The Cuckoo's Calling
discussion
Nothing Happens!
message 1:
by
FriscoKid
(new)
Sep 21, 2013 09:48AM
About halfway through this book I realized: Not a single event has occurred. It's all interviews and dialogue. Strike tracks down a lead, he goes to the lead, and then they talk and talk and talk. Then he tracks down another lead, he goes to the lead, and more talk, talk, talk. Rowling describes where they are, the room they are in, what people are wearing and then they TALK! Repeat ad nauseam. Now, the characters aren't uninteresting. They all have distinct personalities. And, frankly, I LOVED Strike and Robin and their relationship together (though her fiance seemed a bit of a pill). But, except for the minor scuffle at the end the only other "events" that happen are that he slips down some stairs, hunts for the will (for two seconds) and sleeps with a model (off screen). This is a similar complaint I had with the Potter books. They all ended with endless pages of tedious dialogue explaining the mystery to us (though at least those books were stuffed with incident up until then).
reply
|
flag
The "event" occurred before the book really started. It's a whodunit, not a who'sdoingit. I really enjoyed the novel; I like slow, descriptive mysteries.
My point was that, aside from physical descriptions of people and locations, the book consists almost entirely of dialogue. That made it sterile and repetitious to the point of tedium. For 400 pages it would be nice to read something more than just people talking to each other.
FriscoKid wrote: "My point was that, aside from physical descriptions of people and locations, the book consists almost entirely of dialogue. That made it sterile and repetitious to the point of tedium. For 400 page..."Sounds like you'd be better off reading something else then. It's not an action book.
Sounds like you'd be better off reading something else then.It's a little late for that as I've already read it.
It's not an action book.
I didn't say I was looking for "action." I only wished that more things happened in the book as opposed to people talking about things that happened. Tons of stuff happened in the Potter books. Tons of stuff happened in Casual Vacancy. Plenty of stuff happens in other mysteries, but virtually nothing happens in Cuckoo's except conversation. Show, don't tell, as the axiom says.
Telling would be if the narrator did all the talking. Dialogue's an effective technique for showing, as are mentions of body language that reacts to what's being said or happening. There's plenty of reactive showing throughout this book.Detective novels, like crime dramas such as Law and Order, seem to rely heavily on the protagonist interacting with the potential suspects, primarily through dialogue/interviews. This book didn't seem unusual in that regard.
Let's see: Rochelle is murdered, Robin gets engaged, we find out about Charlie's murder, Kieran hopes to get a break (but doesn't), Tony's having an affair, Bestigui almost kills his wife, Strike shags a super-model, Robin gets a very expensive (and hot) dress and a permanent job, Strike almost kills John… I'm sure I've left a few things out…Are you sure you read the same book as everyone else?-)
No, it's not an action novel in the Chandler-if-the-action-slows-down-I-introduce-a-new-guy-with-a-gun vein (particularly not the gun part, but that's another story and another thread). A lot of the action is more low-key. There's some time for description and getting into characters' heads. And the notion that the private eye job includes a lot of meticulous compilation of notes to ensure that the bad guy gets convicted at the end of the story… to my mind a nice bit of realistic atmosphere that gets ignored by other authors.
If all you want to do is say you read the book and didn't get on with it… why don't you just get over it and try reading something else? And… if what you want to do is troll, why don't you go over to one of the Dan Brown forums and say that his books are shite? That should get some fun responses. And at least I'd agree with you:-)
I already mentioned the fight in the original posting. Sorry I forgot the earth-shattering moment of Robin getting a dress. Everything else you mentioned happened off-book or we learned about through dialogue. I have as much right to come on here and express my legitimate criticisms of the book as others do to post fawning, vacuous adulation of it. If you can't respond without casting aspersions on my intelligence or taste, or resorting to the oh so constructive "get over it," you're the one who's trolling, not me.
FriscoKid wrote: "I already mentioned the fight in the original posting. Sorry I forgot the earth-shattering moment of Robin getting a dress. Everything else you mentioned happened off-book or we learned about throu..."IMO the poison green dress scene is pivotal as it's when Strike really sees Robin & IMO is the basis for future adventures by this pair (hopefully)
Peter wrote: " And… if what you want to do is troll..."Puh-lease! I absolutely detest the namecalling and "troll" label that gets thrown around every time someone posts a criticism to a popular novel.
So FriscoKid didn't like this book, that's fine. He actually posted some intelligent criticism of the work. It's true that the story is rather slow, and that there is a plethora of dialogue in lieu of action. It's also true that this book is written in the vein of classic mysteries. That style is not for everyone.
It's a-okay to check something out, decide you don't like it, and then TALK about your dislike. He wasn't trying to force it down anyone's throat. If you loved the work so much, you'd do much better at stating the reasons why this is such a fantastic work of fiction, why the points raised by the OP work well for you, and why you'll continue to read/like books of this nature. You (Peter) did a little of that, but the namecalling is too much.
Smileys don't seem to count for anything anymore. Sigh.Everything else you mentioned happened off-book or we learned about through dialogue
Not really. But if people here are going to deliberately ignore irony that's been underscored by two bloody smileys, I don't need to bother, do I?
Finally: who started casting aspersions, ``FriscoKid''?
I stuck with it, fighting the urge to quit in the first quarter of the book, and I was rewarded. I was impressed. Cuckoo is not an action book, but better -- it's a book of character, developed carefully, the main characters of Strike and Robin gaining traction steadily. But even smaller roles, Guy Some, Lula's mother, Rochelle, Evan, and yes, even the dead Lula, get fleshed out as the story evolves. Sure, it's a detective novel, and on the surface that genre appears to limit the book, but Rowling develops her characters as meticulously as the criminal investigation, revealing their inner motivations as surely as she brings the perpetrator to justice. Human nature is the mystery, not just the crime.
Gosh David, I could not disagree with you more. I was really looking forward to reading this (never read Rowling before) but really didn't like anything about the book...the overall story or the characters.I thought the characters were really one dimensional and totally superficial. I could almost feel her thinking "oooh, a screaming queen (or a mentally ill homeless girl), that would be fun to write about..."
I didn't think any of them were fleshed out. The whole Guy Some interview was totally pointless and went on for far too long.
Strike has no redeeming qualities at all, he's fat and hairy and probably stinks yet we are expected to believe gorgeous women just drop at his feet?
I also came away with no idea why Lula was a screwed up as she was.
I could almost buy into the 'nothing happens' type of story, but the book doesn't even take you on a journey of finding out who the killer is via Strike's thoughts. It just suddenly gets revealed out of nowhere. At no point are we privvy to what he's thinking when he does all these pages of asking questions. Even the L&O type shows explain to us what the various investigators are thinking and allow us to piece the crime together as the show progresses. There's discussions and dialog about who they think did it and why.
There's none of that in this book.
Are you sure you read the same book as everyone else?-)
If there's two versions of this book, then I read the same one that FriscoKid did, because I agree with him.
The book I'm struggling with is The Casual Vacancy. I've been reading it for several days already, and am only 15% through it. I suspect that by the time I finish I will have really enjoyed it, but right now I having trouble getting into it.
Verena wrote: "The book I'm struggling with is The Casual Vacancy. I've been reading it for several days already, and am only 15% through it. I suspect that by the time I finish I will have really enjoyed it, but..."You are braver than me. I got to about the same length with that one, but closed the cover and put it respectfully to rest. It's still snoozing.
its interesting when you say characters weren't that really fleshed out...someone pointed out that we never actually met Charlotte in the book, and yet, she was written in a way that you could almost see her; ditto with Michael - there was mentions of conversations with him, but none actually - yet as a character he played a fairly significant role in Robin's working relationship with Strike
David wrote: "Verena wrote: "The book I'm struggling with is The Casual Vacancy. I've been reading it for several days already, and am only 15% through it. I suspect that by the time I finish I will have really ..."I think I made it to page 52 and couldn't get anywhere with it. It bored me. I have it on my to do list to finish but it feels like it would be more laborious than enjoyable. I did like The Cuckoo's Calling and look forward to another Strike book.
Bern, if you liked The Cuckoo's Calling, then I would urge you to give The Casual Vacancy another chance. The same types of characterizations exist in both books. I didn't like The Casual Vacancy at first either, but liked it immensely by the end.
Though this book is a modern mystery that happens in London, it is written like a fantasy. What I mean by that is that a fantasy creates a fantasy world with fantasy characters. Therefore, the author has to spend a great deal of time describing the strange world and its inhabitants. I have not read any of the Potter books, but I can just imagine how detailed they must be. The scenes of The Cuckoo’s Calling are filled with the most miniscule details. Unfortunately, they are not from a strange fantasy world, but are rather mundane things of this world. I suppose this enriches the scene, but it really slows the action.For me, it failed as a mystery—I mean there were really only about 50 pages devoted to the mystery. I will say it has a surprise ending and the denouement of the mystery is okay, it only has a few surprise clues that materialize at the end to make it plausible. On the other hand, as a story about London and some interesting characters there, it was excellent. Well, London is like a fantasy world to me. So I enjoyed it – though I think I know all I want to about Strike, so I probably won’t be reading the sequels.
I think what people are forgetting here is that it is the first in the series. The first book in any series is usually providing character description and development and the history of the relationships between the characters. Not a whole lot generally happens in the first book of any series because of this. That being said, I immensely enjoyed this book and had completely forgotten who it was written by by the time I got to the end. I adore Jo Rowling and she is an amazing writer. I'm looking forward to the next book in the series :)
It gets really awesome towards the end. and the ending was amazing.
This is hardly a particularly insightful comment, but for what it's worth, I absolutely loved the book. To me it was reminiscent of old-school mysteries and psychological thrillers in which the author focused more on possible motives for the crime and the relationships between the characters (victim and suspects) than on the crime itself. Also, as someone who made a living writing about law enforcement for more than 20 years, I can tell you that even the highest profile murder cases require a lot of grunt work. Detectives do spend a lot of time tracking leads and talking to a lot of people. There's really nothing glamorous about it. So to me, the fact that there wasn't "a lot of action" added to the story's authenticity.
All of that being stated, I can also see why some people don't like the book and agree that it's perfectly fine not to.
David wrote: "Verena wrote: "The book I'm struggling with is The Casual Vacancy. I've been reading it for several days already, and am only 15% through it. I suspect that by the time I finish I will have really ..."I had the same issues with Casual Vacancy, but I kept going...glad I finished it. The ending makes up for the beginning.
Scott wrote: "David wrote: "Verena wrote: "The book I'm struggling with is The Casual Vacancy. I've been reading it for several days already, and am only 15% through it. I suspect that by the time I finish I wil..."Thanks for emphasizing that point. I think I'll see the Casual Vacancy in that light, nudge it from its long winter nap on my shelf and see if I can get back into it, with the expectation that the ending will make up for the beginning.
Scott wrote: "I had the same issues with Casual Vacancy, but I kept going...glad I finished it. The ending makes up for the beginning. "I totally agree. It got going for me at about 40% in, and then I finished it quickly.
FriscoKid wrote: "About halfway through this book I realized: Not a single event has occurred. It's all interviews and dialogue. Strike tracks down a lead, he goes to the lead, and then they talk and talk and talk. ..."Even in David Baldacci, Michael Connelly, and Kathy Reichs books the main action occurs in meetings and dialogues or internal dialogues while looking at lab results. Occasionally there are "action" bits but they don't necessarily move the plot forward. I agree that some of the characters were a bit one dimensional (Matthew) but there were lots of interesting characters and many red herrings. I thought I had figured it out and all the reasons (my killer) did it were the same reasons that the (ultimate) killer did it.
This isn't an action crime novel or a political thriller in the ilk of Dan Brown or Vince Flynn. This is is a crime solver's novel more like that of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and the mystery is the slow uncovering of the evidence which serves as the action in this case. This is very Sherlock Holmes-y and it's written with the same formula as a Holmes novel. Usually the major events are retold through Holmes and Watson's investigation and scrutinization of the evidence, whether physical or witness characterization which is exactly what Strike does throughout. Take for example, a Holmes novel without Watson how would Doyle get the cases across to the reader without him. The side kick in crime novel is just another device to tell us what has already happened! This particular plot didn't really involve any time constraints and thus there was no internal pressure for the protagonist to act, as you may sometimes find Holmes and Watson racing around town against the clock. Future (if she continues now) novels may have a time constraint which would allow for more as you put it "action." As a mystery lover I thought it was an intelligent plot. It wasn't really predictable but to the less keene mystery reader it would have kept the guessing to the end. As always her sentence structure is a bit clunky, which is fine for me because I have a similar style personally and it resonates with me. But I understand how others criticisms of her writing style can dissuade one from pursuing the long dialogue.
I liked this book a lot because it was a superbly written old style whodunit, that is, like the Poirot books, we are looking at a crime through the eyes of a private detective after the police think it has already been solved.
Malcolm wrote: "I liked this book a lot because it was a superbly written old style whodunit, that is, like the Poirot books, we are looking at a crime through the eyes of a private detective after the police thin..."I completely agree. Well said.
Good point: " human nature is the mystery, not the crime." I was shocked as it unraveled to the ending! When one hears so much hype about a book/author, there are expectations. I began to think...this is dragging a bit and I didn't expect to "hohum". Glad I did finish, the twists resolved was worth it.
I enjoyed Robin's involvement and her desire to be in on the detecting. Strike was nicely developed, I thot. I really didn't want to know Charlotte, nor Michael.
This was to me a typical English Detective story and I mean that in a good sense. Although, not the most thrill provoking read it does remind me of the books that I have read about English detectives. This is a set up for future stories with these characters.
I loved it. Great characters, great pacing, excellent sense of place. I hope the next book in this series is just as good.
even though I found it quite readable I thought the plot was just plain dumb. If you are the killer why would you hire a private detective to find out what really happens. The reason of 'John is crazy' is just so not plausible.
"Crazy" wasn't the explanation. He was trying to frame Lula's biological brother and discredit him as an heir so that he would get her money. He just didn't count on Strike being so clever.
Isn't hiring someone to best way to get rid of any shadow of doubt about your role in their death? I would think for most people, teh fact that John hired Stike, ppl would take him out of contention for being the murdereras far as John is crazy...not really...John was greedy and wanted her money ad I think probably severely jealous as well
It is a common fact that people revisit a crime scene in order to cope with the guilt as well as dispel accusations. Bank robbers will often go back within a few hours and bank at the bank, because the common sense thing (Which Millie is buying into) is that if you did something, you stay away from it. But in this case John does exactly what most criminal minds do, and tried misdirection to make everyone (including Strike) to not investigate him. The whole time, I thought it was the Uncle, so John's ploy worked on me as well. The book was amazing and I think Frisco Kids whole rant and what not is crap, and points to his/her ignorance. Read books for enjoyment, not analytically.
I suppose my common sense approach is - If you kill someone & everyone, even the police have give the verdict of suicide, why would you hire someone to dig up the details & revisit it all. That does not make sense as you would want everyone to forget as well as sit back and be satisfied that you have been clever & gotten away with it.there was no shadow of doubt that it was anything but suicide. all the police files had been put away.
I think it was a dumb story line.
Remember, he was trying to frame his uncle as well, his uncle was all that stood in his way of getting the money, (and his dying mother...) He was hoping to get Strike to find enough false evidence to get his uncle convicted and locked away so that when his mother died, he would be able to get the money all to him self.
I couldn't disagree more with the OT, though everyone has a right to an opinion.This book was not about "action", it was more about figuring out whodunit. Characters are developed, and the minuscule details are given, so the reader can think alongside and slowly put things together. We need the repetition and the dialogue. It's not a book that holds your hand. If what you want is to be dazzled by action and cleverness and on the edge of your seat, this is not the book for you. If you like to mentally interact with the book, to think alongside, to puzzle things out, to try to see why characters are doing what they are, then you'll enjoy it.
Personally, action books often read as over-the-top to me, annoying me rather than entertaining. I'm knowledgable enough in certain areas that the many common plot holes and stereotypes just set my teeth on edge when I read them. This book was a breath of fresh air-- it avoided all of that, it gave me real, fleshed out characters rather than caricatures, it presented a whole world in which to puzzle out the characters and their actions, and things made sense, and the author didn't leave out the real meat of the work of actually solving the mystery, and didn't hold back in information, except all of Strike's conclusions, which let me think it out to the end. That's what Rowling does well and what I loved about this book.
Not as much action? That's not a bug, that's a feature, for me.
Don't read J.K. Rowling books anymore then, if you don't enjoy them. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on her books though. I enjoyed this one, thought it was amazing.
Exactly," It's a whodunit, not a who's doingit." Its a different style.
I wonder if Robin will break up with her boyfriend in the next book.
I really enjoyed this book, I thought plenty of things happened in it! It is a much slower-paced story with an emphasis on the process behind detective work and putting all the pieces together.
I am only putting this comment in because I don't want this string to end with Arathi's comments. Its not about me agreeing or disagreeing with anyone in the string above. Its about me and what I like. To me J. K. Rowling is a great writer and she tells a great story. The character development in this book only proves this point. I loved the book.
IMO the book is so ordinary with an ok story and flaws that somewhat mentioned above. I don't think this many people (except JKR fans maybe) would talk about it (good or bad) if not for this little drama of the author. This makes me dislike the book although it was an OK read for me.
I adored the book and can't wait for the next one. I'm the sort of person who avoids movies that rely on cgi and books with guns and 'action'. JKR is an enormously talented writer; she spun humourous characterizations and sparkling dialogue around a plausible whodunit. What's not to like?
I must say I did not much like the book... but stuck with it... 1) cause I thought it was going to get better and 2) I listen on audio... so you can do other things at the same time... so it is not so much of a bother. It is kinda slow and I did not much care cab out the characters. The reading in the audio version is quite engaging and made up for it.
I didn't much care for this book either. I thought it rambled on too much and the dialogue got very annoying. I felt like I was reading a Dick and Jane book. Obviously not my cup of tea. I usually finish a book in 1-3 days and it took me almost two weeks to inch my way through it. I felt like it drug on forever to rush through putting the pieces together in the end.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
