Horns by:Joe Hill

This story  was somewhat disappointing because of its familiarity. The hero blamed for a crime he didn’t commit; discovering the real murderer; exacting revenge against that murderer; the tale of youths falling in love; learning why Merrin was killed in the first place,  the subplots in “Horns” are fairly conventional, aside from Ig suddenly developing devil-like abilities. Even the execution, while skillfully handled, was largely formulaic right down to the flashbacks, foreshadowing and other well-used plot devices.

Creatively, I loved the idea of the hero using abilities usually associated with evil, especially the ‘horns’ which caused people to confess their darkest urges—their worst and most shameful impulses—and asking permission to commit more. The only problem I had with this concept is that I felt the abilities that Ig develops and the many references Joe makes to Satan over the course of the novel were a bit too cliché like being able to learn all of a person’s guilty secrets upon skin contact, commanding snakes, wielding a pitchfork as a weapon, ‘luck of the devil’, 666, the gift of tongues, “The Devil Inside”, Asmodeus, ‘devil in a blue dress’, and so on. Comparatively, while “Horns” is another well-written and entertaining novel, I felt it lacked the surprise twists and jaw-dropping moments. Nevertheless, I immensely enjoyed reading “Horns” and believe the novel will only add to Joe Hill's growing legacy...

The Stranger by: Albert Camus

The Stranger by Albert Camus is a super short novel, but its substance is heavy.  The main character, Meursault, unsympathetically attends his mother’s funeral, begins an immoral relationship with a female co-worker the next day, becomes involved in his debauched neighbor’s problems, and ends up murdering a man without reasonable motive. The Stranger is appealing, specifically because it highlights philosophical ideas that express why we are where we are today as a society.  As much as I appreciated the opportunity to read The Stranger, I completely disagree with this philosophy. To begin, Meursault is honest about the way he views everything; I value that.  But he does not seem human: he is without emotion or empathy; is animalistic in his thoughts; and is disconnected from people.  I wondered if he was not a little mentally challenged or childlike. I suppose his story would be acceptable if my speculations were true; but the problem is that this is his attitude.  He does not judge between what is right and what is evil.  He thinks society ineptly seeks logical meaning behind man’s behavior and purpose; yet, he thinks there is no explanation for either.  Society cannot know if there is truly a purpose to life; therefore, there is no reason to care.  Man is like nature, and nature does not care either.