Wizard of Earthsea
Somewhat abbreviated, for the hour is late.
Voice:
I liked the storyteller-like voice of the narration. It brought me into the world, though it kept me out of any one character's head. Even without getting into their heads, the motivations behind the characters' actions were clear.
Hero's Journey:
The thing that kept the monomyth from feeling overdone to me was that the places and events were each individually interesting, and Ged's actions at each turn did make sense. He received wisdom from an elder and failed to follow it, but I found that particular scene to be believable rather than annoying. The journey to the land of the dead was wonderful rather than trite because of Le Guin's presentation of it - a place wizards often go on purpose or by accident. The land of the dead at the end of the book is fascinating because of all that it reveals about the setting. The worldbuilding interest alone was worth the price of admission for this book.
Roke vs. Hogwarts:
Roke wins by a landslide for me, but that is true for indirect reasons. Earthsea's magic feels like I think magic should feel, while Hogwarts magic is predominantly a pun, a light show, and a strange effect. There's less of a sense of its limits and structure. Roke, therefore, is a place where learning actually affects the student's capacity for magic; the coursework completed at Hogwarts seldom (Defense Against the Dark Arts and Potions excepted) has a direct influence on the student's spells.
Race:
There were conflicts that divided people along racial lines, but I didn't feel like the book was about race. (If it were about race, it would be a pretty blatant Pale People Bad.)
Gender:
I am told that later books in the series focus more on gender than this does. I agree that positive portrayals of women are a bit thin on the ground, but (unlike, say, Frank Miller) the women are all very different from each other, even if they are archetypes. (But then, we established earlier that everyone and everything is archetypal, so let's not look shocked.)
In conclusion:
I was surprised to find that I had not read this before; I had gone for years believing that I had. I enjoyed it very much; Le Guin's wizards are some of the most purely interesting out there. In terms of how they relate to one another, they are surprisingly similar to Jack Vance's wizards (in general, his most interesting characters).
Voice:
I liked the storyteller-like voice of the narration. It brought me into the world, though it kept me out of any one character's head. Even without getting into their heads, the motivations behind the characters' actions were clear.
Hero's Journey:
The thing that kept the monomyth from feeling overdone to me was that the places and events were each individually interesting, and Ged's actions at each turn did make sense. He received wisdom from an elder and failed to follow it, but I found that particular scene to be believable rather than annoying. The journey to the land of the dead was wonderful rather than trite because of Le Guin's presentation of it - a place wizards often go on purpose or by accident. The land of the dead at the end of the book is fascinating because of all that it reveals about the setting. The worldbuilding interest alone was worth the price of admission for this book.
Roke vs. Hogwarts:
Roke wins by a landslide for me, but that is true for indirect reasons. Earthsea's magic feels like I think magic should feel, while Hogwarts magic is predominantly a pun, a light show, and a strange effect. There's less of a sense of its limits and structure. Roke, therefore, is a place where learning actually affects the student's capacity for magic; the coursework completed at Hogwarts seldom (Defense Against the Dark Arts and Potions excepted) has a direct influence on the student's spells.
Race:
There were conflicts that divided people along racial lines, but I didn't feel like the book was about race. (If it were about race, it would be a pretty blatant Pale People Bad.)
Gender:
I am told that later books in the series focus more on gender than this does. I agree that positive portrayals of women are a bit thin on the ground, but (unlike, say, Frank Miller) the women are all very different from each other, even if they are archetypes. (But then, we established earlier that everyone and everything is archetypal, so let's not look shocked.)
In conclusion:
I was surprised to find that I had not read this before; I had gone for years believing that I had. I enjoyed it very much; Le Guin's wizards are some of the most purely interesting out there. In terms of how they relate to one another, they are surprisingly similar to Jack Vance's wizards (in general, his most interesting characters).