I think you captured a lot of what I ended up feeling about the book. The writing is so good, but I didn't engage with the characters, plots that depend on the main character being drunk bore me (I end up getting sort of vicariously nauseated) and the whole enterprise had a void at its center. I ended the book going, "That was well done. And I don't think I ever have to read it again because there isn't any more to pry out of it."
I think the description of the goose migration was the best moment where the author reached out and touched wonder, legitimate wonder. But that was it.
Yeah, just like that. But yes, that goose migration was pretty awesome. And the subsequent trek to the pole was really interesting in terms of extreme magic use.
Wow, I loved The Magicians. It really hit me right in the sweet spot, not least because it wasn't Harry Potter for grownups or Narnia for grownups the way I read it. It was deconstructing Potter and Narnia. (The end of book 2 nails this even better for me.) Of course, since I have an extreme love-hate thing going with Potter, and, similarly, with Narnia, a book that's mostly about deconstructing the stupid things I didn't like in them would hit my sweet spot.
Unrelated: I thought the society was handled more interestingly in Book 2, which deals, among other things, with people who don't go to Brakebills (a group whose equivalent in the Potterverse has been completely overlooked).
But I totally get not loving books other people thought were brilliant. I'm currently reading Barry Hughart's first book, which was A Thing in circles I read/gamed in when I was in college, and it's just Not All That as I read it. It's not bad, but it's not nearly as great as billed, and that's not even getting into the chinoiserie/appropriation issues.
I know. I was wanting to enjoy it not just because of you, but for another old book-associated friend who also loved it to bits, but it just really wasn't doing it for me.
I would, however, be really interested in hearing some details and examples of the deconstruction and stupid things, because I can't see them for myself, but I would like to know about them to get a different perspective on the book. If you were willing to share?
I saw on Goodreads that you were reading that, and was curious, because it's always been sort of floating just off my want-to-read list. But western-told Chinese-fairytales have never really worked for me, so I've never quite committed.
Deconstruct is probably not the right word in a proper literary sense, but I think he was answering some things about both series that he didn't like, maybe? There are some issues about protagonism (which I think you're describing as modern malaise--which I'd agree with although I didn't find the book hatefully nihilistic as another friend did) that, I think, deal with how the kids in Potter are really puppets for the adults in a cruel, almost child-soldierish way. I'd have to go back and look at the first book to really get a good answer for you because the first thing I want to talk about is the ending of the second book that I don't want to spoil you for.
On the Hughart, I recommend you not read it. I think I would have liked it all right when it first came out. Now I think I'd rather read books written by writers with actual Chinese backgrounds. I think expanding my fantasy reading outside of White Fantasy Trilogies ruined me for Hughart. (Still don't care much for Cindy Pon, though.)
(I finally actually remembered that I needed to respond to this comment while actually at a computer. It's been that sort of week. *facepalm*)
I definitely see the Potterkids-are-adult-forces-puppets thing, but I'm not sure how Magicians does it better, considering every interesting development in Quentin's life is engineered by Jane... or is that the point? That it's explicit?
Though that reminds me that a big part of my annoyance with the book might be the fact that I found Quentin progressively more and more disappointing as a protagonist as the story went on, and then in the last fifty pages HOMG JANE, with her eternal struggle and everything she's sacrificed and I wanted to know all about that so badly the instant it's revealed; so badly that I was really irritated that I'd just spent 400 pages not reading about her
( ... )
Comments 9
I think the description of the goose migration was the best moment where the author reached out and touched wonder, legitimate wonder. But that was it.
Reply
Reply
Unrelated: I thought the society was handled more interestingly in Book 2, which deals, among other things, with people who don't go to Brakebills (a group whose equivalent in the Potterverse has been completely overlooked).
But I totally get not loving books other people thought were brilliant. I'm currently reading Barry Hughart's first book, which was A Thing in circles I read/gamed in when I was in college, and it's just Not All That as I read it. It's not bad, but it's not nearly as great as billed, and that's not even getting into the chinoiserie/appropriation issues.
Reply
I would, however, be really interested in hearing some details and examples of the deconstruction and stupid things, because I can't see them for myself, but I would like to know about them to get a different perspective on the book. If you were willing to share?
I saw on Goodreads that you were reading that, and was curious, because it's always been sort of floating just off my want-to-read list. But western-told Chinese-fairytales have never really worked for me, so I've never quite committed.
Reply
On the Hughart, I recommend you not read it. I think I would have liked it all right when it first came out. Now I think I'd rather read books written by writers with actual Chinese backgrounds. I think expanding my fantasy reading outside of White Fantasy Trilogies ruined me for Hughart. (Still don't care much for Cindy Pon, though.)
Reply
I definitely see the Potterkids-are-adult-forces-puppets thing, but I'm not sure how Magicians does it better, considering every interesting development in Quentin's life is engineered by Jane... or is that the point? That it's explicit?
Though that reminds me that a big part of my annoyance with the book might be the fact that I found Quentin progressively more and more disappointing as a protagonist as the story went on, and then in the last fifty pages HOMG JANE, with her eternal struggle and everything she's sacrificed and I wanted to know all about that so badly the instant it's revealed; so badly that I was really irritated that I'd just spent 400 pages not reading about her ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment