Taking the Shine Off: The Church of Dead Girls by Stephen Dobyns

In The Church of Dead Girls, Stephen Dobyns managed to solidify one fact:  the horror to be found in what many term “normalcy” is often the scariest kind to face.  On the first page of the prologue, we know something terrible has happened.  The author gives thorough details on the crime scene, but the one that stands out the most is the reflectivity and glitter of the attic where the bodies were found.  The scene brings to mind decay or death covered by glitter and reflected as the illusion of beauty.

The author’s title reminds me of the scene, and on a larger scale, the town of Aurelius.  The very name is a derivative of the feminine name Aurelia, which means golden.  A church is a place of worship, or the shiny veneer that covers the town; and, underneath the covering is dark as death and the dead girls.  There is also a nod to the death of that worship of how things look on the outside, the death of innocents of sorts.  Where the girls who were murdered were true innocents, the townspeople were not.

The title also sets the somber tone of the novel and is interesting in that it foreshadows the lives of the townspeople of Aurelius who are, as Chihani stated in the book, “They are asleep.  This is the condition they prefer…indeed, there is no better invitation to the frightful than ignorance—that is, sleep” (Dobyns, 32).  Through the narrator of the story, we find that Aurelius is a small town, a place where some residents moved to from larger cities.  We expect that the big city nuisances that face town dwellers would not be a danger to people who live in small Aurelia.  I thought it very important that the town was small but not tiny.  Tiny would have given the impression of isolated or possibly populated by people who were beyond ignorant and were just plain hicks.  Aurelia was small enough to be personal and yet large enough to be home to numerous intellectuals (even if only in title) and a college.

The narrator backs us into an explanation of the sequence of events that lead to the discovery of the bodies and as the story unfolds, the shine comes off Aurelius and its residents.  The suspicion that builds as the murderer is slowly uncovered reveals true ugliness within the town folk, as the investigation turns into a modern day witch hunt.  The story is a compelling social commentary on the marginalization of certain groups within our society.  Each of the characters who were actually murdered were a part of an “other” group”:  Janice was a loose woman, who was looked down on because of her free sexuality, Chihani was of foreign birth, and the member of a political group that criticized the majority, Jaime was a homosexual, and the girls were female children.  The use of a narrator who was a part of one of these groups was essential, in that only someone on the inside of such prejudices would be able to see all that is going on surrounding the issues within the story.

Another thing I found interesting was the presence of Aaron, who was as liminal a character as Iago in Othello.  It was never really clear as to whether Aaron was on the side of good or evil.  He attacked Hark, but only after being provoked.  He may have heavily persuaded Harriet to become his lover, but he did not rape her.  He attacked Sheila, but we are only told her side of the story about the attack, so we don’t know what she may have done to him.  He protected Barry.  And in the end, he forced the hand of the murderer and saved Sadie’s life.  But I would hesitate to call him a good person.  What was clear enough was that he was somewhere between the two sides and was also the catalyst for much of what happened in Aurelius during the kidnapping investigations.  With very little prompting, he was able to encourage much of the horror to unfold from itself.

Donald as the murderer was another bow to Shakespeare.  His constant hand washing, in attempts to absolve himself of the responsibility or guilt of murdering, and his decisive cutting off of the offending left hands of the females was a very subtle note of characterization that spoke volumes of what kind of person Donald was.

And the ugliness unfolded.  The Friends morphed from a group dedicated to finding the lost girls to a vigilante group that targeted any and every one it felt could have been suspect, with no regard to laws or common respect.  There was the townsman who admitted to molesting his own children.  The narrator himself confessed to his distress at having watched the neighbor in her bedroom several times without her knowing it.  The likely innocent desire to be friends with girl children turned into something reviled and a reason to shun every adult male who had such friendships.  All dark sides of human nature were revealed, even though the townspeople really wanted for their baser natures to remain covered.  Dobyns showed us in his story that the worst monsters are the ones whose monstrosity is hidden beneath glitter and shiny golden facades.  More terrifying that these monsters could well be us.

Works cited

Dobyns, Stephen.  The Church of Dead Girls.  New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001.



About rjjoseph

I am a Texas based writer who must produce words to exorcise the voices that will never quiet until I give them their due.
This entry was posted in WPF. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Taking the Shine Off: The Church of Dead Girls by Stephen Dobyns

  1. Miles says:

    At the risk of boring you, I have to agree with this entirely. There are many ways of approaching horror, but one of the creepiest is the idea of “the killer in our midst” which can be taken literally (the killer is your next door neighbor) or superliterally (the killer is you). The angle of this book is to present Anytown U.S.A., first as the attractive facade — safe, well-educated, fairly diverse, friendly, ordinary — and then crack through that facade to see the muck underneath. By doing this you rob the reader of their innocence — they can no longer walk down the street to the playground without wondering who is watching them between the blinds…and what they are thinking. To take away someone’s feeling of security in their most secure place is to me much worse than the idea of being lost in the woods and hearing a chain saw start up.

    • rjjoseph says:

      I’m with you, Miles. The snatching of that security blanket creates a really bad feeling because once that happens, there’s no way to go back to safety. We then realize there’s no need to suspend disbelief because we hear about this type of monster all the time, may have even been victims of the monster, so we can’t banish it to the imagination.

  2. John Dixon says:

    Great post, Rhonda. I like your breakdown of the title — at one point in the reading, I suspected that a whole bunch of people were in on it, a Jaycees-as-Psycho-Congregation thing — and I was unaware of the roots of the word “Aurealis”. On that note, I also like how you tie into shininess throughout the post.

    My favorite part of this post, however, was your paragraph about Aaron. He was a great character, not only because of his activity and unpredictability but also because of his dark charisma and his motivation to avenge the murder of his mother. Throughout the novel, I also tried to place him on one side or the other of the “good guy” line. In the end, I’ll sign on with your analysis. Though not a “good” person, he ends up being a force of goodness in the book.

    Thanks for making me think.

    • rjjoseph says:

      Aaron was just the coolest character to me, John. He was always just on the outside of all the drama, even while he stood knee deep in it with everybody else. And he touched everybody in the story.

  3. I really liked your breakdown of how the title was a great match for the story, and especially how you brought in Chihani’s quote. I also loved how you weren’t quite sure of Aaron’s being on the “good” or “bad” side of the novel. Throughout the story there are numerous incidents or “darker” personality qualities that had me thinking that Aaron might be the murderer. Later on, I was suspicious when he became friends with Sadie, but when I read that Sadie had apparently gone willingly with her abductor towards the end of the book, there wasn’t a doubt in my mind that Aaron had taken her to protect her. It’s funny why I thought that and I’m not quite sure why, although maybe it was Aaron’s drive to figure out the truth.

    • rjjoseph says:

      I kinda felt like Aaron was a false suspect in that he was just too obvious to be the killer. And he was everywhere, all the time. I would have been disappointed if he had been because he had so much influence on the events. Donald did, too, but only towards the last quarter or so of the book. And great for Sadie that Aaron had become her protector, wasn’t it?

  4. slhb says:

    Great post. I really liked how you addressed the name of the town and what it could mean (golden). Considering what this book is about, that’s such a great choice. I also liked what you wrote about Aaron. He does not come across as either the good guy or the bad guy. He is a little of both. I think it is important that some of the characters are not definitely one thing or another. That’s probably what kept me guessing about the identity of the murderer and what kept me reading.
    Very interesting post!

    • rjjoseph says:

      Thanks, Stephanie. The fact that no one was not quite what he or she seemed did make identifying the murderer difficult. It really could have been anyone, and only after reading the very last part, which re-iterated the opening but then put in all the missing parts, did I realize it made a lot of sense that Donald was the killer. I never felt like the author pulled a stunt, but wrote an honest book that ended fairly.

  5. Aaron as Iago. Brilliant.
    Nicely posted, Rhonda. Intelligent, and spot on.

  6. I love your comparison of this book to Shakespeare and in particular to Othello. I never would have thought of that myself but now that you point it out it’s obvious. Fantastic observation, Rhonda. I also liked your likening the town of Aurelius itself to a church.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s