BOOK REVIEW: ​THE ANTIQUITY OF DARK THINGS BY D.M. KEENAN

BY CHARLOTTE BOND 

 
This is an atmospheric tale, reminiscent of MR James, but unfortunately spoiled by bad editing.
 
Matthew Dombey inherits his childhood home when his father dies in mysterious circumstances. Upon inspecting the contents of the house with the lawyer, Richmond Bassingham, Matthew uncovers a painting with a terrible history and so sets off a chain of events that tests both his physical and mental limits. Only the mysterious Galahad Ravensdale offers him any hope of surviving the terrible fate that awaits.
 
The painting itself is described in wonderfully sinister terms; you can conjure it perfectly in your mind’s eye as if you were standing before it. In addition, the encounters between Matthew and his demon tormentor are well-written and send a delicious chill down your spine. The author really draws you in so that you might be standing next to Matthew as he faces all these terrible attacks.
 
The story revolves around Matthew, never deviating from his point of view except at the end, when we switch to Galahad’s viewpoint to see the wider picture. As such, Matthew is a compelling character, really evoking sympathy from the reader. However, this tight focus does mean that the secondary characters suffer from lack of development. It feels like the author has barely given a thought to their history.
 
For example, the novel opens as follows:
 
I met Richmond Bassingham for the first time when I was nine years old, and it would be a fair assumption to say that even at such a tender age, I did not care for him very much at all. And meeting him again on a slate grey, cold and wet winter’s day, some twenty-one years later, nothing had changed to temper the dislike I felt for my family solicitor.
 
My interpretation is that Mathew met him once when he was nine and is now meeting him again for the second time. To back up this theory, the narrator goes onto say:
 
‘Matthew, please, call me Richmond,’ he replied as he grasped my upper arm and gave it a gentle squeeze, a gesture I had always felt unpleasant whenever applied as the gentlemen who wielded it were often always selling something or wanted something in return.
 
If Matthew had encountered Richmond several times, then his distaste for the gesture would likely be phrased in a more personal manner, rather than comparing it to salesmen in general.
 
But later we get lines such as:
 
‘And I’m grateful that you weren’t, Matthew,’ Bassingham replied, [his] voice displaying a tenderness I had never seen in the man.
 
How could Matthew possibly make such a comparison in relation to tone of voice with a man he barely knows?
 
Another example is while Matthew gets his servants to call him by his first name, he refers to them as Mr and Mrs Shale. This somewhat undermines the idea that they are more like family than servants, and shows a lack of back story. Just what was the conversation where the young master says to them: “In both public and private, I want you to call me Matthew, but you know what? I think I’m still going to call you Mr and Mrs Shale.” It doesn’t make sense.
 
The key confrontation between Matthew, Galahad and the demon is suspenseful. However, it is somewhat spoiled by Galahad admitting the limitations of his magic when an immensely powerful demon is within earshot. Now the demon knows all it has to do is keep up its attack and Galahad’s wards will fail. This clumsy exposition means that you instantly lose any respect for the character of Galahdd. It’s such a shame, as the rest of the scene is very well done.
 
A developmental editor should have picked up on these issues because they undermine both the plot and the characters. But the bad editing doesn’t stop there. Within the text are glaringly obvious issues of bad copyediting. You can even see examples of it in my quotes above:
 

• the gentlemen who wielded it were often always selling something: according to the OED, “often” means “frequently” or “in many instances”, while “always” means “on all occasions”. These adverbs give two opposing images.
• Bassingham replied, [his] voice displaying a tenderness: a copyeditor or even a good proofreader should have spotted that the word “his” was missing, as I’ve had to supply it here.

 
But there are plenty more examples in the rest of the book:

• the redundant phrase “small little details”;
• “myself” is unforgivably used three times in one sentence;
• Matthew’s name is repeated by a speaker four times in one page while the conversation itself is blatantly exposition;
• “his reputation was inconsiderable” which, I suspect, is the exact opposite of what is meant;
• archaic words are used incorrectly:
  • in the phrase “bode me good afternoon” should be “bid me a good afternoon” or possibly “bade me good afternoon”;
  • the phrase “without nary a glance in her direction” is used but since “nary” is an archaic form of “not”, combining it with the word “without” effectively makes a double negative meaning that Richmond did in fact give Mrs Shale a backward glance.

 
This novel is filled with inconsistencies and editing errors, but despite that, it shows plenty of promise. The author has a skill in conjuring up a by-gone era, and the atmosphere is well-crafted. If you’re the sort of person who isn’t bothered by typographical and editing errors, you’ll probably be drawn into this book and enjoy it. However, if you find such errors jolt you out of the story then you’ll probably find this book is unreadable.
 
In my opinion, “The Antiquity of Dark Things” is a promising example of future talent but not a fully-formed novel that will satisfy. 

LEARNING TO LOVE AGAIN