J.K. Rowling's 'The Cuckoo's Calling': What are reviewers saying now that the secret's out?

Many publications are reviewing 'The Cuckoo's Calling' now that it's public knowledge that the mystery was written by J.K. Rowling. Most reviews are positive but NPR's critic says she's 'read better.'

'The Cuckoo's Calling' was billed as written by Robert Galbraith but later discovered to have been penned by J.K. Rowling.

Few titles make reviewers sit up and pay attention more than a new book by J.K. Rowling.

So when it was revealed that the novel “The Cuckoo’s Calling,” billed as written by Robert Galbraith, was actually by the “Harry Potter” author, some publications that had originally failed to review the book (that is, most of the big players) went back to take a second look at what had originally looked like a low-profile mystery by a debut novelist.

Most of the critics now taking a look at the book are saying that they're impressed.

New York Times critic Michiko Kakutani enjoyed it, calling “Cuckoo” “a highly entertaining book that’s way more fun and way more involving than Ms. Rowling’s sluggish 2012 novel, ‘The Casual Vacancy’” and calling detective Cormoran Strike “an appealing protagonist.”

“In ‘The Cuckoo’s Calling’ Ms. Rowling – er, Mr. Galbraith – seems to have … studied the detective story genre and turned its assorted conventions into something that, if not exactly original, nonetheless showcases her satiric eye … and her instinctive storytelling talents,” Kakutani wrote.

Entertainment Weekly writer Thom Geier was also favorably impressed, awarding the novel, which he called “cleverly plotted,” a B+, though he said he was less impressed with the character of Cormoran Strike than he was with secretary Robin.

“Rowling is better at developing Robin, a resourceful Yorkshire gal thrilled to be in London and helping a real live PI, and at capturing the colorful celebrity culture,” Geier wrote.

USA Today writer Charles Finch gave the novel three-and-a-half stars out of four for his review.

In the book, “she returns to the strengths that made Harry Potter great – the beautiful sense of pacing, the deep but illusionless love for her characters – without sacrificing the expanded range of 'The Casual Vacancy,'” Finch wrote. “In doing so, she's written one of the books of the year…. 'The Cuckoo's Calling' presses too hard on the theme of fame in the tabloid era – not an unworthy subject, but stale by now and without fresh treatment here. Still, that barely seems to matter when the characters are so full and when Rowling has never written more nuanced, considered prose.”

However, NPR reviewer Maureen Corrigan was not as enthralled, running her review with a headline that read “The only surprise in Rowling’s ‘Cuckoo’s Calling’ is the author.”

Corrigan remembered shipping off her review copy of “Cuckoo” with others she had donated to a library weeks before.

“The library is welcome to my review copy and whatever funds it may raise,” Corrigan wrote after reading “Cuckoo” via her Kindle. “'The Cuckoo's Calling' falls into that vast middlin' range of fiction that I mentally shelve in the "I've read worse, but I've read better" category. I couldn't even find a memorable quote from this novel.” 

Corrigan said she was put off by what she saw as old-fashioned behavior on the part of secretary Robin.

“Throughout much of the story she serves coffee to clients, makes cow eyes at Strike, and tidies up the office loo,” she wrote. “The most intriguing unsolved mystery in 'The Cuckoo's Calling' is why, in this post-Lisbeth Salander age, Rowling would choose to outfit her female lead with such meek and anachronistic feminine behavior.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.