"The Casual Vacancy" (and the critics)

Out of sheer curiousity I pre-ordered J.K.Rowling’s new book ‘The Casual Vacancy,’ knowing I would have preferred it if she had written another book set in the magical world and not in Muggle-land. I tried to read it as if she was just another writer and after a few pages that got easier. She’s a natural story-teller with a sharp eye for the physical presence of people and an acute ear for dialogue. The characters turned out to be people I have known, or at least seen around town, worried, confused, pained, their self-imposed mores and prejudices as tortuous as human beings in the western world can contrive. It has grim humour - is a black comedy really - and there is a terrible inevitability to Part Five when the comedy leaks away. I read all through the night and that, for me, is the sign of a good book.

Yesterday I read what the critics said. J.K.R. doesn’t have to be concerned with them, her fortune and her reputation is made, so for me it was more  case of the critics themselves being under scrutiny. I’ve bought a couple of novels after reading reports on them by the critic in the Independent and both times been disappointed and bored. For ‘The Casual Vacancy’ his piece was given the whole of page three of the ‘News‘ section. He makes a precis of the story then swings in at the author blaming her for ‘clunky‘ work and an obsession with geographical detail, both puzzling complaints. What exactly does he mean by ‘clunky’ for a start? (That’s rhetorical - I use the word myself but he is a literary critic and  I would expect something a bit more precise from him.) Is it a lazy way of saying he doesn’t like her technique? It’s a term more fitted to an engine so I suppose he means it doesn’t run smoothly. Well, something kept me reading all night despite the bumps, and as for ‘geographical detail’ I didn’t personally notice any more than were strictly necessary to the creation of place and atmosphere. Some people just hate success in another.  

From what I saw of other critics it seems some became obsessed with the social morals in the tale. Well, they were there but, glory be, there were no sentimentally sainted underdogs, none of the characters came off well; there were victims in all the homes, lots of prejudice on all sides, cruelty in both directions, and no heroes, except possibly one.