy to read, and almost too freaking creepy for Christian fiction. Now to the meat of the matter.

[SPOILER WARNING FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS]

The book read like a cross between "Saw" and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," but without the gore or the language. That atmosphere pervades the prose, and was very effectively conveyed. There were a lot of "what-the-crap?!?" moments, especially early on. Things that just come out of left field, but still work within the context of the story. (And for the record, I pegged the villain almost from the beginning, though I wasn't expecting the exact "how" that unfolded.)

The language issue is a funny one to consider. Peretti especially tries to convey realistic speech while still keeping it clean, so he'll write dialogue like, "Joe swore angrily, then said, 'I can't believe this!' " He'll tell you that people are swearing, but won't tell you what they said.

It's funny how NOTICEABLE the lack of profanity is, especially since I was concurrently reading "The Stand" by the King, who dispenses the "f" word freely. The only time in "House" that the lack of profanity pulled me out of the story a little was when one of the characters exasperatedly called something "fan-freaking-tastic." A character who otherwise "swears." Just thought that was funny.

Gore. Not much description of the icky, but what there was, was effective. There was quite a bit of violence though. Quite a bit.

As expected, you learn early on that the sinister goings on are occult-related. The requisite pentagrams start showing up on walls, for example. But that's never really fully addressed. More on that later.

It's no exaggeration: this book reads like an R-rated psycho-supernatural horror film, but without the profanity, blatant sex, and massive amounts of gore. So much so, that I was rather shocked by how amped-up it was from Peretti's usual style (a little more subtle and moody, with key scenes of shock or heightened suspense). In the book, it seemed to be one shock scene after another, including several reality-bending moments.

There comes a point where another character is introduced, halfway-in: a little girl trapped in the basement/dungeon/labyrinth. It becomes pretty clear what she represents in the symbolic set-up of the book, but her character's "meaning" isn't as fully explored as I had hoped.

The ending. Was somewhat satisfying, but still rushed. Yet the "climax" of the book was about 40 pages. But it still felt like the story just ended abruptly. Nothing was explained, and not much was justified. There was a psycho killer who would invite the powers of darkness to possess a house, then trap people inside, toy with them, and kill them. That's it. That's all. There didn't seem to be any real motivation for why. In a horror movie, that would be sufficient, but from Peretti, I expect more. In "The Visitation," we get a clear backstory on the antagonist, and we understand exactly where his hatred of Christianity comes from (as overblown as it may seem, in parts). In "The Oath," there's a clearer understanding of what it all means.

Here, there's not so much. There's some theological shorthand. Good versus bad, light versus dark, innocence sacrificed to save the guilty, and something about angels that I'm still not sure about. And that's all true, and I'm glad of it, but they could have done so much MORE with it. Am I asking them to hit me on the head a little harder with the point, give me a little more of a didactic ending? Yes, actually. Because that's what I expected, and somehow I feel a little cheated. And Peretti is good at doing that without making it annoying. "House" just doesn't have any staying power, for me. It doesn't have any resonance. It's a "summer read."

[END SPOILERS]

At this point, I'm going to give you the final rating, and then I'll make two observations.

If you like horror movies, read the book. If you like supernatural thrillers, read the book. If you like Ted Dekker's books, read the book. If you like Peretti's books...maybe read the book. But if you like stories that try to do more than shock and have something meaninful going on, take your chances, because you may be disappointed.

In other words, it's a good book, but it's a fluff book. If that's cool for you, read it, because it's well written. Just not as well carried-out.

Two final thoughts:

There is a clear tension between the two author's styles. Peretti, as I mentioned, is more methodical in his approach, generally. He sets up his themes very well. This may be why his work is thought to be slow or a little contrived sometimes. But he's able to convey the tone and mood of a story very effectively. He's a good storyteller. Dekker, on the other hand and in my admittedly limited experience, is more about action, fast pacing, and shock value, which are also very effective in this genre of fiction. In film terms: Peretti is more like "The Others," while Dekker is more like a slasher movie. One uses slow-boiling creepy, the other flashy, shocking scary. And this tension was clear in "House," especially when it comes to theme. You could clearly see the underpinnings of the theme being laid out, but the ending seems to build a quick and cheap structure on the firm foundation. That's why I felt let down, because there was so much that could have been explored and wasn't.

The second issue is one of movie adaptation. They are already working on making this film into a motion picture (which, if they stay true to the book, would probably merit an "R" rating, believe it or not). And this troubles me, because I think that from the outset, the authors had an eye on bringing this story to film, and it shows in the story. This is another reason why the story may not be as methodical as I normally expect from Peretti. I don't know, maybe I'm giving him too much credit in general for his writing style. But it was clear in this book that their eyes were on the "prize," and so writing a good novel started to lose importance. If that is the case (I hope it's not), then I would ask Peretti and/or Dekker to just cut out the pretense and start writing screenplays. Because there is almost a feeling that "House" is a novelization of a film, rather than a novel standing on its own. And they're both better writers than that.