The Casual Vacancy
discussion
Unfair reviews?What do you think about this book?
message 1:
by
Nermin
(last edited Nov 02, 2012 02:20AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Nov 02, 2012 02:19AM
So I finished this book only yesterday and think it is a great book. I remember i started to read this book with apprehension after seeing all these bad reviews. But i was pleasantly surprised. I really don't know where these bad reviews are coming from. I mean what part of it didn't meet their expectation? Some people keep saying that it's not like Harry Potter at all, but J.K had already said it was going to be an adult book. then what's all the fuss about it? So what do you think about this book?Did you like it? Did it meet your expectations?
reply
|
flag
I loved it. I think that it is unfair to judge it on being different, and I do not think that many have actually reviewed it fully on its own merits. That sort of treatment is precisely why so many well known authors have used pseudonyms in the past to try a different style. Sadly people want more of what has come before and will not cope with something different, even if it is excellent.
I also wondered why all the bad reviews. I enjoyed reading it. Got me to wondering how can we fix this as a society. This was one of those books I have thought about many days after I read it. I totally recommend it.
I thought it was okay. It didn't blow me away.I already knew it wasn't going to be anything like HP, so I expected as much.
I wanted to love it, but I just felt there was something missing that I couldn't put my finger on.
It didn't help that most of the characters were vile people. Especially Fats & Simon.
And I just found it so strange that literally EVERYONE was so 'attached' to this Barry Fairbrother.
It might have been a small town/village, but I just couldn't get my head round the fact that EVERYONE mourned his death. I really couldn't relate to it.
I've since heard that Rowling will be sticking to children's books.
And I really hope she does.
I was fully prepared for this book to not be related to Harry Potter. I really was. I had read the reviews and set them aside and agreed to withhold my judgement of the book until I had read it myself. I like you, Tina J., was not blown away. I think she forgot to write a story and got too caught up in the political statement she was trying to make. I found some of the actions and thoughts of the characters to be unbeliable...in the sense that that is just NOT how people think or act. There were times that I found myself actaully rolling my eyes and wondering what kind of people she hung out with....It just felt forced to me. I thought the ending a complete tragedy and thought if she had stuck to Krystal's story without all of the political race and politcal garbage in general that the story would have been far better. I feel like she got side tracked writing it and felt like she couldn't pinpoint where she was going with the story. Krystal's story was the only part in the book that I found real and believable and the tragic ending made sense to me. The rest of it....I really could have done without. Sorry JK Rowling but this really wasn't your masterpiece. The Harry Potter books are obviously untouchable in their genre, and I am not saying that she shouldn't continue writing for adults but this was not her next masterpiece...it was ok, but nothing great or revolutionary.
Stepheny, if you think some of the actions and thoughts are unbelievable you must live a sheltered life. I think she did great job of exposing what people think but do not say. Their actions show what they think of people though. How people up the hill think and treat others, happens every day.
Wow. That was a very pleasant response- more like judgemental and harsh. So thanks for that. I just was expressing my opionion on the book which is what I thought the point of this thread was. I in fact do not live a sheltered life- and find that remark to be quite rude. I am just saying there were several areas that didn't quite feel like the correct thought process. That was the point I was trying to make. I understand there are class struggles and people who look down on others and I fully understand what it is like to be at the bottom of the food chain. I just felt that some of the characters were forced and that their actions sometimes seemed to contradict their behaviors and reactions.
Narmin, I really enjoyed it. It wasn't the best book I have ever read, but I think the statement it makes and the believability of the characters puts it up there. I completely agree with all your statements; people, despite J.K. Rowling's frequent insistence, expected it to be Harry Potter, and that is perhaps where the bulk of the criticism is coming from.
I didn't expect to like this book. I read it because JK Rowling wrote it & wanted to see what her non HP writing was like. In the beginning it was a bit confusing the way she introduced so many characters all at once I couldn't get them straight but once I got into the story I couldn't put it down. I thought the characters were true stereotypes or amalgamations of the various people in a community. I unfortunatley could put faces if not names to many of the characters. I thought the book was unpleasant ie what happened and the seamingly lack of hope in many of the characters but it was a good book
It's great hearing that you like the book. I feel like it doesn't get the attention or praise it deserves :)
I enjoyed the book. I'm glad she's decided to write something different - and shown herself capable. And if she'd written another Harry Potter, then all the reviews would be criticising her for writing another Harry Potter - when you're a big as JKR, you can't possibly win this sort of thing.I think the characters were believable, though for the most part thoroughly unlikeable. I do agree with Stepheny that the plot meandered a bit, and the book could have been better if it focused more on Krystal's storyline (there are a few characters and subplots that have no bearing on the main story whatsoever). But overall I enjoyed it. I think JKR is still finding her feet as an adult writer, and I look forward to seeing what she writes next.
I really couldn't get into this book at all and gave it up. It just wasn't for me at that time. Maybe I'll pick it up again some other day, I don't know. I knew not to expect Harry Potter, but I was expecting her writing to suck me into the story (like Harry Potter), and that just did not happen for me at all. Like I said, maybe I just wasn't in the mood for that style of book when I tried to read it?
It certainly seems to have created a debate, which is a good thing & to me demonstrates the relevance of literature. :-)Personally, I hadn't read any J K Rowling before. I was aware of some of her social views from an interview she'd given. (As an aside she does more than just pay lip service to these). The reviews I'd seen, whilst sometimes critical of style, had been positive on her storytelling abilities & I fancied a good story.
I enjoyed the book (although 'enjoy' feels wrong for something with such a sad ending). I found it a little slow sometimes in the first half but then it really gathered pace. I didn't anticipate such a grim ending &, as it became more apparent, really hoped something would save Robbie & that Krystal would one day stand at the school gates with Ann-Marie. A sucker for a fairy tale ending! The book has stayed with me since I finished it & I do find myself thinking of the people of Pagford. It occurs to me that it is easier to empathise with people in the abstract than in real life. I really feel for Krystal & wish she had had a better life; but I think if I'd met her in reality I would have disapproved - at least on initial impressions.
In some of the other threads people have speculated on Fats's future & expressed hope he turns out okay. To me, it's a sign of successful storytelling that the characters live on.
The thing that really struck me about the reviews is how much they focused on the fact that it is not a children's book rather than discussing its merits purely in its own terms. I suppose that this was unavoidable given Rowling's previous work but it really does miss the point. I would also argue that this is a novel that children absolutely should read. Maybe not the pre-teens who first discover Harry Potter, and indeed it would be quite a remarkable pre-teen reader who would stick through a novel largely focused on local politics and social justice, but certainly anyone from around the age of 14 or 15 onward.True the novel does have sex and bad language but it has nowhere near the levels of graphic and sustained violence of the Harry Potter books and even the school yard bullying in The Casual Vacancy is tame compared to what happens to the children at the hands of their Hogwarts classmates. The majority of bad language (and most of the sex) comes from the teenage protagonists and is nothing that any 15 or 16 year old won't hear (and probably say) in school on a daily basis.
Just like the Potter series it is a book about absent and ineffectual parents and about growing up and learning to cope with (or without) a family. Where it goes further than the Potter novels is in showing that the the essential relationships that we have with our parents never change, even as grown ups. Miles the adult is just as much a victim of ineffectual parenting as Andrew the child, Terri the adult is just as messed up (actually more so) by her absent parents as is Gaia the child.
This is a novel about growing up whatever age you are, about relationships and about learning to cope with your family, warts and all and as such it should be required reading for everyone who's ever had a family, wishes they didn't have a family or wishes that they did.
I really feel for Krystal & wish she had had a better life; but I think if I'd met her in reality I would have disapproved - at least on initial impressions.I think this is kind of the point - most of us, I think, would easily dismiss Krystal as a trashy, over-sexed teenager, without pausing to think about the tragic circumstances that might've caused her to be the way she is.
Natalie wrote: "I think this is kind of the point - most of us, I think, would easily dismiss Krystal as a trashy, over-sexed teenager, without pausing to think about the tragic circumstances that might've caused her to be the way she is. ..."I definitely agree
Stepheny wrote: "I found some of the actions and thoughts of the characters to be unbeliable...in the sense that that is just NOT how people think or act. There were times that I found myself actaully rolling my eyes and wondering what kind of people she hung out with....It just felt forced to me."Your comment kind of reminded me about a discussion in my literature class last year about the novel Hard Times by Charles Dickens. It has similarly been criticised on its characters because people felt that they were too extreme to be believable. But I think that's the point in these types of books, and in my opinion JKR is very similar to Dickens in her writing style. Both of them use caricatures to get their point across. I don't think the characters are supposed to be 100% believable, and they're supposed to feel over the top. We may not be able to recognise all elements of their behavior, but we can recognise fragments of what they think and do in ourselves or people we know. The fact that the characters are extreme is part of the book's social criticism.
I can understand that and respect your view on the matter. I just felt let down after reading the book and I stand by what I said- a few of the characters could have been left out completely and the book would have been far better. I feel that had she focused more on Krystal's story the book would have been far better. I know I will read it again eventually and maybe then I could look at it with different eyes- remembering that maybe the point of these characters was to be "extreme" as you said. Thanks for the input. :)
I thought the book was excellent! Especially the last 100 pages or so, when everything started to come together. I think it's too bad that people keep comparing it to Harry Potter, and acting like Jo isn't allowed to write something that is so different.
I also think it's too bad that people keep judging it after only reading a few chapters. I think this is the type of book where you have to read it all to be able to judge it.
Finally, I think people need to get over themselves about the language. It's seriously not that bad, it's only shocking because it comes from Jo, and again, I really think that we have to let go of the thought of what she's written before! I'm surprised that people are so up-tight.
I hope that Jo will write more adult novels, because this one was great! :)
Stepheny wrote: "I can understand that and respect your view on the matter. I just felt let down after reading the book and I stand by what I said- a few of the characters could have been left out completely and th..."No problem.. :)
But I think that the point is that the story isn't really about Krystal, and it's not supposed to be. I see Krystal as a symbol of the Fields, and everyone else's reaction to Krystal is a reflection of their reaction to the Fields. If all the politics and the other characters weren't there, that allegory wouldn't have worked, in my opinion. Then it would just have been a story about a teenage girl with a tragic life, which could of course also be interesting, but that would have been less unique and would have worked less as a social criticism of the middle class.
Well you've definitely given me a lot to think about. I guessI was going into this book looking for a story though...I knew going into it wasn't going to be HP of course but I guess I expected something different than what she gave us. I wanted a story- not a statement. Like I said though- I will at some point be rereading this book and hopefully can take some of your points into consideration when I do.
I think what people mean when they say "it's not like HP", they really mean, "it's not that good." I just finished reading it and am somewhat dissapointed.
The first half of the book is very long and unnecessarily descriptive. I think she is trying to make up for her simplistic vocabulary in the HP series, in CV she uses way too many "Sunday words" (some which I think actually distract more than embellish).
Another thing that bothered me was the unclear genre and story plot, since it keeps changing direction every once in a while and ends without really solving anything about it's "main theme". I understand the whole Krystal being a symbol for the Fields but what did that accomplish...?
To me, JKR used up all of her creative juice in HP. (And I'm not speaking fantasy-wise, you need a lot of creativity to write for adults too!)
Stepheny: I understand what you mean, and I was a bit confused at first as well, but when I understood what she was trying to do, I really got it, and thought it was very well done. As I said, it is somewhat similar to the style of Charles Dickens, especially in Hard Times, which also has a lot of characters from different social classes to keep track of. And of course, if you're not into social realism, a book like that can be hard to get through.
As an English student I guess I've just become accostumed to thinking about a book in different terms than I normally would. I often find that I think a lot about why different characters are there and what they bring to the story, rather than just whether I like the book or not. :)
I actually noticed this a little while back when talking to some fellow Harry Potter fans about characters we liked, and I kept pointing out that you could despise a character, but still like them for the way they contribute to the story, and the others just kept looking at me like I was crazy.. :D
Maritere wrote: "I think what people mean when they say "it's not like HP", they really mean, "it's not that good." I just finished reading it and am somewhat dissapointed.
The first half of the book is very long..."
Well, if someone only think that books like Harry Potter are good, then no, they won't think this book is good. But I don't think it's fair to simply say it's not good, just because it didn't live up to your expectations.
I, for one, think that the book is very good. It's well-written, funny, sad, scary and offers an interesting view on small English middle-class society as well as the human psyche.
I can understand why some people would be put off by the long descriptive part, but it's necessary. There are so many characters that if JKR hadn't taken the time to let us get to know them it would have been impossible to understand the rest of the storyline.
I understand the whole Krystal being a symbol for the Fields but what did that accomplish...?
Just gonna put a spoiler alert on this, just in case.. (view spoiler) So what does that accomplish? Nothing at all, really, most people have the same view as they did at the beginning of the book. And that's the point, I think: The way people can convince themselves to be detatched from something that they do not want to face, no matter how loud it's screaming at them. I think that's really what the whole book is trying to tell us. Just look at characters like Ruth Price, Shirley Mollison or Kay Bawden.
I agree with most of the things you say, especially with Krystal's lack of "impact" on other people's lives. I guess if you put it that way JK did fulfill the purpose of the book, a "casual vacancy". However, you say: "It's well-written, funny, sad, ..." You really think it's well written? To me this is JK Rowling's Achilles's heel; she DOESN'T write very good. If you think about it, she has no background in writing (she studied French) and HP was just a very good idea. She did get better at writing as the books went along, you can witness this by comparing her last book with the epilogue, which she wrote way before all the books and did not edit when ending the series. She's not a bad writer, just not a very good one.
Natalie wrote: "I think this is kind of the point - most of us, I think, would easily dismiss Krystal as a trashy, over-sexed teenager, without pausing to think about the tragic circumstances that might've caused her to be the way she is. ..."I agree & it's the people who did have some understanding (her friend's mother, Barry Fairbrother) who showed her more kindness. Sukhvinder & some of the others on the rowing team also saw another side to Krystal. It's sometimes difficult to get beyond the exterior though & people's behaviour can trigger strong ingrained responses. I would have found it dificult to muster much immediate sympathy if she'd just knocked my teeth out :-)
Maritere: Yes, I find her writing excellent. When I started reading Harry Potter in English rather than in Danish I was shocked to find how much better the writing was! You don't need an education or a background in writing to be a good writer, plenty of great writers are self-taught. And I do think that JKR is a good writer. But I guess it's a matter of preference. I like the witty undertone that her sentences often have (very much like Charles Dickens), and I like her inventive metaphors and similes. She doesn't use clichés, instead she always finds new ways to use language, and I really admire that. I think that even the very first pages of the very first Harry Potter book are excellently written.
But I think that the point is that the story isn't really about Krystal, and it's not supposed to be. I see Krystal as a symbol of the Fields, and everyone else's reaction to Krystal is a reflection of their reaction to the Fields. If all the politics and the other characters weren't there, that allegory wouldn't have worked, in my opinion. Then it would just have been a story about a teenage girl with a tragic life, which could of course also be interesting, but that would have been less unique and would have worked less as a social criticism of the middle class. Wow. This totally hit the mark. I completely agree.
I'd estimate 98% of the critical reviews are just criticizing the book for not being the book they wanted to read rather than for genuine flaws. I read a lot of complex adult literature, so I didn't find the language, sex, etc. at all startling, I wasn't bothered by the lack of "joy and magic" and I had no issues with the number of characters. I also really like reading about flawed characters and, for a book about modern middle-class life, found it surprisingly attention-grabbing (normally I don't enjoy this sort of stuff at all). HP is so different that many of its fans just aren't the right readers for this kind of book.What I'd like to see are more literary criticisms of the book--stylistically it's not all that great, and there are some false notes with the characters that might bother others more than they did me (I found them very believable for the most part and so was happy to overlook a few issues). There have to be people out there who are the right readers for this kind of book, but have problems with this one. They just don't seem to have read it yet, or else they're lost among the rants about adult content and hating all the characters.
@ Tina: Not everyone in the town mourned Barry, by any means. The Mollisons didn't, and were mostly just interested in the opportunity to break the news to others (Shirley was positively gleeful about his death, although she kept it to herself). Maureen didn't care either except about the gossip factor. Nor did the Prices or Kay, none of whom knew him. Even Gavin, who supposedly thought of Barry as his best friend, didn't seem to grieve at all. A lot of people liked him, but not everybody, and he's somebody who's charismatic and very involved in his community.
Emma: A lot of people liked him, but not everybody, and he's somebody who's charismatic and very involved in his community. I think what's important about Barry is how his abscence changes so many lives for the worse - and that his impact was probably never fully appreciated by others until his death. In a lot of little ways, he truly was a "pillar of the community".
Actually, there's a lot in this book about the way small events and influences can add up to make a big difference to the lives of an entire community, and in that sense it reminds me of The God of Small Things. (I'm sure there are a few literary types who will jump down my throat for even making the comparison, but to me, the similarity is definitely there.)
For me, some of the most heartbreaking moments in the book were the flashbacks to when Barry was coaching the rowing team. For Krystal Wheedon, this was probably the only time in her life somebody truly believed she could achieve something positive and told her so. And by doing this, Krystal actually became a positive influence herself, in her very Krystal-Wheedon way - think of the courage she gave her teammates. Who knows what might have become of Krystal if Barry hadn't died? He could have made an enormous difference in her life - but he died too soon, before Krystal had a chance to stand up on her own, and before anybody else had been able to see her potential.
Emma: I think you're spot on when you say the reviewers are commenting on the book that they wanted to read rather than the one that Rawlings has written. Too many people have preconceived ideas, not just of this novel but also of Rawlings as a writer, to come to the novel fresh and without expectation, which is a real shame.I think that the danger for the long term success of this novel is not that fans of the Potter series will pick it up and be disappointed (because I don't think that they will be) but that readers who haven't read or don't like Potter will not pick it up at all. I would also argue that The Casual Vacancy is a perfect gateway novel into the world of adult literature and as such I would hope that as many Potter fans as possible do read it; it is after all a novel about the relationships between parents and their children, and creates believable teenage protagonists in a way that the Potter books never quite managed.
The other point that the reviews tend to miss when they criticise the number of characters in the novel is that it isn't a book about people at all but rather about the town, Pagford, as the sub-title states, it is a "big novel about a small town" and as such it compares to something like Dylan Thomas' Under Milk Wood which has more characters in a far shorter text. The town needs to be populous in order to be credible and would seem empty without the various families that are featured. At the same time plenty of authors use multiple points of narration, often far less successfully than Rawlings does here, and to criticise the novel for this is both lazy journalism and the mark of a lazy reader.
Natalie wrote: "I think what's important about Barry is how his abscence changes so many lives for the worse - and that his impact was probably never fully appreciated by others until his death. In a lot of little ways, he truly was a "pillar of the community"."I think this ia spot-on, and this is probably also the deeper meaning of the title. Barry leaves not just a casual vacancy on the parish council, but also in people's lives and in the community as a whole that people had not expected.
I wondered if some of the bad reviews were down to the 'secrecy pact' that the reviewers had to sign before they were given their copy, and I can probably see both sides of the story here. However I don't think its a good enough reason to not give a book a fair chance, and lets face it not everyone is going to love every book an author writes. I felt at times the pace was slightly off but the characterisation and the general feel of the village was really quite good and as a first attempt at not writing for children, who may possibly be more leanient on certain things it was really, really good
Secrecy pact?
did you not see in one of the papers review. They were asked to sign a disclaimer stating that they would not release their reviews until after the book was published, would not discuss the book with anyone and no comments on the plot line or content was to be mentioned, unfortunately I can't remember who it was.
Katharina Ofelie wrote: "in my opinion JKR is very similar to Dickens in her writing style"That is exactly what I thought when reading this book, especially after we were introduced to seemingly hundreds of characters. I actually thought to myself while reading "wow, JKR could compete with Dickens on how many major character she has in the story."
Anything by JK Rowling would sell as her reputation precedes her from the Harry Potter series. The Casual Vacancy was ok but I doubt it would have made the best seller list without her name as author. I also found it extremely annoying her use of $25 words such as "pusillanimous" and "bowdlerized" to name a few of the many. I doubt she uses those words in conversation, and neither do the majority of her readers. Why use them in a novel that is meant to entertain and not to teach? And if she really wanted to break into the adult fiction world, why not use a pen name so that her book could be rated on the basis of it's story and not on the fact that she is the author. I would not recommend it as a "must read" book.
I thought it was very captivating, I found it hard to put down. Personally I thought the character's were very believable, especially the teenagers. She seems to have a real affinity for connecting with the way young people think. Yes some of the character's are difficult, but people are like that and I know I've certainly encountered a few. However this is not a book I intend on reading again, nor do I think it worked particularly well as a cautionary tale about the way society treats neglected children.
I found the book very slow at the beginning (when all the characters are being introduced) but once I got into the meat of the story, I couldn't put the book down. I really enjoyed it and at the end, I even cried, which is rare for me to do when reading a book. I agree that lots of the criticism has been unfair. I wasn't expecting much out of this book because 1) I always felt that Harry Potter was a success not because the writing was good, but because the story was good and 2) I really disliked the last three HP books. I thought that books 5 & 6 were boring and that book 7 was just a mess. I figured this was because Rowling couldn't write teenagers as well as she could children/pre-teens but as it turns out, she can write from the perspective of a teenager, she just can't do it in the PG-rated world of Harry Potter.I find all the criticism about the language and sex to be unfounded. The language in the book fits the scenario and at no point did I feel that it had been added to make the book more shocking or adult. Same with the sex. What I think is ridiculous is that people criticize the book for having all these dark, depressing parts and characters when in reality, there were plenty of awful, unlikable people in Harry Potter and everyone just kind of glossed over them (case in point, in the later books it's revealed that both Harry's father and Sirius Black were basically jerks but no one ever makes an issue about that). There's always been kind of a nasty edge to Rowling's writing, she just hasn't had the opportunity to fully explore it until now.
I've heard many people say that if it weren't J.K.Rowling name this book wouldn't have sold or recognized at all. But I absolutely agree with Keshena.
Did it met my expectation? A: NOWas I looking for another HP type? A:Not at all
Then why Don`t I like it? A: I`ll extract my review :)
"That is because story building skill of JKR has failed one time. Some places, I found it too much descriptive over unnecessary incidents. Unlike fantasy, you are not to describe every detail of what happens in real life cause you know about it. So in some parts of the book, I found it boring to carry-on. And I had a desperation to get over with the book. So 2 stars is enough for the vacancy!"
That`s it! her base is good, but writing is bad!
I'm alway glad to see that there are other people who also have recognized the brilliance of this book. I simply love it and in my opinion the captious critics have exaggerated in the media. I agree with Keshena and JKR's writing is magnificent by the way.
I did enjoy the book but I wouldn't put it in the Booker league. The novel is very much the prisoner of its conventions. Rowling's underclass characters all use a kind of generalised, Dickensian lower-order-speak, that belongs more to literary custom than anything anyone ever says. The plot is often predictable. There is often a sense that the language is not quite doing what she wants it to do. One character, we are told, "hated sudden death". Who doesn't? The metaphors regularly run away with her. One character's sexual performance was "as predictable as a Masonic handshake". What's predictable about that?
The metaphor doesn't strike me as so bad. A Masonic handshake is mysterious if you're not part of the club but presumably predictable if you are--likewise, Miles's sexual performance is predictable but only to Samantha.More broadly though, I agree with you, Lesley. Perhaps part of the reason this book is having trouble is that it's awkwardly situated between audiences: too literary for readers of children's fantasy books (whenever somebody calls it boring, I have to wonder whether they've read any other books about modern life; I found this one far more interesting than most), not literary enough for the establishment.
I think most people only read it because J.K Rowling wrote it and so they expected it to be another Harry Potter book (though naming the first character Barry certainly didn't help). But it you just take the book as a story from an author it is really good. I think when you read it you should ignore the fact that it was written by J.K, and forget everything you ever thought about Harry Potter, it's a lot better because it is a good story with really well written characters. Once you separate your Stuart from your Colin it's fine. More than fine, even it's a great book!
I loved it too. Great characters. I balled at the end.
It is not a great book but it is not as bad as the reviews claimed.One of the problems with the book is the writing style or language if you prefer. I know she can write and I am sure she has a very advanced vocabulary but at some points the book gave me the impression that she had her thesaurus open next to her and decided to pick the most sophisticated words she could find. In my opinion using big words is not always good and they have to be used wisely, they won't make your book better.
The other problem with the book is that there is nothing new in it. You can read similar stories in the newspaper every day, it is not like she came up with something new or revealed something we didn't know before.
Overall I did enjoy the book, after the first 50 pages it starts getting more and more engaging, I liked the darkness and the fact that there is no happy ending but it is far from being great and I hope her next book will be better.
I rated it 5 stars.I’m not a fan of Harry Potter, but I’m now a fan of J.K. Rowling’s THE CASUAL VACANCY. I read the book compulsively on my Kindle, and my interest never lagged. The town of Pagford, England, is peopled by Rowling with a wide-ranging assortment of characters, whose thoughts propel the story. I’m reminded of John Updike and early Stephen King (before verbosity took over), who are unsurpassed at getting inside their characters’ heads. Some who didn’t like this novel have complained that the characters were unlikable, that they had no redeeming qualities. I would ask these critics about the innermost thoughts of their own friends and neighbors, and even themselves. If we knew what everyone was really thinking, would we find them likable? Would we want others to know our own innermost thoughts? A writer does not operate under these constraints and is under no obligation make her characters user friendly. Rowling’s characters wish ill of others, swear, have sex, smoke and drink, abuse those close to them, and even take drugs. In other words, they are real people.
From the moment that Barry Fairbrother dies in the opening pages, leaving his position on the Pagford town council vacant, skirmishes break out between the other council members as well as their adolescent children. The bone of contention is the Fields, an undesirable part of the community characterized by sub-standard housing and people—at least in the eyes of some of Pagford’s respectable citizens. These skirmishes escalate to a full-blown war by the novel’s denouement, leaving tragedy in their wake. Happy or sad, it is a war worth reading about. Rowling’s language is at times exquisite, and the motivations of her characters are explored masterfully.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Casual Vacancy (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The God of Small Things (other topics)The Casual Vacancy (other topics)
