Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Oh, Emily. I'm so sorry to hear that you didn't enjoy it! I'm still going to give it a try since I'm such a die hard fan.

Ally, did you like The Casual Vacancy? If so, I think it's much more likely that this will appeal to you. I just don't think Rowling's adult mysteries are my cup of tea :/

Thank you so much for a detailed explanation of what doesn't work in Rowling's adult books. I agree, but I was thinking of giving this one a try. Knowing that it wasn't just a one book fluke keeping me from liking The Casual Vacancy helped me to decide against trying this one. There are too many other great books out there on my tbr pile to waste time on a book by an author simply because I loved the HP books.

No problem, Melissa, thanks for reading :)

Thanks! I watched it last night. Not like it's obvious or anything, hehe :)

Sorry you didn't like it! Beyond the language (which is probably just a personal thing for you--not that others might have the same problem, of course), did you like things like Rowling's characters, plot progression and themes?

Hi Rhys, I deliberately didn't comment on those things because I thought my opinion of the language would inevitably cloud my judgement - especially seeing as the language is the tool which shapes the characters, plot and themes. It's hard for me to separate them, to be honest. I would say there is potential in the mystery/story but that it isn't particularly original - anyone who's read a lot of crime/mystery books will probably feel like they've read something similar before. I don't feel in a position to comment on the characters because a lot of character development relies on the dialogue. Sorry I can't be more help :/

It's such a shame that Rowling's adult books don't seem to have many fans. I haven't read either of them yet because they're not my typical kinds of books. Still, because I adored the Harry Potter series, I figured I'd want to gobble up anything else she writes. The only reason I ever considered picking up this book or The Casual Vacancy was because my favorite author wrote them. Sadly, seeing as many of the reviews for the books have been like yours, I'm pretty hesitant. I might just keep enjoying HP so my intense love for JK Rowling's writing remains intact. XD Great review, Emily.

Emily, I didn't mind the Casual Vacancy. It wasn't amazing, by any stretch, but once I got past the beginning I quite enjoyed it.

I'm really glad to read your review for this book since I've only seen good reviews so far. Will probably still be trying out this book for myself but at least my expectations won't be too high now. Thanks!

I don't usually like animated gifs, but I can really get behind the Mary Poppins ones.

Thanks for the heads up, Emily. I added this to my read list when I found out Rowling wrote this. But this is what struck me in your review: " Try reading whole pages where every sentence replaces the obvious words with complex ones and see how far you get without your brain starting to scream." This is one of my pet peeves. I hate when authors use big words when it feels so out of place. I think I will leave this one on the shelf for awhile!

Thank you all for the comments. I'm sorry to deliver disappointing news on this one :/ Still, I hope you have a different reaction if you do decide to pick this up.

This actually makes me think I might like the book. I loved The Casual Vacancy.

I'd say you probably will then. Good luck!

Emily, i totally agree with you in almost every complain you made about the Casual Vacancy book, I'm still reading it, and i wasn't sure of giving Rowling another try in this book, Coocko's Calling, since I'm having troubles to continue reading The Casual Vacancy.
Anyway, I have to admit that I prefer Rowling's adults writting style even more than the way Harry Potter was written, I won't compare the stories 'cause it wouldn't be fair. They are both DIFERENT books, uncomparable.
The thing is that I can't stand the childish writting style of Harry Potter, even though the story is AMAZING, I know that they were aimed for young readers, but a little more sparks of action and emotion would work better for me.
Jaja sorry for all my opinions of others Rowling's books.
Thank you a lot Emily for your review, it really helped me making up my mind. :)

Great review! I started The Casual Vacancy, but I think I went into it feeling unsure, and ended up DNF-ing it. I think that Ms. Rowling might be a Harry Potter only hit for me, and I'll give her other books a miss. It was the language that put up an immediate wall for me.

I never read Harry Potter, don't even like the movies. I don't even know why. :) I completely understand though Rawling's ambition to write something very far from this HP univers and also for trying to write under another name. So I'll give this one a try even though I did not finish The Casual Vacancy.

And I was wondering why I couldn't finish "The Casual Vacancy" after reading a few pages. Nonetheless, I will try to read that again and have a look at this book too, coz otherwise I won't know for sure whether Rowling's adult books don't work for me. (Sigh) I just wish she'd delve further into the HP universe, you know? :[

Funny, I am a huge lover if JK Rowling's Happy Potter books so I was excited to read Casual Vacancy and hated it. Stopped a quarter of the way through, which is not something I normally do. So I was a bit apprehensive with the new book but really enjoyed it. Enjoyed your review though, very on point with a lot of your thoughts.

This is a great review, thanks.

Thank you, all :)

I really appreciate this honest review. I feel many people see the author and automatically stamp the book with a, "ZOMG, it's by XXX it's AMAZING!!" I love the objectivity you bring to this review. I'll still be checking out this book (because, why the hell not?), but I'm going to keep my expectations suitably lowered.

And excellent use of Mary Poppins! It's been too long since I last watched it - I think a viewing is in order!

Thanks Crystal, I hope it's more your thing. Did you read The Casual Vacancy?

I did read "The Casual Vacancy" and rather liked it. No, it wasn't the most brilliant work ever, but I was impressed how all the stories came together in the end.

I guess with this book, I'm more afraid I won't like it because I have a horrible time with mysteries/thrillers. Seems like most of the ones I pick end up being cheesy or painfully obvious. I get tired of endless "hard-boiled private detective" stories where the only way you can solve the murder is by randomly guessing. I've got my fingers crossed that this book isn't that.

I do have Gillian Flynn's "Gone Girl" on my reading list and may have to add Tanya French as well.

I thin this is odd; I had the exact same "Harry Potter Experience," and started the Cuckoo's Calling because Ms. Rowling wrote it, however, (although I have only read the first few chapters!) I just absolutely love it. This is the first Adult Novel I have read of hers. Although I do not understand small parts because I am a young teen (but one that tends to read things much above her higher reading level (not trying to gloat)) I still simply love it. Also, love the Mary Poppins gifs ^-^

OH! I forgot! Relating to my most recent (and only) comment, I believe I love it so far because I am fame-drawn, hoping to one day become famous myself. The person who dies in the beginning (forgive me for forgetting her name, I read the part I have finished on vacation and it was very hectic with many things happening in my mind) drew me in, I always am interested and am cautious/try to learn about things like that because, if I become famous, I hope very much that I will not become one of the famous people whose lives are just thrown down the lavatory toilet.

Emily May wrote: "Hi Rhys, I deliberately didn't comment on those things because I thought my opinion of the language would inevitably cloud my judgement - especially seeing as the language is the tool which shapes ..."

I think that your review raises a lot of interesting points about the nature of not only this story but its author, its release, and the subsequent controversial reveal of the authors identity.

I know that you claim that you were neutral in your review but I'm going to argue that you weren't whilst raising some interesting points.

J.K Rowling has made a statement about her reasoning for assuming a pseudonym. She wanted to challenge herself and see if she could captivate a readership in a different genre, a very popular genre in which the standards are high. If nothing else her initial 1500-copies- sold, prior to the reveal, speaks tomes about achieving writing success in that genre and the present publishing industry in general in 2013.

However, I don't think the depth and breadth of Rowling's reasoning for adopting a pseudonym, is comprehensively understood. For Rowling to truly understand how this book would be received, a pseudonym was essential. She knew that, had she released it as a Rowling book, the purity of the feedback on story, writing, character, and all other basic story beats, would have been (and now are) utterly diluted by backlash, hyperbole, and confused and unhealthily obsessive Rowling fans who have, for some time now, had their own idealised ideas about what would constitute Rowling's post Potter literary career.

A pseudonym allowed Rowling to be more experimental with Galbraith than she could have been as Rowling. It appears in your review that much of her prose jarred with you. I think those accustomed to reading American English will struggle with it. I do think it was a very culturally specific piece namely English, but moreover it was quintessentially Londonesque in its cultural references, and its language. Obviously Rowling chose London and through language and description she sought to capture the varying atmospheres within London. Hence, the excessive adjectives that you had a problem with. Metal stairs or steel stairs, she is likely trying to illustrate the industrial structural character of London. The spiral staircase to Cormoron's office. The old buildings and their basic materials, stone and iron. The shrubbery, creeping vines and general flora of London was also described in details that had me checking my dictionary often, yet this painted the scenery of the upperclass neighbourhood where Landry dwelt. Conversely descriptions of the downtrodden districts he frequents in his investigations were peppered with different adjectives. Had it been Switzerland, I'm sure the staircase would have been made of Alpine timber. His office might of been a run down chalet, his father a legendary womanising minimalist architect. I think there really was a utility in her use of adjectives.

I agree with you that the plot's mystery was not so original, but it really was a character driven piece more than a plot driven one. Again the pseudonym comes into play here. That criticism wouldn't fly for a debut novelist. My mum, for example, loves British crime tele and crime-fiction in general, she would have had no problem with the lack of originality in the plot here and she would love these characters. Which I believe was Rowling's point in establishing the characters in the first novel. I wonder if the next Strike novel will be a more plot-driven piece having established the characters here. Moreover, my mum isn't a Rowling fan, and I intend to send her this book. She is the Galbraith audience more than Rowling's Potter fans.

So I would ask where does your expectation for a more original plot come from? Considering it was a character-driven story.

I feel criticising the complexity of plot here is akin to criticising the plot in an episode of Taggart Double Jeopardy. Both are fairly egalitarian in catering to a broad audience that crosses generations.

I do agree the prose was convoluted at times, but I believe she truly hoped that the Galbraith pseudonym would allow her to push the boundaries of her grammatical originality and allow her to make mistakes. The end result was often convoluted, and I, like you found myself rereading paragraphs for clarification. Yet there were also moments where her prose shined in this book and demonstrated new heights of grammatical economy, vivid character description, and humour. Especially since she was free of the restrictions to write for children. The passages featuring Guy Some, Duffield, and Lula's birth mother were particularly strong character pieces, with distinct well researched and well executed original and distinct voices.

Ultimately, I think your review demonstrates a key reason that Rowling chose to ghost-write as Galbraith. She, in a sense, anticipated disappointment and confusion such as yours as a previous Rowling fan, in reading this book.

Put J.K Rowling's name on a book and you attract billions of people from all walks of life and all genres of fancy. Put a blurb about a down-and-out war veteran come detective working in London by a new novelist, and you attract a more finite and specific readership. A readership who are drawn to it on the basis of other foundations than it being a J.K Rowling novel; setting, story beats, themes such as: social class in London, and the culture of celebrity and media, and finally the compelling character chemistry between Cormoran and Robin that it both promises in its blurb, and in my opinion truly delivers on.

As for the readership that comes to it on the basis of loving J.K Rowling such as yourself and I, I think it's either hit or miss. Having lived in London myself I found it easy to connect to the setting. I think it's worth asking what we bring to the book and then extrapolating that baggage from our reaction to the book.

Rune wrote: "Emily May wrote: "Hi Rhys, I deliberately didn't comment on those things because I thought my opinion of the language would inevitably cloud my judgement - especially seeing as the language is the ..."

Was this really the best place for whatever that is?

Rune wrote: "Emily May wrote: "Hi Rhys, I deliberately didn't comment on those things because I thought my opinion of the language would inevitably cloud my judgement - especially seeing as the language is the ..."

Hi Rune, thanks for your thoughts. However, I do believe the root of what you're saying is based on an incorrect claim - I never said I was neutral because I don't believe that's possible. Nobody goes into any book completely neutral, they've already made assumptions in the back of their mind from the cover/blurb/perhaps what other people have said too. In fact, I would say I'm the very opposite of neutral because my opinion is based on a very personal dislike of the language.

What I was trying to articulate - and I apologise if I failed in doing so - was that I didn't open this expecting Rowling to deliver the same kind of book I have loved from her in the past. I didn't expect any fantasy and I have frequently enjoyed crime/mystery novels. Some people will read this book knowing that they don't enjoy crime/mystery novels and then will write a review saying they didn't like it because they don't enjoy crime/mystery novels. I wanted any readers of my review to know my lack of enjoyment wasn't caused by the change in genre.

I also understand completely why Rowling chose to use a pseudonym, I think it was smart and I completely respect her decision. But again, I wanted people to know that I'd been aware she was the author when I picked this up - it's very unlikely I would have read it otherwise simply because I would have never heard of it. But I truly 100% believe this: I would have disliked this book whether I knew Rowling was the author or not because I don't like the writing style.

As for her writing and the "Britishness/Londonness" of it, I am British myself and love reading books by British authors that can capture the atmosphere of my home country well. One great example is the book I'm reading right now - Rivers of London - a book that goes into a lot of geographical detail about London and uses very British characters and expressions. I love it because it is extremely well-written but is not made up of long, overly-descriptive sentences. And this latter is a personal dislike of mine. I'm not saying that Rowling didn't have her own reasons for using those adjectives, I'm just saying that I didn't enjoy reading them.

"So I would ask where does your expectation for a more original plot come from? Considering it was a character-driven story."

I said specifically that it was a "standard mystery that could have been good if I'd not had these other reasons for not liking it", the other reasons being my dislike for the language. I also said the identity of the killer wasn't usually what I cared about most from mysteries, what I care about most is the characters. So again, refer to my quote about about how it could have been good. Your claim that I have higher expectations for the plot feels unjustified, I couldn't be more direct with how I felt about that.

"Ultimately, I think your review demonstrates a key reason that Rowling chose to ghost-write as Galbraith."

I completely disagree. I believe Rowling's name made a difference in that I actually picked up this book. I don't think it made a single teeny tiny difference to how I felt at the end. It's not as if I wanted her to fail, I wanted to love this book. But I said it before and I know it to be true: I would not have liked this book whether it was written by Rowling, Galbraith, King, Dickens or the man in the moon.

"I think it's worth asking what we bring to the book and then extrapolating that baggage from our reaction to the book."

The only thing I brought to this book that affected my reaction was a dislike of overly-descriptive sentences and formal language. If you wanted an objective opinion, then I recommend you read reviews from paid critics who churn out the same neutral waffle again and again. I am merely a woman on the internet giving my opinion on a book based on my personal tastes. Some people may read this review and recognise things they also don't like, but some will read and realise I'm describing their dream book. And the vast majority won't give a damn.

rameau wrote: "Rune wrote: "Emily May wrote: "Hi Rhys, I deliberately didn't comment on those things because I thought my opinion of the language would inevitably cloud my judgement - especially seeing as the lan..."

rameau wrote: "Was this really the best place for whatever that is?"

Could you please clarify both what 'this' and 'that' are in your question?
Am I incorrect in assuming that your comment was a response to my earlier comment?

Thank you

Emily May thanks for your in-depth response. I hope I didn't offend you with mine. I wrote an epic response to your review because I was so surprised that you gave The Cuckoo's Calling one star. I understand that you had difficulty with the prose, but it was the one star that compelled me to respond, because although you had trouble with it, I couldn't help but feel your one star was a little sensationalist.

A number of people in this thread have even plainly admitted their future reluctance to read further adult-fare in Rowlings unravelling bibliography due to their disappointment first in The Casual Vacancy and now The Cuckoo's Calling. What interest me here, is this sense of betrayal that many feel towards Rowling's decision for her recent work.

"I do believe the root of what you're saying is based on an incorrect claim - I never said I was neutral because I don't believe that's possible. Nobody goes into any book completely neutral, they've already made assumptions in the back of their mind from the cover/blurb/perhaps what other people have said too.

I was making the point that you were not neutral. I understand your point that we cannot be neutral and that there are all sorts of stimuli that can influence our expectations prior to reading a story such as a book cover or a blurb.
The point I am making is that, the only reason both you and I picked up the book in the first place was because of its author.
This is a critical point, because one could argue that we simply should not have picked up this book at all and furthermore subsequently submitted it to a subjective review in which we give it one star on very subjective criteria.

It's a bit like Barry Manilow doing an electronica album under a false name only to be sprung by the press, at which point his hardcore adult-contemporary fanbase seek out this electronica record, listen to it and when overwhelmed by a sense of dissatisfaction, blog about it negatively.

How would Barry feel about this? Well I might guess that he would be confused since he never intended for his hardcore adult contemporary fan-base to listen to the electronica record in the first place. He had a different audience in mind for this record.

I would have disliked this book whether I knew Rowling was the author or not because I don't like the writing style.

But what did you make of the substance? Characters?

I said specifically that it was a "standard mystery that could have been good if I'd not had these other reasons for not liking it", the other reasons being my dislike for the language. I also said the identity of the killer wasn't usually what I cared about most from mysteries, what I care about most is the characters. So again, refer to my quote about about how it could have been good. Your claim that I have higher expectations for the plot feels unjustified, I couldn't be more direct with how I felt about that.

I don't doubt your directness, but your critique here lacks clarity.

It sounds as if you had 'reasons for not liking this book' and in the case that you might have found a reason to like this book, that reason was simply overshadowed by the reasons you had for not liking it.

"what I care about most is the characters."

Yet you barely mention the myriad of interesting characters in this book and give it one star? Why? Did her use of adverbs frustrate you so much that you couldn't say Cormoran was interesting? or that Robin was endearing?

So you pull-quoted me saying this:

"Ultimately, I think your review demonstrates a key reason that Rowling chose to ghost-write as Galbraith."

and then you said:

"I completely disagree. I believe Rowling's name made a difference in that I actually picked up this book. I don't think it made a single teeny tiny difference to how I felt at the end."

There is confusion here. What I was trying to illustrate is that Rowling used a pseudonym for multiple reasons. I was speculating that one of her reasons might be to target a specific audience. To target a different audience distinct from the broad and diverse audience that revered her for HP. Right?

Yet your response to this pull-quote,...

"I completely disagree. I believe Rowling's name made a difference in that I actually picked up this book. I don't think it made a single teeny tiny difference to how I felt at the end."

...was confused as you're simply stating the difference it made to your life. Not to JK's reasoning.

"...It's not as if I wanted her to fail,"

I wouldn't worry about her failing. She's doing fine. I wouldn't presume to think you would want her to fail. We're judging the merits of her work not Joanne herself or her life. Right??

"...I wanted to love this book."

Sounds like big expectations? Are you certain you were neutral?

"But I said it before and I know it to be true: I would not have liked this book whether it was written by Rowling, Galbraith, King, Dickens or the man in the moon."

All of these are pretty spectacularly famous writers, (cept for the man in the moon) What if it was a debut by a new author? Would you cut her/him some slack? What if it was a student piece in a journal? Again, neutrality?

"If you wanted an objective opinion, then I recommend you read reviews from paid critics who churn out the same neutral waffle again and again."

Paid critics don't have an inkling of the passion for books that you have. This is why I use goodreads or watch youtube vlog reviews. I care what people think about books. I'm interested in what people think about books not pompous patronising journo's.

"I am merely a woman on the internet giving my opinion on a book based on my personal tastes. Some people may read this review and recognise things they also don't like, but some will read and realise I'm describing their dream book. And the vast majority won't give a damn."

Some will also find your review very entertaining if a little bold (1 star???) and politely rebut your review all the while hoping that the act of doing so is not misinterpreted as an attack on the reviewers opinion or freedom of speech, but rather telling evidence that the original reviewer wrote a very thought provoking review.

I'm not offended at all, especially because this discussion is quite interesting. However, I can foresee the two of us going around in circles with this debate. On the one hand, you question whether readers should allow themselves to read a book that they already hold expectations of; but on the other, you ask why I didn't talk about the characters when I already said my dislike of the language - and therefore of the characters' dialogue also - didn't allow me to judge them fairly as I otherwise would have.

And this one-star business is a conversation I've had many times on goodreads (which, I feel the need to say, is not a professional review site but a social network site for book lovers). I go by the goodreads rating system and 1 star means "I didn't like it" which I think it's fair to say is accurate. Many people have commented on my reviews in the past saying "1 star seems harsh" like I have some evil agenda, but when faced with the difficulty of putting your opinion into a star rating, the best you can do is follow it to the word. And I didn't like this book.

"It sounds as if you had 'reasons for not liking this book' and in the case that you might have found a reason to like this book, that reason was simply overshadowed by the reasons you had for not liking it."

^ This is correct. Which, again, is why I didn't talk about anything beyond the language because I didn't want to mention things in a negative way that I MIGHT have viewed positively if they were not overshadowed by what I didn't like.

"What interest me here, is this sense of betrayal that many feel towards Rowling's decision for her recent work."... "one of her reasons might be to target a specific audience. To target a different audience distinct from the broad and diverse audience that revered her for HP."

What you're saying here I completely agree with. It annoys me a great deal when readers feel betrayed by Rowling. And that's what I was trying to say from the beginning: I am not one of them. I was HAPPY that she'd chosen to write adult crime/mysteries because I am that "specific audience" you mention that likes crime/mysteries. It's one of my favourite genres, in fact. And I think I've made it clear that I'm not saying this is a bad book or that Rowling has done something wrong or that she should be writing in a different genre - I've put emphasis on the fact that this is my *personal* opinion and I'm sure it won't be shared the majority. It's just the truth of how I feel and, unfortunately, I don't believe truth and objectivity can exist in the same place.

I cannot wait to read this book. One of my friends said the same about not common synonyms,the other saidvshe didn't even notice. But I absolutely loved The Casual Vacancy, I think it's one of the bests of last year and totally deserved the GR award,so I think I'll like this one,too. :D

I'm reading this right now, and though I agree with your comments about the exceptionally long uncommon words, and unnecessary similes, I am quite enjoying the book. I may change my mind by the end, but right now it's pretty good.

@Imi I definitely think fans of The Casual Vacancy will be more likely to like this than I was. The stories aren't similar but Rowling's adult writing style remains. Hope you like it!

@Kristine That's a good sign. From the very first page, I found myself struggling with the language style, so at least that hasn't been a problem for you. I hope you enjoy the rest of the novel just as much :)

Since Gillian Flynn is also one of my favorite authors (next to Linwood Barclay) I'm more than interested to read something of Tana French now. Thanks for the tip.

Well, I personally hope *someone* keeps using words like "exacerbated" and "exorbitant," because I'd hate to think our language will revert back to grunts and gestures in the end. I actually love the British style that leans toward highly colored descriptions and quirky (albeit more complex) words. I think they are full of personality. Just further proof that opinions in books and writing styles is subjective. There's something out there to fit everyone's taste. To anyone who likes that style: Do read the Cuckoo's Calling! I love the Potter books and I thoroughly enjoyed this one. Like it or not, Rowling is a darn good writer.

Emily May wrote: "I'm not offended at all, especially because this discussion is quite interesting. However, I can foresee the two of us going around in circles with this debate. On the one hand, you question whethe..."

Thanks Emily for the response. A few things.

"which, I feel the need to say, is not a professional review site but a social network site for book lovers"

I think the distinction you make here has an inherent problem. Now, in the information age, or Internet age, whichever you prefer, 'professional reviews' by newspapers or other established and authoritative media institutions, have increasingly less currency and clout to audiences, than do reviews and discussion that emerge from social networking and the blogosphere. Specifically social networking via popular social media sites such as Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ.

People who are truly invested in their hobbies whether they be books, film, or video games, are increasingly reading/viewing reviews by bloggers and vloggers over 'expert journalists' from traditional (and increasingly redundant) authoritative media institutions. Although the latter are 'professionals' and can be very good at what they do and passionate about it, they often do it because it is their job and they simply have to do it. Much of it amounts to mediocrity, much becomes subject to tall poppy syndrome, groupthink, and biases. Bloggers and vloggers do it because they love it and because they want to share it in a community or in a forum of shared interest groups. Thus, when writing a review, is it important that the correct forum is chosen?

Maybe.

I think we have had this debate/discussion (which I am enjoying) because you chose to post your review in a mainstream public forum on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ. But some might say that netiquette would stipulate that subjective reviews that are not holistic such as yours, should not be written in a public forum, but rather a private one or a personal blog. As too much subjectivity in a mainstream forum could muddy the waters and ultimately misrepresent the book.

Important to note is that you have written a review. That is what you have written. You have stated that your review is very much subjective. An opinion piece. Something for friends.

I believe that if you really want to claim that you're simply telling your friends your subjective opinion on a book, then you should probably make your profile private, or share it via private channels. A blog to which your friends only subscribe for example, or facebook.

Having said that I personally hope that you don't because I really enjoy reading your reviews. I don't mean anything malicious by what I am saying here, but I think it is important to think a little more deeply about the repercussions of what you are saying about this book in a public forum. Yes of course we all have the freedom of opinion, to express ourselves about a book, but you've really slammed this book in a public forum and effectively informed the blogosphere with a review which is not holistic, as you stated your review was largely concerned with the prose;

"... I didn't talk about anything beyond the language."

I really enjoyed your review, your writing, your humour, your critical thinking but I think it needs to be more holistic to justify posting it as a review in a public forum.

There is a question I have been subtly asking throughout that I think you have avoided answering (I'm not saying intentionally) - I would like you to tell me how it is possible for someone to be objective about a book. Every review posted everywhere that goes beyond regurgitating the plot is surely subjective. Nearly every spoken/written word is subjective, is it not? I just went on to Kirkus - a well-established "professional" book review site - and read through the first reviews I came to. None of them are objective. This is why I think you and me will go around in circles with this: you obviously see room for objectivity when being critical about a book and I don't think that exists.

Private, public, whatever. Human beings are not objective, unemotional creatures. I just think goodreads offers them a forum where passionate book lovers (and not just those being paid) can have their say.

I also find it somewhat dramatic when you repeatedly say I "slammed" this book. No, I didn't. You know what, it's true that I have "slammed" books in the past. Books I have hated and have really offended me, yeah, those I have slammed. I could have said simply "The Cuckoo's Calling is terrible and poorly written" which is what a supposedly objective professional in my position would say. But, instead, I make it clear that I'm not saying my feelings will be true for everyone. They won't, and neither will the professional critics' feelings be true for everyone. The only difference is that I don't pretend to hold some universal knowledge on books. I offer my opinion, I mention other books I have enjoyed in this genre, and if readers think they recognise something of themselves in what I'm saying, then maybe they will choose to listen.

And, by the way, if average people didn't choose to post their emotional, subjective and very personal reviews on goodreads, then goodreads would cease to exist very quickly.

Emily May wrote: "There is a question I have been subtly asking throughout that I think you have avoided answering (I'm not saying intentionally) - I would like you to tell me how it is possible for someone to be o..."

Yes you're right. I have overused the term 'subjective' incorrectly. Of course you cannot be objective beyond stating things like" "The Cuckoo's Calling is a book." and conversely reviews are ultimately always subjective. What I meant I guess was overly-subjective?
Yet I would have to go back through what I've written to review when I used the term as my use may have varied. But even 'overly-subjective' doesn't really say much because your right in saying reviews should be opinionated.

Yet, regarding objectivity...

I read a review on an Agatha Christie novel recently, I don't recall which one, but the reviewer described it as being "her finest technical achievement' or 'an example of technical achievement in crime fiction" or something like this. What I found interesting in this review was the use of the word 'technical'. Stories are technical, and writing them requires technique. I was reminded that a book or story is structured with working parts much the same as a car might be.

Each part of a car has a function; engine, exhaust, steering wheel, airbag etc. In the same sense a story also has parts that constitute a functioning device; a beginning, a middle, a climax, a resolution, a protagonist, an antagonist, supporting characters etc. Moreover, in the crime fiction genre in which Agatha Christie established many of these parts, and Rowling wrote in the CC, there are some unique parts such as: a crime, suspense, suspects, evidence, red herrings etc.

An argument could be made for reviewing books objectively, and I would be interested to hear that argument. It would be based on I suspect quantitative data. Such as what reviews on Amazon provide, average star ratings are the result of quantitative data; average user ratings etc. But of course at some point, peoples emotional reaction to a book is as you say, inescapable.

I wasn't avoiding this question, I was just preoccupied with other points that had been raised, as evidently there were many.

It occurred to me that rather than subjectivity, what I was more concerned with was that your review wasn't holistic. You didn't or couldn't talk about all parts of the book for various reasons, yet, your review was conclusive and given one star.

I absolutely loved HP and I even ended up really liking The Casual Vacancy. Having said that, is was a hard slog at first and I wouldn't have continued if I hadn't been listening to the audio book. I'm half way through The Cuckoo's Calling and I'm really enjoying it, but your review did hit on something I've been struggling with. JK's use of over complicated words is really, really annoying. I think I've used the dictionary feature on my e-reader more on this book then in the entire time I've had it (about a year). It really is exhausting. No wonder I keep falling asleep while I'm reading despite the fact that I'm enjoying the story. Thanks Emily for helping me figure that out.

P.S. I first started paying attention to your reviews because of your name. My daughter is called Emily May too!!

No problem! I'm glad to hear you're enjoying it more despite the complicated wording. I wish I'd been able to look past it too, but unnecessarily dense novels just fry my brain :)

I kept getting the impression while I was reading The Cuckoo's Calling that there was something cartoon-ish about it and I couldn't pin down why I was feeling that way -- I do think you nailed it, with her odd use of language and descriptions. I remember one part where Robin was dusting, it just felt so odd to me and it must have been her language. I listened to the book on audio so I wasn't seeing the words on the page, thanks for laying that out for me.

I'm half way through this book and enjoying it thoroughly. I'm hoping it may be series. I'd read them all.

I feel really sorry for Jk Rowling... Almost every comment on here mentions her and Harry potter, whether you intended the comparison or not, it is happening... This is why she published under a pseudonym. I too hated the casual vacancy when I started it, i found it crass and ugly but you really have to read it to the end. By the time I finished I had done a complete u-turn and felt that it was one of the most poignant books I have read in a long time.

Both her HP books and her adult books I adore. I think she is one of the most talented authors I out time. When I read her writing, she sets the scene so well that I feel like I am in the novel with the protagonist, living and breathing their life... Not many authors have this ability. In part way into the cuckoos calling and I am really enjoying it so far... I never make up my mind until I have finished so time will tell!

I completely agree with what you said, Lianne. I definitely understand why Rowling wrote under a pseudonym and I think it's a shame that it lasted such a short time for her. But then again, if it didn't, I most likely would never have heard of this book.

I agree with everything being said here by both of you.
1) I understand why Rowling wanted to use a pseudonym.
2) I feel bad for her that it didn't go as planned.
3) BUT, I would never have found this book without knowing it was her.

I don't, however, feel I've been unfair in this review. I stated very clearly that I read crime/mystery books a lot so it wasn't the change in genre that influenced my rating. And the truth remains: I would not have liked this book no matter who wrote it. Because I don't like the language style. The only time I compare this book to HP is to say why the language worked for me in that but not in this.

Also, the burden attached to her name works both ways - this book existed for months on the shelves as a non-success, and rocketed to #1 on all the charts as soon as she was revealed as the author. It would have been great to use a pseudonym to get a completely unbiased review of what people thought, but it wouldn't have been a huge bestseller on its own merit. In a way, I guess that is a review of sorts - people found it unremarkable without her name attached.

Thanks for a great review which echoed all my concerns with the book.