Total Number of Ratings: 12
Book Club Discussion for The Magicians
Saturday, February 6, 2010 8:33 PM
You all did your homework and read the book, right?
Since it seemed to work so well for the discussion of Beat the Reaper, I think we'll stick to the same format for the discussion of Lev Grossman's The Magicians.
To recap; the discussion of The Magicians will be built around the comment system and "write a response" feature of the site. Most of the discussion of the book will happen in the comments on this article. Everyone that read the book can post their SPOILER-filled comments, reviews, and questions for discussion. I'll also post a few book club questions in the comments, and everyone who wants to can reply to the questions. If you have a lot to say about the book - or if you want to post a collaborative article or video - you can click on the "write a response" button and dedicate a whole article to the book. More discussion will happen on these articles, though most will probably be taking place here.
I'm not sure what will be happening this time around in terms of a book discussion on the official Murmur podcast. If it's in the cards, great! If not (and if people want to do some sort of "live" club chat), I'm sure we can get a few folks together on Skype and get a discussion on wax. Hopefully, someone on staff can chime in regarding an official or unofficial discussion.
If this format for discussion works again this time around, I think we really have a format we can stick to as we do more book clubs in the future.
If anyone has any suggestions for a better way to have the discussion
or something to add or remove, please let me know!
Also, if you have a suggestion for the next book pick, feel free to shoot me an e-mail or send me a message on Twitter. I've got a few ideas for the next books, but suggestions are welcome.
Without further ado - let's discuss Lev Grossman's The Magicians!
I've read (both here and on Twitter) a number of people having a problem with the stuff immediately post-Fillory. Quentin's malaise and downright mean-spiritedness are rough character traits to be true, but it was that stuff that I responded to most as a reader. I know that my post-college months were rough on me, as a feeling of anticlimax took me into a depressing place. While I didn't necessarily like this part of the story, I certainly related to it.
For me, the problem with Quentin was that the malaise was permanent, it just got worse Post-Brakbills and Post-Fillory. There was never a moment where I think Quentin copes with it or gets over it, he just rolls into a new panacea that will ultimately not pan out. I think it's great that the book resonated with you, though.
Oops. I actually meant post-Brakbills instead of post-Fillory.
And you're right. Quentin refusing to acknowledge his problem is his major character flaw, which shows itself in a number of different annoying ways. At times, he felt like more of a study of a type of character rather than a real character himself.
I didn't like Quentin, but there were many times throughout the book that I felt like a mirror was being held up and I was looking at me in my early twenties. I can't say I got a lot of enjoyment out of this, but I found a certain amount of truth in the characterization.
I think that kind of makes him a one dimensional character. It would havebeen nice to see him grow a bit throughout. Or at least to have a feeling like when he want back to being king of Fillory that he was going to be happy. On the contrary, it feels like it will be more of the same.
I didn't finish this book, got about halfway through it and decided to drop it. I just didn't care all that much for Quentin. I liked the ideas in it though, just couldn't get past the main character. Might pick it back up later on, don't know yet.
i understand that. i had to push through my dislike of Q and remind myself that as much as it helps to like/identify with the main character, there still might be a worthy story if you don't. :)
that's when i started reading really fast to get him out of my brain.
i confess that i've only read 1.5 of the narnia books, if even that, and it was quite literally decades ago. after i give my brain a good scrubbing with something completely different, i'm going to rip through them. i've always felt like there was a "gap" in my fantasy foundation without them, but have never been motivated enough to fill it. now i am :)
I reread both 'Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe' and 'The Magicians Nephew' as an adult, and just zipped through both of them with nearly the same fascination I had as a child. I'm trying 'Prince Caspian' right now and finding it kind of a slog -- I can feel the ideas taking over from the stories and characters, and Caspian himself is kind of a bore. So there might be something to be said for the new reading order. But I'm going to try to finish this one to get to 'Dawn Treader', which seems to be most people's favorite. (I liked 'Horse and His Boy' best when I was a child, but I fear that one may not hold up as well.)
I've been inspired not just to reread Narnia, but to download the Oz books and Alice in Wonderland/Through the Looking Glass. Any 'other-worldy' favorites that I'm missing?
I've got one of those big, amorphous, and possibly obnoxious questions, but, due to the discussion below of homage/critique/appropriation, I started to wonder: Is this a fantasy novel, or is it a literary novel that critiques fantasy novels? (Do those distinctions have any meaning?) To what extent is the use of references from other fantasy novels metafictional (ie, fiction about fiction), and to what extent might Grossman be using these references to tell a story that's actually about something else? And if it's about something else -- if you had to describe the point of the book without any reference to the fantasy elements -- what might that be?
I don't have an answer in mind for this. I'm still trying to puzzle it out.
i think without the fantasy element, you basically have a story about the problems with being "too" gifted and privileged. ultimately, you don't really gain anything other than a slightly different set of problems. i think it gets back to the first question about Q being happy. every advantage he could possibly think of and he's still miserable. without getting all the way on my soap-box, that's a real-life problem more than a few folk suffer from.
and not "without" the story element, but neutralizing it in the description of the book. i do think that the magic could be replaced with any number of other things and it would still "work". i don't think i'd have been as interested in reading it.
I think it might be impossible to talk about this book without talking about (or around) how we feel about our own experiences with education. And, hmm, maybe that's another question to ask. . .
The whole idea about gifted education definitely played into the story(either actually being gifted or being treated as gifted, since I think the question of whether there really was a big difference b/t the people who got in Brakebills and the people who didn't, which is also a big real-life issue). The most resonant part, to me, was the middle section because I remember coming to the end of college and thinking, "Damn, I'll never be able to use this in the real world"; I also have the experience A LOT lately of wishing I could go back to that period in my life and both learn more and have more fun.
At the same time, Kelly, you hit on one of the things about genre fiction -- what I appreciate most about the book isn't necessarily related to the fantasy trappings, but they have a lot to do with what made me want to read it. I think it speaks to fantasy (at least for some readers) as a vehicle for storytelling, even when it's not the point of the story itself.
@caroline you've already touched on it, but there's a definite commentary on academia for academia's sake theme as well. fits right in with the "gifted" issue.
it hits home for me. i've always been great at learning and taking tests, which worked really well for the first 20 years of my life and has been completely useless for the rest of it. :)
The use of location and physical description in this book was definitely one of the strong points for me. I can think of some really vivid moments, like the boys boating out on the lake when it was warm for them and cold for the 'regular' people. Or the sense of claustrophobia and depth as they were going down into the Tomb. The city with the fountains in it was quite vivid as well. I liked this aspect of the book a lot.
I have to admit, I enjoyed Grossman's descriptions of the grounds and the leisure life of Brakebills, but found I had no real "shape" for the school in my mind. It was always nebulous. The Physical Kids house was something I rather enjoyed (even if it used the tired "bigger on the inside" thing) and I had a real good sense of that locale. I would say the same was true of Apartment in New York and Alice's parents house. The City was probably the most vividly describing locale in the book and probably my favorite part of the book on the whole. However, the reason I asked was that I felt Fillory was a little lifeless and ill-defined. It felt incredibly small - as if it were the size of a park - and there was not a lot of physicality to it. It didn't feel like much.
i think since he could assume that his audience had "seen" hogwarts and any number of descriptions of secluded ivy league school settings, that grossman didn't really have to work on Brakebills at all. same thing with fillory. we all know what that looks like, or at least know enough about what it'd look like to us that it doesn't need to be created. the neitherlands was eerie and awesome and very realized, though. it needed to be and/or easily could be.
I understand what you're saying, but I find that to be a little bit of a cop-out. While Brakebills had other elements that he chose to focus on which was fine - not a lot of time was spent in school. However, Fillory felt vacant to me. I had figured out early on they were going to Fillory, and so was waiting through about half the book to see what Grossman would whip up to set Fillory apart from just being a fill-in for Narnia. When they finally arrived and they rushed through it, I was really let down. It felt lazy, honestly. Asking your reader to supply their own thoughts to shape the world is one thing, giving nothing more than a few thumbnail sketches of three small areas is another.
@brian it *did* suddenly feel like a very linear RPG the moment they stepped into fillory (or i suspect what a poorly run D&D game feels like?). maybe that was intentional, too?
(team lev)
There was definitely a moment where I was like, "Lev Grossman is transcribing his favorite D&D campaign for the action scenes." Still, it stuck with me pretty vividly. On the other hand, I'm not a very visual reader, so I can see it wouldn't work for everybody.
Actually, I agree with Caroline about the Tomb. There was some fun description about the construction of the tomb there, but again, it was all very linear and bland. It may have been part of Lev's plan to have Fillory be dull, even that didn't shine through exactly. It felt more oppressively bland to me than the Neitherlands!
I read that as *Netherlands* and I thought, "Wow, I never thought of Amsterdam as being oppressively dull. How disappointing!" Then I got the reference.
I don't think Brakebills was "fully realized" quite so much in that, if I stopped and tried to think about it, I couldn't actually pictured what it looked like as a whole. I could picture certain places (the maze, a few of the fountain, the crypt, etc.), but couldn't for the life of me draw a map of it and how it all fit together. Same deal with Fillory: I think Grossman was planning too much on people just putting in pictures of Narnia from the movies to actually try to describe things.
What I did think was really very well realized was the city of Fountains, that part was really cool
I'm kind of surprised at how much value people are putting on a literal descripton of the places. I don't mean this as a criticism, it's just not something that would have occurred to me as needing to be in the story more than it was. It shows how readers approach books with different expectations and priorities, and that's really interesting!
what do you think quentin's discipline is? do you feel grossman made the right decision not to reveal it?
I was struggling to think of an answer for what Quentin's discipline is and I couldn't ultimately conclude anything. I think it stems from Quentin not really performing any specialized magic in the book. I was a fan of not revealing what it was... until nothing came of it. Throughout the first book, it grows to be an important part of the book, is lost in the Antarctica section, pops up again before graduation and then disappears completely before the very end. In a sense, not revealing it (one not being found for him, that is) made Quentin special, which worked against the anti-Potter tack of Brakebills; where Quentin is just an accomplished student, not geared for a special destiny. So, I would say, it was a great idea but I was struggling to see the point of it, if there was no real reason for it.
perhaps it's because i've run across another "i don't have a talent but everyone else does" character, but to me, q's talent seems to be a "if you wish it, it will happen" sort of thing. at every point in the book where he wanted to the point of "needing" a change, what he wanted to happen, did. i mean, kid even found the un-findable questing beast. he wanted a spectacular save-the-world kind of destiny, and he got it. even at the very end when he'd reached his limit in the mundane world, he got his wish.
But is it a matter of Quentin not having a talent? He is capable and he does have the ability to summon those black holes (though later all of them seem capable of it) and he has an early, natural aptitude for sleight of hand. As far as I recall, there's not much complaining on Q's part that he doesn't have a discipline - it's a non-issue. Essentially it gave him carte blanche to be whatever he wanted to be while the others were sequestered into small groups and "forced" to work only in that major. Whether he does anything with that or benefits/is bested by it is another story. I do like your idea that he has the ability to get his way. It certainly fits in with the book's theme.
i can see Q not having a discipline, but i think that's a lame choice on grossman's part. it feels more like he needed the disciplines to get the physical kids together, but didn't carry through to giving Q one and instead of fixing it or actively addressing it, he just shoved it under the rug and hoped the audience would forget about it.
I think Grossman kind of copped out on the whole disciplines thing. Although it did put together a group of people (the Physical kids), I feel like that could have been done without saying "oh yeah, we don't know what Q's is, so we'll put him with them as a placeholder" until we figure it ... oops! end of book! you'll never know now! And it wasn't just with the physical kids, which was sort of an un-fleshed out discipline to begin with: he even said at one point that most of the disciplines had the same classes anyway, so what exactly even made them different, other than the groups of people? And why didn't we meet any of the other groups in anything other than the game field? I would have liked this to be worked-out more
Until Kelly asked the question, I had, in fact, forgotten that this issue wasn't resolved. Good point!
I think he should have revealed it. They make a big deal out of it, and it seems like it might be part of his inner climax. Finding out what his discipline should be and then nothing. And not even a lot of clues for us to figure it out, other than, ok, he was a phyiscal kid. And if so, just make it be. To make it a plot point with no resolution is kind of weak.
Relevant to this discussion -- I've been reading 'The Magician's Book: A Skeptic's Adventures in Narnia,' by Laura Miller. Miller is a literary critic who writes about her own experiences with Narnia. She interviews a number of writers including Neil Gaiman and Susanna Clarke, and talks about her own experience with the books. She also covers a lot of biographical information about Lewis, his friendship with Tolkien, etc. I'm finding it to be pretty interesting, and probably overall a more thoughtful critique of fantasy lit than you'll get from Grossman.
I don't want to make it sound like I disliked 'The Magicians.' I did enjoy it a lot, it just made me hungry for a little more substantive critique.
this book was hard for me to deal with (the magicians). i was miserable through a good chunk of it (pretty much post-brakebills to the end) which suggests i didn't enjoy it, but i think i really liked it, and if it is what i think it is (a critiquey homage in fictional form), i think it's very well done, if not a bit sterile.
Kelly, I think you'd enjoy the Miller book. It touches on a lot of things we've talked about -- the differences between assigned reading and the reading you do for fun, etc. After the Narnia books, of course, though if you download the Kindle 'free sample,' it includes the intro, which is an essay that gives a taste of her thesis.
this is in danger of completely derailing this thread, but i really wish i would have read these books when i was younger. i'm worried that now that i'm "old" and i've heard enough of the analysis that the whimsy and potential love will be completely overshadowed by the analytical aspects.
Wait and read them with the kids? But that is partly what Miller writes about -- coming back to kids' books as an adult and finding value in them. Lewis's dedication to Lion says something like that: "I wrote this story for you, but when I began it I had not realized that girls grow quicker than books. As a result you are already too old for fairy tales, and by the time it is printed and bound you will be older still. But some day you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again."
That was an odd ending! It seemed to go against the drift of the rest of the book, that all this questing was futile -- unless the author is planning a sequel, or unless we're supposed to see the ending as a manifestation of how they're all still kidding themselves. Hmm.
The ending seems very stereotypical to me. As a matter of fact, I know I've seen a similar ending somewhere but I can't place it. It seems to contradict the point of the book, but certainly fits with Quentin's ability to just roll into situations of benefit without having to work for it.
it bothered me quite a bit. i felt like one of the main "points" of the book was about how magic ultimately wasn't all it was cracked up to be and eventually you were going to have to deal with reality. just when q seemed to be finally doing that (not well, but doing it), his friends show up deus-ex-machina style and "save him".
it felt more like a quality, but downer movie not testing well and getting a re-shoot to tack on a "happy" ending.
Kelly, Yes, it does feel like a "tacked on" ending to an extent. Especially because Julia just seems to put in an appearance to wrap her storyline up (Her description reminded me of Karolina from THE RUNAWAYS by Brian K. Vaughn.). Indeed the happy ending really undercuts - for me - any idea that Quentin has learned anything from his experiences.
I agree with everyone else. The ending was unnecessary and did take away from the themes that the book was playing with. At the time, I liked it from a pure emotional stance ("Wow! Go get 'em, guys!"), but upon further reflection, it rather annoyed me.
It felt similar to when you are at the end of a movie and they are setting you up for the sequel. It didn't really bother me. Quentin isn't doing anything with himself and he needed time away from the magicians in his life. I think at the point that they show up it is admittedly convenient but shows that Quentin is ready for whatever the next chapter is in his life is supposed to be.
I'm going to go against the grain on this one and say that I kind of liked it. While it did kind of go against the themes of the novel, it was certainly in character with the friendship that the Physical Kids had during the Brakebills days. Quentin wasn't really happy before his third year at Brakebills, and it took the Physical Kids to do that, so it makes sense that they'd help him through a tough spot again.
This goes back to Q never being happy. If he had chosen to stay, I might have had a feelign like he was going to grow as a character and become someone that could be happy. Instead off he goes again. But I say this... If they are going to do the whole "we're getting the band back together" bit and go back to Fillory and there is a sequel, then by God give us the traditional story book ending and let him find a way to bring Alice back.
Who would you cast in the movie version? Who would you cast if you could pull any actor dead/alive from any time period?
I've been thinking about this and haven't come up with an answer, yet, because I didn't have a strong physical sense of any of the characters. I wouldn't be surprised if they do make a movie out of this, and in that case, I think if they cast somebody appealing as Quentin, it would go a long way to making him more sympathetic. Like, for example, I find Harry Potter a lot more likeable in the most recent couple movies than I did in the books -- because we're not subjected to his capslocking internal monologue, for one, thing, and also because I really like Daniel Radcliffe. It would be kind of coup to cast Radcliffe in 'The Magicians,' actually -- though he seems so completely English, to me, having him play an American would be weird.
about 2/3 of the way through, alice "became" amanda seyfried for me. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1086543/
sadly, i think when it gets made (and you know it will) it'll be full of it kids who want to break out of their disney contracts. zac efron might make a good elliot, though ;)
Oh, Seyfried, excellent. . .I admit I kept picturing Alice as *Alice* (which I'm sure was partly intentional) with the blue and white dress from the Disney movie/based on the old illustrations. And it's kind of hard picturing that character growing up to sexual maturity without taking it to a creepy place. But. ..Amanda Seyfried certainly could fit the bill.
I don't think The Magicians would make a good movie. Too much happens in the novel for a two hour movie without making it drag. However, I think it could make a pretty kick-ass miniseries.
As for casting, its definitely difficult to think of anyone who would fit the roles. I really like Kevin McHale (Artie from Glee). I think he could play a good Eliot or Quentin.
Alice was my favorite, though I think it took a while for her to develop. It wasn't until Quentin went home with her and we learned about her parents that she really came into focus. I also enjoyed Eliot, who seemed to have the most distinctive voice.
Quentin was my least favorite -- other than his being the point-of-view character there didn't seem to be any reason to pay attention to him, which might be WHY he was the POV-character. Curiously, this didn't interfere with my enjoyment of the book all that much.
Like ohcaroline my favorite was Alice. In someways I wish she had narrated the book. I found my self wanting to know more about the spells themselves - and if Alice was the narrator maybe I would have gotten that information. She was also the most likable, and in someways the most unbelievable (which is not a bad thing).
Least favorite was probably Josh. He felt flat, silly, and almost pointless. A close second was Janet - that was seer personality. I felt like gritting my teeth every time she was in a scene.
If Alice had been the point of view character, though, we would have had to figure out what the hell she saw in Quentin. . .though maybe the author would also have had to make Quentin more appealing, so that might not be a bad thing.
My favorite character in the book was Penny. He was the only character in the book who didn't come across as selfish, entitled or who wasn't do disappointed with life and the world. He was the only character I cared about and essentially most our knowledge of him comes second hand and he disappears for large swathes of time.
Is it possible to say the rest of the cast? I really couldn't get into any of the characters. They felt like bad caricatures of the same personality. I had no interest in the disaffected lives and no pity for their boring overly privileged lives. Quentin was probably the worst - I was actively rooting against him the whole time. Eliot and Anais were probably the only characters I found interesting in the group. I was also a bit disturbed by Alice's characterization. Richard was quite possibly the most unnecessary character in fiction I've ever come across.
i was severely annoyed with pretty much everyone at some point. although i have to give both alice and janet credit for being who they were without too much moaning about their lot in life or how hard everything was.
i think penny might be the most interesting, but he was really undefined for being such an important piece.
This one's kind of hard for me, mostly since I didn't particularly like any of the characters. In my opinion they weren't especially filled out very well, and most just seemed to be one-dimensional characters (Janet hated people, Josh wasn't good at magic, Quentin hated life, etc.).
With that being said, I think my favorite character would be Alice simply because, well, Grossman actually put something behind her. While I can't for the life of me picture what she looks like (her description seems to change a lot, or maybe I'm just imagining that), I feel like I actually understand more about her than the other characters.
Quentin, on the opposite side of things, just makes me angry. Half of the things he says/does seemed almost forced to me (like any time he swears, and this coming from a 20 year old Bostonian who would put many sailors to shame with his swearing habits) and were a poor attempt at making a rebellious non-rebellious teenager (that is, someone who isn't rebellious by nature but is trying to be).
I can't say I had a favorite character for many of the reason that other have already stated. Most of the characters were not really flushed out for the most part or our views of them are distorted because we are seeing them through Quentin's less than reliable eyes.
I think most of the time you enjoy Alice because you get more time with her than with anyone else.
I think Quentin is a miserable, self-absorbed bore most of the time. He is that lost twenty something taken to somewhat of an extreme. That being said, I think he is a pretty good representation of that certain kind of lost twenty somthing who is bright but really has no idea what to do with himself and where he fits in the world.
The thing about the book was that there were a lot of characters who didn't have much personality. Josh and Richard come to mind.
I really did like Alice and Eliot. The scenes with them were just fun to read. And I really enjoyed the final confrontation with Alice and Quentin. It was refreshing to have someone tell Quentin what I was thinking.
I didn't like Quentin. This is probably the first novel I've read where I did not like the narrator/main character. He was just insufferable for the majority of the novel. I also didn't like Janet, but I'm less quick to mention it since I'm pretty sure I wasn't ever supposed to like her.
The book had a few distinct parts - the time at Brakebills, the time in Fillory, and the time in the contemporary world. What did you like the most, and what did you like the least?
I liked the latter part of the experience at Brakebills the best -- particularly the time beginning with the Antarctica trip up through graduation. It gave me really vivid memories of what it was like to be in college and have this awareness that you were about to be let loose in a world that didn't care about any of the things you did in college.
I wouldn't say any of the other parts was my least favorite, though the beginning (the first hundred pages or so) went a little slow for me.
I would say my favorite part of the book was the beginning of Q's time a Brakebills - for some reason (even though it was creepy) I truly enjoyed the first scene with The Beast. I liked the time before Q and Alice were together and everything was still an exciting mystery.
I would say my least favorite part was the time before Fillory. It just dragged on and on. They were bored, I was bored. It could have been much shorter.
The Beast scene was the exact moment where the book picked up for me -- I liked all of it after that, though I definitely liked some parts more than others.
I was actually really enjoying the book during the Brakebills section up till the antarctica section. It wasn't necessarily bad, but that section felt overly long and contained a rather unfortunate scene. For me, once Book I ended the book took a sharp down swing in quality. It started to pick up for me again early in Book IV, but then let me down with the finish.
Brian, I'm assuming the fox-sex scene was the part you didn't like? I thought that was kind of weird, especially because there hadn't been much hint of attraction between Alice and Quentin before that. (It doesn't help that it basically replicates my least favorite plot point from the comic 'Fables.')
Yep, you got it. I found the whole sequence to be uncomfortable and I rather didn't enjoy the implication that Alice was in the midst of being violated against her will and then just sort of "went with it." I was extremely bothered by that, in fact. I enjoyed a lot of the rest of the Antarctica section, but my opinion was really soured by that little gem.
i thought that alice and q were inevitable, especially once they started distancing themselves from penny. the fox scene didn't bother me. i think grossmen spent enough time with the geese that it was clear the animal instinct pretty much took over. that's how it would happen if they were foxes. to me, alice's reaction was less like someone who'd been violated and more like a girl who got drunk and realized the next day what a stupid thing she'd done.
oh, and it helped when all that was going on (and the drinking) to actively remind myself they were in college, not an extremely vice-ridden high school.
My gut instinct is to say that the stuff in Fillory was my least favorite, especially the section leading up to the group's foray into Fillory. This is where Quentin really got to be disenfranchised with his lot in life. But, I've kinda gone through a similar bout in my life. The depression that he's going through really struck a nerve with me and I understood where he was coming from. I think that's the best thing that Grossman did with this book: describe depression without actually naming it that. It resonated with me while frustrating me at the same time.
I enjoyed the final book, the real life stuff, best. The whole idea of forcing yourself to move on and regulate the past to the past was needed. The last scene broke away from all that and took away from the thrust of the book. It felt odd and a bit tacked on.
I really enjoyed the descriptions of what it felt like to be a goose and flying down to the Arctic. It was very vivid for me. I understand how the Quentin and Alice as foxes scene can be off putting for some but when I read it I again thought it was a very interesting and well thought out. I felt from the beginning that Quentin and Alice would end up together one way or the other and I putting them together like this was fun and interesting but again, I can see it from the other side as well. I also liked the scene between Quentin and the sister (Jane?) at the end of the Fillory adventure. I thought the fact that they had fought the Beast over and over again and this was the best outcome they were going to get was great. I have only read one of the Narnia books so I didn't necessarily catch many of the references to those so maybe this ending was more obvious to those who have.
My favourite parts of the novel were the beginning of the Brakebills section to end (with the exception of the Antarctica section, which I didn't care too much for). I also enjoyed the Fillory trip once it went underway. The Tomb was a really fun scene.
I didn't like the time before Fillory. Each character seemed to just fall into a slump. Quentin was also the most unlikable during this part. The entire dinner scene just dragged on and on, and culminated with Quentin cheating, which I hated.
Is The Magicians a critique of, a parody of, or an homage to books by C.S. Lewis, J.K. Rowling and Le Guin?
I have to admit, I don't know Le Guin (or I don't know what stories this would parallel to, though I've read a bit of her short fiction). I'd be interested in any insights into that.
I thought that Lewis/Narnia was the story that this had the most to say about. (The Harry Potter resemblances were more superficial). Is it fair to say it's a Harry Potter homage + a Lewis critique?
the book feels like grossman has read an absurd amount of "modern fantasy"(*), got frustrated and said "it would never happen that way," and then set about writing a book that was "real." magic is boring and tedious. having everything at your disposal makes you a dull, boring person full of vice unless you struggle against it. a "quest" in a magical world is bloody and violent and scary and most folks wouldn't be able to handle it half as well as their D&D/RPG alter-egos.
i fall squarely in the critique camp, but with the caveat that to write it so detailed, you must love it more than a little, too.
(*)i'm sure "modern fantasy" has an agreed upon definition that may be different than what i mean. what i mean is a book that starts off in the real world in more or less the present time, but introduces a hidden layer of magicalness and/or portal to an alternate realm that's always been under the surface.
I can see the areas of critique and personal changes (i.e. "If I went to Narnia this is what I would have done") but for the most part I feel that anyone who has clearly devoted so much time and effort into writing a book that has all of these grand illusions to other fantasy stories must have a great love for every one of the stories he references. So I vote for it being a "critical homage"
I would say that the book is part homage and part critique but that the critique is very superficial. I found it be very superficial in that the critical elements had very little to do with any one of the previous stories' content but rather the trappings. In a sense it felt more shock theater - "No, this other world would be scary and the characters wouldn't be able to deal with it" - than it felt like a meaningful exploration of how that world worked. Indeed, Grossman does some excellent things with the "Magic School" reinvention. However, the labored/studied magic disappears in Book III. There is a brief mention that they have to reconfigure their magic for different circumstances as they go through the new world and that their magic won't work in Fillory, yet they all seem rather able later in the book, which rather annoyed me. But at the end of the day, it all comes down to Grossman changing stories geared toward children into a cogent adult fantasy novel, and I feel that in the attempt any parody or homage in the book came across as feeling forced. Through the book I was left the feeling "Why don't I just go get out my Narnia paperbacks?"
@Caroline, Ursula K. Le Guin penned a number of fantasy novels that dealt with similar themes. I would say they're the missing link between Narnia and Potter in Gorssman's mind. Grossman was heavily influenced by the depiction of magic in "The Wizard of Earth Sea" which was more practiced and learned than innate.
Brian, I think I agree with you about the balance between homage (ripoff) and critique. I don't mind that balance, necessarily, but I'm not sure that the point of the critique was very effective. I *have* been rereading Narnia (and reading about Narnia) as a result of reading this book, and the thing is, a lot of that "magic is hard and not like they expected based on books" -- that's PART OF Lewis's writing. The critique of the god figures (the two rams as stand-ins for Aslan) is a little more on point, but frankly, that's pretty low-hanging fruit. Anybody who reads the Narnia books as an adult has to be struck (positively or negatively) by Lewis's use of Christianity (and a fairly conservative strain of Christianity) in the storytelling. I'm not sure that Grossman really says anything beyond the obvious.
(Err, in case that last comment was less than clear -- the theme that 'this is harder than you thought based on the adventure books you've read' is a theme that's explicitly, textually part of the Narnia books. Grossman's not telling us anything Lewis didn't already tell us, he's just being more graphic and extreme in doing so).
Caroline, I had actually forgotten the "Magic is hard" aspect of Lewis' writing - it's probably been a decade since I last read them - but I can definitely see Lewis using that. I think in regard to the "Magic is hard" it's lampooning the "either you get it or don't" nature of magic in the Potter novels, which is a slight simplification of Rowling's universe's "mechanics." That said, I was a bit annoyed that after all this build up and hints that their magic won't work the same way in Fillory because of the Circumstances, it's never mentioned how they overcame this setback to fight the Beast and his assorted henchpersons. It felt like a cheat to me. As well, the characters often seemed to forget about their spells when it was convenient to the plot for them to do so. (When they're cold in Fillory, not a single person attempts a heat spell - even failingly - they all just truck back to the button. Hunting the White Stag, Quentin actually does use the warmth spell but it doesn't quite work! But then, I'm a notorious nit picker!)
As you point out, pointing out the religious underpinnings of Narnia is nothing new and the book really only goes for the most obvious critique of those themes. I have to admit, early in the book I was expecting a bit more from their eventual confrontation and was disappointed that at what it amounted to. It seemed as if Grossman wanted to talk about it, but didn't want to leave any room for interpretation. This accounts for the one-sided religion/reason screaming match in Book II that really came across as unnecessary since it was obvious none of the characters - nor the author - care to entertain the idea that Richard may have an argument. And this is what disappointed me, because it felt like it was gearing up for a big critique of the elements of Narnia by appropriating Narnia's form, and all it does is serve up the same surface-level arguments people have been making since the books were published. The same is true of the Potter critique, but that felt more fully realized. Perhaps there should have been two books?
(I had typed this up last night and lost it due to my some weird internet issues, so I tried to respond similarly. ::Shakes fist at the internet.::)
Hmm, maybe it's not fair to look at this primarily as a critique of the fantasy books? I tend to agree with Brian that Grossman is mostly just appropriating the trappings of these other fantasy works to tell his own story. But then, that's what just about any work of genre fiction is; if it's not an appropriation or response to other works that have been written, then it doesn't belong in genre. Maybe this needs to be its own question.
Yes! Being a beer drinker, and considering how much wine the Physical Kids consume in this book, I think a beer aged in wine casks was a perfect choice. I've always found it fun to drink alongside characters in books I read, and since this was a particularly strong brew, I thought it went perfect with the scenes in which the group was spiraling into hedonistic behavior. Solid choice! I'll definitely buy another bottle!
Quentin says, ?The problem with growing up is that once you?re grown up, people who aren?t grown up aren?t fun anymore.? (p. 197). Has Quentin grown up at the end of the novel?
There's a quote from a Doctor Who episode that I think encapsulates my response: "Back when I first started, at the very beginning, I was always trying to be old and grumpy and important like you do when you're young..." - The (Tenth) Doctor, "Time Crash". Quentin is struggling to be grown up throughout the book because he believes it will free him. To that extent, he just embraces an attitude that he feels is grown up, but isn't necessarily so. He finds himself so above Penny and the younger students that he *must* be old and they must be young. He puts on this face, and it utterly collapses in Book III, which is probably one of the few times where I thought anything really changed for Quentin. He then goes on that sojourn in Book IV which makes him a little more selfless, but whatever he seems to have learned in Fillory ends up being lost when he goes back to the real world. (Another comment on Narnia, perhaps?) And this might be the joy of the ending... he embraces the fact that he's not grown up, and thus can break from the real world and what little responsibility he has because he's not ready to be grown up.
In my opinion, no. He I think is "grown up" in that he's seen some horrible things (his "girlfriend" dying, people being mutilated, etc.), but he doesn't actually do anything with it. Instead, he recovers, he goes home, and then he sits at a computer all day with (from the sound of it) no responsibilities whatsoever. I think he's trying to grow up, but it just doesn't exactly come through
I think the question is an interesting one because it assumes that there is a point where we become grown up instead of understanding that growing up is a process that happens at different rates different people. Quentin's biggest issue is that he is always looking for that thing that will make him happy or make him feel complete as a person. Of course nothing ever does because the concept is a fallacy. No one thing can make us complete or make us grown up. I imagine that it would be difficult to grow and mature when the simple fact of being a magician means everything will be handed to you on a platter and you can do as much or as little as you want with your life. I think by the end of the book, Quentin has matured and may actually realize that he has to figure out his own happiness and therefore is willing to go back out into the world when the physical kids show up.
There's a big difference between "grown up" and "matured". I think that Quentin has definitely grown up by the end. He isn't relying on a fantasy getaway. He's more-or-less accepted the world for what it is. I definitely relate to the scene where the quote comes from. I'm still fairly young (21), but just walking around the mall, I see people who remind me of my friends from being a teenager, and they just seem immature to me.
I don't know if I've thought about what a real magician would be like. That's an interesting question. I might say, instead, that ALL of the characters in this book seem more like what I think real magicians might be like than the characters in (for example) Harry Potter. They're like people I've known in academia, and that's where I would imagine magicians fitting in the real world. Not to say that Rowling's characters are lacking in realism, but she takes a different approach; she doesn't really get into the mechanics of how the magic works, for instance.
(And I think I've answered all the questions I have something to say on, for starters -- I'll be interested in seeing other people's responses; I might also be interested in a livechat, either on Skype or in a chat room, or something of that nature).
I think ohcaroline hit the nail on the head. What I particularly enjoyed about the book was the premise that magic is so difficult to be able to do that only a very few people would have the intellect to do it as opposed to it being some innate talent that you either have or don't. I think the general feel of the book typifies what it would be like to be a magician more than any one specific character.
agreed. i think the "point" of some of the tertiary characters (or ones that just appear like Richard) were to serve as a survey of how magicians integrated into the "real" world, and what options were available to them.
that being said, i'd probably turn out like Alice or Quentin. it would all depend on my origin story ;)
I'm not quite sure if the question is asking "Who is the closest to the 'Perfect form' of Magician?" or if it is asking "Who is the closest to being what a magicians would be like in real life?" Quickly, I'll cover both. For the former, I would say Penny is probably closest to being a "magician" (Nerd alert: Technically, they're sorcerers since they do not use wands and their magic is based more on knowledge and adjustment, but that's just me splitting D&D hairs!). He really cares about the craft and learning the deeper motivations for magic, whereas the rest of the cast seem to take care in practicing their magic, they don't really seem to care about it beyond their discipline. I would say Alice comes next as she, too, seems to be interested in the magic of magic.
On the other hand, I do think the book is littered with characters who really show off "Magicians in the real world" in various ways. And I think that's what I appreciated most about it. I would have liked Quentin to have met people doing *actual* work in magic (I had the same complaint about Harry Potter, he never met anyone who was a magical secretary he just met a lot of important people). Quentin only ever meets eccentrics and academics. But the hints really sold it for me. I would say I liked the idea of (horribly underused) Julia learning magic off the 'net because she half-remembered going to Brakebills. There seemed to be a goldmine for critique and exploration located there, but sadly it never panned out.
There's a Ben Folds song about a character who's never content because, "Everywhere I go, damn, there I am!" That kind of fits my feelings about Quentin. He doesn't like himself enough to be happy with himself so I'm not sure that any change of circumstances was going to help. I feel like he's better off in the end if only for knowing that Fillory isn't a magical solution.
that's the classic "is it better to be a happy and ignorant fool or a miserable wise man" quest. i don't think Q is any better off knowing that magic is real, but i'd rather be the happy fool any day of the week. (i'm cynical)
Quentin would find a way to be miserable in whatever he was doing. If there is one thing that seems to be consistent throughout the book it is Quentin going from one thing to the next in hopes of that thing being the one true thing that will make him happy. I do think he is happier being a Magician and feeling like one of the elites of society.
Quentin is incapable of being happy. From the start of the book, he's miserable at the thought of having to do an interview for a school he *knows* he can get into. He faces no challenge he can't overcome until late in the book and still has the gall to complain about how hard it is despite how easily it all comes to him. He bristles at anyone deigning to compete with him unless he can find some character flaw with them and sits in judgement of all those around him. It's not even a matter of ignorance is bliss because Quentin was like this before encounters with his - ultimately disappointing - fantasy life. And I think that's the theme of the book, that reality always falls short or reality.
Respond
Some of my bulleted thoughts.
- Two of my favorite scenes were when Q and Alice finish the race in Antartica and find out that they were the only two to do it. Solidifying that they belong together. And the second was when she sleeps with Penny and Q figures it out. His rage. I could really feel it.
- I really wished there would have been more of a pay off about the first girl he liked and when she wanted to get into brake bills. I would have liked to have seen that somehow come back in the end.
- I also liked as Q was chasing the questing beast, that Liev offhandedly mentions all these parts of fillory that could spark whole fillory adventures, making my mind wander as to what might happen.
A couple of problems
- I hated when they first got to fillory that they were whining about being cold. Two of them ran to the south pole... naked. Really, they couldnt have cast similar spells to fight the cold?
- Q, about mid way through the book says "he must have been shedding his life all along without noticing it" But in fact he had and he had mentioned the very fact at least two occaisions before that moment.
Overall, it was an ok book. There were times I was loving it and as I posted on the thread when this book was chosen, I was hoping this became a series. As I went further in the book, I just got bogged down. There were about 3 instances of about 5-10 screens on a kindle where I couldn't put the book down, otherwise I had no problems reading 3% a night and just going to bed.