Stefan Wolf
Now, having completed the book Ash by James Herbert, three questions incessantly revolve in my mind.
First: Why was Ash conceived as the third part of the Haunted Trilogy?
Second: Why is the book titled Ash?
And third: What on earth possessed James Herbert?
But let me go through the points one by one.
To the first question. Why is Ash meant to be the third installment of the Haunted Trilogy? Ash really bears no resemblance to its predecessors, Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath, in either style or substance. It exudes a palpable departure from the past – both in terms of its writing style and content.
The prose in Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath wavered between elegance and antiquity, between the timeless and the anachronistic. James Herbert's writing was flowery, adorned, and, dare I say, somewhat self-consciously literary. This contributed significantly to the impression of traditional, timeless gothic literature that Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath evoked.
The writing in Ash is simpler, less embellished – and regrettably, more pedestrian, less artful. The narrative reads like uncomplicated and easily digestible pulp fiction: short sentences, basic vocabulary, simple syntax, devoid of experimentation.
The narratives of Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath, the first two parts of the Haunted Trilogy, were intimate and claustrophobic, resembling chamber dramas, each developing its own eerie ecosystem. The story in Ash oddly strives to be far more global and universal. True, Ash primarily unfolds within a remote, concealed castle. Yet, Ash delves into political conspiracies, dark secret societies, and pivotal events in world history. This thematic shift is entirely incongruent with the intimate storytelling of Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath.
To the second question. Why is the book titled Ash? This is truly perplexing. Of course, the protagonist in Haunted, The Ghosts Of Sleath, and Ash is the parapsychologist David Ash. However, it must be said that the narrative in the book Ash scarcely revolves around David Ash. Yes, stories in Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath were intricately interwoven with the fate of David Ash. At times, Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath almost read as literary-psychological studies. One could even argue that Haunted was (in a way) solely about David Ash, more so than one might initially suspect.
In contrast, in the book Ash, as previously mentioned, the narrative predominantly concerns political conspiracies and world-altering secrets. In terms of the progression of the story, David Ash is a peripheral figure in his own book. Amongst the three parts of the trilogy, Ash is the one least deserving of its name, Ash.
And to the third question. What has come over James Herbert? Ash is, in substantial portions, simply tasteless. I must confess, I am by no means an advocate of excessive political correctness. Nonetheless, there is a limit even for me. The manner in which Herbert handles themes of madness, physical disabilities, and intellectual disabilities, particularly Down syndrome, is exceedingly questionable. In Ash, the 'villains' are portrayed as those with intellectual disabilities (as 'lunatics'), and the ultimate 'antagonist' is an unfortunate, neglected, abused, and violated woman with Down syndrome (who, without revealing too much, is simply wicked due to her ancestral lineage).
In short, Ash was meant to conclude the Haunted Trilogy. In truth, Ash stands as the bleak, sad nadir in an otherwise accomplished series of books.
Now, having completed the book Ash by James Herbert, three questions incessantly revolve in my mind.
First: Why was Ash conceived as the third part of the Haunted Trilogy?
Second: Why is the book titled Ash?
And third: What on earth possessed James Herbert?
But let me go through the points one by one.
To the first question. Why is Ash meant to be the third installment of the Haunted Trilogy? Ash really bears no resemblance to its predecessors, Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath, in either style or substance. It exudes a palpable departure from the past – both in terms of its writing style and content.
The prose in Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath wavered between elegance and antiquity, between the timeless and the anachronistic. James Herbert's writing was flowery, adorned, and, dare I say, somewhat self-consciously literary. This contributed significantly to the impression of traditional, timeless gothic literature that Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath evoked.
The writing in Ash is simpler, less embellished – and regrettably, more pedestrian, less artful. The narrative reads like uncomplicated and easily digestible pulp fiction: short sentences, basic vocabulary, simple syntax, devoid of experimentation.
The narratives of Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath, the first two parts of the Haunted Trilogy, were intimate and claustrophobic, resembling chamber dramas, each developing its own eerie ecosystem. The story in Ash oddly strives to be far more global and universal. True, Ash primarily unfolds within a remote, concealed castle. Yet, Ash delves into political conspiracies, dark secret societies, and pivotal events in world history. This thematic shift is entirely incongruent with the intimate storytelling of Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath.
To the second question. Why is the book titled Ash? This is truly perplexing. Of course, the protagonist in Haunted, The Ghosts Of Sleath, and Ash is the parapsychologist David Ash. However, it must be said that the narrative in the book Ash scarcely revolves around David Ash. Yes, stories in Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath were intricately interwoven with the fate of David Ash. At times, Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath almost read as literary-psychological studies. One could even argue that Haunted was (in a way) solely about David Ash, more so than one might initially suspect.
In contrast, in the book Ash, as previously mentioned, the narrative predominantly concerns political conspiracies and world-altering secrets. In terms of the progression of the story, David Ash is a peripheral figure in his own book. Amongst the three parts of the trilogy, Ash is the one least deserving of its name, Ash.
And to the third question. What has come over James Herbert? Ash is, in substantial portions, simply tasteless. I must confess, I am by no means an advocate of excessive political correctness. Nonetheless, there is a limit even for me. The manner in which Herbert handles themes of madness, physical disabilities, and intellectual disabilities, particularly Down syndrome, is exceedingly questionable. In Ash, the 'villains' are portrayed as those with intellectual disabilities (as 'lunatics'), and the ultimate 'antagonist' is an unfortunate, neglected, abused, and violated woman with Down syndrome (who, without revealing too much, is simply wicked due to her ancestral lineage).
In short, Ash was meant to conclude the Haunted Trilogy. In truth, Ash stands as the bleak, sad nadir in an otherwise accomplished series of books.
Now, having completed the book Ash by James Herbert, three questions incessantly revolve in my mind.
First: Why was Ash conceived as the third part of the Haunted Trilogy?
Second: Why is the book titled Ash?
And third: What on earth possessed James Herbert?
But let me go through the points one by one.
To the first question. Why is Ash meant to be the third installment of the Haunted Trilogy? Ash really bears no resemblance to its predecessors, Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath, in either style or substance. It exudes a palpable departure from the past – both in terms of its writing style and content.
The prose in Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath wavered between elegance and antiquity, between the timeless and the anachronistic. James Herbert's writing was flowery, adorned, and, dare I say, somewhat self-consciously literary. This contributed significantly to the impression of traditional, timeless gothic literature that Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath evoked.
The writing in Ash is simpler, less embellished – and regrettably, more pedestrian, less artful. The narrative reads like uncomplicated and easily digestible pulp fiction: short sentences, basic vocabulary, simple syntax, devoid of experimentation.
The narratives of Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath, the first two parts of the Haunted Trilogy, were intimate and claustrophobic, resembling chamber dramas, each developing its own eerie ecosystem. The story in Ash oddly strives to be far more global and universal. True, Ash primarily unfolds within a remote, concealed castle. Yet, Ash delves into political conspiracies, dark secret societies, and pivotal events in world history. This thematic shift is entirely incongruent with the intimate storytelling of Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath.
To the second question. Why is the book titled Ash? This is truly perplexing. Of course, the protagonist in Haunted, The Ghosts Of Sleath, and Ash is the parapsychologist David Ash. However, it must be said that the narrative in the book Ash scarcely revolves around David Ash. Yes, stories in Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath were intricately interwoven with the fate of David Ash. At times, Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath almost read as literary-psychological studies. One could even argue that Haunted was (in a way) solely about David Ash, more so than one might initially suspect.
In contrast, in the book Ash, as previously mentioned, the narrative predominantly concerns political conspiracies and world-altering secrets. In terms of the progression of the story, David Ash is a peripheral figure in his own book. Amongst the three parts of the trilogy, Ash is the one least deserving of its name, Ash.
And to the third question. What has come over James Herbert? Ash is, in substantial portions, simply tasteless. I must confess, I am by no means an advocate of excessive political correctness. Nonetheless, there is a limit even for me. The manner in which Herbert handles themes of madness, physical disabilities, and intellectual disabilities, particularly Down syndrome, is exceedingly questionable. In Ash, the 'villains' are portrayed as those with intellectual disabilities (as 'lunatics'), and the ultimate 'antagonist' is an unfortunate, neglected, abused, and violated woman with Down syndrome (who, without revealing too much, is simply wicked due to her ancestral lineage).
In short, Ash was meant to conclude the Haunted Trilogy. In truth, Ash stands as the bleak, sad nadir in an otherwise accomplished series of books.
Now, having completed the book Ash by James Herbert, three questions incessantly revolve in my mind.
First: Why was Ash conceived as the third part of the Haunted Trilogy?
Second: Why is the book titled Ash?
And third: What on earth possessed James Herbert?
But let me go through the points one by one.
To the first question. Why is Ash meant to be the third installment of the Haunted Trilogy? Ash really bears no resemblance to its predecessors, Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath, in either style or substance. It exudes a palpable departure from the past – both in terms of its writing style and content.
The prose in Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath wavered between elegance and antiquity, between the timeless and the anachronistic. James Herbert's writing was flowery, adorned, and, dare I say, somewhat self-consciously literary. This contributed significantly to the impression of traditional, timeless gothic literature that Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath evoked.
The writing in Ash is simpler, less embellished – and regrettably, more pedestrian, less artful. The narrative reads like uncomplicated and easily digestible pulp fiction: short sentences, basic vocabulary, simple syntax, devoid of experimentation.
The narratives of Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath, the first two parts of the Haunted Trilogy, were intimate and claustrophobic, resembling chamber dramas, each developing its own eerie ecosystem. The story in Ash oddly strives to be far more global and universal. True, Ash primarily unfolds within a remote, concealed castle. Yet, Ash delves into political conspiracies, dark secret societies, and pivotal events in world history. This thematic shift is entirely incongruent with the intimate storytelling of Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath.
To the second question. Why is the book titled Ash? This is truly perplexing. Of course, the protagonist in Haunted, The Ghosts Of Sleath, and Ash is the parapsychologist David Ash. However, it must be said that the narrative in the book Ash scarcely revolves around David Ash. Yes, stories in Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath were intricately interwoven with the fate of David Ash. At times, Haunted and The Ghosts Of Sleath almost read as literary-psychological studies. One could even argue that Haunted was (in a way) solely about David Ash, more so than one might initially suspect.
In contrast, in the book Ash, as previously mentioned, the narrative predominantly concerns political conspiracies and world-altering secrets. In terms of the progression of the story, David Ash is a peripheral figure in his own book. Amongst the three parts of the trilogy, Ash is the one least deserving of its name, Ash.
And to the third question. What has come over James Herbert? Ash is, in substantial portions, simply tasteless. I must confess, I am by no means an advocate of excessive political correctness. Nonetheless, there is a limit even for me. The manner in which Herbert handles themes of madness, physical disabilities, and intellectual disabilities, particularly Down syndrome, is exceedingly questionable. In Ash, the 'villains' are portrayed as those with intellectual disabilities (as 'lunatics'), and the ultimate 'antagonist' is an unfortunate, neglected, abused, and violated woman with Down syndrome (who, without revealing too much, is simply wicked due to her ancestral lineage).
In short, Ash was meant to conclude the Haunted Trilogy. In truth, Ash stands as the bleak, sad nadir in an otherwise accomplished series of books.