Sign in with Facebook
Jill's Reviews > The Silkworm
The Silkworm (Cormoran Strike, #2)
by
by
The Silkworm is the tenth J.K. Rowling novel I’ve read. I believe that after ten often gargantuan novels I can make fairly accurate generalizations about her writing. And it saddens me to say that she keeps making the same mistakes.
Most glaring is her treatment of female characters. In the Cormoran Strike mystery series, we have another female character of much greater intrigue shunted to the side in favor of a male protagonist, aka Hermione Granger Syndrome. Robin is Strike’s young personal assistant who could definitely contribute to mystery solving but mostly answers phones, schedules appointments, makes coffee, and provokes male gazing. The thing is, Robin is much more fascinating to me than Strike! Robin is desperate, unsure, diffident but ambitious—she would have been a fabulous heroine for a detective series about a woman trying to break into a traditionally male profession. Strike, on the other hand, does not interest me as a protagonist: he’s arrogant and infallible (sorta reminds you of a character whose name rhymes with Barry Lotter, non?), meaning that whenever Strike eliminates a suspect from contention, I know him to be absolutely right, simply because J.K. Rowling writes Strike in a way that he is always right. For all of Rowling’s characterization skills, Strike is lacking. He has a cool backstory—missing leg, missing rockstar father—but none of it manifests itself in his psyche or quotidian actions. They are just things we know about him; like, oh hey, that’s Cormoran Strike, he lost his leg in Afghanistan and his dad is a famous guitarist.
In general, I find J.K. Rowling’s characterization maddeningly brilliant. She’s super into the physicality of her characters. In The Silkworm the first few chapters serve no other purpose than to introduce the story’s players. But we are told who these people are, with special emphasis on their attractiveness and one-word descriptors: he’s the ambitious one and she’s the daffy one. Rowling is an expert at character portraits but you can only know the characters on her unique terms; there’s no room for personal interpretation. It’s as if she is this master dollmaker. Each character is impeccably painted, you can admire the surface details for hours, but if you cracked the dolls open, they’d be hollow. Nothing murks beneath the detailed yet limited picture Rowling has painted us.
And yet, she’s a magnificent plotter, a skill really well-suited to the mystery genre which gives me hope for any subsequent installments (though I will perpetually groan about Strike’s usurpation of the protagonist role in lieu of Robin). She carefully charts her reveals and includes tons of clever but useless information to throw you off. I’m not the biggest fan of how she writes climaxes—this isn’t participatory mystery where you can solve alongside the detective; you must wait for Mind-Numbingly Boring Detective Genius Cormoran Strike to figure it out and share his conclusions with you—but the underlying plot structure is solid. I’d just love to see her combine this knack for plot with deepened characters and themes. Otherwise, it’s forgettable.
Most glaring is her treatment of female characters. In the Cormoran Strike mystery series, we have another female character of much greater intrigue shunted to the side in favor of a male protagonist, aka Hermione Granger Syndrome. Robin is Strike’s young personal assistant who could definitely contribute to mystery solving but mostly answers phones, schedules appointments, makes coffee, and provokes male gazing. The thing is, Robin is much more fascinating to me than Strike! Robin is desperate, unsure, diffident but ambitious—she would have been a fabulous heroine for a detective series about a woman trying to break into a traditionally male profession. Strike, on the other hand, does not interest me as a protagonist: he’s arrogant and infallible (sorta reminds you of a character whose name rhymes with Barry Lotter, non?), meaning that whenever Strike eliminates a suspect from contention, I know him to be absolutely right, simply because J.K. Rowling writes Strike in a way that he is always right. For all of Rowling’s characterization skills, Strike is lacking. He has a cool backstory—missing leg, missing rockstar father—but none of it manifests itself in his psyche or quotidian actions. They are just things we know about him; like, oh hey, that’s Cormoran Strike, he lost his leg in Afghanistan and his dad is a famous guitarist.
In general, I find J.K. Rowling’s characterization maddeningly brilliant. She’s super into the physicality of her characters. In The Silkworm the first few chapters serve no other purpose than to introduce the story’s players. But we are told who these people are, with special emphasis on their attractiveness and one-word descriptors: he’s the ambitious one and she’s the daffy one. Rowling is an expert at character portraits but you can only know the characters on her unique terms; there’s no room for personal interpretation. It’s as if she is this master dollmaker. Each character is impeccably painted, you can admire the surface details for hours, but if you cracked the dolls open, they’d be hollow. Nothing murks beneath the detailed yet limited picture Rowling has painted us.
And yet, she’s a magnificent plotter, a skill really well-suited to the mystery genre which gives me hope for any subsequent installments (though I will perpetually groan about Strike’s usurpation of the protagonist role in lieu of Robin). She carefully charts her reveals and includes tons of clever but useless information to throw you off. I’m not the biggest fan of how she writes climaxes—this isn’t participatory mystery where you can solve alongside the detective; you must wait for Mind-Numbingly Boring Detective Genius Cormoran Strike to figure it out and share his conclusions with you—but the underlying plot structure is solid. I’d just love to see her combine this knack for plot with deepened characters and themes. Otherwise, it’s forgettable.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Silkworm.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Comments Showing 1-48 of 48 (48 new)
date
newest »
newest »
Yeah, no harm in skipping this series even for JKR diehards. Honestly my entire review could have been more succinctly expressed by saying: "3 stars because it's a mystery not by Tana French." She's spoiled me for the genre!(view spoiler)
As much as I love this series (like, LOVE. I read each book in two days time and I always read at a very slow, leisurely pace), I agree with you on Robin. I do feel, however, that she is being better developed as a character over the course of the series. Strike seems almost predictable and set as a character while Robin continues to surprise, especially when it comes to her relationship with Matthew. Great review, by the way. I rated the book higher (five stars, I'm one of those people who can find no wrong in Rowling) but you make solid points in what you found wrong with the novel.
Cory wrote: "As much as I love this series (like, LOVE. I read each book in two days time and I always read at a very slow, leisurely pace), I agree with you on Robin. I do feel, however, that she is being bett..."Yes, I do agree with you that Rowling seems to be more interested in exploring Robin's character and evolution, but then I think that just makes me more annoyed! If she wanted to focus on Robin's development, why didn't she just make Robin the protag? Grrr. For all my annoyance, however, I'll probably read the 3rd one, just because it's Rowling and I am interested to see if Robin will ever get her vindication.
One of my chief issues with this new novel was, precisely, its treatment of female characters. I'm glad someone else commented on this.
Herdis Marie wrote: "One of my chief issues with this new novel was, precisely, its treatment of female characters. I'm glad someone else commented on this."Yes! Another person who agrees! I think what's most surprising and disheartening for me is that it's not just some random detective novel written by a male author. I would have expected this sort of casual, miasmic misogyny in that case, but not from J.K. Rowling!
I felt exactly the same way. The fact that this is written by a woman is just one of many disturbing signs of how the would-be female "inferiority" is ingrained in our subconscious. I really hope a third volume in this series will address, or at least acknowledge, this issue.
I started wondering if J.K. Rowling is actually trying to write this series as if she is actually a male author with a male point of viewer or if she really does naturally have a "male gaze." The defining features of the female characters are their physical characteristics. I do suspect that Robin's character will be the one that evolves the most as the series progresses. This book revealed that she has some secret in her past that led her to drop out of university. I think there is a lot more to learn about Robin. I just hope that she never ends up romantically involved with Strike.I liked this book, but I only rated it three stars because I thought there was a pretty weak plot point. I didn't think it was adequately explained why the police would not be impressed by the fact that Leonora, Quine's wife, was the person who gave Strike the key to the house on Talgarth Road considering the end result of his visit.
Jennifer wrote: "I started wondering if J.K. Rowling is actually trying to write this series as if she is actually a male author with a male point of viewer or if she really does naturally have a "male gaze.""Great question! I honestly don't know. It's sad to me that a wildly successful woman author would still fall victim to a societal male gaze, but even if she's writing these books as "Robert Galbraith," typical male perspective and all, I think she needs to add an occasional critique to what she's saying. Like, go ahead, write male gaze and all that, but thread in a bit of dissent...
Concerning a possible relationship between Robin and Strike, I agree wholeheartedly. Please please, no!
I agree about the anachronistic misogyny in the book, especially regarding the motive for the culprit. Wow! I couldn't believe the limited, misogynistic reasoning, especially coming from a female author, albeit with a male pseudonym.
Thanks, B! I've been browsing reviews for hours looking for a mention of the glaring misogyny of the motive - and nothing! I can't believe it didn't out more people off.
B wrote: "I agree about the anachronistic misogyny in the book, especially regarding the motive for the culprit. Wow! I couldn't believe the limited, misogynistic reasoning, especially coming from a female a..."Exactly! In my review I didn't even mention the misogynistic motive for the culprit, but that was equally alarming. The more I think about this book, the more it upsets me.
On the other hand, I was thinking about it a little more and maybe this series of books will turn out to be about Robin's development. I was thinking about Strike typically stereotyping women as bad drivers and his worrying about Robin driving him to Devon. Then she turned out to be a badass driver and saved their lives. I'd love it if her character keeps developing this way.
Jennifer wrote: "On the other hand, I was thinking about it a little more and maybe this series of books will turn out to be about Robin's development. I was thinking about Strike typically stereotyping women as b..."You're right--Robin is a more dynamic character than Strike. There's more possibility for her development. But I guess it's not just her character that needs development. To make the series less misogynistic, it's Strike and the entire cast who need attitude adjustments. If Robin does end up being the the true protagonist in a certain way, i.e., the character who undergoes the most change from beginning to end, I might rethink things, but for some reason I'm doubtful JKR is heading in that direction...
But I do suppose that even the vague possibility of Robin's development entices me to keep reading come Book 3.
Robin did turn out to be an excellent driver, proving Strike wrong, and it would have been a condemnation of the stereotype if it wasn't for the "I'm not most women" line Robin says at the end of the book. That only supports the stereotype: she's not a typical woman because she wants a surveillance course for a present instead of flowers and she can drive really well. These are the things that mark her as a Special woman, leaving all other women in the realm of the stereotype. The book has multiple problems with women and it's almost hard to believe it's by the same person who wrote Hermione Granger, easily the best female character in a children's book ever written, complex and real, neither a "typical" girl, nor a Special "not-most-women" tomboy.
Yes, that's true. Also, how about that ravishingly beautiful but damaged ex, Charlotte? We are led to believe that one reason that Strike can't seriously be interested in Robin romantically is because although she is attractive, competent, intelligent and totally caters to, supports and protects him, she is not as compelling to him as was the gorgeous, but damaged, Charlotte. And then, of course, there is Matthew, the entitled fiancé, who isn't really concerned about Robin's safety--just worried that another, more virile, man is encroaching on his territory. I just can't help hoping that this is some huge joke J.K. Rowling is playing on us and that Robin is going to be the person who becomes the hero of the series. We know that Rowling has done it before, in a sense, with Severus Snape.
Yoana wrote: "Robin did turn out to be an excellent driver, proving Strike wrong, and it would have been a condemnation of the stereotype if it wasn't for the "I'm not most women" line Robin says at the end of t..."My feelings exactly!
She's obviously doing it deliberately. Sort of taking the mickey out of male writers who can only see the world from that limited perspective.
Sabahat wrote: "She's obviously doing it deliberately. Sort of taking the mickey out of male writers who can only see the world from that limited perspective."How do you think it's obvious that it's deliberate? There doesn't seem to be any critique or satirical wink in her writing...
I agree completely with this review.
But at least this book has more of Robin than the The Cuckoo's Calling. If possible read my review of the book and tell if you can agree.
It is funny, I LOVE Strike and find him fascinating, and did NOT like Robin from the very first page of the first book! Because honestly, I would have liked to see a male assistant to Strike - I liked Morse/Lewis and Wexford/Burden way better than Dalgliesh/Kate Miskin, or Lynley/Havers where some sort of romantic tension is always present which I find distracting. I just hope that Cormoran and Robin have NO romantic relationship in any form. I also prefer plot oriented books (like Rendell) to character oriented mysteries (like PD James). To each his own I suppose!
I couldn't agree more with your feelings on Robin and Cormoran! Glad to see other people share the sentiment! I would SO read a series that was Robin-centric (and now I'm kinda mad that we're stuck with boring Cormoran "I'm better than everyone" Strike). And Yoana's comment is spot on.
Herdis Marie wrote: "I felt exactly the same way. The fact that this is written by a woman is just one of many disturbing signs of how the would-be female "inferiority" is ingrained in our subconscious. I really hope a..."My God I can't believe all these ridiculous comments, especially this one, about Robin's character, SO WHAT!!! Just because the main character is a male doesn't make it sexist, misogynistic, etc. You need to take that 'poor-women' mentality somewhere else. There are loads of books where a female is a main character and either the males are just dumb or hardly developed, go read those if that's your only complaint. The whole thing about ...."The fact that this is written by a woman is just one of many disturbing signs of how the would-be female "inferiority" is ingrained in our subconscious"...is idiotic, so she is a female who writes her main characters as male SO WHAT!!! Stop trying to find sexism where there isn't any. If you want "Ingrained in our subconscious" just look at how society accepts sexism against men, how men are STILL EXPECTED to do for women and not ask anything in return, how Valentine's Day is so celebrated despite the accepted sexism against men, how women still feel they have a right to tell men to 'be a man'. How divorcee courts are favored to women, how women lying about being raped and they don't get ANY jail time (just look at the 'Jackie Frat Rape' story and how society is still calling her the victim even though everything she said has, AFTER 2 YEARS, turned out to be a lie, what about the damage it's done to the boys) with the statement saying if they charge them with a crime then real victims of rape won't come forward (so we should just accept these women who lie and don't charge them for the wasted policemen, for the damage they done to the male victims, oh yeah that makes perfect sense so they can continue to lie cause why not they will never get charged), or how about over a billion dollars of tax payers money going to help ONLY females in education and healthcare even though less and less males are going to college for lack of funds and how males are dying on average 5years faster than women...yeah talk about sexism against the male gender being "ingrained in our subconscious".
It shouldn't matter what the characters are in ANY novel, it can be about anyone and anything and not every novel has to bow down to you and be about what you want and only about how you see the world. Look at the sexest Nicolas Sparks books (I can't stand them, I just watch the movies if I must), look at how most of the characters are men doing everything just to be with the woman, how he is so weak without her, how most of the villians are males and blah blah blah...so why don't you just go read those books since males is expected to do everything for the girl...oh wait, it was written by a man so that won't interest you...talk about sexism indeed.
Anyway, as for this book, I thought it was ok nothing special but I see what Rowling was trying to do. And whoever took this fiction story and stated it's all sexist just because certain events aren't in favored to certain characters who are female, I just have to say GROW UP. Life isn't so black and white, men as a group aren't the perpetractors of evil and women as a group aren't oh the poor innocent victims!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Drew wrote: "Herdis Marie wrote: "I felt exactly the same way. The fact that this is written by a woman is just one of many disturbing signs of how the would-be female "inferiority" is ingrained in our subconsc..."There's always one guy, one guy, who takes a comment on female rights and decides to make it about himself.
The fact that you can read my comment, a comment that exclusively discusses the treatment of female characters in crime literature, and does not in any way seek to bully or belittle men, and make it some point in a vast, uninformed, meninist crusade, means that you are either a troll or an idiot.
Whichever of the two options it is, I won't be humouring you with a long discussion, especially when your argument basically boils down to: "Boo hoo! I don't like the fact that you expressed an opinion that doesn't fit in with my personal world view! Boo hoo!"
I should state, though, for the record, that you seem to have entirely misunderstood my argument, which, again, was only a comment on the treatment of female characters in crime literature, and was not an attack on male protagonists as such.
Your basic argument seems to be that because sometimes men are also treated badly (which I will not deny), both in real life and in literature, we as women can't speak up when we find signs of misogyny in what we read and experience.
That argument is ridiculous. Yes, men experience bad things too, and feminism does not seek to undermine or ignore the bad experiences men have due to their gender, we simply seek to illuminate the wrongs done to women because of their sex/gender, which, let's face it, FAR outnumber the former.
Men don't walk down the street in fear of being harassed or attacked by women.
Men don't see their bodies belittled and objectified and labelled as mere sexual objects on a daily basis.
Men don't have to see women occupy the vast majority of leadership positions in the world.
The main instigator of violence against men is not women.
Men are not told that their place is in the home.
Men are not denied basic human rights.
In short: Your meninist argument is invalid.
Good day.
I am not male but I tend to agree more with the guys p.o.v. If you dislike Cormorants Strike don't read any more Galbraith novels.
Kathy wrote: "I am not male but I tend to agree more with the guys p.o.v. If you dislike Cormorants Strike don't read any more Galbraith novels."Sorry to disappoint you, but we're going to keep reading them and we're going to keep criticising any sexism we see in them.
Hear hear, Yoana!Kathy, books are not merely entertainment; they also exist to be discussed, criticized, applauded, denounced. It's especially important to note circumstances of sexism given Herdis Marie's brilliant comment above explaining the current state of women in society.
I agree with you that Cormoran Strike could use more flaws, but I really don't think that Robin is any better, in fact, I'd argue she's worse, since she doesn't even have the flaw of treating some people poorly, and I'm sure she's only going to become more and more perfect as she grows as a detective. I mean, she's pretty by any standards, she's intelligent and hard-working (great at both research and improvising!), kind and sociable, and now she's shown herself to have special driving skillz. If this is her being a newbie, then imagince what she'll be as a master, heh. (She's got the obligatory Tragic Backstory, if one wonders what's pushing her towards investigative work.)
I really don't think that the story would be better off with her as the protagonist for this reason. Nor do I think that Strike being middle-aged and set in ways means that he's going to be stale... for one, I wonder how he'll react to Charlotte's inevitable reappearance in his life, since he seems eager to break the pattern, but it's obvious he's still very much into her.
I do wonder why she hasnt used a female protagonist (she kind of does in The Casual Vacancy but not really). But this is kind of a good thing because then she avoids that thing most people do while writing: making themselves the protagonist. It may just be how the idea has come to her, and truth is, if the protagonist was a woman it would change the story, there would be a lot about what you said, a female struggling in a career dedicated to men. But that's not what the story really is about. Yet we do see this struggle in Robin, as other female struggles: objectification, demeaning terms, stereotypes, a demeaning partner. And still Robin shows herself very capable and clever. After reading your review I do think that JKR should exploit this more in the next 5 books, even more because you are absolutely right that Strike is too unidimensional. I finally realized that maybe the main reason why I didn't like book 1 is his unidimensional, impersonal personality. And yeah it'd be more realistic and provoking if he actually made mistakes.
Hey Paola, thanks for your comment. There's a lot I agree with there and it's a truly worthwhile question: why hasn't JKR ever used a female protagonist? (Excepting the shared POV in The Casual Vacancy).I'm at a crossroads with these Cormoran Strike novels. As you can see, I find them mediocre for the detective genre and all the more frustrating for JKR, but I'm wondering (hoping?) it's all a big set up for some fantastic character development down the line. You mention "5 more books"--has she announced that the series will be made of 7 books total?
Could there be anything more tiring than feminists dissecting book characters?
Randy wrote: "Could there be anything more tiring than feminists dissecting book characters?"Sexists commenting on book reviews...
Randy wrote: "Could there be anything more tiring than feminists dissecting book characters?"Yes, your commenting on it.
How brilliantly astute to label people who disagree with you "sexist."
Randy wrote: "How brilliantly astute to label people who disagree with you "sexist.""Does it hurt your feelings? A great way to avoid that is to not shit on feminists. If you think you can go after one concept while avoiding the other, get a life.
No, it makes me sad for people that can't enjoy a book without dragging in all their political baggage. Also sad that some people, like you and the original poster, are apparently so thin-skinned. If you put your views out there, expect some people to disagree with you. It's still a free country, despite political correctness.
Randy wrote: "No, it makes me sad for people that can't enjoy a book without dragging in all their political baggage. Also sad that some people, like you and the original poster, are apparently so thin-skinned. ..."It's reading. It's all personal. People don't need to justify their reasons for not liking a book, and if you can't accept that not everyone will rave over the books you love, that's pretty immature.
And by the way, feminist literary critique is a thing. An established academic thing, even. Look it up.
Too long. There was a lot of boring fill which did not add to the mystery. Liked Strike and yes Robin could develop further which I expect she will as she becomes "partner".
Too long. There was a lot of boring fill which did not add to the mystery. Liked Strike and yes Robin could develop further which I expect she will as she becomes "partner".
Anna wrote: "i love how you phrased her "dollmaking" skill. it was beneficial to the harry potter series since that was surrounded by so many myths and legends, characters with stereotypical traits wasn't a pro..."That's a good point. Not necessarily a weakness of her writing, just not suited to most contexts. That said, I've been reading her Pottermore short fiction and the Cursed Child play from this summer, and I'm much less enthralled. Maybe it's less context and more so me growing out of JKR, as sad as that makes me :(
I absolutely abhor that Strike's ex - Charlotte - is so stunningly beautiful that people stopped talking when she entered a room - AND of course Robin is pretty- with red gold hair etc. blah blah blah. I'm surprised they don't have olive skin and flashing green eyes as well. JKR I expect better of you. Please can we have female characters who just look normal. Bad enough that almost all women have to have certain looks to be shown on TV/in movies - but that even female authors still feel the need to make their characters pretty or beautiful in order for readers to be interested in them. Please stop.
Nicole wrote: "IJKR I expect better of you. Please can we have female characters who just look normal. "Absolutely. As I said in my review, I'm sorely disappointed to get this from the woman who created Hermione Granger
I though the first book was actually going to be mostly following Robin and working with strike, or maybe alternating chapters, but when it ended up mostly following strike I was actually really disappointed because I love robin ): loved how you summed that nicely in this review.
I like her writing but despise that she couldn't write any of her books as a female author. She never gives proper weightage to her female characters either. Hermoine solves many problems but Harry always gets the credit. In the Strike books, Robin is reduced to a sidekick. I agree she'd have made a three dimensional protagonist.
I just wasted half an hour looking for reviews on the internet that would say precisely what you've said so well. These books are good plot-driven mysteries, enough to make me want to read the next one, but the treatment of women is just one step short of being totally misogynistic. I want to add two points to your excellent summary:* Every woman character in both the first book and this one is explicitly described in terms of how attractive she is - most are 'plain', some are 'striking', and in the first book there's even a sentence saying that one character was so plain that "most women that plain would have been wallflowers" (or something to that effect).
* The way sex is handled exacerbates the problem. For instance in this book we have Strike sleeping with one character twice or thrice - this is done so casually it's not even a spoiler to mention it - the first time in order to get into a meeting, and the second time just because he happens to be feeling lonely. That she is also clearly lonely makes no difference to anyone. To make things worse, at the end this woman confronts him in a tiny passage and he apparently feels bad - which emotion takes up precisely one sentence. I mean, either he should be an out and out narcissist who doesn't feel bad, or he should actually feel bad. This instead feels like the author suddenly realised she was treating a female character badly, and put in lip service to make amends.
Shankar wrote: "I just wasted half an hour looking for reviews on the internet that would say precisely what you've said so well. These books are good plot-driven mysteries, enough to make me want to read the next..."Glad to hear you agree, Shankar!
Despite my misgivings, I did end up trying the third installment in this series. What a mistake. It was one of those grisly mysteries where the crime centers on the endless torture and dismemberment of women. While I don't discount the fact that our misoygnistic society regularly reproduces these types of crimes, it's just not something I want to read or watch anymore, especially if the writer isn't using it to commentate on the role of misogyny in violence against women. It's utterly unimaginative, like "Oh I need a crime to write my mystery, why not just kill a bunch of women because they're women?" Glad to have finally closed the door on Rowling/Galbraith.
Shankar wrote: "I just wasted half an hour looking for reviews on the internet that would say precisely what you've said so well. These books are good plot-driven mysteries, enough to make me want to read the next..."Thanks for highlighting that issue. I've ranted about it in my reviews of all 4 books, much as I love the series, if you'd like to read some more reviews in this vein:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Although a repeat of the Hermione Granger Syndrome isn't welcome in my eyes...
(view spoiler)[P.S.:-Btw did you think that Harry and Hermione would have made a cooler couple than Ron-Hermione? (hide spoiler)]