[A disclaimer: The author reads the reviews, and has been known to mention them on his Twitter, as he did with the first one-star review for Anoka. While the author himself took the negative review graciously, some of his supporters were... not so gracious in the comments, on some occasions even resorting to personal comments about the reviewer. I say this only in the interest of transparency, as this knowledge has affected how I wrote this review.]
Well. I honestly struggled a lot with this review, both over the rating and what to say. It's rare that I feel so wretched about giving a one star review (generally by the point of reviewing, I'm so annoyed at the author that rating one star seems like the obvious course of action) but there's nothing annoying about this book; there's nothing offensive; nothing that made me angry. It's just not very good, and it's such a shame because the author's enthusiasm is abundantly clear, as is his potential. I just feel that these stories are premature. There's some real promise in them, some moments where I can see incredible potential, the framework of a distinct style, glimpses of some truly harrowing imagery. It was just let down by the fact that these stories weren't ready to be published yet.
The enthusiasm is there, as I've said, and so is the potential. However, when it comes to a published book, I can't rate solely on what the book could have been. I have to rate on what's there. While I could appreciate some of the concepts, I couldn't look past the fact that they were not well executed. The writing in many areas was juvenile. The dialogue -- what little there was -- was stilted and forced. There was the occasional line that stood out as well-written, but for the most part the sentences were choppy, simplistic, and more often than not did nothing to set an atmosphere or convey an emotion -- they just bluntly informed the reader. Some of the descriptions and epitaphs were simply bad. There were a couple of paragraphs here and there that had atmosphere and showed potential, but these were not common. The whole thing seemed very rushed.
I've read a lot of creepy stories, and I was lucky enough to see the creepypasta trend take off online back in the day. I love short horror, microfiction, all of the things I would find in the dead of night while browsing random forums. This collection reminded me of these stories, but not the good ones. Not the terrible ones, either, but rather the mediocre ones. The ones where the author clearly had a good idea but lacked the skill to do it justice. A little more time, a little more practise, and those stories could have been great. I feel the same way about this, though this background in internet horror microfiction did have me squinting at Imitate in particular. Of course, nobody really can say they own the copyright to urban legends, but the opening scene of this story was word-for-word a popular creepypasta that has been doing the rounds for well over a decade now, and was probably in existence far before that. It's not a bad thing, to take folklore and base your own story off of it, but I feel that to do something like that with such a staple, something new should be brought to the table. Similarly, I feel like it's fine to draw inspiration from other writers in your genre, but again, something new needs to be brought to the scene. The scene under the house, once more in Imitate, was very similar to a scene in Mapping the Interior by Stephen Graham Jones -- certainly not plagiarism, but similar enough that I feel if it was to be included, more care should have been taken in ensuring it didn't read like a scene collected by the author for its aesthetical value and slotted into a story purely for the imagery.
While not the stories themselves, the Story Notes at the end were, obviously, included in the book, and therefore I don't feel out of line for commenting on them. I did not think they were appropriate. There is a difference between an author making a note regarding their inspiration or writing process (as seen in the introduction of this book), and notes that are quite literally explaining the story and telling the reader what they should be thinking or feeling. If a story is written well enough, this should not be necessary. Regardless, an author should never lecture the reader on what to think. It seemed like the Story Notes were there because the author either lacked confidence that his writing would illicit the "correct" response (a problematic misconception to have in the first place), or he was worried about "incorrect" responses and wanted to pre-emptively clear everything up. I do not think there was anything negative in this -- the author strikes me as neither pretentious nor conceited, just very enthusiastic and eager to share his thoughts -- but I couldn't shake the feeling I was being told what to think and how to interpret the story, and I don't like authors doing that under any circumstances. Understanding the inevitable divide between what you write and what your readers take from it is entry level. It can be a frustrating thing, yes, because god knows some people out there utterly lack reading comprehension, but in my opinion there's never an excuse for an author to sit their readers down and tell them how to feel. If the writing is strong enough, enough people will take from it what an author intended.
I feel the need to conclude this by saying I wish the author well. There is potential here, and I truly think that with his drive and enthusiasm, he's capable of writing a great book. I really do hope that in a few years I'm on here giving it a glowing review. Unfortunately, the writing in this book was just not there.