The Casual Vacancy
discussion
You only like it because JKR wrote it....
I personally liked it, but I can sort of see it from both sides. J.K.Rowling did an interview over here just before the release and talked about, among other things, a writer's DNA. She said although they're different stories for different target audiences, there will be some similarities. Because of that, rather than believing she meant her choice of language or style of narration, people have chosen to believe this means it will be similar to HP. When they conclude that it's not, they have the choice whether to try TCV in it's own right or decide that they liked HP better. And unfortunately, humans have a tendency to project, so the people saying this to you would be the people who thought her new book would be like the old.Read it for you. If you like it or not, be honest with yourself. Never mind the advice you get otherwise.
I never read the HP books so I went into her new novel with an open mind. I read about a third sadly it did not hold my attention and I assure you I will not be finishing it. My opinion is based on this book alone as I have nothing to compare it with. As always reading is a personal choice and I do wish JKR every success with whatever she decides to write about. It just didn't ring my bell... sorry
I adore Harry Potter so I will be frank in saying the only reason I read this book was because of JKR. I did not however go into the book expecting something HP-esque. I went into the book with an open mind and tried to treat the book as if it were written by any other author.I finished the book but I did not like it. I found it drawn out, depressing on an epic level, and I didn't particularly like a single character. I feel the book did resemble JKR in writing style, detail, etc so from that aspect, I appreciated the writing.
I will continue to read any JKR books in the future but The Casual Vacancy was not for me.
Funnily, I found the writing style to be very similar. Within the first few pages it was clear to me that JKR's unique way with words was stamped all over the book. I didn't like her tendency to use a lot of low frequency words. It felt like she was trying too hard :(
I liked the book, but I LOVED Harry Potter. The similarity is in the foreshadowing and the complex interplay of characters. One of the best hints came with the character of Shirley.
While I did pick it up because of HP, I didn't expect it to be HP. From the description, I was expecting a lot of small town election stuff and political backstabbing, and I was disappointed when I didn't get that, or any interesting characters either. (I found a couple sympathetic, but that was about it.)I did really like the climax, which is depressing, but I'm not sure the trip was really worth it.
So far everyone who didn't like the book also didn't expect another version of HP s why do people insist this is the case?
I wonder if it's a political thing. She's definitely making a liberal point with it. Some critics even call it socialist. So perhaps all you folks who dislike the book dislike its message, too. But if it's just the writing, I understand. It takes a long time to introduce the characters, so the action doesn't start right away.
I love Harry Potter but this book is just empty and meaningless! If anybody else had wrote it, this book would have probably not been published!
I only read it because JKR wrote it (I like reading successful authors to see what their "it" factor is). I imagine so many of us were disappointed, not because of expectations of anything like a HP, but because there are few - if any - redeeming characters (Don't we all want to have someone to root for?) and tedious detail that is only pertinent if you can get yourself through it and into the second half of the novel.
one third in is where the book takes off. up until then it is a bit of a trudge to meet and know all the characters - and there are something like 17 of them to become familiar with. once they are all identified and embedded it really becomes a tremendously well delivered pitch black comedy. fortunately for me i was reading it at the time i tore my ligaments in my ankle so i had to spend 2 days laid up in bed. i spent those two days reading it unstoppably and had a great time
but if you don't like it, don't read it. there are so many other books to read and life is too short for a shit book
Have any of you heard of Scarlet Thomas? She's an English author (who I love). She wrote a book a few years ago called Our Tragic Universe which is about storyless stories (itself being a 400-odd page storyless story). I think what Rowling has done is essentially write a storyless story on small town life, while at the same time carrying meaning within that story.A storyless story, by the way, is a story with no point, or logical flow or ending. There were a couple of examples in Thomas' work but the one I like best is called the Zen Tea Shop. It is a tea shop in the Himalayas, where should you go for tea you will get sound advice, if you go for advice they will chase you with hot pokers. That's the entire story (I like how short it is too).
I didn't like Our Tragic Universe so much, but having read it meant I realised pretty early on that Rowling was writing her own one, which may be why I found it easier to digest maybe? Because I got that the rules were out of the window, so I didn't have a lot of expectation for a rounded conclusion or moral epiphanies or anything.
I loved Harry Potter and loved The Casual Vacancy but for completely different reasons as they are completely different kinds of books. It would never have occurred to me that they were written by the same author if I hadn't known.I like fantasy, and I like gritty, super-realistic novels about contemporary life. You don't usually get the same author writing both, and some readers don't like both. Or, you might like one or the other of those genres and just not feel that JKR did either well (you might think HP is not a good fantasy, or that TCV is not a good contemporary novel). Reading is completely subjective ... people should stop judging other people's book choices.
Siobhan wrote: "Have any of you heard of Scarlet Thomas? She's an English author (who I love). She wrote a book a few years ago called Our Tragic Universe which is about storyless stories (itself being a 400-odd p..."I love Scarlett Thomas. I think her master piece to date is The End of Mr Y.
Nichola wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "Have any of you heard of Scarlet Thomas? She's an English author (who I love). She wrote a book a few years ago called Our Tragic Universe which is about storyless stories (itself b..."That's my favourite book of hers. I read pop co after and felt disappointed that it didn't touch the end of mr Y, but I loved all the stuff about ciphers, letter frequency and prime numbers, was so interesting.
Siobhan wrote: "A storyless story, by the way, is a story with no point, or logical flow or ending."Except, JKR had a point, logical flow, and an ending.
Lostshadows wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "A storyless story, by the way, is a story with no point, or logical flow or ending."Except, JKR had a point, logical flow, and an ending."
In that it ended, but it wasn't a rounded ending, with all loose ties wrapped up. Was Terri still using? How did Parminder handle the next time she met with any of the council? Will Shirley ever get divorced, or confront Maureen properly? Would Fats start treating others with respect? Would Andrew still have to move, or did his father stop beating him up? I can't remember her name, but would the social worker stay when Gary has broken up with her and her cases have been taken back over by the actual social worker?
Those are only the questions I can think of months after reading. And even the example I used, it had a deeper meaning, the point of the storyless story is that it is missing only one of those elements from the actual text, but it's there to provoke thought from the reader, so yes, I totally believe that's what Rowling's done.
Siobhan wrote: "Nichola wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "Have any of you heard of Scarlet Thomas? She's an English author (who I love). She wrote a book a few years ago called Our Tragic Universe which is about storyless s..."I liked popco. I think she'd be hard press to duplicate something as good as Mr Y. I just read wild things and, it was a good story but felt unfinished in the end. There were too many questions left unanswered. You don't really get an answer as to what the book was all about :/ I recommend it but it's not her best.
I really liked this book, regardless of the author.
Siobhan wrote: "Lostshadows wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "A storyless story, by the way, is a story with no point, or logical flow or ending."Except, JKR had a point, logical flow, and an ending."
In that it ended, b..."
Most books have loose ends where the characters are concerned. Unless the author goes for a "rocks fall and everyone dies" ending, the characters lives continue on and the reader is left to speculate what happens next.
Not everything is going to tie up neatly, especially when some of the characters have issues that don't tie up neatly. Drug abuse, for example. Giving Terri a neat ending, without killing her, would have been unrealistic, severely truncated, or added at least another hundred pages to the book.
I admit I put it on reserve at the library because she wrote it just to see how she did a non HP book.I didn't finish it, not because it wasn't HP but because Robbie was the only character I cared even a little bit about. This book seemed similar to the Barbara Pym books I read back when I was in high school--I don't go near them now.
As I told someone else there are several authors I follow where I only read 1 or 2 of their series as I don't like the others.
I loved this book, and I was also a fan of Harry Potter. Admittedly, I probably wouldn't have been interested in this book had I not been a fan of the HP series, but I certainly wouldn't say that my liking of 'Casual Vacancy' is only because I liked 'Harry Potter'. I think this book was completely different to HP, and in my opinion it was vastly better written and more intelligent. The book stands alone as a fantastic story, and had it been written by some new author with no other claim to fame, I would have liked it just as much.
I loved this book, and I was also a fan of Harry Potter. Admittedly, I probably wouldn't have been interested in this book had I not been a fan of the HP series, but I certainly wouldn't say that my liking of 'Casual Vacancy' is only because I liked 'Harry Potter'. I think this book was completely different to HP, and in my opinion it was vastly better written and more intelligent. The book stands alone as a fantastic story, and had it been written by some new author with no other claim to fame, I would have liked it just as much.
This is a great book. You must understand JK Rowlings likes to point out that societies have distinguishing classes. Sometimes they are subtle and sometimes they are blatant (Muggles and Wizards). The same theme is overriding in this book. The Fields vs. Pagford. Ah! perfect Pagford. Is it really perfect? You must read to the end. It is really worth it. This is a layered story for adult reading.
Absolute crock.I may have been more likely to have bought the book because I have been impressed by Rowling's previous writings.
I *liked* the book because it was well-written with a moving story.
Don't effing try to tell me why I liked a book.
Peter, read the question properly.
I do not find fans of this book to be closed-minded. I found the characters of the book to be closed-minded. I thought the book was quite hilarious throughout. It's not to be taken seriously despite the fact there are serious themes underlying the book. Anyone who says one should like/dislike a book is ridiculous. It is like saying you should like turnips.
Katie thats my point. Each time I explain why I'm not too keen up to now, fans of the book respond with 'it's because you expected another harry potter.' Not only us that presumptuous and rude, it's kind of infuriating. I wondered if it was just me who seemed to meet this response.
I loved, loved The Casual Vacancy. In fact, I've read it twice now. I have read one HP book and saw a movie, but I approached this book as I would any from an author of fiction for adults. It is a bible for anyone wishing to write multi-pov (point of view), and I love the way she developed her characters. And the fact they all had their own agendas, and all changed in some important way at the end. In particular, I loved how the teenager who is too cool for his own socks, BECOMES just like the father he despises at the end. All too ironic.
Bronwen, you're the first person to write anything which has intrigued me into finishing this book :)
I had a hard time getting into it, but once I did, I really liked it. No -I was not expecting a HP book or anything like it. She writes beautifully, and I hope she continues to publish more books of this nature.
Well, there really are people complaining that this isn't like HP--they're all over the Amazon reviews, for instance. Obviously, plenty of people weren't expecting that and still disliked it, including the OP (and the people who insisted they knew her real reason for disliking it were being rude), but people with those expectations do exist.Personally, I was a fan of HP as a kid--I started reading it when I was 11. Now I'm 25 and would not have wanted another HP. I really liked this one and definitely did not dislike all the characters. (Who wants to read about perfect people anyway?)
I think maybe I decided to read the book because it was by J K Rowling but I know I didn't decide I liked it because of that. I definitely wasn't expecting anything like Harry Potter and I loved it. I agree with Ashleigh in that writing something so different seems to show how versatile she is as a write. I mean, yes the novel was gritty but I think that that's the point, it was a realistic book, portraying real life events experienced by real or as Emma wrote, people that aren't perfect. I'm not saying the Harry Potter characters were perfect either of course. Honestly I just think that to evaluate it properly you have to detach it completely from the HP series. I liked the book and I respect Rowling as an author.
Nichola wrote: "Is anyone else finding a lot of the fans of this book quite closed minded? I'm not keen on what I've read upto now but, lots of people assure me the ending is worth it so I'm taking a break then g..."I had a really hard time reading this book. I considered abandoning it several times but I was told it was worth the wait. It took about 150 pages for it to finally come together. I was so annoyed with a new introduction of a new character every 10-15 pages. I couldn't get invested in the characters. But I did push through and the ending was really great. After that painful period the book was no longer a chore.
This book is a difficult one to read, to be sure. I picked it up initially because it was the latest from JKR (and it was on sale - hardover for $10, yes please!!) but I was more than a little dubious about whether or not it was going to be my kind of book. It didn't really look like it was going to be that good. How interesting can one make a little tiny town and it's Council?Well, JKR really surprised me. I adore her writing style and I couldn't help but get drawn in by it and the picture she had painted for me Pagford and her citizens. I wasn't expecting anything at all like Harry Potter, but there are similarities I will say that. Not on a magical, full-fledged hunt on behalf of a villain trying to kill a hero, no. It's themes are adult, as most of the subject matter, not to mention the language used by most of the characters.
What makes it difficult is that it holds up a mirror and shows us the ugly side of ourselves. From Fats Wall being a complete ass to everybody else, the Simon Price's of the world, and the quiet suffering in silence like Sooks Jawanda.
Read the book for it's own sake, and take from it what you will. But it isn't another Harry Potter, where magic is used to help ease the blow of all the ugliness in the world. Rowling serves it up point blank, black and white. I think her intention was to really make her readers uncomfortable.
I know I was.
I actually completely disagree. I think people only dislike it because JKR wrote it. The reality is that the demographic of people reading it [especially in the first couple of months] is not the demographic it was aimed for. While I belong in the demographic of HP readers [i.e. teens and young adults, many of whom read the book and hated it because it wasn't Harry Potter], I quite enjoyed it. I think the positive reviews the book is getting are based on the book, and not on the author. The negative reviews, however...
I read a few of the Harry Poter series and thought they were good. I liked this book but it is quite dark and I think you have to be in the right place to read these books--or I do. If I had just finished reading a bunch of WWII related books, this would definitely not be the book I would want to pick up. Also, if I felt the need to read something uplifting or with some shread of hope--not this book. It is realistic in that all of the characters are flawed and some people just seem doomed from the word go.
Alanna wrote: "This book is a difficult one to read, to be sure. I picked it up initially because it was the latest from JKR (and it was on sale - hardover for $10, yes please!!) but I was more than a little dubi..."I totally agree with you.
Amelia wrote: "I actually completely disagree. I think people only dislike it because JKR wrote it. The reality is that the demographic of people reading it [especially in the first couple of months] is not the d..."There goes another one. Is it so hard to believe that people didn't like the book just because they didn't like it? I can list numerous things I didn't like and people such as yourself still won't believe that there are others out there who just found the book appalling.
I resolved to attempting to finish the book as so many people tell me the ending is worth the long haul. If my opinion changes along the way then so be it, but at present, for me, the book has few redeeming attributes.
Nichola wrote: "Amelia wrote: "I actually completely disagree. I think people only dislike it because JKR wrote it. The reality is that the demographic of people reading it [especially in the first couple of month..."Thank you for your [rather rude] response. What I was trying to say is that, yes, people probably didn't like it. You didn't, many of the people here didn't, and for various reasons. People are going to dislike any book, no one book can be universally liked.
But the reality is that your assumption is wrong. 'You only like it because JKR wrote it...' Um, no, sorry, I like it because it was a deep psychological thriller with a complex web of characters, that had a great deal to say about the society we live in, and the moral implications of that.
Yes, I BOUGHT it mainly because JKR wrote it, I probably wouldn't have known it existed otherwise. But what I'm saying is that 95 per cent of people who have read this book to date probably bought it for the same reason. And this is why so many people don't like it. It's not what they were expecting.
However, my assumption that you only dislike it only because JKR wrote it is quite ignorant. But would you or I or many other people be reading it if JKR hadn't [and somebody else had]? I doubt it.
I'd like to know what you actually don't like about. I actually believe you don't like it for your own reasons, and you're obviously completely entitled to that. But I'm allowed to like it for my own reasons, and I find it quite offensive and close-minded for you to tell me I only liked it because JKR wrote it.
I got to the bit where you think I GENUINELY believe that people only like this book because JKR wrote it, then I stopped reading. I'm not interested in a discussion with anyone who doesn't take all the information into account. You're the second person on this thread who has responded without reading what I originally wrote properly. It was deliberately written that way because I honestly think some people read half of the information before responding. You're proof of that. You accuse me of being rude, I acknowledge I was. About as rude as others who negate any negative reviews of this book by claiming 'you expected another HP' or 'you clearly don't understand it.' About as rude as someone reading half a post and jumping in the wrong direction.
For reference, second paragraph, third sentence of the original post "it's getting tedious and makes as much sense as me accusing fans of only liking the book because JKR wrote it" The reality is, I never did think people only liked because JKR wrote it. I said so in the OP.
I will admit that my arguments so far have been based on the assumption that you read and liked HP and were therefore coming to this book with certain expectations. And while that may account for why many readers don't like it, it's quite clear you have your own reasons for disliking it. And who am I to tell you why you don't like it?I actually did read your entire post before commenting the first time but the fact that you have called this thread 'You only like it because JKR wrote it...' indicates to me that you're basically trying to incite anger in people and lead them to post without getting all the information.
I'm very interested in having an intelligent debate with you about the book and its faults [because it does have them]. But it seems all you want to do is get people to disagree with your broad statement and then treat them with contempt.
Also, if you choose to reply, you might want to read the rest of my last post, especially the last paragraph. I think we both agree that it would be quite hypocritical not to, as I too am 'not interested in a discussion with anyone who doesn't take all the information into account.'
You've made a lot of assumptions about me which are incorrect. Numerous people read this post and didn't get the wrong end of the stick. Only 2 (up to now) have assumed that the title was all there was to know. If I wanted people to get angry I would have tried to convince you all that I truly believed my words in the title. Further, I would have engaged in a debate with Peter who clearly got angry when he didn't read the whole thing properly. Half of my point is that I can give numerous reasons as to why I don't like this book. Some (a few) will accept it but others (much higher percentage) will ignore the many reasons I put forward and just read 'i don't like this book.' They then proceed to patronise me by making assumptions. I've tried numerous times to talk to people like this, to explain my reasoning. I always get the same response 'you must have expected another HP.'My post was worded deliberately but not with the intention of annoying people, with the intention of avoiding huge conversations with people who just refuse to communicate :)
I invite you to PM me about this book, some of the most interesting discussions i've had on here have come from people who disagreed with me. Hopefully I can show you that your assumptions of me are wrong, in the mean time I will explain why I dislike the book, you seem quite.interested in my opinion :) a truce I hope.
I'm sorry, I think I got carried away in the heat of the argument and I definitely overreacted. I will message you now and continue this discussion further :)
Lol, enthusiasm over a book debate. Don't worry about it. I've sent you a PM but only realised how long it was after hitting send :/ sorry about that but hopefully it explains some things :)
Never read the HP series, but did not like this book. I found it to be depressing without relief. Did not even find myself caring about any of the characters.
Having been a fan of Harry Potter, I must admit I gave this book a read because JK wrote it (and I was generally interested in her work outside of HP). It's not a story I would have even considered from another author (unless they too like JK had entertained me with a few titles)My reading is very much sci/fi fantasy with a little diversion here and there. I did like the book, it made me cringe in places, disturbed me in others and whilst I thought overall the story really didn't go anywhere, it was like the literary equivalent of Jeremy Kyle with - "the whole being greater than the sum of its dramas"
Great stuff and certainly a talking point with my other reading friends who don't share my love of dragons, intergalactic conquest and Aliens...
Even though I knew this book was intended for adults and I knew not to expect anything similar to Harry Potter, I honestly don't think this was JKR's best work. In my opinion, I thought the plot was a bit too unpleasant with everything it involved (rape, abuse, sexual activity, etc).I didn't like any of the characters, especially Simon. I absolutely HATED Simon because of the way he treated his family. He scared the daylights out of me! I also felt that there was too much profanity involved in the story.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
It seems to me the only people comparing it to HP are those who liked the book and are defending it to those who don't. I've given several reasons for why I don't like the book but still I'm told it's because I expected another HP. It's becoming tedious and makes as much sense as me accusing fans of liking the book purely because JKR wrote it. For the record I expected a book as far from HP as one could possibly imagine. We were told what the book was about and I was aware of this before I picked it up. I still don't like the book and probably never will unless something drastically changes.
Anyone else find that they are being bombarded with people telling them that they don't like the book because they expected Harry Potter?