Lisa Creane's Reviews > The Casual Vacancy

I read this book on the tail end of finishing The Cuckoo's Calling and was glad I read that one first because otherwise I would have worried that J.K. Rowling was embittered, holing herself away from society and writing scathing attacks on it from afar. But the Robert Galbraith outing assured me she's fine and in full possession of her humor as well as her heart. So I was free to enjoy this book without worry for her. Whew.

The book reminded me of Jonathan Franzen's book The Corrections, which I liked despite the bone-deep cuts it made into the facade of a family of imperfect people who by the end seem almost real. Rowling does the same, but to a town, as well as a cross-section of its residents whose lives intersect and implode over a vacancy on the town council (and other voids as well) left by the best man amongst them.

Now Franzen is a more controlled writer than Rowling, by far. She's a giddy talent, still, and writes knowingly and expansively about uncharitable human traits. Some plotlines are over-the-top, yet she keeps them in play. Here's an example by which to judge whether you'll like this book.

“None of the delight frothing and fizzing inside Shirley had been apparent while Howard had been in the room. They had merely exchanged the comments proper to sudden death before he had taken himself off to the shower. Naturally Shirley had known, as they slid stock words and phrases back and forth between them like beads on an abacus, that Howard must be as brimful of ecstasy as she was; but to express these feelings out loud, when the news of the death was still fresh in the air, would have been tantamount to dancing naked and shrieking obscenities, and Howard and Shirley were clothed, always, in an invisible layer of decorum that they never laid aside.”

Also know that Rowling jumps from one point of view character to the next, writing conventions be damned. She doesn't jump back and forth--that would make my head explode--but she's pretty damned omniscient, breaking off one character's introspection mid-scene and slithering into another's mind for an alternate view. Bold of her, brassy even. Few could get away with it, nevermind pull it off successfully. But I adapted, and thought it gave her a lot of freedom to tell her story. Which is a tragedy that unfolds in several acts.

I'm sure others could see how each set of characters and circumstances built towards an ending that left me crying my heart out, but I was seduced by the pettiness of the characters, and thought the light, teasing tone she took at times meant the nastiest characters would get a comeuppance and the better ones a chance at happiness. But looking back, I see the darkness was always there. I'm just an optimist. I was blindsided by the randomness of some characters getting exactly what they wanted and others losing everything they deserved.

As you can tell from my comparing the Galbraith book to a Pulitzer Prize winner and this one to a National Book Award winner, I think Rowling's brilliant. I'll read this book again, with this nicer cover (how did that horrible red one ever get approved?), but not be fooled again. In this book Rowling cuts to the bone too, of her characters, her small town setting, and her readers.

(Went back and changed rating to a 5 star because I can't stop thinking about the book. I dreamt about it, woke up crying about it, and I cry about three times a year. I went to reader forums to read what other people thought, typed in quotes and loved the JK Rowling response to the reader question on Goodreads (view spoiler)[ http://www.goodreads.com/blog/show/42... (hide spoiler)]. I originally gave it 4 because it broke my heart, which annoyed me as you can see from my love of romance novels, but isn't the hallmark of a great book?)