Scan barcode
A review by minechatz
The Magicians by Lev Grossman
adventurous
dark
funny
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? Yes
2.0
I really loved Eliot. Wish I could airdrop him out of this book and into one that understands like, addiction and homophobia.
I generally find shitty book protagonists to be interesting with the caveat that they're written well. Quentin isn't written especially well. He's got like, the self-infatuation of Ged from Earthsea, without any of the nuance that made Ged interesting and, eventually, redeemable. Not that a protagonist needs to be redeemable -- but they do need to be interesting. Quentin just is.
My sense is that this book was written as a part of the "gritty fairy tale" tide that produced one good thing [i.e. Wicked] and many, many stinkers. Like many of those stinkers, The Magicians doesn't understand what made the original stories tick, and isn't actually interested in subverting them. Its interest begins and ends in being able to say, "Oh, aren't I cooler than you for not caring?" [TW: CSA.]The clearest manifestation of this is saying that one character was molested by the author who wrote down his magical adventures for publication. This is a clear pass at James Matthew Barrie, who didn't actually do that. Even if he had -- there's something to actually explore there, about the exploitation of childhood even by beloved adults. Grossman isn't interested in any such exploration.
I don't super mind that the book sort of skipped through Brakebills, and at first thought it was maybe a good choice. Grossman assumed we were familiar with the notion of magic school, and only really showed us his innovations on the form. Fair play. The issue came in when the book never stopped skipping through things. Episodic stories can work, of course, but in Magicians it's simply disjointed. It felt like we were constantly speeding through a part of the tape to get to the good bit, but the good bit never came.
The way The Beast was described was compelling. It's just too bad he only showed up twice. Most of the really interesting and compelling bits -- the things that made me keep reading -- only show up once or twice. In my opinion, if Grossman had developed things like The Beast, and the notion of magic as G-d's tools, this book would have earned all the rave reviews on its cover. As it is, it's aged pretty poorly. I genuinely feel like if this had gotten some more structural edits it would be much, much better.
tl;dr It's compelling enough for me to get the next one from the library, but I would be a little annoyed if I had bought this. You know?
I generally find shitty book protagonists to be interesting with the caveat that they're written well. Quentin isn't written especially well. He's got like, the self-infatuation of Ged from Earthsea, without any of the nuance that made Ged interesting and, eventually, redeemable. Not that a protagonist needs to be redeemable -- but they do need to be interesting. Quentin just is.
My sense is that this book was written as a part of the "gritty fairy tale" tide that produced one good thing [i.e. Wicked] and many, many stinkers. Like many of those stinkers, The Magicians doesn't understand what made the original stories tick, and isn't actually interested in subverting them. Its interest begins and ends in being able to say, "Oh, aren't I cooler than you for not caring?" [TW: CSA.]
I don't super mind that the book sort of skipped through Brakebills, and at first thought it was maybe a good choice. Grossman assumed we were familiar with the notion of magic school, and only really showed us his innovations on the form. Fair play. The issue came in when the book never stopped skipping through things. Episodic stories can work, of course, but in Magicians it's simply disjointed. It felt like we were constantly speeding through a part of the tape to get to the good bit, but the good bit never came.
The way The Beast was described was compelling. It's just too bad he only showed up twice. Most of the really interesting and compelling bits -- the things that made me keep reading -- only show up once or twice. In my opinion, if Grossman had developed things like The Beast, and the notion of magic as G-d's tools, this book would have earned all the rave reviews on its cover. As it is, it's aged pretty poorly. I genuinely feel like if this had gotten some more structural edits it would be much, much better.
tl;dr It's compelling enough for me to get the next one from the library, but I would be a little annoyed if I had bought this. You know?
Content Warnings
Graphic: Infidelity
Moderate: Adult/minor relationship, Body horror, Child death, and Pedophilia
Minor: Child abuse