I popped into our local independent bookstore recently to
check out J K Rowling’s new book, The
Casual Vacancy. Sorry Jo, I’m sure you’ll be massively disappointed to hear
(irony alert) that I’m not a potential fan.
There are two main reasons for this—and they are
interconnected. Firstly, the writing is just too thin. Rowling has a
straightforward and somewhat flat writing style. For the average young reader
(as in the Harry Potter series), this was a plus—they aren’t used to challenging
texts, and in fact generally find the mere length of a Potter novel difficult
enough. Some young readers will go on to read more complex works, however the
majority will merely move sideways into equally lightweight YA novels which
require the kind of skim reading that the digitally-connected now find easiest
to do. For a reader seeking a
richer reading experience, however, Rowling’s style has neither the limpid
clarity of Jane Austen, the poetic resonance of Hardy, nor the magisterial
moral depth of George Eliot—all of whom deal with “ small worlds” (in different
ways!).
Secondly, in detailing her particular “small world”, Rowling
seems to engage in some pretty clichéd characterization. Like her writing
style, there’s just not enough to it. I think Rowling has spent too long in the
land of the YA novel where the tired old stereotype and the clichéd trope still
haven’t passed their use-by date.
The big book
about a small English town was written long ago. If you are interested, make an
expedition to the wilds of the Nineteenth century English novel section of your
local library—some of the finest minds, the deepest thinkers, the most
compassionate of observers of our muddle-minded human kind can be found there.
CatO
No comments:
Post a Comment