Okay, so we’ve got a vicious, bloodthirsty maniac roaming the English countryside, dismembering and disemboweling everyone he encounters? Win! Rawhead Rex reminded me of my own favorite bad boy, Jack the Ripper, down to Rawhead’s assertion on page 371 that “he’d slaughter their children and wear their infants’ bowels as necklaces.” Mr. Barker? You had me at page 362.
First things first. Let’s banish the notion that Rawhead Rex isn’t a sympathetic character. If you buried me alive, then left me to rot for thousands of years, I can assure you I’d come out of my crypt fighting mad. I’d want to eat you, your young, your livestock, whatever I could find to sink my teeth into. I’d want vengeance, plainly stated, and I don’t think we can cast aspersions at Rawhead for wanting his comeuppance. Having said that, I have to admit it doesn’t sound if he was a particularly sterling being prior to his untimely demise.
As to Rawhead’s monstrous qualities: I thought Barker did a terrific job of fleshing out, so to speak, Rawhead, and I had a very vivid image of him in my head as I read. However, he failed my litmus test for determining how scary a monster/concept is. When I went to bed shortly after I finished reading this, I didn’t find it necessary to leave a light on. It was well written enough, but it was overkill, pun intended. After the first few victims, the carnage started to lose impact and to some degree to become comedic. There wasn’t one specific killing that stood out in my imagination.
In fact, I found the scenes where Rawhead didn’t kill the characters immediately upon seeing them much more terrifying than the descriptions of him instantly slaughtering his victims. For example, on page 385, when Rawhead is urinating on Declan and Declan is happily bathing in the stream, that sent a chill down my spine. For that matter, Declan and his devotion to Rawhead was the creepiest aspect of this story, in my view.
Also in the same vein, the fact that Rawhead refuses to go near Gwen Nicholson because she’s menstruating I found disturbing, much as I found the concept that Rawhead and his brothers impregnated the village women all those years ago with babies that ripped them apart during birth ghastly and alarming.
Now that I’ve addressed the monster itself, I do want to speak to what I felt this story was really about. I believe Rawhead Rex was about the consequences of colonization. Barker alludes to this almost from the get go when he describes how Zeal has been basically invaded by the Sunday trippers. Replace “Zeal” with “Britannia” and Rawhead Rex is essentially the monstrous embodiment of the Celts and the Saxons, with the Sunday trippers being the Romans. Fast forward roughly a thousand years, and Rawhead Rex is Australia. I could go on making these comparisons in relation to England for hours; you get my point already, I’m sure.
In short, I found this to be a terrifically engaging work which I thoroughly enjoyed. I am eager to read more of Barker’s work.
Well spoke. I hadn't thought of the colonization angle before, but now that you mention it, I can see it. Nice.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Rawhead is a sympathetic character. The problem is that Barker didn't develop him enough. There is so much more potential for this monster, IE: King Kong, than has been done.
ReplyDeleteCraig G.
Good observation about the story being about colonization. I'll take that one step further and say Christian colonization. Zeal? Zealots in Zeal with a Venus of Willendorf under their altar? The old gods were powerful.
ReplyDeleteI, too, felt comfortable turning the lights off after this story, though I enjoyed it. For me, the lack of fear came from the fact that the characters themselves mostly accepted that they were going to die. Once they were past the fear, I found that I was, too.
ReplyDeleteNikki, I agree about the religious colonization. That is likely the reason for the name of the town and the people in it. As this story focused on the power of certain religions over monsters, I think it's quite relevant!
I am with you on the colonization thing which I addressed in my post as well. But, I want to acknowledge your points on what was terrifying to you. When Barker began to paint the scene with Rawhead and DeClan it was one of those "Oh Sh**!" moments. You knew something really bad was happening. Then the impregnation thing which I think only women can relate to the true horror of it. Although Pinborough does give men a taste of child birthing in "Breeding Ground."
ReplyDeleteMen don't understand the female processes and it terrifies them. Barker has reached out in two different ways to the most horrifying things for the sexes. Thanks.
I'm glad you mentioned the colonization angle. It's a major point of contention between the Brits, the idea of the city-dweller (Londoner/Englishman) invading the countryside (rural town/Wales/Scotland).
ReplyDelete