books, page 1 of 133

Conceived of while writing his previous novel, Barker’s children’s fantasy The Thief of Always came out in 1992, a postprandial belch after the massive banquet that was Imajica. As this was in the days before the Potter-powered YA boom, and Barker was very much considered an adult author, he licensed the book to HarperCollins for a dollar (a silver dollar in one telling, half a sovereign in another); it not only sold well, but has been widely translated, and has several times been touted for a film adaptation, either animated or live action.

It starts with ten year old Harvey Swick bored in his bedroom, wishing away the dull month of February, when the grinning Rictus (with a smile “wide enough to shame a shark”) flies in through the window Peter Pan-style. He offers to take Harvey to the Holiday House, “where the days are always sunny… and the nights are full of wonders”. This House, hidden behind a magical wall of fog, offers its guests the best of each season every day: spring-like mornings, sunny summer afternoons, Halloween each evening, and Christmas every night, complete with the perfect gift (on his first night, Harvey gets the wooden toy ark his father made for him years ago, which was at some point lost). There are two other children there: Wendell, with whom Harvey spends his days making a treehouse, and the more retiring Lulu who, after she shows Harvey her dolls’ house populated with tiny lizards, seems to spend most of her time hanging around the gloomy lake at the back of the House, with its strange, darkness-dwelling fish.

There are a few hints that everything is not so perfect. The man behind all this, Mr Hood, is never seen, though Rictus and his colleagues (the jittery Jive, and the sluggish Marr), and the cook Mrs Griffin, often refer to him, making it clear he not only knows everything that goes on in the House, but “every dream in your head” too. And Mrs Griffin warns Harvey that Hood “doesn’t like inquisitive guests”. Rictus, on first flying through Harvey’s bedroom window, invited him to ask all the questions he wanted, but as soon as he did, accused him of being “too inquisitive for your own good”. “Questions rot the mind!”, he warned—a telling echo of The Prisoner’s “Questions are a burden on others.” Harvey, though, quite naturally wants to know all there is about this evidently magical place.

After Wendell plays a Halloween trick on him, Harvey is determined to get his own back, and with the help of Marr, who can change people’s shape, allows himself to be turned into a bat-winged vampire monster, to swoop down on Wendell and give him a real scare. Rictus and Marr egg him on, to turn it into a real attack; Harvey fights the temptation, but genuinely frightens the boy. The next day, Wendell tries to leave, but finds he can’t get through the wall of fog. Meanwhile, Lulu, who has been hiding away for some time, calls goodbye to Harvey from behind a tree, saying she doesn’t want him to look at her. He realises she has slowly been transforming into one of the fish that haunt that gloomy lake, and has now gone to join them. Is this the fate awaiting all of them—those, that is, who aren’t claimed by the fourth of Rictus’s colleagues, Carna, who seems to be quite capable of killing children who try too hard to leave the House?

The basic idea, of being in a place that seems like paradise but is in fact not just a trap, but a downhill slope to losing one’s humanity, is as old as the Lotos Eaters episode in The Odyssey—and is quite often paired, as here, with something of the Circe episode, too, as for instance when Pinocchio starts turning into a donkey on Pleasure Island, or Chihiro’s parents transform into pigs in Miyazaki’s Spirited Away. It has always felt a familiar plot-line, but when I come to list examples, I usually can’t find as many as I’d expect. There’s elements of it in Ramsey Campbell’s Incarnate, and it’s the plot of Neil Gaiman’s Coraline, but I always feel there’s some major examples out there I’m not thinking of. (And it would be quite instructive to compare Gaiman and Barker, though I’d consistently come out on the Barker side as a deeper and more artistically authentic creator.)

The uber-example, for me, though, is David Lindsay’s A Voyage to Arcturus, and there are a few resonances between Lindsay’s Crystalman and Barker’s Mr Hood. Both, for example, are explicitly called thieves (Krag calls Crystalman “a common thief”, while Hood is the most obvious subject of the novel’s title), and both are seen at least once as enormous faces (Crystalman under one of his many aliases, Faceny, who is “all face”, Hood in the House’s attic), with an implication that this is because, like Hood, there is “a terrible emptiness inside” them, and the face is, ultimately, all there is. And Hood accuses Harvey of having “brought pain into my paradise”, just as the one fly in Crystalman’s ointment is the presence of pain, as embodied by Krag—the one reminder that pleasure is only a part of human experience, not the whole of it, and so anything that excludes pain must be a lie. Barker has expressed his admiration for A Voyage to Arcturus (calling it “a masterpiece… an extraordinary work, if deeply, deeply flawed”), and I was pleased to hear a perhaps unintentional Lindsay quote from him in an interview, where he says “The most important part of me [is] the part which dreams with his eyes open”—echoing the “I dream with open eyes” line from Arcturus.

The Thief of Always wasn’t Barker’s first foray into children’s literature. He’d actually made a couple of unpublished attempts before The Books of Blood (something called The Candle in the Cloud in 1971, and The Adventures of Mr Maximillian Bacchus and His Travelling Circus with some friends a few years later), and he’d written some plays for a youth theatre. Two of his inspirations were Peter Pan (which Barker has called “the book of my childhood”), and CS Lewis, but I was pleased to find that, unlike Lewis or, say, Roald Dahl, Barker doesn’t pick on one of his kids to be a moral lesson for the others, as with Edmund in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, or the many sticky ends met with in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Wendell, who is evidently a little more greedy, gullible and cowardly than Harvey—though all within acceptable child limits—seems the perfect set-up for this, but Harvey and he turn out to be genuine friends, and there was no feeling from Barker of an adult tut-tutting when Wendell couldn’t quite see things through in the ultimate confrontation with Hood.

The Barkerian touch, here, is that Harvey wins in the end thanks not to his moral goodness, but because he’s found a little of Hood’s darkness within himself, and learns how to turn it on this “Vampire Lord” and his deceptive House. There are echoes of other Barker works here too, such as the overall feeling of a Faustian pact; the quartet of Rictus, Jive, Marr and Carna feeling a little like the four Cenobites (both are sets of unnaturally altered humans with supernatural powers, both are three men and a woman, and both feature one member with a ridiculously fixed grin); Rictus, in addition, has the salesman-like patter of Shadwell from Weaveworld; and Mr Hood is first met in a dusty attic, giving it the feel of the lurking supernatural presence of the resurrected Frank in Hellraiser. Barker himself has said that The Thief of Always has some of the same themes as Imajica: “The concerns about the darkness, the secret self; the ideas about some ultimate enemy who is in fact quite close to one’s self.” There’s no sense at all that, in writing for children, Barker is being less Barker.

(He was often, at this time, saying in interviews from Weaveworld on that he’d moved on from horror to fantasy, but there’s a lot of darkness in The Thief of Always, and I have to say it’s in the darker fantastic that his power as an imaginative writer lies.)

The risk with a children’s fantasy about the dangers of escapism is that it might turn into a critique of the genre it’s written in, but Barker, very much a pro-imagination writer—and also, as already said, not of the finger-wagging type—here presents a much more holistic view: “if we embrace Neverland too strongly, we are forever sucking our thumbs, but if we die without knowing Neverland, we’ve lost our power to dream…”, as he’s said in an interview. Harvey is an imaginative lad, and ultimately his imagination is part of the solution, not the problem. Being lured in by the apparent pleasures of the Holiday House is more like a refusal to grow up than a retreat into one’s inner world, and the best children’s literature is usually about learning to open up to the wider adult world. And Barker, a self-confessed “inclusionist” in all his writing, sees imagination, and darkness, as part of the wider, adult world, too.

Retired teachers Thom and Judith Clarendon are visiting their son Allan and his wife Coral at their new home in the seaside town of Barnwall (at number 14 Willow Grove—and you can’t help suspecting that 14 is probably a skipped 13). The real focus of their visit, though, is their six-year-old grandson Dean. Coral’s parents, Kendrick and Leigh, are also visiting, making for a crowded house. But it may have one more occupant still—Dean’s imaginary friend Heady, who “makes it go cold sometimes” and who can talk, but only “when he’s got a head”. Sleeping in Dean’s room, Thom wakes to see a child-sized shadow lingering near the bed, one that doesn’t seem to have anything above the shoulders. It disappears when he fully wakes up, but then Judith says to him “Don’t say you didn’t see.”

It all sounds like the set-up for a ghostly tale, and though it’s one Campbell would surely bring something entirely fresh to, it turns out that’s not the tale he’s telling in this, his latest novel, An Echo of Children. Because, once the grandparents are alone, Judith opens up about her concern that Dean’s imaginary friend may, in fact, be a ghost. And—everyone agrees. What’s more, even Allan and Coral agree, and a local priest, who believes them but for some reason is reluctant to arrange for an exorcism, nevertheless recommends the owner of a local New Age shop, who duly carries out a cleansing of the house. And it seems to be successful. Dean says Heady doesn’t like the smell in the house anymore and has gone. Which is sad, he says, because “He told me he wouldn’t let anyone hurt me… like someone hurt him.”

It’s from this point something changes in the household. Coral and Allan, already stricter than their own parents ever were, take Dean out of his new school because they don’t like the influence of his new classmates. As both work from home (Coral is a copyeditor, and perhaps being a corrector of other people’s mistakes has crept into her parenting style a little too much), they decide to home-school him, but their main intent seems to be to keep him away from anything that would make him question their increasingly strident religious views—and that even includes the local church.

Judith (now at her own home again, and having to work out what’s going on with Dean via video calls) starts to have new suspicions about the level of punishment involved in Dean’s home-schooling. She researches 14 Willow Drive and finds that the street changed its name after a horrendous local case in which a couple became so obsessed with correcting their wayward child, he “died by accident while they were attempting to purge him of wickedness” by attaching him to “a heavy child-sized cross”. And this is merely the latest in a long line of atrocities in a town whose very name, it turns out, commemorates a Viking massacre of a particularly nasty type: Barnwall, meaning bairn-field, or child-field, derives from the mass burials that were required once the Vikings had done their work.

An Echo of Children is a dialogue-driven novel, with something of the feel of Alan Garner’s The Owl Service (another tale of people caught in the tangles of a supernaturally-charged landscape). But the dialogue is characteristically Campbell’s own. Virtually every line spoken is fraught with unintended implications—accidental second-meanings instantly latched onto by the recipient, leaving the speaker scrabbling to correct themselves, or revise what they’d just said. It’s a novel in which even those who love one another seem to be constantly having to reassure their loved ones against the unintentionally bruising effects of language. For Campbell, dialogue is a minefield even before such a delicate subject as the possible abuse of a child gets introduced. The effect is a sort of hemmed-in isolation as the difficulties of communication lead to Judith’s constantly having to deal with others’ almost wilful misunderstandings, or is simply battered into helplessness by the kind of false reassurances people give when they see someone in distress.

The theme of this novel, as Campbell himself has said, is “the vulnerability of children, as well as how people are willing to embrace beliefs that rob them of the right to question.” And the vulnerability of children is by no means a new strand in his work. Right back in the early novels, The Nameless was about a parent’s fear of what the world can do to a vulnerable child (and this could well be seen as Allan and Coral’s motivation here), while The Influence dealt with the spectre of psychological abuse that hangs over a family through multiple generations. The abusive impulse arising from a location with a dark and supernaturally-charged past can be found in The House on Nazareth Hill, and there are of course numerous short stories in Campbell’s body of work that touch on the theme (for instance, in the collection I recently reviewed, Waking Nightmares). An Echo of Children comes closest to Claw, in that it’s about the potential parental abuse of a child, but here the focus is on the helplessness of grandparents who suspect what’s going on, but who, while they feel they must surely be able to do something about it, are too easily dismissed as interfering busybodies, or as simply having a different parenting style—or, even, as suffering from the first signs of dementia. (Thom’s living with a constant barrage of age-related aches and pains, bouts of blurred vision and so on, is a constant note throughout the book, which only adds to the tension of the concluding chapters.)

The mix of fundamentalist religious beliefs, and the smily, reassuring collusion of the local establishment figures who are also neighbours (and so, presumably, under the same influence of the land’s dark history) gives this novel a (sadly evergreen) relevance. Neighbours on Willow Drive include a police inspector, a social worker, and the owner of a local amusement arcade—all figures associated with the protection of children, or at least of places where they ought to be protected—and there’s almost a folk-horror-ish air in the way they pop up whenever Thom and Judith go out, offering their opinions on the right way to treat children, and how Dean is of course safest in his parents’ hands.

I might have preferred more in-depth background on the history of Barnwall, but perhaps that would have been a different sort of novel entirely. (I’d certainly have liked more characterisation of Allan and Coral. Surely the grandparents must have been wondering where this sudden religious impulse was coming from—though perhaps that’s part of the point: Allan and Coral’s behaviour is allowed to pass due to the usual British reticence in discussing peoples’ religious beliefs, even when those beliefs are a stepping stone to cultish behaviour.)

It’s an immensely readable novel (I polished off the last half in a single day, which is rare for me), not so much on the chilling edge of horror as the domestic end of a psychological thriller, though one with a definite supernatural edge. It continues Campbell’s run of fresh takes on the rich themes that have informed his body of work throughout, while showing him to be constantly seeking new angles and ideas.

Unlike her later books (adult fantasy like Rats & Gargoyles, SF like Golden Witchbreed, and the massive alternative history Ash), Mary Gentle’s first novel, A Hawk in Silver, was a YA fantasy. It was mostly written between the ages of 18 and 19 (in one interview, she says it was begun when she was 15), and was first published in 1977 by Gollancz in the UK, then in 1985 in the US, with paperback editions in both countries (plus a German translation).

It starts with 15-year-old Holly Anderson finding a silver coin or medallion in the street. One side depicts a hawk, the other a woman’s face. A short while later, she’s approached by Fletcher, a young man with no shoes and a sometimes archaic mode of speech (but this is close enough to the 60s that it doesn’t seem too strange), who says he’s been looking for the medallion and thinks she has it. In a hurry, she hands it to him—or thinks she does, only to later find she gave him a normal coin instead. She shows the silver one to her friend, Chris Ivy, who goes to the same all-girls’ school as her, and they discuss what to do with it. At one point, they’re attacked—bizarrely, by a cat and a seagull, both of which seem to want the coin. When Fletcher turns up once again, Holly takes it out to give to him, but it fades into nothing on her palm. Fletcher asks them to come with him so they can receive an explanation. He takes them along a local river valley, to a hill, which he enters. Inside, he introduces them to Mathurin the Harper, Eilurieth the Keeper of Mirrormere and other elukoi, “an ancient and honourable people” who have pointed, furry ears and cat-like eyes, and who, it turns out, are exiles from Faerie. The coin was one of the “old things out of Ys”, which had been treated with “a binding spell… so that time does not decay them”, but something, evidently, broke that spell. The girls are invited to the elukoi city of Brancaer, to help understand what has happened. (Chris, something of a skeptic as far as magic is concerned, says she hopes it won’t take all day, as it’s a Saturday and “There’s some good programmes on the Box, Saturday evenings.”) But at Brancaer, before they can be properly introduced to Oberon, lord of the elukoi, Eilurieth is injured and the girls are told to leave and never return: it is their presence that is a danger, for humans are not only non-magical, but annul magic. That’s why the coin disappeared, and now their presence in Brancaer is affecting the spells that shield the elukoi from their deadly enemies, the sea-born morkani. Already they are open to attack.

The girls return to their mundane lives, which means encounters with the classroom bully Helen and her gang, the poor health of Holly’s grandfather, and generally gadding about the southern English coastal town where they live (it’s never named, but in interviews Gentle says it was based on Hastings, where she grew up). Another encounter with Fletcher leads to the girls learning that the hill where they initially met the elukoi has been destroyed by the morkani, and with it the hope of the elukoi returning to Faerie: the Harp of Math, which is needed to summon the Starlord Fyraire, was in that hill, but now is wreathed in hostile morkani magic. Then Chris says that, as humans, they’re immune to Faerie magic, so why don’t they go in and get it?

In an interview in the BSFA’s Vector in 1983, Gentle says there was a “trinity of writers” she “absorbed in childhood”: Tolkien, Lewis, and Alan Garner. There’s a hint of the first two here, as in for instance the female elukoi Eilurieth who, as Keeper of Mirrormere, a pool in which visions of the future can be seen, recalls Galadriel; or in Fyraire’s home, the Silver Wood, which “borders on all places”, and recalls the “Wood Between the Worlds” in The Magician’s Nephew. But the clearest influence (as almost every review of the book I’ve found points out) is Alan Garner, in the mix of the girls’ sometimes harsh real-world lives and their trips into a magical but somewhat forbidding otherworld. But there was a lot of Garner influence around at the time—to the point where you have to say it’s less down to one writer’s influence and more about a potential in the genre that was just waiting to come out—and anyway, that Garnerish mix of real-world drama and fantasy was what brought me to this book in the first place, so I’m certainly not going to complain about it.

The closest Garner comparison would be with Elidor (if only because both books feature a unicorn), and though Gentle’s novel doesn’t quite hit the sublime/tragic note of Garner’s, or make the otherworld her kids visit feel as powerful and strange, this is holding A Hawk in Silver against a very high bar. I’d say, perhaps, Gentle’s characters are a little more realistic than those in Elidor (though perhaps that’s just because Garner was writing for, and about, slightly younger children, and about a decade earlier). Holy and Chris suffer some genuine violence at the hands of their bullies, and apparently there’s some explicit swearing that was edited out of the US edition (which is the one I read, because I preferred the cover).

Perhaps, also, there’s a little less thematic unity in Hawk in Silver. Some ideas get raised (such as Fletcher, who proves to be a human changeling who has spent his life in the realm of elukoi, but who cannot return with them to Faerie, at one point expressing disillusionment with the world of magic: “half the things aren’t there, are not real. Magic is well enough in its way, but it’s all shadow play and illusion. There’s nothing left at the end but dead leaves and dust.”), but don’t get returned to or developed further. The core of the story, I’d say, is about Holly’s development. A keen painter, she sees, through her adventures, the sights that will inform her work throughout the rest of her life (and manages to persuade Fyraire to let her have a glimpse of the realm of Faerie, where no human can go, and finds she recognises it somehow). Her grandfather’s death teaches her the value of life, which adds a new dimension to the looming war between the elukoi and morkani, as she finds she can’t treat it as the sort of fantasy adventure type of battle you might expect in a YA book.

Humans not just being non-magical, but in a sense anti-magical, is a new element, to me, and perhaps the thing that makes A Hawk in Silver stand out most in genre terms. But the book’s also worth reading for the real-world sections which, based on Gentle’s own experiences as they are, are different to any of the other Garner-style books that came out at the time (many of which were written by a previous generation—Gentle was far closer in age to her audience). And there’s also a moment when the elukoi start showing signs of democracy in the face of their king’s insistence on war—a political revolution in fairyland! That’s something I wasn’t expecting.