Quentin Coldwater is an unhappy, self-absorbed, self-conscious teenager obsessed with a children’s fantasy series set in a magical world called Fillory, which is very clearly meant to evoke Narnia. Then he learns that he has a talent for magic, and is whisked away to a fancy prep school for magicians, Brakebills. At first he thinks his dream has come true. But soon enough, he realizes that he’s still an unhappy, self-absorbed, self-conscious teenager, only now he’s obsessed with real magic.

I read this in preparation for being on a panel on portal fantasy. I had avoided it until then because all I had heard about it was that it was published as a mainstream literary novel rather than as genre fantasy (you can tell because it’s subtitled “a novel,”) was about how fantasy sucks and had the most unlikable protagonist since Thomas Covenant.

All that turned out to be correct. Sort of. But I liked it way more than I expected to, primarily because the “fantasy sucks” and “protagonist is unbearable” elements don’t come in, or at least aren’t major themes, until about the last third of the book. The first two-thirds, which is set in Brakebills, is terrific – distinctly on the cynical side and weighed down by Quentin’s depression and solipsism, but written in absolutely wonderful prose and full of vivid images, funny lines, and a genuine sense of magic.

As I read that part, I couldn’t understand why the book had such a bad reputation among fantasy readers. Sure, it emphasizes that magic is difficult, that magicians are not the most fun people in the world, and that Quentin is using magic to run away from essentially everything else, but it’s also hugely enjoyable to read as fantasy.

I loved the Brakebills section. The prose is to die for. It’s extremely well-structured, with a great use of foreshadowing to create surprising yet beautifully set-up plot twists.

On the con side, the characterization has problems and it isn’t just a lack of likability. Other than Quentin, who is more distinct as he’s seen from the inside, many of the characters are so similar that they blend together. Virtually all of the characters are obsessive, unhappy, self-absorbed, driven, and jaded. The main characters have maybe one or two traits in addition to that set, such as “punk,” “brave,” or “pretentious.”

However, lots of teenagers are unhappy and self-absorbed, so I read the Brakebills part thinking that Quentin and his buddies weren’t that bad and the readers who loathed him probably didn’t remember being a teenager that well.

Then he graduates from Brakebills. Almost immediately, I realized why readers hated him. And soon after, I realized why fantasy readers frequently hate the book. Spoilers ahoy!

The last section did have some very clever plotting. But it was not enjoyable to read. If that list of character traits sounded off-putting, it becomes far more so once the characters are no longer teenagers obsessively studying magic, but are young adults obsessively indulging in joyless hedonism. And the theme of Quentin using magic to avoid engaging with life expands to a hammered-in message that magic and Narnia would suck if they were real, and people who enjoy imagining visiting Narnia are idiots because obviously it never occurred to them that it would suck in real life.

As for the moment that made me realize why everyone hates Quentin: hi there, infidelity, my least favorite plot element of all time! It’s not that I find cheating unforgivable or the worst possible thing anyone can do. It’s that I find the drama associated with it both painful and boring. This was particularly the case here given that Quentin is not only a cheater, but develops a really ugly misogynist streak. It’s clearly written as a bad thing and not something readers should agree with, but it’s still very unpleasant to read.

Fillory felt very slight compared to Brakebills; all suck and no joy. There’s talking animals, but they’re obsessive and boring. (The concept of this was pretty funny – of course a talking bear would be primarily interested in honey – but the execution leaned heavily on “and that’s why it wouldn’t actually be fun to meet a talking animal.”) The humans, again, are under-characterized, with exactly two traits each apart from the pre-set “obsessive, self-absorbed” set.

While Brakebills really did feel magical, Fillory felt thin and dull; less real than regular real life. I’m guessing this was deliberate and the point was that Narnia’s worldbuilding doesn’t hold together, but, again, it didn’t make the section enjoyable reading.

The pay-off of earlier set-up – the niffin, the Beast, the clock-witch – was brilliantly done. But it was all in service of the relentless “everything sucks” theme. Also, the reveal that the Fillory writer – the alt! C. S. Lewis – was a pedophile went beyond anvillicious and into cement truck.

I looked on Goodreads and saw that there are two more books. I attempted to get a sense of what they were like while avoiding spoilers, and was interested to see that the second is partly narrated by the most interesting character in the first book, and that readers seemed to think the third was actually uplifting. It’s not that I require uplift in everything. But I’m not going to read more of the series if it’s all soul-sucking joylessness like the real world and Fillory sections. However, I would definitely read more if it’s more like the Brakebills sections. Also, the moments of uplift in The Magicians were beautiful, so I know Grossman can do that well.

If you can comment without major spoilers, I’d be interested to hear what those of you who’ve read further books thought of them.

The Magicians: A Novel
Page 1 of 2 << [1] [2] >>
movingfinger: (Default)

From: [personal profile] movingfinger


I just read this, and I have thought quite a bit about it, but I wouldn't be able to discuss them without spoilers. Later maybe.

I will say that the last time a book pissed me off this much it was Mark Helprin's A Winter's Tale --- so you know where I'm coming from on...
kore: (lumina book - Bram Stoker's Dracula)

From: [personal profile] kore


But I’m not going to read more of the series if it’s all soul-sucking joylessness like the real world and Fillory sections.

I loved Brakebills, was meh on Quentin, meh on Fillory, and LOVED the female characters. But. Remember how Alice basically gets fridged at the end of this one? I will just say that kind of plotting continues in the second and third books. There is even more emphasis on Quentin and his manpain and his Learning Stuff, and I was interested in everything else, particularly the women. But the women just get used as occasions for Quentin to Learn Stuff and feel manpain and suffer greater and lesser damage to that end.

The second book has a wonderful female character and half the book is from her POV, but she gets shafted. But, without spoiling you too much, she doesn't go the Gifted Young Wizard-in-Training Gets a Golden Ticket route, and that was fascinating. I love hedgewitches and I love the idea that there's this other way of learning magic besides the regimented Brakebills one.

I didn't find the third....uplifting? The first third or so is quite good and has a BEAUTIFUL payoff, which instantly ruined the whole rest of the book for me because I wanted the story about what happened to a character -- yet another interesting woman who gets dropped in favour of Quentin and his Learning Things -- and no, the rest of the book is about Quentin and his Learning Things, and near the end of the book Grossman just starts baldly spelling out what he thinks people should take away from the trilogy, as if he's desperate that he hasn't communicated it via the people and the events. When people start telling each other what they have Learned in very stilted dialogue in final chapters, that is never a good sign.

I didn't think the idea was that great as a redrafting of Narnia. He maps his three books explicitly to the seven Chronicles, two into one, leaving out Horse and His Boy, and the The Magician's Nephew/The Last Battle attempt especially just falls really flat. I was hoping one thing we might see in this series is something from the POV of the talking beasts or native peoples -- what do they think of these young white bratty kids who just show up and are automatic royalty? -- but no dice. But a lot of the descriptions of magic and how it works are really good -- almost reminded me of Le Guin's stuff. But Quentin is between the reader and everything, and while I didn't hate him as much as some people I know did, I just got frustrated with everything being about him because he was just pretty damn dull. Especially when compared with all the women, who just popped off the page.


tl;dr I'd recommend the second book with extreme reservations because of the (spoiler) but the third wasn't really worth it for me, too frustrating.

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] kore - Date: 2014-09-12 06:35 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] movingfinger - Date: 2014-09-12 07:00 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] movingfinger - Date: 2014-09-12 07:22 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] kore - Date: 2014-09-12 07:25 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] wordweaverlynn - Date: 2014-09-12 08:12 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] kore - Date: 2014-09-12 07:13 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] brynplusplus - Date: 2014-09-16 07:11 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] brynplusplus - Date: 2014-09-16 08:01 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] kore - Date: 2014-09-12 06:37 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] kore - Date: 2014-09-12 06:41 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] kore - Date: 2014-09-12 06:51 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] recessional - Date: 2014-09-12 09:21 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] rosefox - Date: 2014-09-12 06:38 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] kore - Date: 2014-09-12 06:43 pm (UTC) - Expand
yatima: (Default)

From: [personal profile] yatima


My review of the sequel, from 2011:

I never even reviewed the prequel to this book – The Magicians, Hogwarts and Narnia as reimagined by Curtis Sittenfeld – because the ending made me so mad. The hero-protagonist made a decision that was ethical and unselfish, and then (spoiler!) he turned around and did the opposite thing just ’cause.

Imagine my surprise! then, when this is actually addressed in the sequel, where escapist fantasy worlds suddenly cease to be consequenceless and people have to do the right thing, at whatever cost to themselves!

Also! You know how I do that thing where I say “There is a MUCH more interesting book to be written about what happened to Secondary Character X over the course of THIS book!” This is that book! I shall call it HERMIONE GRANGER STRIKES BACK.

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] yatima - Date: 2014-09-12 06:32 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] kore - Date: 2014-09-12 06:41 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] kore - Date: 2014-09-12 06:38 pm (UTC) - Expand
recessional: a photo image of feet in sparkly red shoes (Default)

From: [personal profile] recessional


I....will skip that one, then, because "mainstream lit-writer goes 'AHAH I WILL DO A BRILLIANT DECON OF $GENRETHING AND SHOW HOW BROKEN IT IS' while the genre has moved on to deconstructing the DECONSTRUCTION about ten years ago" is up there in my Least Favourite Things, and kind of insulting.

Also having read through it a couple of times I'm just . . . .mildly puzzled.

I mean, I'm actually all for stories that examine the warts of a potential magical world or magical system, but this literally seems to be an inversion of Narnia, and is thus just as silly. I mean, young people dream of and obsess about lots of things and imagine that if they could get at them everything would be perfect - equestrianism, ballet, sports, etc.

And then a lot of them go on to discover it's a bunch of hard work and for some of them the payoff is never enough and for some of them it is. To ignore that factor as applying to just about every human endeavour that exists again seems . . .. silly. Which I somehow doubt is the adjective Grossman is trying to get applied to his work, but really, it's the one that fits.
Edited Date: 2014-09-13 08:01 pm (UTC)
kerrypolka: Contemporary Lois Lane with cellphone (Default)

From: [personal profile] kerrypolka


I'd heard good things about it, or at least things that made me think it would be worth reading, so I downloaded the free sample to my Kindle. Within the first two pages Quentin, at a crime scene, was sad-sacking about the female EMT and how nice her breasts looked which was a shame because he'd never get to touch them because he was intrinsically unlovable and would never know the touch of a woman and etc etc etc. So I did not download the rest of the book.
movingfinger: (Default)

From: [personal profile] movingfinger


That scene was made of WTF, yes! Perhaps teenage male thought patterns run that way, in real life, but perhaps also even a self-centered teenage boy under those circumstances would be thinking of something else.
ironed_orchid: watercolour and pen style sketch of a brown tabby cat curl up with her head looking up at the viewer and her front paw stretched out on the left (Default)

From: [personal profile] ironed_orchid


[personal profile] kore and others have summed up my feelings about book two. I am currently planning on reading book three, but not highly motivated.
thistleingrey: (Default)

From: [personal profile] thistleingrey


I like his brother Austin's books (Soon I Will Be Invincible and You) better than anything I have heard or sampled about Lev's books.

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] tool_of_satan - Date: 2014-09-13 02:57 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] thistleingrey - Date: 2014-09-14 02:36 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] octopedingenue - Date: 2014-09-16 06:58 am (UTC) - Expand
vass: Small turtle with green leaf in its mouth (Default)

From: [personal profile] vass


Yay! Book I don't have to read and can remove from my TBR!
octopedingenue: (Default)

From: [personal profile] octopedingenue


I haven't read book 3 yet. I loved book 1 and really liked book 2 despite some reservations I have about a plot point (not related to Quentin). This comment discusses Quentin's characterization in books 1 and 2 but I'm not going to go into specific plot details.

The main reason I've loved the books is also a reason I suspect some readers dislike them; they're deconstructions of "having magical adventures in Magicland" stories, obviously, which makes so much of the landscape unpleasant. But the important bit to me was Quentin as a deconstruction of that kind of story character: he's a fantasy novel protagonist who thinks he's a fantasy novel HERO.

He's read all the books, he's genre-savvy for all the tropes, and he thinks that makes him experienced and wise. Quentin does or experiences bad things but expects them to turn out okay in the end, because he's a fantasy novel hero. He does good things not because he really cares about improving the world, but because do-goodery is What One Does as a fantasy novel hero. (Going through the motions, walking through the part.) Quentin isn't an actively malicious or cruel person; he just doesn't see other people as being equally important and real as himself, not in Fillory or on Earth. Which is its own solipsistic brand of evil.

A lot of reviewers I've seen who disliked the Magician books—not all, but definitely a significant percentage—interpreted them as a message of attack, like "Grow up, fantasy readers! Stop fantasizing about going to Magicland! Fantasy books are for silly little kids!" And I understand that POV. I was definitely one of those readers who made contingency plans about how sensible and genre-savvy I would be if I ever went to Narnia or got a genie or whatnot. But the message I got from the first two books was, "If you expect the universe to revolve around you and treat everyone else as less important, grow the fuck up. Even Magicland has important stuff to deal with." Imaginary gardens have real toads in them.

The point of the generic fairytale is not to help the mysterious beggar lady by the side of the road because you hope she's a magic fairy who'll reward you with treasure. The point is to treat people with compassion and actually mean it. Quentin is not a hero because he doesn't get that. I'll be reading book 3 to see if he ever does.
Edited Date: 2014-09-16 06:55 am (UTC)
brynplusplus: (Default)

From: [personal profile] brynplusplus


Yes, yes, THIS. Quentin is so narcissistic and yet he's presented so normally as though this is just what everyone is like and he goes through all the motions -- he's EXACTLY the sort of person who is nice instead of kind.
brynplusplus: (Default)

From: [personal profile] brynplusplus


This is so interesting to read because actually I took it not as 'Narnia would suck if it were real' but that 'if you are soul-destroyingly selfish and narcissistic EVEN NARNIA would suck; there is nothing outside of you that will save you'. That it is what Quentin brings with him that makes Fillory awful, not Fillory itself. But I admit we read it very quickly at a WorldCon so we might have definitely missed some nuance. I keep meaning to reread it so we can read the new ones, but so many books etc.
sovay: (Psholtii: in a bad mood)

From: [personal profile] sovay


Also, the reveal that the Fillory writer – the alt! C. S. Lewis – was a pedophile went beyond anvillicious and into cement truck.

Did Lev Grossman and Philip Pullman have one of those Heinleinian bets on as to who could write the crappier response to the Chronicles of Narnia? Because I used to think The Amber Spyglass held the monopoly on that very undesirable field, but now I realize there is some impressive competition.

From: [identity profile] rachelmanija.livejournal.com


I give Grossman the prize, for sure. A Lewis stand-in who's a pedophile trumps "Christianity sucks and Lewis's beliefs were WRONG WRONG WRONG."

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] sovay - Date: 2014-09-12 06:27 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] rachelmanija.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-09-12 06:57 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] sovay - Date: 2014-09-13 02:17 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] tool-of-satan.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-09-12 08:24 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] asakiyume.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-09-12 10:46 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] sovay - Date: 2014-09-13 02:05 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] asakiyume.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-09-13 02:59 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] tibicina.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-09-16 09:21 am (UTC) - Expand

From: [identity profile] tavella.livejournal.com


That's about what I expected from a 'literary' portal fantasy. Unpleasant characters and misery.

From: [identity profile] rachelmanija.livejournal.com


Or at least one marketed as such. Pamela Dean's "Hidden Land" trilogy is certainly literary, but not drenched in suck.

From: [identity profile] kimberlite8.livejournal.com


"Also, the reveal that the Fillory writer – the alt! C. S. Lewis – was a pedophile "

The grudge some writers hold against CS Lewis! Sign of the times that being cool means being cynical. I wonder if Grossman's read CS Lewis' other works before besmiching him this way? I read Till We Have Faces and A Grief Observed later in life and it restored some of the antifeminist tarnish that's accrued on CS Lewis. But pedophile is really going too far. Its enough not to want me to read this book. At least accuse CS Lewis of things he could have been guilty of...

From: [identity profile] rachelmanija.livejournal.com


There may also be a side-swipe at L. Frank Baum, whose life the Fillory writer resembles more than it does Lewis's. However, I'm assuming it's a swipe at Lewis too as Fillory is very deliberately a Narnia analogue.

I read that part and thought, "Did C. S. Lewis step on your kitten?"

From: [identity profile] swan-tower.livejournal.com


This has reinforced my inclination never to read those books.

It’s not that I find cheating unforgivable or the worst possible thing anyone can do. It’s that I find the drama associated with it both painful and boring.

Amen to this, x100.

(The concept of this was pretty funny – of course a talking bear would be primarily interested in honey – but the execution leaned heavily on “and that’s why it wouldn’t actually be fun to meet a talking animal.”)

Tell that to people who actually like animals and find them interesting! They don't have to have human-type personalities to be fun to engage with. It would be fascinating to find out what's actually going through their heads.

Fillory felt thin and dull; less real than regular real life. I’m guessing this was deliberate - the point was probably that Narnia’s worldbuilding doesn’t hold together and that real life is more interesting than fantasy

This makes me go "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUGH" because the first point is not like the second. Narnia is a pretty obvious allegory that never attempts to hold together like the real world. To go from this to "real life is more interesting than fantasy" relies on "all fantasy is like Narnia," which is so patently not the case that I want to throw books at Grossman.

From: [identity profile] rachelmanija.livejournal.com


What's most frustrating is that Grossman is actually really, really good at writing fantasy! He can do jaw-dropping imagery, he can do charm, he can do sense of wonder, he can do terrifying yet completely non-explicit horror. All that's in the Brakebills half.

Then we get to Fillory, and it's like he's repenting for ever having led his readers to believe that fantasy could be anything but a toxic escape from reality.

That being said, I'm not sure that subsequent books have the same (apparent) point.

I totally agree about the talking animals. Also, the idea of a talking bear monologuing about honey until all humans flee the room is hilarious. But when the context is "Thing # 49 that sounds fun when you read it in a fantasy novel, but which actually is boring and annoying when encountered," it sucks all the reading enjoyment away.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] swan-tower.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-09-12 06:10 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] movingfinger.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-09-12 06:20 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] swan-tower.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-09-12 06:26 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] marycatelli - Date: 2014-09-13 01:32 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] adrian-turtle.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-09-13 03:24 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] marycatelli - Date: 2014-09-14 03:16 am (UTC) - Expand

From: [identity profile] sartorias.livejournal.com


I made it about halfway, liking it steadily less and less, then was invited to listen to Grossman hold forth on a panel in New York City. He was so smug, so reveling in his bigotry that I gave away the book, and lost interest in reading anything more by him. What I've read subsequently in reviews hasn't changed my mind.

From: [identity profile] nineweaving.livejournal.com


A few years back, [livejournal.com profile] rushthatspeaks and I drew a lovely Readercon panel on Influence. We talked it over beforehand, and had much to say: how art is a conversation, often with ghosts; how writers sing to one another, call and response. But Lev was on that panel, and he wrenched it to his own obsessions: art is all about how Daddy overshadows you, crushes you, and Must Be Slain with your Pen, and yadda yadda yadda. I finally had to say, "Oh, Lev. Harold Bloom is so 20th-century."

Nine

From: [identity profile] rachelmanija.livejournal.com


Oh, dear.

PS. I think you were abroad when I made a post with a bit that might amuse you, so I'll copy the relevant bit:

Tonight we saw an outdoor production of The Taming of the Shrew. It was mediocre but entertaining. None of us were sure why everyone was a pirate. (That reminded me of the immortal quote, "None of us knew why the Duke in Measure for Measure was four vampires.")

The funniest moment was when an actor, I am 99% sure accidentally, addressed Petruchio as Pistachio. The second-funniest was when a slightly drunk woman in front of us yelled "BAAAAAAARF!" during Kate's "female subjugation is awesome" speech.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] nineweaving.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-09-12 08:33 pm (UTC) - Expand
hamsterwoman: (Default)

From: [personal profile] hamsterwoman


I've read only the first two (and heard mostly-disappointing things about the conclusion, so haven't rushed out to read it for myself).

I actually really liked the first book, though ~95% of my love for it was for the Brakebills section and learning magic. I've never read (or wanted to read) Narnia, so I found Fillory boring but not insulting (and I didn't read it as a rejection of all fantasy or anything). Also, I didn't hate Quentin (I went to school with a lot of Quentin types, and I think as a result found him amusing more than maddening), but there were definitely far more interesting characters that I wish these books had spent more time on.

The second book I didn't enjoy as much as the first though I suspect it may actually be a better book. The sections from the POV of the character you mention really worked for me -- but uplifting they weren't. (And I see you already got the trigger warning in the DW comments. Yeah...)
naomikritzer: (Default)

From: [personal profile] naomikritzer


I read it a few months after it came out and I remember hating it, but with a lot less detail than you lay out here.

What I remember most vividly was post-graduation when they're all spinning their wheels and meditating on the uselessness of everything, and rolling their eyes over someone they knew who's trying to use magic to solve real-world problems because UGH EVERYTHING IS POINTLESS. That scene annoyed me deeply (now I'm wondering -- is this scene actually in there, or did I create it in my head by implication?) and I compared the whole book unfavorably to another magic-in-the-real-world series I'm very fond of, Diane Duane's Wizardry series. (Part of me still wants to believe that the magic in those books is REAL.)

I disliked the first book so intensely I have not picked up the sequels.

From: [identity profile] rachelmanija.livejournal.com


Yeah, that definitely at least gets mentioned. It's in this whole excruciating section where they have nearly infinite power and money, plus knowledge of cool magic, and do literally nothing but do drugs (not even magical drugs!), throw joyless parties (not even magical parties), have loveless, joyless sex, and mope about how unhappy they are.

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] marycatelli - Date: 2014-09-13 01:33 am (UTC) - Expand

From: [identity profile] abigail-n.livejournal.com


The reason I found this book frustrating as a fantasy read (even the Brakebills segments which are, I agree, the strongest part) is that it reads like an examination of the fantasy genre by someone who hasn't read any of the major fantasy works of the last ten or fifteen years. Most of the criticisms Grossman makes of the fantasy genre were done earlier and better (and with better worldbuilding) by people like M. John Harrison, China Mieville, Susannah Clarke, and a whole bunch of others. I'm fairly certain that Grossman has read at least some of these authors, but then he turned around and wrote a book in which "fantasy" means nothing more than Tolkien, Narnia, and Harry Potter.

From: [identity profile] rachelmanija.livejournal.com


M. John Harrison has certainly made identical points in a way that, at least for me, were a much more enjoyable reading experience. Harrison at least seems more sympathetic to the longing for magic or transcendence, even if he thinks it's ultimately impossible or not worth the cost.

It is telling that while Quentin feels self-conscious about loving Fillory, he never mentions any other work of fantasy beyond joking allusions, nor does anyone else read any other fantasy.

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] sovay - Date: 2014-09-13 01:57 am (UTC) - Expand

From: [identity profile] laleia.livejournal.com


I've read this book! (Usually your reviews are for books I haven't read, and I use your reviews to decide what I should read next.)

This was definitely a book I finished reading only because I wanted to find out what happened at the end, and I hated most of it (mostly because of Quentin). I can see why it was marketed as literary fiction because the whole thing felt like a "postmodern" take on fantasy, not necessarily because it is actually postmodern but because the book and its characters' pretentiousness vividly brings to mind a certain type of guys I encountered in college who tossed around the word "postmodern" all the time.

I think, for me, the problem even with the Brakebills sections is that even when Quentin is excited about and obsessed with magic and learns it, I never felt like that excitement translates through the text and makes me excited.

From: [identity profile] asakiyume.livejournal.com


I just will never want to spend time in a book where the protagonist is as unlikeable as this one has ALWAYS sounded to be, no matter how good the writing is in places.

I profoundly disagree with his whole outlook.


From: [identity profile] rachelmanija.livejournal.com


There's books I love that have unlikable characters - Donna Tartt's The Secret History is one of my favorite books, and it's also about a campus of jaded, self-centered, obsessive young adults - but they can't be unlikable and uninteresting. Tartt's monomaniacal characters were fun to read about even if I wouldn't want to meet them.

It also helped that they weren't constantly miserable, and had intense feelings about each other. The narrator loved his friends, no matter how awful they were. Quentin doesn't care about anyone but the girl he loves, is a total asshole to, and then blames for himself being an asshole.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] sienamystic.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-09-13 02:12 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] anglerfish07.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-09-14 07:40 pm (UTC) - Expand

From: [identity profile] rushthatspeaks.livejournal.com


Yeah, Nine mentioned above why I haven't read this book. It became obvious about halfway through the panel in question that if one asked Grossman why he had focused on Narnia as his major textual influence he would say something about how he sees Lewis as his literary father and consequently has to totally destroy him before moving on to the next thing, or some such load of malarkey. He literally could not understand the idea of an influence-as-positive-inheritance model, or of a non-destructive literary mentorship. We'd say the words and watch them bounce off. I have not met anyone else this millennium who sounds so much like a straight-up no-deviations Freudian, with the caveat that marrying his mother has fallen way, way, way down his priorities list.

I don't usually hold with judging a text by the personality of its author, but it was like meeting the ghost of John Updike. It was so obvious that any text which came out of his theories would not be to my taste that I have never bothered.

Sadly, the ghost of John Updike thing is probably why he has had such gigantic mainstream and crossover success. I was initially hoping he'd do middling well and get told by critics to go do his homework in reading his genre, but he's done so well he doesn't have to pay attention to that sort of thing.

Ah well. His is the sort of value system I tend to hope people grow out of because it is so obviously making them miserable, but not growing out of it is its own punishment.

From: [identity profile] nineweaving.livejournal.com


...with the caveat that marrying his mother has fallen way, way, way down his priorities list.

Hee!

That hour was like wading hip-deep in tar-tainted honey: exhausting and defiling.

Nine

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] negothick.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-09-13 10:33 pm (UTC) - Expand

From: [identity profile] psocoptera.livejournal.com


I had some similar frustration with Quentin's joyless hedonism in the first book and am retroactively less annoyed after reading the third one.
Page 1 of 2 << [1] [2] >>
.

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags