Practically every negative review I have seen of The Casual Vacancy has included at least one comparison to Harry Potter, stating that every single aspect of the book is inferior to JK Rowling's most famous work. This may not be an unfair piece of analysis when it comes to the writing style, but the simple fact of the matter is that The Casual Vacancy is not Harry Potter. It is, perhaps, the most "real" book that I have yet read. There are no heroes, there aren't really any villains, there's crappy romances, there's whiny teenagers, there's pompous prats, there's people suffering, there's a Cluster F Bomb going off left and right- in other words, it's what I experience every time I leave my home.
I do not love the Casual Vacancy- in fact, I can't even really say that I like it. If I wanted to go experience reality more than I already do, I wouldn't be a troper. But the only real criticism of the book itself is that it is a bit lacking in the departments of reality that Harry Potter handled so well (dang it, I'm doing it, too!) which is its depiction of the great things humanity can achieve and the real caring that we can show to each other. Ignoring my quibble, the book has no real major faults that my eyes can see. The prose is excellent, the characters are all, despite whatever some critics might say, three-dimensional, the setting is well-constructed, and the plot is extremely engaging; by the time I was halfway through the book, I could not put it down. Again, I did not particularly enjoy getting into these characters' heads, but Rowling did a masterful job at making the mundane-seeming premise truly engaging. It might not be a story that needed to be told, but it's certainly one that I am glad I read.
Decidedly not magical... what's the problem with that?
Practically every negative review I have seen of The Casual Vacancy has included at least one comparison to Harry Potter, stating that every single aspect of the book is inferior to JK Rowling's most famous work. This may not be an unfair piece of analysis when it comes to the writing style, but the simple fact of the matter is that The Casual Vacancy is not Harry Potter. It is, perhaps, the most "real" book that I have yet read. There are no heroes, there aren't really any villains, there's crappy romances, there's whiny teenagers, there's pompous prats, there's people suffering, there's a Cluster F Bomb going off left and right- in other words, it's what I experience every time I leave my home.
I do not love the Casual Vacancy- in fact, I can't even really say that I like it. If I wanted to go experience reality more than I already do, I wouldn't be a troper. But the only real criticism of the book itself is that it is a bit lacking in the departments of reality that Harry Potter handled so well (dang it, I'm doing it, too!) which is its depiction of the great things humanity can achieve and the real caring that we can show to each other. Ignoring my quibble, the book has no real major faults that my eyes can see. The prose is excellent, the characters are all, despite whatever some critics might say, three-dimensional, the setting is well-constructed, and the plot is extremely engaging; by the time I was halfway through the book, I could not put it down. Again, I did not particularly enjoy getting into these characters' heads, but Rowling did a masterful job at making the mundane-seeming premise truly engaging. It might not be a story that needed to be told, but it's certainly one that I am glad I read.