And it IS bad. I didn't expect Harry Potter-type buoyancy and heroism, but nearly every character in THE CASUAL VACANCY is unpleasant, taking most of their pleasure from others' weaknesses, failures, frustrations, and pain. Nearly every one! These are not merely flawed characters; they are petty and actively vindictive. And some are worse than that, including a man who beats his wife and kids, a crack addict who neglects her children, cyberbullies, and three--not one but three--teenagers who cruelly and publicly humiliate their parents. And one character, Krystal, is so wrenching that the only possible response to her is a painful pity.
By the end of the book, some of these characters have repented and reformed, but this is unfortunately the book's greatest weakness: I didn't believe some of these character changes. They did not seem to me adequately prepared for.
The second surprise, however, was that despite all of the above, I could not put the book down. The writing is good. More, the story kept me enthralled to see what would happen next and how the various plot lines would turn out. I neglected a lot of other things I was supposed to be doing in order to finish this novel.
Rowling has moved a long way from what Jane Austen would have done with an English village. Masterly Jane knew that every setting has at least a few moments of joy, at least a few relationships that are tender, at least some people who strive for higher standards of behavior. Rowling has said that some of her book came from her own life and the lives she observed before she became famous. If so, her upbringing must have been a doozie.
Still--I read, I read compulsively, and I believed her characters. I just wish they hadn't been the only inhabitants we meet in Pagford.
.
3 comments:
What's your response to this observation (from a review that appeared in The Guardian):
"No one, I suspect, reads Rowling for the beauty of her sentences but there is often a sense here 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?"
I don't know what Nan thinks of this reviewer's comments, but from these examples I'd say he's being too nit-picky. I kind of like the Masonic handshake line.
I think he's over-reaching his comprehension level. The "familiar as a Masonic handshake" means it's always performed the same way, as is this couple's sex. The "hating sudden death" is explained in the rest of the paragraph in opposition to lingering death, which is preferred because there is a chance to say good-bye. I thought Rowling's prose was fine.
Post a Comment