Writing is very hard. As Theodore Roosevelt said, it is not the critic that counts but the man who is in the arena. I am not a writer and would not begin to know how to write a novel. All of this is preface to say this is the first truly bad book I have read in a while, and yet it held my interest and was suspenseful. I wanted to know what happened next.
It's badly written but not uniformly so. In fact, given the self-published look of the pages and typeface, and a publishing house I had never heard of, plus the dedication to "Laura, for eighteen years of great parenting", I seriously thought this was a first novel by an eighteen year old kid who was trying to do Stephen King. The story is about his subjects: kids, a small town, a monstrous evil that invades both of them. I was willing to accept the bad prose because I thought this was a first effort by a young writer who does what all young writers do and copies the style and voice of a respected author, and only does it badly as you would if you hadn't written much before. It was understandable. But Searls, to my surprise, is not a young man. So I am sorry I am saying these things.
The sentences just get away from him. He tries to have a cool, hip, casual style describing his characters and their thoughts, full of pop references like King, trying to get into their head and talk like them, like King, but the whole thing is off. He is repetitive; he is describes things oddly; he needs a good editor; the characters aren't so much inhabited and rounded, feeling like real people, as imitations of them. And that's the main problem: his prose and his conceptions of the characters and the story aren't good enough to feel authentic, despite what Joe R. Lansdale says on the blurb on the cover. Everything, including the generic, unexplained horror, feels ersatz.
He didn't do any favors by keeping the novel so short, when he described the minute actions of the many characters encountering the horror for much of that time, unnecessarily, as that would have befitted a longer novel, not the 200 page one we got. He doesn't have much time to deepen the threat for any allegorical thematic significance, nor resolve it in a satisfactory manner. We get a very weak ending.
I hope Mr. Searls continues his writing--I probably won't give his other books a chance--and he seems like a nice guy, responding to praising commenters on Amazon's reviews. I guess he won't reply to me :)