The Newest "Dark Shadows" Novel.......

I finally picked up a copy and started reading it.  What's fun is, in my mind, substituting the DS characters for the ones in the novel.  Whenever I see "Jamie," I just think "Willie," etc.

Gerard

There are several legal reasons why she probably did not acknowledge DS, and one of the reasons might have to do with a request from DCP that her inspiration not be acknowledged.

Several possibilities . .

Nancy

And still not one word of acknowledgment by the author that the book is based on Dark Shadows. 

And if you read the novel carefully, you'll notice the only time a name from the series appears in print.....but if you're not looking for it, it might slip right past you, it's so short.  Almost as if S. E. Hinton was playing a game with fans of the show, to see if anyone caught on to the joke.

I just came upon it today in my reading of the novel.  What a wonderful surprise!  Kudos to Ms. Hinton for "sliding" it in, a sort-of deliberate "error" for just us Dark Shadows fans.  It reminds me of the one, deliberate faux pas James Cameron did in his 1997 Titanic to see if fanatics of the ship's history would catch it - smoke came out of the fourth stack; that funnel was actually a "dummy," placed there to give the impression of size, and used to store deckchairs.

Gerard

 

Review of "Hawkes Harbor"

I reviewed the book, finally, after putting off the task, and cannot say I can recommend it. In fact, I would say instead: stay well away and save your money for something else.

It took me two hours to read the book, so it's not very long. Certainly not long enough to deal with the subject matter, which is the life of a young man from the age of 8 to the age of 40. It barely skims the surface of most of Jamie Summer's life, leaving out the development that would tell us why and how he came to be as he is.

The writing itself is inconsistent and poor. There are sentences and thoughts ending in ellipses on almost every page. Ellipses typically indicate information that has been removed from a quote. Here, Hinton uses them, as some writers do, to indicate unfinished thoughts on the part of the protagonist, the antagonist, and everyone in between. It might be said, however, that the ellipses mostly seem to indicate unfinished thoughts on the part of Hinton in writing her story. It's almost as if she's not sure what her characters think.  For example, on page 21: "Dr. McDevitt sighed.  There had been no mention in his record of these fantasies¢â‚¬¦." Pardon me? Either there was a mention in his record of these fantasies or there wasn't. Either the doctor knows or he doesn't. Why the ellipses? Is there some dramatic statement that Hinton feels she is making? I know a great many gothic novels from the 1970's that use this technique to far more effect than this.

The point of view (pov) skips trippingly from character to character, never staying long enough in one place for the reader to be able to get a very good idea of what motivates that character. On any given page, we get the points of view of at least two people. For example, on page 62 we get the pov of both Jamie Summers and Dr. Louisa Kahne. It starts with Kahne looking at Jamie, and then Jamie looking at Kahne. The objective of this, one assumes, is so that Hinton doesn't have to develop the point of view of one character too much. It's easier that way. The last time I read a book with that many points of view on a single page was a romance novel, where this technique is used so that not only the beauty of the heroine is described from the pov of the hero, the reader gets an eyeful of the handsomeness of the hero from the heroine's perspective. But truly, the worst part about the jumping pov is that the main character, Jamie Summers, is never fully fleshed out and can never be fully understood by the reader.

The structure of the book muddies the waters even further. For the first half of the book, the story is told in flashback and flash-forward mode, during McDevitt's question and answer sessions with Jamie while he's in the mental institution. The last half of the book mostly moves forward, but there are inexplicable flashbacks there, as well, moving over as much time as a year, or as little as a month. For example, on page 237, it's 1978, and we flash forward to January 2, 1979, to a scene between two characters, Lydia and Richard Hawkes. We've never really seen these characters before, just heard about them from afar. Half a page is devoted to them discussing an odd delivery man that has come to their door. The second half of the page jumps back to December 26, 1978, barely two weeks earlier, where we find Jamie and Grenville in Washington, D.C. together. How does the flash-forward move the plot forward? Moreover, when did Grenville get an office in Washington, D.C?

Since the story was originally a Dark Shadows novel, most of the work is based on the original plots developed by the writers of that show, though they are never given credit. Since the story was not to be published as a Dark Shadows novel, Hinton apparently was willing to change it enough for mainstream publication. That's all very well and good, but to me it appears that too much of the Dark Shadows elements still remain, and the rest of the story was not developed enough to hide the fact that the it is based on very badly written personal fan fiction. For fan fiction it is, a story based on a television series to further develop characters or plots as the writer sees fit. On page 189, an original character from the series mentioned, Roger Collins; Hinton obviously used search and replace for all the other names, why did this particular name slip through? As a nod to DS? Or as a written version of the finger?

Other plot and character elements, as well, remain, intact. Grenville Hawkes is Barnabas Collins, the reluctant vampire. Kell Quinn is the jaunty Irishman, Jason McGuire, who takes Jamie Summers around the world with schemes and dreams. Maggie Evans, as kidnap victim, is found in Katie Roddendem. And Jamie Summers, himself, is based on Willie Loomis, the caretaker of the vampire's residence. Jamie receives three bullets in the back, the original character receives five. Both end up in horrible mental institutions. Both are left there until their masters come to get them. Both are afraid of the dark. The only original part of the novel is the background to Jamie Summers life, and then, what comes after the part where Grenville is cured of his vampirism.

The book, after all, has a vampire in it, and vampires must be cured! Somewhere, between the pages of 142 and 179, Grenville has a miraculous recovery from his curse. How? When? Where? We don't know and we never will. Just all of a sudden, BAM, he's well. Well enough to take Jamie Summers on a cruise around the islands, Jamie, who is suddenly well enough to enjoy himself. There, the two bond with incredible speed and intensity. Yes, sure, they've been through a lot, and it's possible that the two of them could become friends, but excuse me, Grenville tortured Jamie for a long, long time. If Jamie is in denial, that's fine. I can use the Stockholm Syndrome to explain that, as well as the next person can. What I can't understand is how in the world the two men got to the point where they can exchange stories about having sex? I never see Grenville develop the guilt he supposedly feels about what harm he's done to Jamie. I see Jamie, one minute, addicted to a great many drugs, then suddenly, he's cured, with no sign of having gone through withdrawal. I never see how or why anyone changes. They just suddenly have, and with great speed, too.

Speaking of the Stockholm Syndrome. It's a condition that has been around, one supposes, for years. It's a condition whereby the victim in someone else's power comes to view their captor in a kinder, gentler light. This enables the victim to survive. It's coping mechanism, and easy enough to apply to Jamie Summers. The term is mentioned in the book on page 189. (The same page, incidentally, where Roger Collins is mentioned by name.) {Did the editor of the work (was there one?) skip this page altogether?} On page 189, the year is 1968, as clearly indicated at the beginning of the chapter on page 179. In 1968 there was no term "Stockholm Syndrome" that had been coined. We'd have to wait till 1973, when bank robbers in Stockholm, Sweden (hence the name), kept hostages captive in a bank they were robbing. The hostages bonded very quickly in various ways with their captors and the whole thing was caught by the 10 o'clock news. World wide. It was then, in 1973, that the term existed. Yet, Louisa Kahne uses it in 1968. Why? Perhaps Hinton was flash-forwarding and flash-backwarding so often she lost track. Or, perhaps, she didn't care that there was this inaccuracy. I can't call it poetic license, because this isn't an alternate universe. The fact that the term Stockholm Syndrom was coined in 1973 is a fact, and a badly used one. Certainly not a well-researched one.

Other elements, as well, are ill-timed, ill-used, or badly done. For example, on page 62, Louisa Kahne asks Jamie if Grenville beats him. Jamie replies, to himself, "¢â‚¬¦Like It needed to do that¢â‚¬¦" Later, however, we learn that Grenville not only bites Jamie to keep him in line, he smacks him around. So¢â‚¬¦Grenville does beat Jamie. Right? Either Jamie is in denial, which is possible, or Hinton does not have the ability to be consistent within her own work.

Another scene that bothered me was the scene where Jamie meets Kell. This happens on page 32. It takes only half a page for Hinton to passively describe the meeting between two men who would travel around the world for years together. Who got into and out of as many scrapes as might be imagined. They meet, they drink, and Hinton sums it up by saying, "So Kell and Jamie shipped out together."  The whole incident is told in the passive voice and we are left being told about the bond, but never shown it.

Throughout the book, paragraphs are one, maybe two sentences long, and characters are half-developed. Towards the end, when it's suddenly 1978, Grenville suddenly gives Jamie a warm quilt. He suddenly realizes that it's cold and drafty where Jamie sleeps. What happened to the bonding that happened on the ship ten years ago? Weren't Grenville and Jamie friends after that? Don't you think that Grenville would have noticed sooner? And then Hinton, obviously unable to figure out what else to do, kills off her main character. The ghost, ta-da, of Kell Quinn comes to take Jamie away, perhaps to a heaven where there are only schooners and warm breezes. What a disaster. And a disappointment.

But, the worst part about the book, I feel, is the fact that it must have been in Hinton's head for quite some time. A lot of fiction is, before the writer gets around to putting it down on paper. And like a lot of fiction, the idea in her head probably centered around a main scene or idea, which she ruminated over for hours on end. Unlike a lot of fiction, however, Hinton did not develop her story beyond this particular idea. This particular idea, I think, was developed in a chapter called The Last Scam, which starts on page 153. The entire scene is told in past tense. The font is italicized, for some reason, perhaps to let us know that it happened long ago. Or something. Anyway, in this scene, Hinton sticks to a single point of view, that of Jamie Summers, which raises the intensity missing in the rest of the book. She tells the scene from beginning to end, with no flash forward or flash back. There are ellipses, but perhaps Hinton can't help those, at this point. But you *know* Hinton loved this scene. It's the one that took her to bed at night, helped her get through chores, and helped her relax when paying the bills. It's *the* scene. The one the story is based around. The one she takes her time with.

In it, Kell comes to say goodbye. His scheme has gone wrong and he's leaving town, wants to say goodbye to his pal, Jamie. Only it's sundown. Grenville awakens. Kills Kell. And Jamie, upon Grenville's instructions, is forced to stake Kell to keep Kell from turning into a vampire. The scene goes deep, and possibly develops why Jamie has nightmares. He makes himself pretend it's not Kell he's staking, and makes himself think of something else through the long ordeal. It's marvelous torture that Hinton performs on Jamie, and she takes her slow, sweet time with it, letting the reader know that she's savoring every last second. It's the scene she wanted to write originally. It's her little fantasy. Unfortunately for her, and for us, in order for the fantasy scene to be published, Hinton had to develop a story around it. And also, unfortunately for us, the rest of the story has all the craft of a below-average Harlequin novel, and even the intensity of six pages of The Last Scam cannot make up for the passively told remaining 144 or so pages of  badly constructed framework.

The book jacket describes Hinton as an "honored storyteller," and an "international bestselling author." These accolades are the only reason I think that Hinton's private fantasy got into mainstream publication at all. "Hawkes Harbor" is a far cry from "The Outsiders." Perhaps Hinton has forgotten what she once knew. Perhaps she's a closet DS fan out of touch with what works in fan fiction, let alone mainstream fiction. There are stories out there that have never seen the inside of a bookstore that outshine "Hawkes Harbor" with enough brilliance to blind. They are written not for profit or acclaim, but instead are written only for the pleasure of writing a well-crafted story with fully-fleshed characters and a plot that engages the reader with intelligence and heart.  I know Hinton remembers those days. Perhaps she can return to them.

Sincerely,

Maine Girl

I liked it. I haven't read The Outsiders or Hinton's other works, but I enjoyed HH. I thought the first third of the book was the strongest and that the last third paled in comparison, but it kept me entertained and engaged. I also was able to divorce DS from the story. In fact, during the first portion of the book, I can honestly say that I forgot about it. There are inconsistencies and errors, but to be fair, most books, even books from first rate publishers often have these. They bug me too, but they happen.

Since I doubt any publisher in their right mind would publiished a book whose inspiration came from a copyrighted source, I can only imagine that DCP was aware and gave their blessings. As for the rest, well, we don't know the circumstances or the specifics of the agreement so I'm not about to lay blame on Hinton or Tor.

Darn. It won't let me edit my post. Anyhow found this http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/life/2004/10/26theundeadputbit.html. The fact that she says she can't talk about it backs up the idea that there was some sort of agreement to that effect.

I liked it. I haven't read The Outsiders or Hinton's other works, but I enjoyed HH. I thought the first third of the book was the strongest and that the last third paled in comparison, but it kept me entertained and engaged. I also was able to divorce DS from the story. In fact, during the first portion of the book, I can honestly say that I forgot about it. There are inconsistencies and errors, but to be fair, most books, even books from first rate publishers often have these. They bug me too, but they happen.

Since I doubt any publisher in their right mind would publiished a book whose inspiration came from a copyrighted source, I can only imagine that DCP was aware and gave their blessings. As for the rest, well, we don't know the circumstances or the specifics of the agreement so I'm not about to lay blame on Hinton or Tor.

Oh sure. We'll never know the how or the why...and who am I to stop someone from writing a DS novel and publishing it mainstream? Not I. I just think she should have polished her work a bit more before sending it out.

Maine Girl

starting it today so i'll let you know what i think


jennifer

starting it today so i'll let you know what i think

Looking forward to hearing it...and good luck!

Maine Girl

I think this was a major if not the contributing factor as to why I
couldn't get into this book. Not to mention the fact that she
contiously
jumps forward and back. You hit the nail on the head with your
summary, Maine Chick

Janet

Review of "Hawkes Harbor"

I have a personal rule about book reviews: sometimes I read them, sometimes I don't.

But I always ignore them when it comes time to decide if I want to read a particular book. Because, after all, the only opinion that matters is my own.

I don't think "Hawkes Harbor" was a great book.   But I enjoyed it. Willie Loomis is at the center of the story, and in many ways, he's treated gently by the author.

 I suspect that (like me)  S.E. Hinton is fond of the character of Willie Loomis. Her "Jamie" was true to the way John Karlen portrayed him.  In the end, I felt like I'd gotten a letter from an old friend of whom I'd lost track. The news wasn't all good....but I was glad I'd heard from him.      

I don't think "Hawkes Harbor" was a great book.   But I enjoyed it. Willie Loomis is at the center of the story, and in many ways, he's treated gently by the author.

 I suspect that (like me)  S.E. Hinton is fond of the character of Willie Loomis. Her "Jamie" was true to the way John Karlen portrayed him.  In the end, I felt like I'd gotten a letter from an old friend of whom I'd lost track. The news wasn't all good....but I was glad I'd heard from him.     

willie was suppose to be a loser who the viewer was suppose to hate IMHO JK made him likable which to me shows what a great actor he is
i think if the other guy had stayed in the role this never would have happened and they would have killed Willie off at some point
so i agree Rainey that the author is probaly fond of our Willie

jennifer

Review of "Hawkes Harbor"

Wow! I'm impressed with the meticulousness of the review you posted on this book Maine Girl. It was very articulate and informative. Thanks so much for your insight. This is a bit off topic....well, more then a bit, but i wonder if any or the posters on this thread have read Gregory Maguire's prequel to the Wizard of Oz entitled; Wicked. If so, I would be interested in your thoughts.

Wow! I'm impressed with the meticulousness of the review you posted on this book Maine Girl. It was very articulate and informative. Thanks so much for your insight. This is a bit off topic....well, more then a bit, but i wonder if any or the posters on this thread have read Gregory Maguire's prequel to the Wizard of Oz entitled; Wicked. If so, I would be interested in your thoughts.

Thanks for the kind words, Bobubas. I know the review was long, but I felt I needed to write it, even if in the end, everyone must decide for themselves whether or not to read the thing.

As to "Wicked"...is that the guy who wrote the story about the Wicked Witch of the West wherein the Witch is a sympathetic character, and Dorothy is the antagonist?

Maine Girl

Everybody I know who has read it just loves Wicked.  As you probably know, it's now an off-Broadway musical that has been a huge success, too.

My personal experience of Wicked was that it was a wonderful thing to read, UNTIL the author had to follow the Baum narrative which then brings us to the end of his own book.  The events as he collapsed them into what was already a far more complicated tapestry than anything Baum ever wrote (I'm pretty sure I read them all back when I was a teenager, including The Sea Fairies which was much better than any of the Oz books) made less and less emotional/narrative sense, TO ME as a reader, as he got further along with the events of the novel.  [spoiler]his basic thought seems to have been that what has happened to Elphaba drives her psychotic by the time Dorothy arrives... it wasn't plausible to me.  I think he meant the events of Dorothy's visit to seem like a waking nightmare to Elphaba--I found it all to be a pointless jumble.[/spoiler]

Anyhow, like I said, everybody but me loves it.  He's written several other books as well.  I think the latest one is about the Wicked Queen in Snow White, which certainly sounds like a promising topic!

G.