![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowfireflameFinally finished J.K. Rowling’s The Casual Vacancy and wanted to share my thoughts. I know that I really shouldn’t compare the two works and should just approach The Casual Vacancy on its own terms, but the fact is that I wouldn’t be reading that if not for Harry Potter, and I couldn’t help but make comparisons between the two while reading.
When councilor Barry Fairbrother dies, the people in his community begin to realize just how much he meant to their town. Then mysterious messages written by his “ghost” start appearing on the parish council website, exposing secrets and causing the carefully crafted lives of the townspeople to fall apart.
Whoo, boy, this is really a book for adults, and Rowling really wastes no time proving that—in the first 20 pages, there’s cunt this and fuck that (no more “effing” cop-outs from Vernon Dursley!) and discussion of masturbation and erections, and this is clearly not a book written for children. Seriously, I’d put trigger warnings on it if I could(rape, drug abuse, domestic abuse, self-harm, racism, bullying, child endangerment, unsafe sex, fat shaming, discussions of child molestation and incest …and I’m confident I’m missing a few).
So clearly this is very different from Harry Potter…and yet they do have their similarities. Both deal with huge ensemble casts living in a relatively isolated and insulated community where gossip travels quickly and can be devastating. Both tend to venerate the dead (Harry’s parents vs. Barry and Nana Cath). Both deal with adolescents having to make decisions far beyond their years. Both have gay characters whose sexuality is not explored in any kind of depth and seems to be just kind of thrown in—readers weren’t even explicitly told Dumbledore was gay until after publication. In both novels, Rowling seems to have great sympathy for the poor but very little for the obese.
In terms of the writing, Rowling’s style seems to be intact: dialogue-heavy (and, man, does she do dialogue well, with each character having a distinctive voice), trademark sly humor, deep thematic wisdom.
I actually caught more of the dry humor when listening to the audiobook of this novel rather than reading it to myself, like in this passage (p. 7-8):
Where Rowling excels here is in description of places (and their inhabitants by proxy). Take this passage from when social worker Kay Bawden initially visits problem clients the Weedons (p. 65):
I found her writing most convincing when she depicted scenes of high energy with the threat of danger lingering in the background. One of my favorite scenes in terms of execution was when Simon Price, abusive husband and father, attempts to put together a stolen computer while his wife and sons (Ruth, Andrew, and Paul) watch on in silent terror of the computer not working and Simon erupting into violence. An incredibly tense scene ensues, ending in (p. 138):
In Harry Potter, the thematic statement of the series (to me, anyway), was Dumbledore’s “It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities” from Chamber of Secrets. In The Casual Vacancy, it’s clearly Parminder Jawanda’s hero tale (p. 342):
See, Rowling even repeats it in Italics and then again later in the story so you really get it. :) But if I were choosing a thematic statement for this novel, it would be the proverb “Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.” Or even Gandalf’s “Do not be so quick to deal out death and judgment.”
The story deals with, well, the politics of socialism, I suppose. Do those who are more well-off have a civic responsibility to try to aid those in their community who are impoverished? Rowling clearly answers a resounding “yes” here, and the adult heroes of the novel are those who do their best to help: social workers, school guidance counselors, town counselors who actually do have a desire to help, whereas the villains are those who want to ignore the problems or to push them off onto other people. But it’s not exactly so clear-cut as that because every character is very complicated.
The main difference between the two series, to me, is their characters. In Harry Potter, I’m pretty sure I can say that I at least like every character. Even the evil ones—hell, especially the evil ones. While Sirius Black might opine in Order of the Phoenix that “the world isn’t split into good people and Death Eaters,” Harry’s world, it seems, is pretty much split into good people with foibles vs. bad people who can be redeemed by great sacrifice.
Molly Weasley is clearly a good person even though she’s mean to Hermione when she thinks Hermione broke Harry’s heart, despite the fact that Molly never asked Hermione to give her side of the story (which was fake anyway). Peter Pettigrew is a bad person who betrayed his friends to their deaths, but was able to redeem himself by not immediately strangling Harry—and then he has to make a great sacrifice. Professor Dolores Umbrage gets rather carried away with her own power, and she’s so evil it’s incredibly entertaining, but there is cosmic justice in the form of centaurs. I can’t think of a single character in Harry Potter I actually dislike.
In The Casual Vacancy, I’m having the opposite problem. Rowling has achieved the feat of making each character who is able to have some sort of morality simultaneously sympathetic and unsympathetic. Terri Weedon has such a sad backstory, but the way she neglects her children due to her addiction is horrifying. Samantha Mollison loves her little bra shop and is desperate to hang onto her youthful good looks, but willing to sacrifice her marriage by underhanded means instead of confronting the problems head-on. Gavin Hughes is desperate to get out of his relationship and treats Kay like shit, but at the same time he’s too scared of being alone to leave it.
All these characters are fascinating, yes—complex, interesting—but they are not, at least to me, particularly likeable, so I found it hard to enjoy the book. I found it actually physically upsetting at times, and I think this was because I recognized so many of the characters’ flaws as those I’ve personally encountered. I empathized with Sukhvinder Jawanda so much that it’s hard for me to think impassively about her. Her character undergoes the most transformation and was perhaps the most interesting to me.
In terms of other adolescent characters, my favorites were Krystal Weedon and Stuart “Fats” Wall. Krystal because she’s just awesome. The daughter of a prostitute, she deals with constant turmoil and extreme disadvantage with spunk and strength, even when misunderstood, and she loves her little brother so much. Fats to me is like an Opposite Day Draco Malfoy. They’re both bullies who don’t have to worry about money, but Fats despises his father while Draco idolizes his. They both create their identities based on their fathers’—Fats becomes obsessed with authenticity and honesty because it’s what he sees as the opposite of what Cubby would do, while Draco seeks to emulate Lucius...until tragedy strikes and they switch: Draco sees that Lucius is not as great as he had once thought, and Fats realizes that he and Cubby are more alike than he had previously recognized. But while Draco’s flaws make him likeable to me, Fats’ just make him an obnoxious teenager.
(Random shipping note: I had a little fantasy going in my head about Declan Fairweather, Barry’s youngest son and the only one who waves goodbye to his father, and Paul Price, who is prone to nosebleeds and emasculated by his abusive father, but we hardly know anything about them—which is perhaps why I can like them more easily. Their relative grace (in Declan’s case) or utter pitifulness (in Paul’s) in light of the tragedy in their personal lives appeals to me. Maybe Declan reminds me of Harry and Paul reminds me of Draco.)
Whatever its cause, though, I get a somewhat jaded and cynical feeling from the brutal realism in The Casual Vacancy. I never wanted to leave Hogwarts—I still don’t; that’s what fanfic is for—but, despite being impressed by the writing, I couldn’t really wait to exit petty, squabbling little Pagford. Maybe it’s the difference between children’s and adult fiction, or just the difference between magical fantasy and gritty, squalid realism.
But even if I didn’t necessarily enjoy the novel, and it upset me quite a bit, I’m glad I read it. It’s very interesting to witness Rowling’s writing continue to evolve, and I like how forthright she was with her message about compassion and humanity.
When councilor Barry Fairbrother dies, the people in his community begin to realize just how much he meant to their town. Then mysterious messages written by his “ghost” start appearing on the parish council website, exposing secrets and causing the carefully crafted lives of the townspeople to fall apart.
Whoo, boy, this is really a book for adults, and Rowling really wastes no time proving that—in the first 20 pages, there’s cunt this and fuck that (no more “effing” cop-outs from Vernon Dursley!) and discussion of masturbation and erections, and this is clearly not a book written for children. Seriously, I’d put trigger warnings on it if I could
So clearly this is very different from Harry Potter…and yet they do have their similarities. Both deal with huge ensemble casts living in a relatively isolated and insulated community where gossip travels quickly and can be devastating. Both tend to venerate the dead (Harry’s parents vs. Barry and Nana Cath). Both deal with adolescents having to make decisions far beyond their years. Both have gay characters whose sexuality is not explored in any kind of depth and seems to be just kind of thrown in—readers weren’t even explicitly told Dumbledore was gay until after publication. In both novels, Rowling seems to have great sympathy for the poor but very little for the obese.
In terms of the writing, Rowling’s style seems to be intact: dialogue-heavy (and, man, does she do dialogue well, with each character having a distinctive voice), trademark sly humor, deep thematic wisdom.
I actually caught more of the dry humor when listening to the audiobook of this novel rather than reading it to myself, like in this passage (p. 7-8):
“Fairbrother’s dead?” roared Howard.
The inflection implied that he had been expecting some dramatic change in the status of Barry Fairbrother, but that even he had not anticipated actual death.
Where Rowling excels here is in description of places (and their inhabitants by proxy). Take this passage from when social worker Kay Bawden initially visits problem clients the Weedons (p. 65):
The file had made it clear what she was likely to meet, and her first glimpse of the house met her expectations.
A pile of refuse was heaped against the front wall: carrier bags bulging with filth, jumbled together with old clothes and unbagged, soiled nappies. Bits of the rubbish had tumbled or been scattered over the scrubby patch of lawn, but the bulk of it remained piled beneath one of the two downstairs windows. A bald old tire sat in the middle of the lawn; it had been shifted sometime recently, because a foot away there was a flattened yellowish-brown circle of dead grass. After ringing the doorbell, Kay noticed a used condom glistening in the grass beside her feet, like the gossamer cocoon of some huge grub.
I found her writing most convincing when she depicted scenes of high energy with the threat of danger lingering in the background. One of my favorite scenes in terms of execution was when Simon Price, abusive husband and father, attempts to put together a stolen computer while his wife and sons (Ruth, Andrew, and Paul) watch on in silent terror of the computer not working and Simon erupting into violence. An incredibly tense scene ensues, ending in (p. 138):
A small white arrow appeared on screen and swooped cheerily around at Simon’s command.
A tourniquet of fear was released; relief gushed through three of the watchers; Simon stopped pulling his Neanderthal face. Andrew visualized a line of Japanese men and woman [sp?] in white coats: the people who had assembled this flawless machine, all of them with delicate, dexterous fingers like Paul’s; they were bowing to him, sweetly civilized and gentle. Silently, Andrew blessed them and their families. They would never know how much had hung on this particular machine working.
In Harry Potter, the thematic statement of the series (to me, anyway), was Dumbledore’s “It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities” from Chamber of Secrets. In The Casual Vacancy, it’s clearly Parminder Jawanda’s hero tale (p. 342):
Once, long ago, Parminder had told Barry the story of Bhai Kanhaiya, the Sikh hero who had administered to the needs of those wounded in combat, whether friend or foe. When asked why he gave aid indiscriminately, Bhai Kanhaiya had replied that the delight of God shone from every soul, and that he had been unable to distinguish between them.
The light of God shone from every soul.
See, Rowling even repeats it in Italics and then again later in the story so you really get it. :) But if I were choosing a thematic statement for this novel, it would be the proverb “Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.” Or even Gandalf’s “Do not be so quick to deal out death and judgment.”
The story deals with, well, the politics of socialism, I suppose. Do those who are more well-off have a civic responsibility to try to aid those in their community who are impoverished? Rowling clearly answers a resounding “yes” here, and the adult heroes of the novel are those who do their best to help: social workers, school guidance counselors, town counselors who actually do have a desire to help, whereas the villains are those who want to ignore the problems or to push them off onto other people. But it’s not exactly so clear-cut as that because every character is very complicated.
The main difference between the two series, to me, is their characters. In Harry Potter, I’m pretty sure I can say that I at least like every character. Even the evil ones—hell, especially the evil ones. While Sirius Black might opine in Order of the Phoenix that “the world isn’t split into good people and Death Eaters,” Harry’s world, it seems, is pretty much split into good people with foibles vs. bad people who can be redeemed by great sacrifice.
Molly Weasley is clearly a good person even though she’s mean to Hermione when she thinks Hermione broke Harry’s heart, despite the fact that Molly never asked Hermione to give her side of the story (which was fake anyway). Peter Pettigrew is a bad person who betrayed his friends to their deaths, but was able to redeem himself by not immediately strangling Harry—and then he has to make a great sacrifice. Professor Dolores Umbrage gets rather carried away with her own power, and she’s so evil it’s incredibly entertaining, but there is cosmic justice in the form of centaurs. I can’t think of a single character in Harry Potter I actually dislike.
In The Casual Vacancy, I’m having the opposite problem. Rowling has achieved the feat of making each character who is able to have some sort of morality simultaneously sympathetic and unsympathetic. Terri Weedon has such a sad backstory, but the way she neglects her children due to her addiction is horrifying. Samantha Mollison loves her little bra shop and is desperate to hang onto her youthful good looks, but willing to sacrifice her marriage by underhanded means instead of confronting the problems head-on. Gavin Hughes is desperate to get out of his relationship and treats Kay like shit, but at the same time he’s too scared of being alone to leave it.
All these characters are fascinating, yes—complex, interesting—but they are not, at least to me, particularly likeable, so I found it hard to enjoy the book. I found it actually physically upsetting at times, and I think this was because I recognized so many of the characters’ flaws as those I’ve personally encountered. I empathized with Sukhvinder Jawanda so much that it’s hard for me to think impassively about her. Her character undergoes the most transformation and was perhaps the most interesting to me.
In terms of other adolescent characters, my favorites were Krystal Weedon and Stuart “Fats” Wall. Krystal because she’s just awesome. The daughter of a prostitute, she deals with constant turmoil and extreme disadvantage with spunk and strength, even when misunderstood, and she loves her little brother so much. Fats to me is like an Opposite Day Draco Malfoy. They’re both bullies who don’t have to worry about money, but Fats despises his father while Draco idolizes his. They both create their identities based on their fathers’—Fats becomes obsessed with authenticity and honesty because it’s what he sees as the opposite of what Cubby would do, while Draco seeks to emulate Lucius...until tragedy strikes and they switch: Draco sees that Lucius is not as great as he had once thought, and Fats realizes that he and Cubby are more alike than he had previously recognized. But while Draco’s flaws make him likeable to me, Fats’ just make him an obnoxious teenager.
(Random shipping note: I had a little fantasy going in my head about Declan Fairweather, Barry’s youngest son and the only one who waves goodbye to his father, and Paul Price, who is prone to nosebleeds and emasculated by his abusive father, but we hardly know anything about them—which is perhaps why I can like them more easily. Their relative grace (in Declan’s case) or utter pitifulness (in Paul’s) in light of the tragedy in their personal lives appeals to me. Maybe Declan reminds me of Harry and Paul reminds me of Draco.)
Whatever its cause, though, I get a somewhat jaded and cynical feeling from the brutal realism in The Casual Vacancy. I never wanted to leave Hogwarts—I still don’t; that’s what fanfic is for—but, despite being impressed by the writing, I couldn’t really wait to exit petty, squabbling little Pagford. Maybe it’s the difference between children’s and adult fiction, or just the difference between magical fantasy and gritty, squalid realism.
But even if I didn’t necessarily enjoy the novel, and it upset me quite a bit, I’m glad I read it. It’s very interesting to witness Rowling’s writing continue to evolve, and I like how forthright she was with her message about compassion and humanity.
