This is a book about people talking about what they want to do. Most of the book is basically that. A lot of talking and describing how things should This is a book about people talking about what they want to do. Most of the book is basically that. A lot of talking and describing how things should go or how things will go or who people are or what they will do. If you like that, you will love this book. If you like a book that's more about action, that allows you to get to know the characters through what they do and how it relates to their motivations, you will not be as satisfied with this book.
Am I saying this is a bad book? Absolutely not. But I just feel like things were dragged out, and we were told about how amazing and tough certain characters like Libby and Nico were, but didn't get to see it very much. I think that Tristan is probably the most developed character, and in my opinion, he is the main protagonist of the book. The reveal at the end kind of annoyed me, more than anything. I can admit it was a clever twist, but it just led to more talking and little action. I feel that Reina was criminally underused and underdeveloped. Honestly, Nico was as well. For him being the counterpart to Libby, I don't think he got as much focus in this story. Calum is profoundly unlikable. Parisa has a mean girl meets poor little rich girl meets Catherine from Cruel Intentions vibe. But for all that, I kind of liked her. Gideon was probably one of the most intriguing characters, and the book wasn't even about him. Libby was extremely neurotic, but I can't say I disliked her, although she seemed like she was written to be unlikeable.
The story idea is pretty cool, and I had high hopes when it started. I thought the talkiness would lead to action and big things unfolding. However, there is only one really exciting scene where they get to show their stuff, in my opinion. I normally like a lot of internal dialogue, but this book didn't work for me on that level. I feel like the internal dialogue didn't help me to understand the characters that all much (other than Tristan and kind of Libby).
Let's talk about the magic system. It would be interesting if it was well-described enough. I think more time should have been spent on working that out when this story was plotted and written, even if it didn't all make it on the page. I still don't quite understand how Libby or Nico's magic works. I sort of get Tristan, I understand Parisa and Calum's quite well. I think Reina's magic needs better exposition. I don't think you always have to understand the magic system, but I do think the author needs to be able to convey that they understand it, even if they chose not to explain it to the readers. I liked the "let's put a team together" dynamic, but I didn't like the execution, and like I said, it went nowhere because they spent most of time talking about it instead of doing stuff with it.
*I'm new to the "Dark Academia" theme, but I would say in the books I have read in this genre, this one doesn't stand out. I started reading The Library at Mount Char around the same time and I think I like that one a lot more although I had to put it down for a while for other reads. It has a bit of a similar vibe to me. I definitely liked Ninth House a lot more. I feel like this kind of also falls into the magic school category. I really enjoyed The Magicians series, even if the characters were unlikable, and I think it's a better set of books personally. Maybe not a fair comparison because it skews a lot more to the fantasy elements than this one does.
Will I read the next book? Yes, because I want to know what happens next. I'm a bit of a masochist that way....more
I have watched a couple of movies that were adaptations of the Parker series, so I was somewhat aware of this book. When we had the antihero group reaI have watched a couple of movies that were adaptations of the Parker series, so I was somewhat aware of this book. When we had the antihero group read for Action/Adventure Aficionados, this definitely came to mind. And yes, Parker is an antihero. He's a criminal, has no misgivings about killing, is very ruthless and can be quite brutal. The way it's written, he doesn't come off as a sympathetic character. Having said that, I found myself immersed in his point-of-view. I didn't like him, but I didn't hate him either. While I enjoyed both cinematic portrayals of Parker that I've seen, neither truly captured the silent air of menace about him that wafts off the page. I think it helps if one is aware going in what you're dealing with. He gets double-crossed and is single-minded in his pursuit of business. There were honestly a couple of moments that I worried he would go past a hard line for me. There's one scene that particularly didn't sit right with me, but otherwise, most of his actions were against people who were arguably worse than him.
The writing style is very distinctive. It's terse, but at the same time, it gives a very clear picture of what is happening. It feels very cinematic, and yet, I don't think either of the adaptations captured the exact feel of the narrative. I would like a movie version set in the original time period.
This is one of those books where it's about the experience. There aren't any characters to root for, and Parker isn't a hero. If you go into the book with that understanding, I think his actions were be in the right context. If you like a tightly written crime thriller about revenge with an unforgiving protagonist and a very retro feel, this one is probably for you.
A quick comment on the narrator: He was very good. Definitely captured the feel of the story and the characterization. ...more
"Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell" is truly an epic. I started this several years ago on audio, but I had to stop due to a change in my work/commute sit"Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell" is truly an epic. I started this several years ago on audio, but I had to stop due to a change in my work/commute situation. Recently, and several years later, I was able to pick this up again. I was spurred in part by my love of Magic stories, historical fiction, epistolary and meta-fiction, and also because I had watched the miniseries, which is currently on Netflix. I was interested in this book, but I will admit it is a commitment. Things unfold very leisurely, and assuredly, that's the seductive aspect of this book.
Jonathan Strange and Gilbert Norrell almost seem like polar opposites, or at least two sides of the same coin. Their worldviews are slightly different. Jonathan Strange loves the mystery and practice of magic. He is experiential. He is truly passionate about magic. Norrell is scholarly, fearful, and controlling. He wants to keep all the goodies for himself, but at the same time, he never dives in deep into the well of knowledge. It's really kind of sad, to me. Norrell is a very good magician. He knows magic, but applies himself in a very scholarly and unimaginative way. For him, his practice is skimming the surface. They form an alliance, on Strange's part, it's to gain access to the enormous body of knowledge that Norrell has on tap, in the voluptuous collection of books on magic that he jealously keeps to himself like Smaug does with his gold hoard.
Clarke takes great care to build her characters so that we think we understand them very well. As the story goes along, we realize that they don't even understand themselves. But before this book is over, they will start that process and get very far down that journey, and the reader is there to join them.
Susanna Clarke takes England and gives it a fantastic origin story of sorts in that English Magic has been a huge part of what it means to be English, since the great King of the North, John Uskglass, who was once enslaved to the Faerie race as an infant, but became one of their great kings, and who brings magic to England. Many years later, the glory of English Magic has mostly faded, and Norrell, who believes himself completely righteous in his quest to Restore English Magic, does his very best to quench any authentic magic that is not practiced by his own hands, and on a very small level (comparatively speaking). I really enjoyed how England is revealed as a distinctive place in which magic is not a possible but a reality, and how John Uskglass' legacy is part of the stone and in the roots of England itself. In some ways, Uskglass is a bit of a King Arthur figure, if Arthur was actually Merlin, with some Mordred thrown in.
Another part about this book I loved was all the footnotes. If there's anything that makes my bibliophile heart giddy, it's the use of footnotes in a fiction book that refer to other fictional books. I always have this urge to track down the books. To be honest, I would not have found this book so compelling or accessible without the footnotes. I feel that including the footnotes highlights Norrell's selfish wrongheadedness about what England needs. I think that it offends me deeply because of my love of knowledge and my passion about education. I hate the idea that someone tries to deny knowledge to others or access to that knowledge. He is in fact, keeping England from reaching its full potential by squirreling away all the knowledge and jealously gatekeeping and guarding it.
While I vastly preferred and liked Strange, I do think on some levels he did neglect his wife, or at least, took her for granted. Although I think by the end, he learned exactly the enormous cost of that. Jonathan's great love was magic, and while he loved his wife, I did feel that he loved magic more than he loved her. It's almost as though this aspect of the story is another way to critique the characters against each other. While Strange seems more adjusted and more open, his prioritizing magic over his wife doesn't do him credit in comparison to Norrell, who seems to have decided early on in life that magic would be his spouse, so to speak. I have to say, I think Norrell would have been an awful husband.
There are inherent critiques of 19th Century English society. Classicism, racism, sexism, bigotry, xenophobia to a certain extent. All of this comes under the microscope, but in a thoughtful way.
Stephen Black is a compelling character and he becomes the stand-in for the reader, and I believe him to be the more sympathetic and relatable character. Stephen is a black man who is servant to Sir Walter Pole, whose young, beautiful wife Emma, Lady Pole, becomes a pawn in a deep game that involves Norrell and a spiteful, murderous faerie named "The Gentleman with the Thistledown Hair". Norrell, in his selfishness, isn't even privy to what he has wrought and the suffering he has brought down on Lady Pole and Stephen Black. Norrell goes on about his business, hiding his deep, dark secret and continuing to consolidate his power as the authority on English Magic. But Stephen is deeply involved, and the reader feels deeply for him, and if they are like me, root for him.
Stephen Black's character allows the reader to examine the inherent racism of English society. Stephen is not considered an Englishman, even though he's lived there his whole life. All he can help to achieve is to be the butler to a great man like Sir Walter. When "The Gentleman with the Thistledown Hair" takes a shine to him, and promises to elevate him to the role that a great prophecy has predicted, Stephen still maintains his inherent sense of justice and goodness, and a great deal more loyalty than is owed. At this time, slavery was not legal on English soil and within the English Navy. So, while Stephen is technically free, his ability to live as a free man with all the rights of an Englishman is in effect limited by the darkness of his skin. Now, on top of this, he is bound to the will of a capricious faerie and subject to being privy to the monstrous creature's machinations. He also feels an extreme amount of concern and sympathy for Lady Pole.
Lady Pole is a prisoner of the fairy due to the bargain made by Norrell with the faerie, dancing night after night in his home in Lost-Hope in Faerie. Her husband, neglectful at best, believes her to be ill and mad, and continues to take the advice of the wrong people, doing nothing to help her situation. So it's a double whammy. Lady Pole is trapped by her situation as a woman in a male-dominated society and also subject to the whims of a faerie. I think that considering what she goes through, she shows a lot of strength that she is able to retain her sanity with all she suffers.
There is a cast of secondary characters who help move the story along, and also play pivotal roles in the rivalry/partnership of Strange and Norrell, and also interact with the magicians and they serve the cause of English Magic (and their own aspirations).
Childermass, Norrell's servant (who pretty much acts as his right hand), struck me as a figure who has much more importance in ways that didn't quite develop in this book. I feel that I'm meant to see more of him. I don't know if there's a sequel in the works, but I believe that Clarke should spend some time delve into his mysteries. Also, I would love to see more of John Uskglass.
While this book unfolds at a leisurely place, and in some ways, it's more of an intellectually engaging read, I did find myself very emotionally involved in the story. I felt for Strange and his wife Arabella, the battle scenes really hit me hard, and I laughed out loud many times. Of course, there is so much pathos in Stephen Black and Lady Pole's situations. "The Gentleman with the Thistledown Hair" is so monstrous and I really disliked him. And then there are Norrell's hanger on-ers, Lascelles and Drawlight, are utter scoundrels. And oh, there's a cameo by Lord Byron himself, who finds inspiration in Strange's bizarre turn of luck much later in the book.
The description of the magic is not so much into the light show and special effects. It's described more as a deep connection to nature that causes the magic or as something that happens through natural processes. Sometimes the characters feel a twisting in their gut or dizziness when the spell is working. But don't look for really sparkly pyrotechnics here. The spells have the most quirky names, and Clarke goes all in with footnotes to explain why they are named as such. It's pretty fun.
The narrator is really good. He has an excellent voice for this type of fiction, and is able to vary his voice to fit the personalities of the characters. He manages to have just the right tone for each one that they feel distinctive from one another.
I think that this book is so clever in all the right ways. It's a quiet read that sneaks up on you, but you find yourself deeply drawn in, until the very last sentence ends....more
I gave this four stars, but my feelings about this book are difficult to coalesce down to a simple numeric rating. I read this with my Readings in theI gave this four stars, but my feelings about this book are difficult to coalesce down to a simple numeric rating. I read this with my Readings in the Graphic Novel course, and I agree that it is seminal graphic novel/comic reading. However, there are some things about this book that I didn't care for. Ultimately, I would say that like and dislike are not the best terms to apply to it.
"Watchmen" started a whole ripple through comic book/superhero fiction that is still profoundly influential in the many years since it was published. The dark and aheroic/antiheroic superhero/crimefighter motif that subsumed what we know about comic books in the 21st Century can largely be attributed to this book, although Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns is also essential. I like darker superhero stories, but some aspects of this one made it hard to sympathize or care for many of the characters. I had to write essays for my class on our readings, and I have some longer opinions on this book that I intend to post on my Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ profile under my writings.
This book is very thought-provoking and my class had some very interesting discussions on it. I have to also say that I thought about it for a long time after I finished it. My viewpoint evolved on a few of the characters as well. However, some, I hated to the very end. I could actually write about 20 pages about this book, but I won't. I'll try to coalesce it into a reasonably short review.
"Watchmen" is essentially a murder mystery with masked crimefighters/superheroes. The narrator is extremely atypical, the very questionable person of Rorschach, who is a violent vigilante that wears a hood that changes its expression, much like the Rorschach Test his mask resembles. He is determined to find out who killed Eddie Blake aka The Comedian, an original member of the Minutemen, who later became part of the Crimebusters. He goes to visit other former members: Dan Dreiberg (Nite Owl II), Jonathan Osterman (Dr. Manhattan) and Laurie Juspescyk (Silk Spectre II), and Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias) to warn them that they might be next. Along the way, the reader gets to experience how conflicted the life of a masked crimefighter and/or superhero/villain is. The story is set in an alternate history where Nixon was never caught in the Watergate scandal, the US won the Vietnam War, and in the 1980s, America and the Soviet Union are on the brink of war (the Doomsday Clock frighteningly close to midnight).
Each character has a slightly different perspective of how the passage of the Keene Act made their crimefighting work illegal. Dan and Laurie bond over missing the excitement of it all. Veidt has gone on to build an huge business empire and is a celebrity for his incredible level of fitness. Dr. Manhattan is mostly interested in his research and has become disconnected from human concerns, an issue in his relationship with Laurie, who has been his girlfriend for about twenty years (since she was sixteen).
Intertwined with the overarching story is a subplot about a kid reading a pirate comic. The adventures of the comic protagonist mirror the overall story themes. A huge part of this story is how heroism is not what its cracked up to be. Also, becoming strong enough to achieve a goal can be a path paved with destruction, and in some instances leading to the 'hero' becoming a 'villain'. And really, what is heroism? That's a question posed for every lead character. Since this is a dark, and in some ways, nihilistic-toned work, the answers aren't encouraging. The Comedian is one of the most wretched examples of someone having abilities and using them for bad purposes. The Comedian is an incredibly adept fighter and soldier, but is also very corrupt, acting as a bully, knowing right and wrong but not doing it. He makes excuses for the evil things he does because the world is bad and it's going to burn anyway, essentially. Dr. Manhattan, Jon Osterman is a physicist whose body was obliterated in an accident at the science testing facility where he worked in 1959. When he comes back, it is as a being with seemingly godlike powers that separates him from the rest of the humans he once interacted with, eventually leading to his breakup with his girlfriend. The US government exploits his powers to exercise dominance over other nations (in fact, he's part of the reason that Vietnam surrendered). He's seen and done some of the worst things to other humans, which doesn't help his cynicism about the better parts of humanity. At the point that this story begins, his only tendril of contact is through Laurie. Eventually, that's gone as well when Laurie breaks up with him. But when it's clear that the world is on the brink of obliteration, Laurie has to convince him to care again.
The more I ruminated about this story, Osterman/Manhattan became more of a sympathetic character to me. He seems the less empathetic, but in some way, he strikes me as feeling more deeply than anyone else. I can completely understand his decision to retreat to a self-built crystal castle on Mars. Sometimes I wouldn't mind having me own, but probably in the mountains in some undiscovered cold part of the world with plenty of snow and ice. People are exhausting. It hurts to care, especially when others aren't all in with you. The circumstances of the accident that gave him his powers were heartbreaking, and he was abandoned to his fate. That's soul-destroying right there. Having said that, he's not off the hook for the questionable things he did and how he treats Laurie.
Ugh, Rorschach. Where do I start? That dude is a bucket of crazy. I feel for what he went through as a child, but it twisted him until he was so broken. All of us are f*&%$! up, but there's no fixing him. He represents the worst of self-righteousness. He's so rigid in his sense of right and wrong that he won't compromise, but then he is bigoted, racist, has poor hygiene and litters in Antarctica. His contempt and mean treatment of his landlady because she has six kids by different men. And he's extremely violent. It's a huge Glass Houses kind of scenario. To me, he is not a hero. He is an antihero, and he's the narrator, but other than the horrors of his childhood, it's really hard to feel sympathetic. While there are parallels between him and other vigilante crimefighters I admire like Batman and Daredevil, his core feels rotten to me. I can't get past that.
Laurie is just plain underwritten. She is interpreted through her relations with the male characters. I am grateful that graphic novels have matured and evolved past this kind of writing, frankly. Laurie could have been a lot more interesting a character if deeper layers to her persona were made available. Just delving into how her stint as Silk Spectre differs from her mother's tenure. How interacting with and in a world of violence has changed from the 30s to the 60s and 70s. Maybe just not stopping at her relationships with men and why her mother and her don't get along.
Dan is honestly a bit on the underwritten side as well. He's written a good-natured guy with a facility with gadgets and a desire for action. His mid-life crisis has to do with missing that sense of purpose and it translates to feelings of inadequacy about not being Nite Owl anymore. Maybe because Moore didn't really know what to do with a guy who is more or less 'normal'.
Veidt is such a sneeringly superior person in his own mind. I can't say too much because I'd reveal some things better left to be read. Suffice it to say that he reminds me of the so-called polite white supremacy that is increasingly in vogue (especially since the 2016 presidential election).
Another issue is the treatment of the GLBTQ characters. Many meet unfortunate ends and their peccadillos are looked at as being unforgivable in a way that being a violent sociopath, bully or rapist are not.
I think a psychology doctoral student could write a hell of a thesis on this book.
There is so much cynicism in this book. It's hard to take in. Some ugliness not easily forgotten. I feel like the psychiatrist who interviews Rorschach in that sense. While I'm not necessarily into the sugary sweet kind of fiction writing, I think it can definitely go the wrong way with the dark and dreary. I'd be a hypocrite to disavow this book. I think it had some insights to give me, and something to offer as far as story and artwork. I gave it four stars because to give less didn't seem fair to me. I couldn't say it was life-changing or a graphic novel that would make the top of my list. I can understand why it would for some though.
I'm sad to say that I liked the first volume more. They managed to change an antihero into a garden variety jerk who is majorly lethal to anyone who hI'm sad to say that I liked the first volume more. They managed to change an antihero into a garden variety jerk who is majorly lethal to anyone who happens to be in his way. While I wouldn't condone being an assassin as the ideal career choice in real life, I do like a nuanced assassin lead character. While he is obviously skilled, Lobo lacks any other credibility with me. Understandable that he might have angst about the circumstances that occurred in the last book, but this was not dealt with in a believable way. Lobo is just a violent individual who is good at killing and not very good at being someone you might like under the right circumstances. I struggled to finish this, and I thought about turning it into the library unfinished, but frankly, I wanted to have credit for reading it on my reading challenge. The art is good, but there is a lot of blood and guts, no big surprise. More than anything, I felt like I could care less what happened to this guy, and I felt sorry for anyone who happened to be anywhere in the vicinity of him. Glad this was at my library and I didn't pay to read it....more
This was definitely pretty intense. At times it was hard to follow what was going on with the story. The artwork was good, but the layout was disorganThis was definitely pretty intense. At times it was hard to follow what was going on with the story. The artwork was good, but the layout was disorganized, which detracted from my rating considerably. Constantine is definitively anti-heroic in this volume. He makes an ugly, mean choice that makes him the de facto bad guy to parties concerned, even if he believes it's for the greater good. I asked myself a few times if I agreed with his decision and on one level, I can't see it working out better the other way. That doesn't make what he did any better. I didn't understand the magic at all, but maybe that's good. I am sure that I don't need to know how to do sorcery anyway. I am studying Revelation at my Bible Study and we just finished Revelation 9, in which the angels are sounding the trumpets, and Constantine makes a reference to that. Who knew I'd have this kind of crossover in this week?
This is still not my favorite New 52, but I keep picking it up. That must count for something?...more
This proposition player has become a whale. He's playing for the highest stakes he has ever been handed--human souls.
I wasn't a big fan of this graphiThis proposition player has become a whale. He's playing for the highest stakes he has ever been handed--human souls.
I wasn't a big fan of this graphic novel. While the idea was very interesting, I didn't like the direction the story took or the main character much at all. Joe is a jerk, a lowlife, and a self-absorbed, insensitive putz. Strong words, but warranted. The folklore and mythology aspects could have been an advantage in this book, but they weren't. The situations in which they acted sort of stole their thunder, considering the opportunity to have all the mythological godfigures in the same place. It would have been interesting to show traits that distinguished them from each other to people who had some background in their various folkloric origins. I had hopes that there would be a big stakes poker game with the mythical godfigures and Joe, but the author chose to end this one differently. Also, I think this is one of those stories where a jerk gets rewarded for his bad behavior. Not a fan of this plot device in the slightest. Lastly, the humor is irreverent and in some places, downright perverse.
I can't think of a whole lot to recommend about this book, other than the artwork was lovely and the concept mildly interesting. As much as I love the Fables series by Willingham, I didn't care much for this one.
I can see how this book might appeal to some readers, but it didn't really work for me. It took a while for me to get into the story (granted, I wasn'I can see how this book might appeal to some readers, but it didn't really work for me. It took a while for me to get into the story (granted, I wasn't able to read the first two books). The storyline was too gritty, and the main leads were downright unpalatable more times than not. Also, the plotting wasn't as tight as this concept needed. I admit the ending had some good suspense.
I can only give this 2.5/5.0 stars.
Reviewed for Affaire de Coeur Magazine for the February 2014 issue: ....more
The terribly unlikable heroine killed this book for me. The Greek Mythology is interesting, but otherwise, this didn't have much of an original feel tThe terribly unlikable heroine killed this book for me. The Greek Mythology is interesting, but otherwise, this didn't have much of an original feel to me, and wasn't groundbreaking as far as female-lead urban fantasy.
**spoiler alert** For starters, I did not enjoy this story, and I did not see why Edna's life was utterly miserable. I didn't care about her, really. **spoiler alert** For starters, I did not enjoy this story, and I did not see why Edna's life was utterly miserable. I didn't care about her, really. And her plight didn't speak to me at all.
Everything is subjective, however, Edna has many more options and choices than some women ever have. More than anything she has safety and the ability to protect herself and her children. That in itself is more than many women have, even today. I can understand feeling restricted, but I think Edna was a very selfish woman. If anything, she should have thought of her children. I am not here to say that women don't have existences outside of their marriages, their children. I disagree strongly with that. But a woman has a choice to make. When she brings children into the world, it changes the decisions that she can make. She can be happy and she can have joy, but she has to make sure that her children are loved and cared for.
Edna was a pampered woman with an indulgent husband, and she had the means to go on a nice vacation every year. She had servants, and friends. A lot of women don't even have those things, but manage to get up out of bed everyday and live their lives. Yes, she felt that she was denying her inner self, and had to marry, although maybe she didn't want to. I cannot deny that must have caused some emotional angst, but there is no either/or. There is: Okay this is what I have, let's see what I can do with it. Make the best of what you have.
Edna continually made bad choices. She made a mistake and had an extramarital affair. Not the end of the world. I believe her husband would have forgiven her. Or she could have even lived apart from him and hopefully still be a mother to her children. (Maybe I'm being naive about this for the time period, maybe not). She could have stayed with her husband and had a friendship marriage with no physical involvement and painted. Even carried on her affairs as long as she was discreet. She had some choices. A lot of women, a lot of people don't. I just didn't buy the option that she took. I think she was a drama queen. Sorry, I just didn't have much sympathy for this woman.
I can see how this must have been an important work at the time it was written. However, it fails to speak to me of female empowerment in a world that allows women less power, choices, and equality. My rating is based moreso on this novella's failure to demonstrate what it set out to accomplish than my dislike of the story. I would read more Chopin, and I intend to do so....more
Although it wasn't a perfect book, this is a worthy follow-up to The Magicians. There is advancement in Quentin's story, and he's actually growing up Although it wasn't a perfect book, this is a worthy follow-up to The Magicians. There is advancement in Quentin's story, and he's actually growing up and being less of a putz. I did like Quentin more in this book, but he'll never be a favorite hero of mine. Actually, none of the lead characters are especially likable, to be honest. Julia has more of a POV in this book, and I found that I had a violent dislike for her in some aspects of the story, and mild sense of sympathy in the others. Overall, I will never be a big fan of her.
One of my big problems with Julia is that she continued to blame Quentin for her misfortunes and was unwilling to accept any fault for her own choices. Yes, she suffered from depression, but that shouldn't be an excuse to abuse and hate others who don't measure up to overweening sense of superiority. Yes, he should have spoken up for her so she could get another chance at Brakebills, but it was her fault she didn't take her exam seriously. Julia has a sense of mental superiority and a general antipathy for people that I found off-putting. She might be extremely intelligent and had become a top level magician (admittedly making huge sacrifices for that), but she didn't seem to learn how to treat others with respect. Having said that, what she suffered was beyond horrible, even if, in a strange way, it helped her to achieve what she wanted. In the end, it turned out that she gave up everything for something that turned out not to be the path to true happiness. And in a strange way, Quentin turns out to be a true friend to her in a way that she never was to him.
Grossman is a very good writer. His imagery and descriptive flare is incredible. I feel that he suffers in writing characters that are sympathetic. It's all and good to keep a reader reading because of witticisms and clever ideas, along with entrancing imagery, but many people read books because want a hero to root for. Quentin did become more of what I consider a hero, but he has some negative traits that make his armor look dull. Julia has a personality that's more like the Wicked Witch than Dorothy. How about a happy medium?
This series is not for readers who find bad language and who get offended at an acerbic and hypercritical view at traditional values. As with the first book, attitude that anything goes as far as sex and drinking and doing drugs can be hard to swallow. Also that mental superiority of the characters gets pretty old.
Why do I keep reading these books? Because I am in love with contemporary fantasy, and Grossman has a very interesting point of view on that subject. The vantage point of the hedge magicians' world was highly fascinating. Grossman takes the world-building to the next level without the narrow confines of the Brakebills system, and he doesn't limit the setting to good old Fillory, which was nice. His explanation for mythical creatures in the modern, non-magical world was a nice touch.
I wasn't too fond of the direction he took with investigating paganism as a way to achieve a higher level of magical ability and that event that resulted was really hard to read (or in my case listen to). Some readers who have an issue with rape will want to be very careful with this book. I question was that a necessary choice and I wonder why that seemed to be the way to deal tragedy in a heavy dose for one of the characters instead of another type of plot device. I also question the anti-climactic conclusion of this novel as far as Quentin's hero's journey. Having said that, I will pick up the finale in the near future.
As an aside, the SyFy Channel production of The Magicians is very good. It has much of what might appeal to readers, and is pretty faithful to the book overall.
I will keep getting the audiobooks for these because they are really good to listen to. This has a different narrator than the first book, and I think I liked him better. He was less snide-sounding. With these characters, one doesn't need more of a snide, I'm better than everyone tone....more
Did you ever read a book, and enjoy it, where you weren't even sure you really liked the main characters at all? They are people that you wouldn't wanDid you ever read a book, and enjoy it, where you weren't even sure you really liked the main characters at all? They are people that you wouldn't want to be around for more than five minutes in real life. Well that is this book.
Having said that, this was a really good book. I found it fascinating, wildly hilarious, creative, unique, and I have this fond feeling inside now that I've finish it. But along with that, there is a sadness.
Let's talk about this book!
The Characters:
As I said above, I spent most of the book trying to decide if I even liked these people, except for Alice. She was the only character I liked 99% of the time. And the 1% of the time I didn't like her, I could understand her actions. The other characters, I just felt like they needed to stop playing around and take something serious for once. Although I felt protective over most of them, and I didn't wish them ill (except for wanting to slap some of them hard), I didn't like their ways of dealing with life. It seemed as though everything was a lark, drinking way too much, taking drugs, sleeping around, playing emotional games with other people. Ugly ways make for ugly people, and that kept hitting me like an off note in an otherwise melodious piece of music. Kind of like Dorian Gray, ultimate hedonism, but without the darkly cruel, ugly edge of narcissism that Gray had. Yeah, there is a bit of a Gossip Girl/Cruel Intentions kind of vibe in some of their doings, The Rich, Bored Mean Kids and their Antics, and I hate that sort of thing. Let me put this way, if this wasn't a book about magic school students, I think I would have shucked it. But the magic part, well that was too brilliant to let go. And I admit, they did make me laugh many times. As for Quentin, the main character....my feelings are decidely complex.
Quentin:
To me, Quentin is a brat who needed a good spanking, a good wake-up call (which he gets in spades, but I'm not 100% sure if it really worked). He is one of those people who scream "Wasted potential." He has opportunities handed to him on a silver platter, and he can't seem to step up and take things as they truly are and be a man. Alice told him so well what I was thinking, essentially to get over himself. I think it helped...some. The verdict is still out. I have high hopes that Quentin will rise to the potential he has, because I can see it shining inside of him. Do I expect great things from him? Well, it's not fair to put those expectations on people, but I expect a lot more than he's given in life. Alice hit on it, his real problem. He is so miserable, and he is bent on being a miserable person. And that is one thing that truly annoys me, a person who likes being unhappy and wants to drag others to their unhappy party. His unhappiness gave birth to a self-destructive bent that he barely managed to keep control of, and it was painful watching him continue in his vicious cycle.
The Story:
As I said above, I found the concepts of a magic school and how it was handled here utterly fascinating and made for quite an enjoyable read. I know it's been done before, but I like the way it was done here. It brought back memories of my academic days (undergrad and professional school), how it kicked my butt hard and I wondered why I didn't just crawl in the gutter somewhere and die, but I didn't. I just kept on trucking. I especially liked the part in Antarctica. That was just brilliant. I mean....Breakbills South in Antarctica. Rather like the fourth year residency. Just awesome.
The metafiction element of the Fillory books and how they are one of the very few things that Quentin holds sacred, and how they relate back to the story of Quentin and his friends from Breakbills was an element that made this story resonate. Another part I really liked. The satire and the respectful but also irreverent (I think) homage to Narnia hit a chord with me since I love the Narnia books. Seeing how a set of jaded early twentysomethings might view that magical world as opposed to young, sheltered children was quite interesting. And there are some very naughty and quite hilarious jokes thrown in that had me laughing.
The humor was great, and equally well-done was how well the author managed to work in some pretty harrowing and disturbing aspects. The part with the Beast made my hair stand on end. Just freaking weird and scary. And who the Beast turns out to be made it even more unnerving. And the dangerous potential for magic use on the wielder. In my opinion, no story about magic is complete without this. I admit I liked that the Physical kids (as they were called) turned out to be rather woefully underprepared for Fillory. It felt refreshing, although it turns out that their magical skills definitely come to their aid when needed (for the most part). I felt that all the plot elements tie in very well in this story, with elements that are introduced in the very beginning coming full circle in a way that feels balanced for me as a reader.
Overall Thoughts:
This was a very well-done novel. My major issue was how unlikable and cynical the characters were at times. That might not bother some, but I don't have a lot of tolerance for that whole, "I'm so bored and jaded with life" kind of vibe, so it wore on me. At times, the narrative voice was a little bit too smug and nastily pretentious (I can't stand cultural snobbery) for me. Also, way too much drinking and carousing for me. I don't know how Elliot still has a liver the way he drinks. And Janet, well, I would have given her a few slaps for her nasty behavior, thank you very much. Even with these unpalatable elements, I can see where Grossman is going here. He's turning the childhood fantasy series on its ear, and he spins this story deftly for those who enjoy fantasy and the process of experiencing how an author can take these elements and craft a fascinating story that you can sink your teeth into. I just want to see more character evolution than I saw here. I need to see that Quentin is a mature, wiser, more emotionally healthy person for what he's experienced. I'm definitely reading the next book, and I hope I can find it on audiobook again, because this kind of story begs for a skilled narrator like I had the pleasure of listening to with The Magicians....more
**spoiler alert** I downloaded this from Project Gutenberg, and I intend to read the whole collection, since I am a fan of London. For now I will post**spoiler alert** I downloaded this from Project Gutenberg, and I intend to read the whole collection, since I am a fan of London. For now I will post the review of "Moon-Face," which I read today for the Tales to Chill Your Blood Classic Horror Lovers group read. It was a bracing way of waking me up from the ennui induced by the extremely cold, bad weather and a bad case of cabin fever. As of yet, the four star rating is for "Moon-face". I will post more to this review when I read the other stories.
This was a very effective story about the worst kind of evil to me: human evil. The narrator ruins a man and eventually murders him (and two innocent dogs) out of distaste for the man's features, and his determinedly cheerful mien. Perhaps it is inaccurate to call this an unreliable narrator, but London is so convincing in showing you why this man feels he is completely right in his awful deeds against the man who he calls 'Moon-face.' This is one of those stories that is very short, but manages to seep under your skin. The menace involved in the narrator's actions towards this poor man is very heinous, and unwarranted. I think that it illustrates very salient points about the foolishness of prejudice, and the belief that harming others has a justification. We can always argue that our actions are justified, and perhaps there are many cases where doing 'evil' might be more justifiable than this one. But at the end of the day, one should always question one's actions against another. Are they truly motivated by good intentions? When does the line get drawn in the sand that says it's okay to harm another person? How much better would it have been for this guy to remove himself from contact with this man, or better yet, get over himself?
I have been an admirer of Jack London's adventure tales since high school when I read White Fang, and I had no idea that he was so talented with writing a chilling horror tale. I would like to read more of his work in this genre....more
I admit I saw the movie first. With that out of the way, I am going to try hard not to compare the two in my review, even though I did when I was readI admit I saw the movie first. With that out of the way, I am going to try hard not to compare the two in my review, even though I did when I was reading. I will just add that I have no quarrels with the casting decisions all around (not including the addition of Dorian Gray and Tom Sawyer). I've been wanting to read this for a while because I love mashups, and I have a particular love for Victorian genre fiction and literature. I finally bit the bullet and pulled this off my library shelves.
Here are my thoughts:
I think this book is too crass for my tastes. The violence, the characterization, and to some degree, the sexuality (although that is probably more subtly done than the other aspects). On the other hand, I did like Quatermain, Harker, and Nemo, and I sort of liked Dr. Jekyll. I loved the idea of a their teaming up for the defense of Great Britain and all that. I despised Hawley Griffin, the Invisible Man. He was repulsive. His behavior showed no moral compass whatsoever, and his willingness to harm innocent people was distressing. His behavior in the girl's school was beyond the pale. I can't hold the actions of Mr. Edward Hyde against his alter ego, Dr. Henry Jekyll, but I wasn't a fan of the carnage that Hyde perpetrates, gleefully illustrated by the artist of this book, Kevin O'Neil.
Another big issue was the very racist Orientalism on display in this book. I realize that this is a realistic reflection of the time period, but I can't be too tolerant of how unrestrained it was , especially in a modern publication. The pictures of the Chinese characters seemed too much racist caricatures from some sort of propaganda pamphlet for my comfort. In contrast, Captain Nemo's character is portrayed with dignity and strength of character. It was hard to integrate the two in my thinking. I want to guess that Moore and the artist wanted us to take it tongue in cheek, but it was a bit too offensive for my tastes.
I'm not sure how I feel about this book. I guess if I pick this series up again, it might be with long intervals in between. I definitely have to be in the mood for this kind of subject matter, with main leads whose behavior is disturbingly psychopathic and amoral, and the above mentioned racist content. While I can excuse Dr. Jekyll, right now, I pretty much hate Hawley Griffin and consider him a menace to society. I haven't read The Invisible Man, so it's possible he's very much in line with the character from HG Wells' novel, so I guess I'll have to read it and see what I think.
I give this three stars because there is something worthwhile about this idea, but I wasn't too thrilled about several aspects of the execution....more
The Picture of Dorian Gray is a hard book to review. After reading such eloquent, beautiful, and rich writing, I am at a loss for how to command my coThe Picture of Dorian Gray is a hard book to review. After reading such eloquent, beautiful, and rich writing, I am at a loss for how to command my comparatively paltry ability to use words to express how I felt about this book.
Forgive me as I go back to AP English for a few moments. I asked myself what were the themes of this novel. Here is my list:
Identity Experience Beauty The triumph on senses over reason Accountability
I will attempt to build my review, in part, around the discussion of these themes.
Identity Dorian Gray was a flawed man who was essentially empty inside. He was very young when this story began, seemingly full of potential. Sadly, he invested all his sense of worth in his external beauty, doing little to grow the inner man; unless you consider his descent into depravity, discovering more and more excesses for the meaningless value of those experiences (since his mentor Lord Henry taught him that experience has no value), yet he was strangely curious as to how they would affect the portrait of his soul. He was not quite a tragic figure, because I could not feel sorry for him. He had made this horrible decision (and I believe he had opportunities to repent of it, which he didn't take), but he chose never to take responsibility for himself. Which leads to the next theme.
Accountability As I said above, I could feel no sympathy for Dorian Gray. Why? Because he never took responsibility for his actions. Being accountable for one's own actions is a crucial aspect of self-development, at least in my humble opinion. If a person cannot do that, they are doomed to eternal immaturity. This was Dorian's fate. It was Basil's fault for painting the picture. It was Sybil's fault for being a bad actress, and making him fall out of love with her. All the people he ruined in his relentless pursuit of pleasure and debauchery ruined themselves. He took no part in their ruination. Ultimately, he even blamed the picture, and sought to destroy it as the only true evidence of his black soul. I feel like this: If you're going to be a bad, selfish person, own up to it. Don't try to act like your sins should be laid at other people's feet. That was the route the Mr. Dorian Gray took.
Experience Lord Henry was the man who opens Dorian's eyes to the fact that the only thing he has to his advantage is the beauty of his youth, that he should enjoy life while he is young enough to experience it fully. He states that experience is not a teacher, and that men don't learn from the mistakes they make as they live. Your experiences don't count for anything. It seemed to be a self-fulfilling prophecy for Dorian Gray. Instead of realizing how his selfish, shallow actions could hurt and destroy others, he never did do that. He merely went from one fixation to the other, marking the effects on the portrait that he guarded jealously. In the end, there was no value to what he experienced. He was just wasting time (in my opinion).
The triumph of sensation over reason Dorian Gray became a voluptuary, lost in sensations. He didn't focus on becoming a learned person, only experiencing what he encountered in his pursuits, wallowing in those sensations; until he grew bored, and moved onto the next one. Lord Henry seemed like a good mentor. A man who appeared so intelligent, with a saying for everything. A witty, entertaining man, who had a reputation for saying utterly wicked things. But he wasn't a deep man. He didn't believe what he said. It was an image that he projected for lack of anything else to do as an aristocrat who had no need to work for a living. Dorian Gray took this as gospel, and took it to the next level. As a result, it made his life utterly meaningless. Sadly, his friend Basil, who was a fairly wise person, was dismissed, and made fun of by Lord Henry. I almost felt like Basil and Lord Henry were the warring aspects of Dorian's conscience, at times.
Beauty What is beauty? I tend to think it's a double-edged sword. We are all attracted to things that are beautiful, that have a physical appeal. But, should we be content with merely a comely appearance, while the inside is rotted? Dorian Gray was a man of such unearthly beauty that people could not believe he was capable of the debauchery he had committed. Those who didn't heed the warnings given to them, came to rue it. Basil, who painted the young Dorian's fateful picture, couldn't accept that Dorian had become such a horrible person. What a sad fate that was for Basil.
I felt several things as I read this book: interest, curiosity, disgust, sadness, and ultimately, a sense that justice had been done, in a very strange, but fitting way.
One thing that became very apparent to me as I read this novel, was Oscar Wilde's considerable wit. I imagine he was quite entertaining to be around.
In the preface, Oscar Wilde says that all art is meaningless. What was he trying to say with this story? Nothing?
I have trouble believing that. This was a novel I couldn't dismiss and treat as mere brain candy. There was some message there that hammered away at my brain. I do believe that Mr. Wilde hints at the subjective nature of art (which includes literature). I think that we could all read the same story and take away different things from it. Our brains are so very different, and the pathways are nurtured and developed by our various experiences, and our own values. So, that we will all come away from viewing a picture or reading a story with a hand-tailored message. Maybe that's what he means by saying that an artist strives not to be present in his work. Instead, it is a mirror reflecting the viewer. That makes sense to me, actually.
What message did I come away with?
At the end of the day, I believe that Dorian Gray led a worthless life. His eternal youth counted for nothing. He never grew as a person, and he used the bounteous gifts he'd been given selfishly. He did horrible things that made it even worse. He was lucky in that he didn't live long enough to count the full cost of those actions. He allowed the portrait to take the weight of those sins intead of letting them rest where they belonged. If anything really bothers me as a person, it's the thought of my time on this earth being wasted. Never having accomplished anything of value. For that reason, I found Dorian Gray to be a very sad man, but I could not feel sorry for him.
So, is this a horror novel, you might ask?
I think this is a thinking person's horror novel. It is a study of how the sins we commit cannot be hidden, even if we lie to ourselves about that. Interestingly enough, Mr. Wilde does not elaborate on what vile acts Dorian committed. We are left to our own expansive imaginations to surmise the bulk of what he'd done. Some people don't believe in such a thing as sin. If you don't believe in sin, how could it have a cost? It didn't matter that Dorian Gray didn't acknowledge his sins. They caught up with him in the end. The horror is how he confronted the consequences of his sins, yet turned away from them, locking that manifestation away in the attic to view with a detached sort of curiosity. The horror is the lives he destroyed, but never felt more than a moment's remorse. Fundamentally, Dorian Gray was an angelically beautiful monster. The horror is that we can look upon beauty, and we can be fooled into never asking what lies beneath it....more
Jake was a very sweet guy, too sweet for Rebecca. She wasn't a mean person, but very short-sighted, and she took him for granted. I realize that Jake Jake was a very sweet guy, too sweet for Rebecca. She wasn't a mean person, but very short-sighted, and she took him for granted. I realize that Jake made the decision to marry Rebecca, knowing that she didn't love him, but I still felt that Jake's love for her made him very vulnerable to getting his heart broken because of her immaturity and her unwillingness to let go of her past relationship with the father of her baby. What made it worse was Rebecca's lack of consideration for the fact that he was so deeply in love with her.
This left a bad taste in my mouth because I dislike books where one character is so deeply in love and the other character seems almost oblivious. Jake is probably way too beta for Rebecca. I would have liked to see him with a more gentle, less self-absorbed and spoiled heroine. The whole book I felt he was just putting his heart out there to get trampled on and that certainly happened in this book.
But since this is a romance, it does have a happy ending, although I finished the book with a lingering sadness knowing that Jake really didn't get loved the way he deserved to be loved. This is a well-written book and it was enjoyable, and a keeper (because it's a vintage, hard to find Lorraine Heath, and a western) but I'm not sure how often I'd read it....more
Nigel is not really a good guy. He deceives Cassandra and takes advantage of her to get her to marry him. He spends the rest of the book proving that Nigel is not really a good guy. He deceives Cassandra and takes advantage of her to get her to marry him. He spends the rest of the book proving that he can be a good husband to her. It was a really good book. Great secondary romance involving Nigel's right-handman, who is quite intimidating....more
Danielle The Book Huntress
>
Books:
unsympathetic-main-characters
(20)
Loading...
