Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.35 AVERAGE
3.35 AVERAGE
It’s difficult to not treat this book as an edgy take on Harry Potter when it makes that parallel at every possible turn. I enjoyed the take on magic, the complex linguistics, tertiary elements and factors, the hard work it would take to perfect. But I found the characters vapid and the use of magic uninteresting when it should be exciting. The scene where the beast shows up was great, but the book lost me at snow fox sex.
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
A slow start that I almost gave up on, but I stuck with it and did not regret my choice.
I think this book is fairly polarizing and not well suited for many people. You can see evidence of that through the other reviews here. The truth is that many people think this is "Harry Potter for adults," and it isn't. It really isn't. It is an original story about some dysfunctional kids that get pulled into a magical world and have to work through their own issues while trying to fight off the bad guy.
Coming into the book with an open mind helps to prevent some comparative disappointment, but the beginning of the book doesn't make it easy. I found the story to have a very slow start that I barely made it through. However, once I got over the hump, something "clicked" and I have enjoyed the rest of the trilogy since.
Some people complain that this is a book written by a smart guy for other smart people to show how smart the author is. Maybe. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad book if it is true. I think this ties back to many people expecting Harry Potter, which was written for children.
Some people complain that the characters and themes are too dark and unlikeable. They are dark and unlikeable, certainly. In my opinion, this is a major component of the story. If the characters where another way, the story wouldn't have worked as well or unfolded the way it did. Each character's issues lend themselves to their actions. Maybe a happy-go-lucky Quentin wouldn't have made it to Brakebill's to begin with.
Also - I like the show more than the books, too.
I think this book is fairly polarizing and not well suited for many people. You can see evidence of that through the other reviews here. The truth is that many people think this is "Harry Potter for adults," and it isn't. It really isn't. It is an original story about some dysfunctional kids that get pulled into a magical world and have to work through their own issues while trying to fight off the bad guy.
Coming into the book with an open mind helps to prevent some comparative disappointment, but the beginning of the book doesn't make it easy. I found the story to have a very slow start that I barely made it through. However, once I got over the hump, something "clicked" and I have enjoyed the rest of the trilogy since.
Some people complain that this is a book written by a smart guy for other smart people to show how smart the author is. Maybe. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad book if it is true. I think this ties back to many people expecting Harry Potter, which was written for children.
Some people complain that the characters and themes are too dark and unlikeable. They are dark and unlikeable, certainly. In my opinion, this is a major component of the story. If the characters where another way, the story wouldn't have worked as well or unfolded the way it did. Each character's issues lend themselves to their actions. Maybe a happy-go-lucky Quentin wouldn't have made it to Brakebill's to begin with.
Also - I like the show more than the books, too.
2 stars only because the writing is good. The characters are so deficient that I didn't care what happened to them. It was disappointing as I kept hearing how great this series is. waste your time.
Sexist and racist, made the reading experience uncomfortable and not a very captivating story anyways.
adventurous
fast-paced
This book tends to move people to experience visceral love-it-or-loathe it reactions for a lot of really understandable reasons. It takes its cues (okay, ALL of them) from beloved series--"classics" you may argue-- like The Chronicles of Narnia and Harry Potter. Too many cues, some same say, and the author and his characters have a truly ambivalent relationship with the source material. I found this kind of tension fascinating, but I see where the critics are coming from.
Quentin, a vaguely nerdy, high school nobody discovers that he has hidden abilities when an invitation to test into a mysterious school sucks him into an underground world of magic hidden from the rest of the world. Quite unlike Harry and his cohorts, Quentin and his new friends use (and misuse) their gifts as you might imagine that flawed, young people with sudden access to a lot of power actually might, and what begins as wonder ends up becoming corrupted into ruthless ambition for some, idle apathy for others. Ultimately, their principles and their friendships will have taken a beating, some past the point of recovery. While gripping (I literally could NOT put this book down when reading it) it's also rather like a car accident watching these young and VERY fallible characters struggle with forces that are always threatening to consume and corrupt them, and as you might expect, the story builds to a pretty dark, startling conclusion. A side plotline about the influence of a Narnia-esque series of books on Quentin and his friends also has a great deal of significance and adds intrigue as the one idealized magical world is juxtaposed against the "real", jaded, corrupted magical world that the characters live in.
As one of my fellow reviewers pointed out, Grossman has the cheek to pop in a few direct references to Harry Potter (jokes or comments made by the characters) and to me those are the times when it just doesn't work. Whenever he does it's as if a curtain is suddenly wrenched back to reveal all the mechanisms underneath. It's just obvious and kind of juvenile. The Fillory parallel to Narnia feels far more effective, and Grossman ends up striking up a pretty satisfying (though admittedly) strange blend of humor and sinister eeriness in developing his portrayal of it. The Magicians succeeds the most when Grossman fully commits to his worlds, even if his readers are fully in on his references all along.
As far as the extent of the borrowing/inspiration, I'll say this. Not having been a fan of the Narnia books, but having grown up devouring E. Nesbit and Edward Eager books, I had my own points of reference that worked just as well for the Fillory parallel without even much of a stretch. Eager, Nesbit, Lewis, Barrie, Baum, Carroll, Pullman, Rowling and other authors of children's tales of magic and wonder are all bound together, compatriots in theme, who all drew on similar inspirations--as well as each other. There's a lot of shared source material for all of them, and Rowling, as great as she is, and as wonderfully as she weaved her stories, borrowed just as much (if not more!) as all of them. Grossman appears to have selected Harry Potter and Narnia as his primary focal points for his commentary, probably one for its current relevance and the other for its enduring legacy, but really, the underlying archetypes and quests cross almost all fantasy. He wisely selected the two that would have the most currency and would have enough of those common elements that would allow him to basically talk about all of those other tales as well--all at once. I can see why this may rankle some readers, but I think what he did made a lot of sense.
Quentin, a vaguely nerdy, high school nobody discovers that he has hidden abilities when an invitation to test into a mysterious school sucks him into an underground world of magic hidden from the rest of the world. Quite unlike Harry and his cohorts, Quentin and his new friends use (and misuse) their gifts as you might imagine that flawed, young people with sudden access to a lot of power actually might, and what begins as wonder ends up becoming corrupted into ruthless ambition for some, idle apathy for others. Ultimately, their principles and their friendships will have taken a beating, some past the point of recovery. While gripping (I literally could NOT put this book down when reading it) it's also rather like a car accident watching these young and VERY fallible characters struggle with forces that are always threatening to consume and corrupt them, and as you might expect, the story builds to a pretty dark, startling conclusion. A side plotline about the influence of a Narnia-esque series of books on Quentin and his friends also has a great deal of significance and adds intrigue as the one idealized magical world is juxtaposed against the "real", jaded, corrupted magical world that the characters live in.
As one of my fellow reviewers pointed out, Grossman has the cheek to pop in a few direct references to Harry Potter (jokes or comments made by the characters) and to me those are the times when it just doesn't work. Whenever he does it's as if a curtain is suddenly wrenched back to reveal all the mechanisms underneath. It's just obvious and kind of juvenile. The Fillory parallel to Narnia feels far more effective, and Grossman ends up striking up a pretty satisfying (though admittedly) strange blend of humor and sinister eeriness in developing his portrayal of it. The Magicians succeeds the most when Grossman fully commits to his worlds, even if his readers are fully in on his references all along.
As far as the extent of the borrowing/inspiration, I'll say this. Not having been a fan of the Narnia books, but having grown up devouring E. Nesbit and Edward Eager books, I had my own points of reference that worked just as well for the Fillory parallel without even much of a stretch. Eager, Nesbit, Lewis, Barrie, Baum, Carroll, Pullman, Rowling and other authors of children's tales of magic and wonder are all bound together, compatriots in theme, who all drew on similar inspirations--as well as each other. There's a lot of shared source material for all of them, and Rowling, as great as she is, and as wonderfully as she weaved her stories, borrowed just as much (if not more!) as all of them. Grossman appears to have selected Harry Potter and Narnia as his primary focal points for his commentary, probably one for its current relevance and the other for its enduring legacy, but really, the underlying archetypes and quests cross almost all fantasy. He wisely selected the two that would have the most currency and would have enough of those common elements that would allow him to basically talk about all of those other tales as well--all at once. I can see why this may rankle some readers, but I think what he did made a lot of sense.
adventurous
dark
mysterious
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated