The Cuckoo's Calling discussion

When from the first pages I'm being annoyed by the poor quality of the writing, I know it's not going to get better. At that moment, I have to decide whether to quit, give it another chapter or put up with it. I chose the latter - and suffered through it. As an example, what first really brought me to a halt was the following passage from the Prologue, where the original lead detective on the case is introduced:

"Detective Inspector Roy Carver's temper was mounting. A paunchy man with a face the colour of corned beef, whose shirts were usually ringed with sweat around the armpits, his short supply of patience had been exhausted hours ago. He had been here nearly as long as the corpse; his feet were so cold that he could no longer feel them, and he was light-headed with hunger."

Hackneyed was the word that came to mind. Stereotypes, without the imagination and style of 1930s and '40s detective mysteries, let alone more recent libraries (certainly no Robert Parker here). And then there's this from Chapter 1, when Robin arrives for work the first day at the office of C.B. Strike, Private Detective, the morning after her boyfriend had proposed:

"Robin stood quite still, with her mouth slightly open, experiencing a moment of wonder that nobody who knew her could have understood. She had never confided in a solitary human being (even Matthew) her lifelong, secret, childish ambition. For this to happen today, of all days! It felt like a wink from God (and this too she somehow connected with the magic of the day; with Matthew, and the ring; even though, properly considered, they had no connection at all)."

Wonder, secret, God, magic - all from standing in front of a door for a moment! And all in four short sentences! This writing reminds of some of the pollyanish straight-to-internet teenage stories that are getting published these days.

These short passages don't really convey the wordiness and stiffness of the writing (too long), virtually all of it like an amateur trying their hand at story telling. It reminds me of an American I knew who lived in France for a couple of years. He could speak what the French call "correctly," that is, he knew the vocabulary, conjugation and grammar rules and such, and thus could string together sentences and thoughts, but it was rarely the living language, full of images, imagination and differing cadences the way natives speak. That's the sense of JK Rowling's (aka Robert Galbraith) effort here. John Crace in The Guardian (Sunday 7/28/13) captures the story, sense and style of it nicely in 600 words: "The Cuckoo's Calling by Robert Galbraith - digested read."

Tell me: is it the book you don't like, or the genre? When I read Hammett or Chandler (or, for that matter, Kerr), I find passages far worse than anything you've cited. And CC is, at least, not filled with wannabe-gritty similes along the lines of "booze always made him chattier than an Italian waiter."

There are also some people who simply dislike the book because of the author's name, but I would certainly not want to suggest that that's your peeve.

As for Crace, he's written elsewhere "The Age of Innocence is a great book. It's also great to satirize. The two aren't mutually exclusive." The same could apply to anything from the noir genre.

I'm no fan of Rowling, didn't get on with The Casual Vacancy and successfully avoided reading the Harry Potter books but I did find The Cuckoo's Calling a perfectly serviceable crime novel. It reminded me a bit of P D James (a much better writer to be sure) just with added effing and blinding.

Me thinks Hy sets the bar too high for the genre.

It's great fun to rail against the Dan Browns of this world but hey, they manage to produce page turners that the masses enjoy. In spite of one never ever getting the wasted time back, reading disposable crap for pleasure really is OK and apparently the masses don't give a toss what their betters think about it anyway.

Guess we disagree. And I'd add trite and pedestrian (or are those effectively synonyms?). 500 pages for a fashion model's death?? 500 pages because someone killed to get an inheritance?? One of things that's common to the better half of the books of the detective genre is that there's a reason for the reader to care, a social or political hook or insight. I don't see anything here. The business about Lulu being Jamaican feels tacked on, to make it seem like that, but it's really secondary to the story.

You already said "trite" once.-)

You can't complain about someone else being "wordy" now! (I know, cheap shot, but I couldn't resist.)

We'll have to agree to disagree. That's fine. And I'll even concede that the icons of the genre, Chandler and Hammett, usually kept their novels much shorter. Rowling does seem to have a thing about wanting to describe the length and tediousness of investigation (in Deathly Hallows with a vengeance, to some extent in CV, and, again, here in CC). In a lot of ways I find that more "real," even if it doesn't make for as "exciting" a narrative as when the protagonist spends most of the time with someone's nervous trigger finger pointing iron at him. No accountin' fer taste.

It's a good story with endearing characters, I believe it's being subjected to overly hyperbolic negative feedback as evidenced in this thread, simply because of its author.

I agree with Robert, it's a perfectly serviceable crime novel. It would make a good film or tv series. Cormoron is an endearing character. I look forward to its sequel, I think she's going to produce an even sharper read and people will be saying in the future "the original one is ok but the second or the third are brilliant."

Rune wrote: "It's a good story with endearing characters, I believe it's being subjected to overly hyperbolic negative feedback as evidenced in this thread, simply because of its author.

I agree with Robert, ..."

Completely agree with you. I think so many people hate on J.K. Rowling because they simply think it is the cool/fashionable thing to do. I read somewhere that before anyone found out that the author was J.K. Rowling the novel had almost all positive reviews, as soon as it came out that she was the author the negative reviews came pouring in.

Not to say that people don't have different tastes, if you dislike the novel, the genre, it's simply not your thing that's all well and good. If you dislike her so much as an author, don't read any more of her work, I'm sure that it's not for everyone. To say however that she is a terrible writer I think is far fetched. Is she Jane Austen or Charles Dickens, no, but that doesn't make her work any less valuable.

I personally see no where in any of the quoted passages where the writing quality is poor. There are no grammatical errors or misspellings, I can easily follow what is going on. Are either of the passages deeply insightful, no, but I don't think either was meant to be. They're describing characters in a quick short paragraph. I also believe that the point of Ray Carver is to show the typical/stereotypical disgruntled police detective, perhaps so we can compare/contrast him to Cormoran. Furthermore I believe the description of Robin, a young woman who just became engaged to the man she loves, is quite accurate. Her feelings would be of "wonder" and "magic," for a young woman the idea of getting married is magical and her happiness would radiate into all other aspects of her life (at least that is how I hope to feel after I am engaged).

I suppose though that "haters gonna hate" and there is no convincing someone to change their opinion for the most part. I for one loved the novel and cannot wait to read the second installment.

I read all of Harry Potter and enjoyed them. Have no beef with Rowling. I think she ought to stick to what she does well.

I'm a long time detective, spy, policer novel reader. The comparison that comes to mind is between Stuart Kaminsky's Abe Lieberman series, which I've assumed is written for the money, and his Inspector Rostnikov one, which is written to say something about the world. Rowling's novel is more like the first, without half the skill and very long-winded to boot. At least the awful Sue Grafton knows to keep them short and to the point.

Well, I enjoyed it. I couldn't finish "The Casual Vacancy" - halfway in and not one character I remember liking well enough to finish the book. Sure, I thought the reveal was a bit contrived and didn't make too much sense to me, but I thought a lot of the characters were written vividly. I love Chandler, but I wouldn't say I am a rabid crime or detective lit fan so I can't judge the book comparatively. Put it this way - I'd like to read more with these characters and see what she does with them.

What a stretch. Talk about crawling in the crevices of a discussion (a common academic's pastime). Maybe that's what Rowling wanted you to believe, but a writer can stick anything they want here and there, but unless it's central and developed, it's hard to take seriously. Lulu's search for her African heritage was a vague and lightly treated backdrop. John's search for the inheritance, Strike's search for the killer and Robin's search for her career passion were front and center.

A similar point applies to the comment above about Carver as " typical/stereotypical disgruntled police detective." The commenter, who seems to think good writing only requires getting the spelling and punctuation correct, also seems to think that occasionally dropping in a full-of-self stereotypical police detective, the kind one can see most any night on TV, is somehow profound. To me, it's just hack writing.

Hy wrote: "Guess we disagree. And I'd add trite and pedestrian (or are those effectively synonyms?). 500 pages for a fashion model's death?? 500 pages because someone killed to get an inheritance?? One of..."

Don't think it's a question of a agreement, we're not that far apart really, just wonder about the vehemence of the umbrage taken. Is it unfair that a writer of middling talent like Rowling enjoys so much success? Possibly so, though personally I think it a greater injustice that Iain Banks is dead and Jeffrey Archer still draws breathe.
My point, besides The Cuckoo's Calling not being as bad as all that, is that all the J K Rowlings, Dan Browns and E L James's of this world are not preventing people from reading better stuff.
Rowling is suffering from that peculiarly British 'tallest poppy' thing. Kinda feel for her...a bit.
Dan Brown produces atrociously written page turners. People sure seem to like atrociously written page turners. Go figure.
E L James, equally atrociously, writes romances with extra added bits. Thank whatever deities you believe in that you and I aren't obliged to read them. Lots of people who don't normally read did and hopefully some of them will carry on. Hopefully to greener and better written pastures.
No one, well not me anyway, is asking you to like The Cuckoo's Calling or not to critique it but I am questioning your use of ol' sledgehammer on the ol' walnut. Really you're better than that.

Hy wrote: "What a stretch. Talk about crawling in the crevices of a discussion (a common academic's pastime). Maybe that's what Rowling wanted you to believe, but a writer can stick anything they want here a..."

IF you had read my comment correctly, which perhaps you should have done before calling it out, you would have noticed that I did not say that writing is automatically good if it has correct grammar and spelling. What I implied was that poor writing does not have these elements. Even if I dislike a novel, dislike it's characters, find it drone, I rarely think the writing is poor or awful. I may think it is not to my taste, perhaps a waste of my time. When I think of poor writing, I think of writing riddled with mistakes of spelling and grammar, something that makes the English minor in me cringe and wish that the author had a better editor. I have read many novels that I dislike or even hate, but there are few books I have come across that actually have poor writing.

Furthermore, I did not state that including Carver was in any way profound. Using stereotypes for reference is common in literature. Rather, it seemed to me that you had missed the point of his inclusion, that being the readers ability to compare Carver to Strike, or perhaps to compare Carver to the other detective who is newer to the force (forgive me I cannot remember his name).

If you want to be rude and try to call someone out, or make them look less intelligent than you, perhaps you shouldn't take things you read our of context and twist them to imply something they did not. You know what they say about assuming.

I encourage you to pay attention to the ideas, not what you perceive as the manners. I still think you're stretching, trying to find morcels of good in the bad from a sort of objectivist or detached viewpoint. Lots of people in this world, starting with mainstream politicians pretty much all the time, and kids making excuses for bad behavior, try to cover what they're really up to by tossing in appealing items in the hope that they divert the listener's attention from what's really going on. I get the sense that you've fallen for that in this case (and maybe are prone to do so as a matter of course - a good part of the population is).

Good writing can have lots of formal grammar, even spelling mistakes, as far as I'm concerned, if it makes sense and flows. Writing that is often wordy and stiff, that in so doing repeatedly breaks the flow and makes me stop and growl (vs. marvel or not notice), I consider poor writing. There was lots of that in Rowling's book (as I recall, there was some shorter examples I mentally bookmarked on pages 18 and 36, though I'd have to check - I was reading it on a Kindle). It left me with the sense of an amateurish effort, someone trying hard but beyond their comfort zone or skill zone.

I, personally, have absolutely no problems with the writing. And add in the fact that I am very fond of the characters and story... well, I know it's a good book.

it was functional, sometimes the writing jarred but descriptively i thought she nailed London and the people we were following. Given the detective was the illigitimate son of a rock star it seemed ok that we'd be tied up in a supermodel plot. Rowling is a good scene setter, her best was doubtless Hogwarts but Casual and Cuckoo have both been fun reads.

Casual i think was her most powerful novel but the hardest to settle into

@Hy: can I draw your attention to a published review? It reads:

"[written] with an ill-mannered contempt for the decencies of language, and in a style which might resemble that of a Yorkshire farmer who should have endeavored to eradicate his provincialism by taking lessons of a London footman,"

Good fit?

Peter wrote: "@Hy: can I draw your attention to a published review? It reads:

"[written] with an ill-mannered contempt for the decencies of language, and in a style which might resemble that of a Yorkshire farm..."

Nope.

Do you have a link to that review? I really don't have enough knowledge and feel for England to comment specifically.

Tell you what: two points to the first person who tracks down the review. But don't give it away for another day or so, just to give others a chance to "play."

*snort*

Nobody can be bothered to Google… oh, well. (Except perhaps Kylie, not quite sure how to take that erudite comment.)

The review excerpt resembled many of the negative reviews on Goodreads (and Amazon) in many points. The main difference was (a) that it was written by a "professional" reviewer for a respected journal and (b) it was dated 1848 (yes, 165 years ago). There were only very minor edits to avoid anachronistic English (but no changes to the actual content).

Not only was the book to which this review refers written over a century-and-a-half ago, the book in question has since become standard in many secondary school reading syllabi across the English-speaking world and has seen about a half-dozen cinematic adaptations that have left generations of teenage girls week in the knees for the book's male protagonist.

It was a review of Wuthering Heights.

The point being that it's easy to write a bad review of a good book. It's particularly easy to do so with the arrogance of the reviewer who sees himself or herself as the absolute arbiter of the good, the bad, and the ugly.

That doesn't mean all books with bad reviews are automatically great literature. But it might give those who are so self-assured in their utter damnation to ask themselves if their judgment really is the Word of God. (Hint: 'tain't.)

The "wordy, stiff, hackneyed, trite" is just one person's opinion. Nothing more.

hehe, yeah, I didn't want to give anything away other than my absolute love of what you were doing.

Keshena wrote: ". . .I saw The Cuckoo's Calling more as an examination of the idea of the self in relation to societal validation through Lula's quest for her African heritage and biological family. . . and the fact that all of his [Cormoran's] acquaintances have a different nickname for him, then the "I have become a name" quote at the end of the book."

Hello, Keshena! We meet once again on a thread defending one of JKR's non-Potter books. I don't find your interpretation to be a stretch at all. I think it's as much JKR's statement on fame as The Casual Vacancy was her statement on class.

I'm also so glad you mentioned the last line. The way I understand it, "I am become a name" meant that Cormoran Strike's reputation/name was now bigger than he was as an individual. It seemed so meaningful in light of the fact that J.K. Rowling found it necessary to change hers for this book.

Big Unanswered Question: "Who are you?" asks Robin. Cormoran must have been a famous champion boxer on top of everything else. I think we'll be seeing more of that, and I think we'll meet Jonny Rokeby, too.

I think, stiff, hackneyed, and trite are all in the eye of the reader. As for wordy, I don't think it counts. Unless you were meaning, verbose. Every book has words.

I think the book was a wonderful testament to a writer that didn't want to be the sum of her name. Popular to the point that she could write a recipe for bean dip and it would sell a million.

Sometimes we writers want to know that we are good, or great, or terrible outside of the current mainstream of our fame.

The book does a good job of following almost every crime novel format there is. Cliche and overused are almost certainly synonymous with every crime fiction. Otherwise, why would we keep going after the books with the pot bellied ex-cop that is an alcoholic that has a past, and solves crimes by doing things his own way?

Keshena wrote: "It would be interesting to see the infamous Charlotte pop up."

I wasn't particularly interested in meeting Charlotte, but you may just be right. What I'm wondering is: will Matt come around about the new job? I'd like to see a white collar crime get solved in his company, something akin to the real-life financial scandals we've seen.

Another of my GR friends is shipping them too, but it would make for a big complication in their work. Which doesn't mean that JKR won't do it ultimately.

Remus and Tonks. I wouldn't have thought of it, but I think you're right.

i couldn't see Remus and Tonks there at all. seems almost a shame to be looking at a new book and trying to see shades of a previous very different book. i just read Cuckoo for what it was, a murder mystery

Robert wrote: "I'm no fan of Rowling, didn't get on with The Casual Vacancy and successfully avoided reading the Harry Potter books but I did find The Cuckoo's Calling a perfectly serviceable crime novel. It rem..."

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call you on this. Rowling has written 9 books (assuming you discount the 3 companion HP books, which I am). Prior to this one, by your own admission you have read exactly 1 of them. Don't you think it's a little premature to say you're "not a fan of Rowling?" I would definitely agree that The Casual Vacancy is not all that great (I was not a fan), but to judge a writer based on a single book is unfair. I have no interest in watching any of the Star Wars movies, but I don't go around proclaiming to hate George Lucas movies.

On a random note, I had to look up George Lucas' filmography because I couldn't think of any other ones...turns out the only George Lucas movie I've ever seen is The Land Before Time! That is vastly amusing to me. Though I did love that movie when I was a kid, I'm still not inclined to extrapolate that I love ALL George Lucas movies. :D

Ah, call all you like.

Sorry my opinion makes you feel defensive about being a 'fan' of Rowlings. Not being a fan could be the very reason I've not read her other books. Which I should amend to not finishing any of her other books. I do read a awful lot for work and hey, life's bloody short.
Actually I've read an awful lot over my ever shortening lifetime and am quite happy to trust my own take on what I really like, sorta like, feel a bit lukewarm about or just can't be arsed. All that often in just the first chapter or two. Amazing I know but if you worked in a book shop and didn't have to pay for the books you'd do the same. Trust me you would.

Now if someone's told you I go about 'proclaiming I HATE J K Rowling' (or George Lucas for that matter) well they're telling you porkies. I think somewhere else on this site I've opined that I thought she was possessed of a middling talent and in this thread that she's been rather unfairly treated by certain critics. I'll stand by that.

I can't end this without expressing some degree of wonder at the statement "but to judge a writer based on a single book is unfair"
Really?

I'm not sure I particularly want to defend Robert (that's his job, not mine), but just as a matter of definition, someone who has only read one book of a given author is not a fan of given author. So far is fair enough.

Having said that and OTOH, having read only one book sort of disqualifies anyone from making really sweeping generalizations about an author, particularly for an author who switch-hits between different genres and/or targeting different audiences. One book is simply not a representative sample of any reasonably prolific author.

Some people say they have taken a dislike to Rowling's writing, but in reality many of them just didn't like fantasy, or felt that if-it-must-be-fantasy-than-Tolkien-or-nothing (substitute name of other fantasy author to taste), or didn't like YA, or just didn't like the hoo-haw surrounding the HP series. But I've got a list of standard criticisms of Rowling from HP days where I could be confident to about 95% that the "critic" hadn't read the books. People are entitled to their opinions, but I'm also entitled to discount your opinion.-) Which I will ruthlessly do in any of the above situations.

The thing about Rowling is that, no, she doesn't write with the poetic sense of, say, an Oscar Wilde or Michel Houllebecq, nor with the depth of description of a Thomas Mann. But that's not what you read Rowling for (at least, not what I read her for). What she does do is write pretty tight plots with clever sub-plots, interesting characters, and a delightful (and sometimes quite dark) sense of humor. At least, that's what I get out of her.

And I have read all nine published books (plus the little companions). That's what statisticians call a "representative sample"!-)

PS: Comparing Rowling to Dan Brown is, in my book, seriously below the belt, rather like comparing the Beatles with the 1910 Fruitgum Company. Sure, both are pop, but one has actually got something going for it.

But Brown lost me forever by creating a purported "foremost world-wide expert in symbology" who needed 23 pages to recognize a Fibonacci series when it was staring him in the bloody face. I've suspended disbelief for witches and wizards, fairies, extra-terrestrials (even ones sexually compatible with humans, which is a pretty long shot), talking dinosaurs, time-travelers with automatic translation services that are automatically embedded into their companions' minds, sentient whales created as fallout from "infinite improbability," and weirder. But a purported "top expert" who doesn't recognize a pattern a third-grader ought to know? Uh-huh.

Peter wrote: "I'm not sure I particularly want to defend Robert (that's his job, not mine), but just as a matter of definition, someone who has only read one book of a given author is not a fan of given author. ..."

Hey! What is it that people don't understand about the term 'middling'? J K Rowling wrote a series of successful novels for young people. They also enjoyed cross over success with a lot of adult readers. A good story is a good story and I, for one, am all for reading for pleasure. Personally I like a bit of 'space opera' now and again. (May I also point out that I started out here defending the author against a rather OTT diatribe on a book that I HAVE read.) As well by all accounts Rowling is an admirable person who has managed to keep her equilibrium in the face of all the wealth and acclaim.
She's still (in my opinion) a writer of middling talent. And I really really do not have to have read all of books to know that.
Dan Brown is crap writer (all the way to the bank) and let's pick Marilynne Robinson as a great one. Rowling falls somewhere in between.
That's in the 'middle'.

you come on a Rowling thread and call her "middling" and you're going to get heckled. but i think you knew that

i put off reading Harry Potter for years then finally did as my son had books 1 - 3 on his shelf and i had nothing else to read. once i started them i loved them and went from rolling my eyes at them to honestly recommending them

she's not a great writer, but she comes up with good plots. for escapism, the Potter books are quite wonderful

Sandyboy wrote: "you come on a Rowling thread and call her "middling" and you're going to get heckled. but i think you knew that

i put off reading Harry Potter for years then finally did as my son had books 1 - 3 ..."

Sigh. Well yes, a hiding to nowhere I guess.
One last attempt and I'm out of here.

I said I wasn't a 'fan' in order to position my comments about Cuckoo's Calling. Yes, I'd expect people who really like the Harry Potter books to tell me I don't what I'm missing.
Fair enough.
I've sampled enough of one Harry Potter to know I don't want to take up the time I could be reading something else with that.
When my son was younger I might of enjoyed reading them to him but my wife ended up doing it. He loved them and read the series through himself a bunch of times.
I did get to read him other books however which I did enjoy. Cornelia Funke's for instance which in her Inkheart series I think she creates a more interestingly complex world than Rowling. Or Garth Nix for another.
They are authors I wouldn't have read otherwise and although I enjoyed them I wouldn't seek them out now that my son's grown. And I would describe them as 'middling' as well.
I mean come on now; Chaucer, Sterne, Austin, Joyce....Rowling?

Yep, read all of them. Still enjoyed Rowling

Tried reading the Funke. Have to admit it didn't do much for me (and I was really hoping to have something to read in German).

I did enjoy the Pullman series, although I wouldn't argue that he was in any way better than Rowling (and the irony that HP, a Christian allegory in a subtle way, got dumped on by the Fundamentalist Right while Dark Materials, with it's relatively heavy-handed anti-theism, came away unscathed… well, you can't make this stuff up).

I also loved L'Engle, but when I came back to it in the 80s, two decades after I first read her, the books didn't seem to have aged well. Rowling has done reasonably well so far.

As for Chaucer, Sterne, etc., apples and oranges. There are some authors I read for the poetry of their language, others for the depth of description, others for humor, others for intricate plots, others for their multi-dimensional characters. There are very few authors, indeed, who check all these boxes equally well.

For my money, if you ask "Austin, Dickens,… Rowling?" the answer is "yes." Seriously.

So you disagree? That's life.

Every larger point about society is made out of the stories forwarded by smaller characters in fiction. I think the trouble for some is that the more ordinary characters of fiction are often unable to magnify their experience, their natures, their emotions, their motivations, into insight. And odd as it is to say, sometimes it's not the author's fault.

all the above must be oh so successful to be such great critics in my humble opinion it was a good read.as for the critics publish or perish

Wow, have you received a lot of pushback from your original comment. And I don’t understand why. I thought you were being kind with your analysis of the writing. I finished this book yesterday (I know, late to the party). If I had picked it up on my own, I would have DNF’d it a few chapters in, because the writing was terrible, but alas it was for book club. It felt like I was an editor reading a person’s third or fourth draft of their first novel and I was going to have to tell them they need to cut 50,000 words and lose their thesaurus. Because that is what it felt like: a writer trying desperately to sound smarter than they are and make characters edgier than they should be. I watched the series right after and it naturally left out a lot, and changed some things. Usually, that makes something inferior to the book because you understand more of the whys and what the characters are thinking. But no, the adaptation was somewhat refreshing, not having to read overly descriptive scenes filled with unnecessary details along with bloated dialogue with mostly unlikable characters. That is usually a sign that the book isn’t that good when the adaptation is better. It’s still somewhat dull and had me not caring very much about the characters, but still somehow better than the bloated book. Early in the book I was trying to annotate, and unfortunately, it became note after note of “why is this here?” One of such notes was my complaint about her describing the sound of a pneumatic drill outside. It’s fine to mention it. That’s not my gripe. Even though I think she describes way too much. My problem is the note I had was talking about how this was the sixth time she has described the sound of this pneumatic drill outside. I was fully expecting the end to be: The killer was the pneumatic drill in the study with a candlestick. That would have somehow been better; ridiculous, but better. At least it would have been entertaining. My biggest problem is writing. The story is OK and best. Out of 5 stars, I would give it a 0.5. The adaptation about a 2.5. I was reading 2 other books at the same time I read The Cuckoo’s Calling and in those I love the writing, the direction, the purpose. Yet when I picked up this book it was like punishment.