I didn't have high hopes going in. After all, this is a novelisation of the forthcoming movie sequel to Hammer's The Woman in Black, rather than a genuine sequel to the original book by Susan Hill. But as TWIB is one of my favourite books, and the first film was commendable, I had to give it a stab.
Sadly, the book suffers greatly from novelising a film script. The structure feels as if it is following on screen action shot for shot, instead of producing a narrative that works on the page. I will be very surprised if the film is very different to what I've already experienced on the page. But this also creates further issues. A film can jump from character to character as scenes change - or even within a scene. But it is very jarring in a book. Sometimes, the point of view changes with dizzying speed so that you leap from the mind and thoughts of one person into another within a paragraph. I always thought that was a major novelist faux pas so I was surprised to come across it so blatantly - and jarringly - throughout.
Also, the book is clearly a sequel to the film version and differs from the original novel in significant ways. This isn't so bad because, as I said before, the film adaptation of TWIB is pretty spiffy (despite the changed ending). But then this new version takes some of these differences even further so that the ghost at the heart of the novel behaves and manifests in ways completely at odds with Hill's original vision. Or at least that's how it seems to me. Here is a ghost that can (as in one scene) be reasoned with. Instead of a supernatural force of nature following clear rules, this ghost seems far too - well, human. Should a malevolent ghost like the eponymous woman in black experience doubt?
Plus, when the point of view shifts to the ghost, you realise the book has crossed a line the original never would. We're not supposed to relate to this character. It should exist outside of our understanding and rational thought. That is exactly what makes a ghost terrifying . But here, the ghost becomes pantomime villain.
And naturally for a film novelisation that follows a standard film structure, many events are predictable and genuine suspense is rare.
Waites also has a writing style that screams for an editor. (Was there one on this?). Too many events are described either passively or in retrospect, instead of placing the reader at the heart of the action. Again, this suggests a literal transcribing of events on the screen (or in the script) but makes for poor prose.
But more than all this, Waites seems to lack the background in ghost story lore that would have highlighted exactly why this doesn't carry the same power of the original. Hill always said TWIB was inspired by her love of the tales of Henry James, Dickens, M.R. James, etc - the masters of the form. And these suggest very clear rules for how a ghpst story should be told - not a formula, just an understanding of what works. None of these seem to be present here - such as the need for a strong central character around who the events transpire - hence why there is always suspense about what they experience.
It's a shame, it really is. One can only hope that Hammer decides to not flog this horse any more, or if they do to bring on board someone who truly understands how to structure a genuine Jamesian ghost story.