The Casual Vacancy

Whenever I mentioned I was reading J.K. Rowling's new book, I received the same response: "Oh, really? What do you think of it? I'll probably read it soon. I'm just waiting to hear what other people think of it."
Well, that's fine by me: I'll be the taste-tester for this book, letting you know if it's safe to read, if your image of J.K. Rowling will be marred and thus the foundation of your childhood ruined. I risked my own childhood to save everyone else's. So, is your childhood in jeopardy?
The truthful answer is, I don't know. This is a book so far removed from Harry Potter that no one would ever think to compare them, had they not been by the same author. The Casual Vacancy takes place in Pagford, a small town in England, just as Barry Fairbrother, a prominent member of the town Council, dies suddenly. This leaves his seat on the Council open, and sparks a vicious war within the town for Barry's seat: for Barry was a crucial supporter of the Fields, a rundown housing area full of drug addicts, prostitutes, criminals, and people living off of welfare. Whoever gets Barry's seat decides what happens to the Fields, a very controversial subject.
Before I begin, I should note that though this is a follow up novel to a hugely successful series, Rowling doesn't need to prove her immense skill as an author. I have no complaints about her writing or her extraordinary ability to draw vividly real, nuanced characters and real places. What I complain about in the novel takes for granted that Rowling is a good author; she even made me care about characters that in a less skillful author's hands I would have hated.
As can be expected, this plot leaves room for lots of social commentary and lots of character development. Yet as each character was introduced, I found myself feeling more and more discouraged. Almost none of the people of Pagford are likeable; all are viciously cruel to each other in one way or another, with little to no redeeming qualities. Actually, it seems that the only good person in the town was Barry Fairbrother, and I found myself wishing he were back so that things weren't quite so miserable. And from the beginning, the book is gratuitously crude, littered with profanities, and shockingly explicit, to the point where I wish I had not read some sections. It's marketed as "for adults" for a reason, and was very nearly a turn off for me. But I kept reading, determined to finish, slogging through pages and pages of cruelty and empty people, all desperate for something outside of their lives. In fact, in a New York Times Interview, J.K. Rowling said she called the novel The Casual Vacancy because she "was dealing with...a bunch of characters who all have these little vacancies in their lives, these emptinesses in their lives, that they're all filling in various ways." This quote, to me, absolutely sums up the novel and the characters, and exactly what is so frustrating about the novel: the characters are all empty.
About 200 pages in, I realized that I did, at least, care for some of them. Some I still couldn't understand, pardon, or excuse, but a few I felt pity for, rooted for, and even cried over. There's Krystal Weedon, a teenage girl from the Fields who's mother is a meth addict; there's Tessa Wall, guidance counselor, mother of Fats Wall and married to Cubby Wall, principle of the high school; there's Kay Bawden, a social worker who seems to actually care about the Weedons and who moved to Pagford for her boyfriend Gavin.
At this point, when people asked me what I thought of the book, I would respond: "I don't know yet. It depends on the ending." Because though the people of Pagford are all a mess, the novel was perhaps meant to be first and foremost a vehicle for social commentary, and whatever statement she left us with in the end would be the most important. It might make all the misery worth it, or show some glimmer of hope. I thought up an acceptable ending in my mind, yet as the amount of pages left grew fewer and fewer, I worried at what could be accomplished.
The ending is unexpected, explosive, and tragic- nothing like what I expected. Surprisingly, I cried- I must have cared about the characters more than I thought. But what is so interesting to me is that Barry Fairbrother's death, which supposedly was supposed to make everyone realize what was important in life and what he stood for, instead results in complete chaos and not much resolution of opinions on the Fields. For all that the last few pages try to offer some glimpses of hope for the future, there is very little resolution for many of the characters of any of their problems.
Essentially, through the ending, Rowling issues a dark warning about the future of the welfare system in Britain, and a lot of social commentary on social apathy without offering many solutions. People are exposed as hypocritical, apathetic, and self-absorbed, and remain that way throughout the novel. There is no transformation or change that occurs in people, which almost means there is no story arc. To me, this lack of a solution or lack of hope at the ending was uncharacteristic. Though their novels may be entirely different, a good author's worldview and moral ideology should remain constant throughout their works. Despite their incomparability of plot and characters, we as readers should be able to point to the same triumph of good over bad, the same idea of the power of love, in both Harry Potter and The Casual Vacancy. But I can't.
And that's why I'm unsatisfied with The Casual Vacancy. Because though it's well written and the characters are well drawn, and though it tackles important social issues, it fails to offer us the same sort of solution or messages that make Harry Potter so important. I think that Rowling is still finding her own opinions on the subject, and it shows in the inconsistency of her writing. But do I completely discourage it? Will your childhood be poisoned? I don't think so. I think it's worth reading to understand the bleakness of life without hope, and then to think afterwards of how that might be changed. Just because Rowling doesn't offer a solution doesn't mean we can't come up with one on our own.

Anna Karenina

I am a firm believer in the transcience of books; in the fact that every reader brings their individual experiences to the same words, and leaves with a different outcome, different interpretation, formed from the collision of the unchanging work and their forever changing self. In light of certain events in my life, certain pending transitions, and certain conversations that have been taking place in my final year of high school, never before have I felt that my experiences have shaped my reading of a book more than with Anna Karenina. In some ways, it was irrational: I pitied the people who were not to be pitied because I identified with their position; I loved some of the imperfect characters because their flaws and doubts reminded me strongly of people in my life. Anna Karenina is a character-driven novel, and it speaks to the genius of Tolstoy that each of the characters is neither good nor bad, but a true person. There aren't "good guys" and "bad guys" in this novel, but rather broken people attempting to make sense of their choices. And ultimately, it was a very emotional read for me.
There are two main characters, two main plot arcs: that of Anna Karenina, and that of Levin, a man heavily based off of Tolstoy himself. Anna is a charming woman, widely respected, married to a high government official with a young son; Levin is an idealistic young man from the country, struggling with his theories on society and the meaning of life. Though they do not meet until the final pages of the novel, and then only briefly, their paths are wound together through numerous common friends and family, who are significant in both lives. Their lives are opposites: Anna's is a degenerative love story, a tragedy of choices as she begins an affair with the charming Count Vronsky; Levin's is a steady upward spiral, as he finds wedded bliss and ultimately achieves spiritual certainty. The juxtaposition and yet similarity of their positions throughout the novel, especially at the end, speak powerfully of the choices we have available to us in life.
To attempt to analyze Anna Karenina in depth on my part would be prideful and unsuccessful- this novel literally deals with the meaning of life, death, faith, and love, in very forcible ways, and my feeble analysis would only serve to embarass me. Instead, I'll comment on a few things that struck me about the novel.
I once went to a talk on C.S.Lewis given by a Wheaton professor, who asked if anyone had read Till We Have Faces, in which Lewis writes from the perspective of a woman, and said he felt Lewis did an extraordinary job giving his readers insight into the woman's mind. I personally didn't think Lewis' portrayal of a woman was so extraordinary, but it was an interesting thought to me. I was strongly reminded of this moment while reading Anna Karenina, but this time, I simply felt awe at the way Tolstoy seemed to know the inner workings of a woman's mind. Anna becomes jealous of Vronsky halfway through their relationship, thinking constantly that he must be in love with another woman. Though her thoughts are irrational, I could absolutely see myself thinking similar thoughts in that situation. Tolstoy masterfully draws Anna's tragic descent into jealousy in a way that was completely identifiable to me. Anna and Vronsky's relationship is psychologically fascinating to me and displays Tolstoy's piercing insight into human nature. He understands what motivates men and women, and what sort of strain certain events have on a relationship.
Anna herself is bewitching to all she meets in the beginning. And after seeing the effects of her choices, Anna loves Vronsky with a selfish love- a love too mixed with lust, and a love that benefits no one but herself, and even herself only temporarily. Tolstoy calls into question the assumption that love can conquer all, and instead shows that love isn't always sufficient. Sometimes, choosing to do the right thing for those around you and denying yourself love will bring you more happiness than choosing love for one over all morals, honor, and other people. Did Anna truly love Vronsky? Yes, I think so- but their love wasn't enough to satisfy their life. Juxtaposed against Vronsky and Anna, living only for their love for each other, is Levin, who happily marries Kitty and still wrestles with theological questions, attempting to do good in his community and feeling frustrated at the sense of emptiness he feels. Levin's marriage to Kitty doesn't complete him, nor does he expect it to; instead, his greater sense of purpose is fulfilled at the time of his spiritual awakening. Essentially, the point is this: life is more than love.
Tolstoy brings Anna and Vronsky's love full circle in an extremely poignant way, as he deals with their search for meaning in life. Anna Karenina is a very long novel, but you cannot make a judgment call on it until you finish both Levin and Anna's stories; for both conclude in a very final way, in ways that make powerful statements about each story. Tolstoy's meaning comes across fully at the completion of the narrative, but not until then. That's part of why it's such a struggle to blog about this book without spoiling anything.
If I were to go back and read Anna Karenina later on in life, I'm sure I would sympathize with entirely different characters, and for different reasons. But the characters are vibrant and real enough that it would be feasible to do this, again shaped by my own experiences. And this is a book that needs to be reread and reread, and each time more meaning found in it. There are so many themes, so many deep thoughts communicated in masterful ways, that I really just need to sit down and write an essay about this book. I can't wait to return to Anna Karenina in a few years and reread it from a different perspective, and maybe then I'll write my essay. But the overwhelming amount of wisdom in this book cannot be grasped in only one sitting.
Obviously, this blog post is much more scattered and less conclusive than any of my other posts; partly because I haven't written in such a long time, and partially because this book is a lot to tackle in a simple blog post. Hopefully there will be more posts in the future more cohesive than this one!

Endings: The Falls Church

     As a graduating senior, many chapters in my life are closing: my four years at Woodson High School, living with my family, attending Cornerstone. So in a way, saying goodbye to The Falls Church feels natural: the church that has been home as long as the house on Colt Lane.      The church holds countless memories for me; they collect like dust in the corners and on the mantles, residues of me proclaiming: I was here, I was here, I was here.
     Here I am in kindergarten, sitting in a plastic chair, a two year old on my lap, listening to my parents teach Sunday School. Here I am in first grade, cross-legged on the floor of the Fellowship Hall, giggling as I watch the daily puppet show of the summer day camp. Here I am in fourth grade, carrying my lunch box to the bins marked with each squad number, ready to start another day at Summer's Best Two Weeks Camp. Here I am in fifth grade, crouched in the library book return cart, suppressing giggles as I wait to startle passerby. Here I am in sixth grade, sitting on the hard floor of Southgate with only two other friends in Crossroads. Here I am in seventh grade, washing cars enthusiastically in the upper parking lot, singing and dancing to the music blasting over the speakers. Here I am in eighth grade, crouched around the tiny small group table made for the 4 year old classroom, talking with my small group leader and the three or four other girls.  Here I am in ninth grade, sitting in the back row of the sanctuary with my friends, taking notes and passing notes. Here I am in tenth grade, rushing into the sanctuary to the cue of harp music as the angel Gabriel, late for my scene. Here I am the Labor Day before my junior year began, speaking to the church about God's call on my life before a very difficult year began.
     Now, here I am my senior year, walking out of the brick building for the last time, turning back to look at the rounded, arching bricks just faintly lit by a tiny orange glow from the inside, barely penetrating into the blue darkness. The dusk falls on the church like a curtain, the quiet evening surrounds it, as I and other stragglers walk away from a service for the last time. Just hours ago, the church was brightly lit, filled to the brim with people rejoicing, singing, and looking forward to what God has for us next. Now, in the still night, the building stands still, resolute, unchanged, and yet no longer mine. I am sad, yes, a little. But I'm not leaving the church behind; I'm leaving the building.
     I played on the playground, both as a child and as a Sunday School assistant; I hid behind the potted plants in the very front of the sanctuary; I ate pizza in the modular, took pictures on the front lawn, had picnics in the shady area between the sanctuary and Nicholson, put on a Cornerstone Prom and transformed Nicholson Hall, stood in the darkness after Cornerstone with many friends, talking and laughing, cleaned Southgate during Fusion, had small group in the elevator, Prayer Chapel, library, and Treetop Room. I have lived in this building. And now, like so many other areas in my life, I am leaving this building for a period of uncertainty and change. But it's the natural way of life; we grow most in times of discomfort. And so I look forward to the growth to come, to the witness of The Falls Church Anglican, to relying wholly on God and not on familiarity for my spiritual growth. The time to come will be difficult, but it's an exciting beginning.

Game of Thrones

I don't normally read really intense fantasy series; I'm pretty mainstream: Eragon is about as deep into fantasy as I get. So when my freshman year English teacher (and good friend) approached me with Game of Thrones, by George R.R. Martin, and said: "You have to read this," I was skeptical. I'd heard about it, but it seemed really confusing and intense, something only people with a lot of time to obsess over something got into, and altogether odd. But in a lull between books, I found myself picking up The Game of Thrones.

As always, boy was I wrong about this series. All I can say without spoiling the plot is that the book revolves around a fantasy world, and the fight for the Iron Throne of the Seven Kingdoms between several great houses and families: key players include the Starks and the Lannisters. The story is told through alternating viewpoints of several different characters. And that is literally all I can say, because once the reader has figured that out for themselves, everything changes, alliances shift constantly, people die, kings die, and families are separated in a whirlwind of plots.

But the brilliant thing is, though daunted originally by the sheer number of characters, I am now fluent in Game of Thrones-lingo. I know who each person is, who each house is loyal to, where a certain character is at a given time. I actually care about every single character and every single plotline, which is saying something when there are around 7 at any given time! Martin excels at keeping every plot balanced and switches back and forth deftly, like an organ player on the pedals to create a hymn. And even more intricate than the plot are the characters themselves.

The characters are what truly make Game of Thrones. I have been completely immersed in Martin's fantasy world as I haven't been since Harry Potter, and I think it's due in large part to the reality of the characters. Though the cast is larger than in Harry Potter, every character is superbly drawn and characterized easily. Most importantly, there is no "good" or "evil" character (entirely). There are characters (Jaime Lannister!) who are thought to be evil from one perspective and then from another are shown in a more positive light. Essentially every character makes life-threatening, stupid mistakes and has a moment of good shine through. It's what makes the characters realistic- there aren't any archetypes. Martin pretty swiftly eliminated my idea of archetypes in the first book, and since then has kept me on my toes, guessing who will die (too many! and the wrong ones!) and who will make it. But what makes me most certain of the reality of the characters is how I can discuss them with my friends who are reading this book like our other friends. I can deplore so-and-so's action and cheer on another person; I can be frustrated with so-and-so for doing something stupid and mourning another's death. I can slip easily into Martin's world because I know the people so well, and I care about what happens to them, unfortunately for me in some cases.

Though it is an easier read (though not short! around 900 pages!!), deep undercurrents run through the story about the nature of good and evil, and if a man can be successful by following the rules. Morals, some characters believe, will only get you killed- it is the evil who violate contracts who live and gain power. Martin doesn't have a definite answer on this yet, as the series hasn't ended, but I'd be intrigued to know what he thinks. The issue is questioned almost with every character's move, but never fully concluded. It leaves food for thought, though: which characters do I hate? Which do I root for? Will anyone I root for be successful if they also have morals and follow the rules?

I'd like to think that you can be successful by following the rules, though I have a feeling that this isn't possible in Martin's world. However, Martin's world is defined by an important assumption: that "success" means winning the throne, winning battles, winning power. In reality, material success isn't the only attainable success- there is the success of helping another, of raising your children right, of doing justice for others. The series isn't finished yet (and I haven't finished reading it), but I can only hope that Martin acknowledges the existence of a different type of success; that power bought at any price is not the only thing worth attaining.