I got this book for free after winning a Goodreads Giveaway. When I received it in the mail, there was also a piece of paper asking me to share that I got the book, to post my thoughts on social media as I read, and then to write a review when I was done. Well, the first two aren't really my style. And I don't think this is really the review they had in mind. Oops.
This piece of paper also described the book as "a chilling blend of family saga and gothic mystery that evokes the darkly rich narratives of [other authors who I don't know and don't want to drag into this]." I've never disagreed with anything more. This book is a quick(ish) and badly written mystery that didn't have ANY atmosphere, much less one that is gothic, chilling, or darkly rich. It felt like a cash grab attempting to vaguely check off certain boxes in order to complete a book that can somewhat be considered a horror/mystery book without any love or care for the genres.
If I sound annoyed, it's because I am. It's annoying to feel like I put more effort into reading this book and writing this review than anyone did into writing, editing, or publishing it.
The writing itself was bad. I wasn't counting, but I think this book had 1/3 of the amount of commas that it needed. There were so many run on sentences. I have kind of considered that I might've gotten an early copy: maybe the book wasn't quite out yet and would still undergo a lot of editing (I don't know how these things work). And that could be the case. I won this Giveaway on August 17 (although I didn't receive it until September), and the book came out on August 20. If this was the only problem, I would be more forgiving, even though it really took me out of the story. But since it was still an issue, I figure I should mention it.
The plot wasn't engaging at all. On Goodreads, this book is listed first as horror and second as mystery, but The House by the Cemetery fails in both aspects. For a book that praises itself for its dark vibe, it's not scary or tense at all because there's nothing actually happening. This book is a great example of telling instead of showing; characters kept telling me things were scary and tense, but that was about it. A new dead person would appear every few pages, sure, but when there's that many dead people it starts to just be funny.
Had The House by the Cemetery actually committed to being a mystery, it might've gone better. Multiple mysteries are set up — who killed the patriarch, what happens to the missing teens in the graveyard, is the ghost of the gravedigger real, etc. — but none of them came to a satisfying conclusion. The best wrap-up happens in a confusing scene that I still barely understand, and the worst isn't even revealed. Seriously, there's a whole epilogue that is seemingly there to just laugh at me for committing to the entire book and still not learning the answer.
Despite horror appearing first in the list of genres, it seemed like the book was intended to be a mystery, as one of the main characters was the sheriff and the other was the "black sheep" of the family (both in a good position to investigate and figure out secrets), but neither character did anything besides banter with the other. All of the "investigation" (if you can even call it that) involved the sheriff repeating "we need to solve this mystery before more people get hurt" while doing nothing but waiting for analyses to get back to him. And River wasn't much better: at about 250 pages in, she finally decides she's going to get involved because the sheriff is being slow, so she had three very short conversations with family members, then she decides its too dangerous so we just wait for the grand reveal. There were no clues or a gradual reveal of secrets, it was just the book telling me there was a mystery to be solved while doing nothing about it.
Since this book leans into being a "family mystery" (similar to something like Knives Out, where the family dynamics play a major role in the storytelling), the Gold family needed to be more involved. Other than River, her mother, her daughter, and her daughter's cousins, we didn't really get to know anybody. That sounds like a lot, but it's only five people out of 16, and that doesn't include how much time was dedicated to Luke and his foster kid (and other smaller roles). The whole book is about how one of the family members must be guilty, and we never really get to know any of the suspects. So, when the murderer was revealed, I just didn't care.
In fact, all the characters were painfully flat. They felt like poorly designed book characters instead of whole people with personalities. Dynamics, attitudes, and opinions would change based on what the scene needed, and none of the main characters stood out enough to carry the book. And nobody developed at all. I'm trying to write this review, and I can barely remember any of them to point out a specific example. Even when characters had experienced some horrible things, it was only ever mentioned in what can otherwise be read as a very casual conversation. It was the narrative equivalent of a character saying, "Oh, yeah, sorry I'm having a panic attack, it's because my PTSD is being triggered."
I couldn't be bothered to bring myself to care about this book. Every time I found myself engaging with it, I was inevitably let down within a few pages. The dialogue was bland and confusing. Half the narration was just repeating information we already knew. And, ultimately, I'm just glad to be done.